The Origin of Good and Evil

[Corvus]

Clue seems to imply in her topic in the Evolution vs Creationism forum that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. One thing I have to bring here to challenge is the assertion that sin was introduced into the world through a first "original sin", brought about by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But don't the words "knowledge of good and evil" imply that good and evil already exist, and thus sin - but Adam and Eve are ignorant of it? If so, doesn't that also imply ignorance of God's law is an excuse?

Wouldn't it also imply the true origin of both good and evil is God?

[Shild]

Why do we see a drug addict's skill at finding a vein and puncturing it is a bad one when the same level of skill found in a nurse is something good?

First of all, I would like to point out that skills (like authority discussed earlier) are neutral in terms of good and evil. The good/evil is in the application of skills.

This example provides a useful lead-in to my point, that is that there are certain values or character-traits such that when a person acts with these values as his/her motivation, the act is good, even if the societal consequences are bad.

Say, for example, the nurse unknowingly saves the life of a terrorist who then sets off a nuclear bomb in a city. No one says the nurse did a bad thing in spite of the terrible consequences of her actions, because the nurse was motivated (presumably) by good values, such as love of life.

As for my "student" example, a student who routinely chooses to put forth all the effort needed for well-done assignments can be said to be responsible and committed. On the other hand, a student who regularly chooses not to work hard on assignments demonstrates irresponsibility and laziness.

Achievement in school - or knowledge - is not good or bad in and of itself, and no one would claim scientist is "more good: than a farmer.

Exactly. The values that motivate a person's actions are the basis for judgement concerning good versus evil.

The future pleasure (security, money, etc) that is the result of achievement in school is the only reason you are judging a student's level of application at all.

Actually, I am thinking more along these lines:

If the students were studying bomb-making in a terrorist camp, the good student would be doing a "bad thing" when individual pleasure and pain is balanced against pleasure and pain of a wider population if he ever puts his skills to use.

To a lesser degree, my good student/bad student example is this very sentiment. The good student is motivated by good values. In general, when a person is motivated by good values, that person will benefit society more than one who is not. More on this below.

Two separate cultures can discover algebra or the same theory of aesthetics independently, just as abstract principles can arise through similar means. Even two different cultures can create the same mythical beast, as shown by the oriental and occidental dragons. It is only natural that the various tribes of a social animal scattered over the world can come to a general agreement on a few points of how best to conduct themselves as social animals without ruining their own lives.

I would say that "separate cultures" are not so separate. According to the linked study, we humans all descended from a common ancestral group. It seems to me that the many common motifs in legends from around the world are forms of stories passed down from this ancestral group.

(They came from Africa; maybe dragon legends are based on stories of crocodiles.)

As for these "values" idea of which I speak, I suppose it is basically the same as the "abstract principles" of your posts. The original human communities had these values (for example, "stealing is wrong") which they passed on to their progeny cultures.

As for the ultimate source of these values, one could say that they are the result of the basic motivation of all species, that is survival. These principles or values were either formulated by the ancient people in response to their environmental pressures or inborn.

My belief here is a combination of the two: inborn values because of observation of some such values in non-human species, and environmental because, obviously, different human groups do not share all values.

As for God, from within a Christian paradigm (as per the first post), God would have been the one to create the environment which gave rise to these values, and would have given some to humans through divine revelation as well.

[Nameless]

Your mythology indicates that knowledge of (and discriminatory use thereof) good and evil are a 'sin'. Judge not! Man was warned to stay away from "Good and Evil" discriminations (the 'tree') as that sort of 'judgement' was 'god's' territory. Once man decided to be the "Judge" with his 'knowledge of good and evil' he 'fell into sin'. It is not for us to engage in that sort of 'value judgement'. If you do, you sin. 'Something' is not 'good' or 'evil'... it just 'is'.

Judge not because you NEVER have enough information to fairly judge!! Never! Just worry about the beams in your own eyes.

No, in the real world, there is only community consensus as to what is 'good' or 'bad'. Purely situational. Usually founded on personal comfort. If it hurts it is 'evil' and if it feels good, it is... 'good'. Different for different people. It is a very superficial belief.


Seriously, though, the ideas of good and evil/bad are, in my opinion, two people (or more, such as a community) agreeing that what acts in furtherance toward their goals, is 'desirable', 'good', and conversely, that which is detrimental to the achieving of those goals are 'evil/bad'. It all depende upon what those goals are for that person, or group.

And whats with this 'token' thing?? Can I exchange them for food? Gasoline? Airline miles?? Whats the point?? Just little gold stars for idiots (I hope so! I could buy a new car with them!)?

[Dilettante]

Otseng wrote

Satan was originally called Lucifer. He was one of the chief angels. He rebelled against God and wanted to be in the position of God. This rebellion was the origin of evil.

Now, I may have missed something but...what made Lucifer rebel against a loving God if not a prior evil tendency? As far as I'm concerned, I don't think this story accounts for the origins of evil very well. If he wanted to overthrow God, Lucifer was already evil before the rebellion...wasn't he? Ungrateful beings who bite the hand that created them qualify as evil, don't they?