Do right and wrong / good and evil exist

[manitou]

On 12/22/2021 at 1:27 PM, Nungali said:

 

  Hide contents

'Pornography' is  when I want to see something erotic , but instead I feel I have stumbled upon an anatomy lesson .

 

 

LOL.  How excellent!  The beginner's mind!

[silent thunder]

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

If , according to you, murdering an innocent person is neither good nor evil; then, am I correct to conclude that your answer is the same for saving the life of an innocent person?  It's neither good nor evil?

Who could claim to be the Arbiter of what is good or evil?  And for everyone?

Who can know what each innocent saved will go on to do in their lives to judge if it were good or ill?

Will they remain innocent?

 

Who can know such things?

[old3bob]

what a sad thing to read this evening...!

 

if Love does not know then all is the "Vanity of vanities"

 

[freeform]

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Who could claim to be the Arbiter of what is good or evil?

You.

 

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

And for everyone?

You are everyone. At a certain ‘depth’ of You.

 

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Who can know what each innocent saved will go on to do in their lives to judge if it were good or ill?

Ming. You will act in accordance with your Ming and you will create more Ming with your actions… or you won’t.

 

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Who can know such things?

‘Know’ may not be the right word for this. And neither is ‘You’ to be fair… because we’re talking about these things at a much more expanded state.

[Daniel]

13 hours ago, steve said:

 

Do you believe this divinity to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?

 

yes, but not omni-benevolent

 

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by Daniel

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Who could claim to be the Arbiter of what is good or evil?  And for everyone?

Who can know what each innocent saved will go on to do in their lives to judge if it were good or ill?

Will they remain innocent?

 

Who can know such things?

 

Most people agree that children are innocent.

[silent thunder]

7 hours ago, freeform said:

‘Know’ may not be the right word for this. And neither is ‘You’ to be fair… because we’re talking about these things at a much more expanded state.

You're getting close.

 

This entire premise lies in the realm of conceptualization and thus... subjective perceptual modeling.

 

 

[silent thunder]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

Most people agree that children are innocent.

Most...  most is subjective mate.

[old3bob]

doubt is a poor master blowing in the wind like a leaf...

[liminal_luke]

So much suffering in the world today can be traced back to overconfidence in moral judgment.  We live in a world where too many people are too sure they know what's right and wrong; a world in which the punishment for being wrong in the eyes of society is increasingly harsh.  In my own moral judgment, no good will come from this easy dividing people into good and bad camps. There is great power in humility.  When I'm open to the radical notion that some of my thoughts might be less than 100% grounded in reality, I soften.  I become open to other people.  Being unsure is my superpower.

 

At a more refined level, perhaps it's possible to know what's right and wrong -- even for other people -- but to live in a mindplace where everyone is loved and accepted regardless.  Benevolence can shine like the sun which warms everybody equally.  Good or bad, right or wrong, we're all human beings.  At least so far...

 

For those of us, like me, who are unable or unwilling to arrange clandestine meetings with famous Sufi poets in metaphorical fields -- no worries.  Basic humility goes a long way.

Edited December 28, 2021 by liminal_luke

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Most...  most is subjective mate.

 

Nice dodge 

 

I'm hoping to have a conversation with you about the nature of existence:  do good and evil exist?  Honst question:  Are you interested in having that conversation, or are you looking for an exit?

[Geof Nanto]

I very much like how this discussion has stirred up some passion. I am right! You are wrong! Surely that in itself proves how important distinguishing right and wrong are for us, as well how subjective these judgements are. Though my previous posts with their reference to cool, rational essays may seem dispassionate, that’s not the case for me inwardly. I’m with Luke on the importance of acknowledging doubt for inner growth.  Within myself I hold a multitude of conflicting views on this topic. Hence I can honestly state I see some validity in every post that has been made.

 

But to stick with the cool rational, here are a few paragraphs from Carl Jung which provide a good overview, as I understand it, of what a number of contributors have been saying in this discussion:

 

Psychology does not know what good and evil are in themselves; it knows them only as judgments about relationships. "Good" is what seems suitable, acceptable, or valuable from a certain point of view; evil is its opposite. If the things we call good are "really" good, then there must be evil things that are "real" too. It is evident that psychology is concerned with a more or less subjective judgment, i.e., with a psychic antithesis that cannot be avoided in naming value relationships: "good" denotes something that is not bad, and "bad" something that is not good.

 

There are things which from a certain point of view are extremely evil, that is to say dangerous. There are also things in human nature which are very dangerous and which therefore seem proportionately evil to anyone standing in their line of fire. It is pointless to gloss over these evil things, because that only lulls one into a sense of false security. Human nature is capable of an infinite amount of evil, and the evil deeds are as real as the good ones so far as human experience goes and so far as the psyche judges and differentiates between them. Only unconsciousness makes no difference between good and evil [By unconsciousness Jung is referring to the Absolute]. Inside the psychological realm one honestly does not know which of them predominates in the world. We hope, merely, that good does—i.e., what seems suitable to us. No one could possibly say what the general good might be. No amount of insight into the relativity and fallibility of our moral judgment can deliver us from these defects, and those who deem themselves beyond good and evil are usually the worst tormentors of mankind, because they are twisted with the pain and fear of their own sickness.

 

Today as never before it is important that human beings should not overlook the danger of the evil lurking within them. It is unfortunately only too real, which is why psychology must insist on the reality of evil and must reject any definition that regards it as insignificant or actually non-existent*.

 

[* Jung is referring here to the theological and philosophical doctrine of privatio boni (the absence of good), also known as the privation theory of evil. It states that evil, unlike good, is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading. Instead, evil is rather the absence, or lack (“privation”), of good. This also means that everything that exists is good, insofar as it exists; and is also sometimes stated as that evil ought to be regarded as nothing, or as something non-existent. (From Wikipedia, edited.) ]

 

[steve]

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

yes, but not omni-benevolent

 

 

In that case, do you consider the one divinity to be good or evil?

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, steve said:

In that case, do you consider the one divinity to be good or evil?

 

I don't know.  I hope that it's good.  But I acknowledge that at times it can be wrathful, cruel, and dreadful.

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Daniel

[silent thunder]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Nice dodge 

 

I'm hoping to have a conversation with you about the nature of existence:  do good and evil exist?  Honst question:  Are you interested in having that conversation, or are you looking for an exit?

An observation.  From my perceptual experience.  I've already revealed my take on the nature of their existence. 

They don't, aside from within human conditioned social amd familial frameworks.

 

Perhaps it seems a dodge as it does not offer what you're hoping for in your 'conversation'.  Which I expect is a response that plays to a predetermined hoped for position.  One that may be attacked, refuted, or exhaulted, supported.  I can offer no more than I have without repeating further.

 

Perhaps this... I'll try one other tak in approach to conversation before I withdraw. 

 

Where in life are we justified to pursue any action for the sake of benefit?  For here surely lies the heart of good.  No?

Edited December 29, 2021 by silent thunder

[steve]

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I don't know.  I hope that it's good.  But I acknowledge that at times it can be wrathful, cruel, and dreadful.

 

 

I guess my point is that if a divinity is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then they would be responsible for all things evil, no? If I have the capacity and opportunity to prevent evil, and choose not to intervene, I am complicit. One of the things that has long made it difficult for me to feel a connection to the Abrahamic religious paradigms.

[helpfuldemon]

I think you answered your own question:  if God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then God is neither good nor evil, but is simply action and experience.  But God doesnt have to be those things, He could be limited in scope, and takes action against evil when it comes past Him.  Still, we have no evidence that this is how God works, and so, we have to assume that God either doesn't act, or is action and experience.  I think the Jews say that God is distant because He is so holy He cannot bear to be so close to an imperfect world as this.  In the end, with all of these definitions, one has to ask:  what good is a God that is ineffectual in our plights?  What role does He play if He doesn't act on our behalf?  Perhaps He just created everything and lets it run its own course?  

 

My experience is that God does act, but it seems that God does cruel things and acts without cause., for who am I to have God act upon me?  I am no one, nothing.  With all the evil in the world, and all the good- why would God act upon little old me?

[helpfuldemon]

In my experience, the only communication we should have with a God that is neither good nor evil is to thank Him for His mercy, for He doesn't have to be merciful, nor is He always.

[helpfuldemon]

A God of action and experience doesn't satisfy our sensibilities.  We want a God of reason and order.  But look around, it makes sense that God is simply action and experience, because there is no order to good and evil.  

[old3bob]

"God" is well beyond any thought of what, who or how "God" is...we can touch on aspects in manifestation that can be named but again those are aspects and not the whole enchilada.  This is because "God" can not be circumscribed by any level of mind power. 

  

Edited December 29, 2021 by old3bob

[helpfuldemon]

The Jews didn't always have a God of love and reason.  Before Moses and the prophets began to give us the image of a God we can understand, the I AM used to be "I AM that which I will be".  I think in an effort to give God a reasonable mind, we imagined a God of wisdom and logic, but I believe that is all man made.  Personally God and I have never had a conversation, and I doubt He has had one with anyone else, contrary to what Christians and some Jews believe.  I believe we are sentient beings in Gods petri dish, and we are at the mercy of His whims, and that is why neither good nor evil prevail here, and why it seems that God does evil.  

[steve]

There is another way to look at it as well.

One that, for me at least, doesn't require quite so much uncertainty and rationalization.

We can stop separating divinity from ourselves, stop creating an external conceptual construct about what God is and isn't.

We can take personal responsibility rather than delegate.

We can realize ourselves as the manifestation of divinity in this very life and allow that to inform our every action.

Our ideas and expectations related to God are far more likely to interfere with finding a deeper and closer connection than they are to support it. The most direct path is through inner silence and openness because everything else gets in the way in the beginning.

If God exists, we can find no greater understanding, no closer connection, than through our own hearts. 

For me the spiritual path requires us to remember our birthright, the truth of our divinity, in a deeply personal and direct way; and to bring that alive, here and now.

 

(...sorry to sound so preachy...)

 

 

 

[Daniel]

15 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Where in life are we justified to pursue any action for the sake of benefit?  For here surely lies the heart of good.  No?

 

The heart of good lies in actions bereft of personal benefit.  The classic example is charity.  Regarding justification for actions which derive benefit; perhaps it is in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness which doesn't cause harm.

[Daniel]

11 hours ago, steve said:

 

I guess my point is that if a divinity is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then they would be responsible for all things evil, no? If I have the capacity and opportunity to prevent evil, and choose not to intervene, I am complicit. One of the things that has long made it difficult for me to feel a connection to the Abrahamic religious paradigms.

 

Yes, if God exists and is omnipotent then God is ultimately responsible.  But it still could be for the good.  From the Abrahamic perspective, people have the ability via freewill to overcome the inner evil impulse.  It's a great challenge which renders a great reward. 

[Daniel]

For those that don't believe good and evil exist, does that mean de ( virtue ) doesn't exist as well?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_(Chinese)