- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
There is an opinion that the good / evil dichotomy is still more about religious ethics than philosophical ethics. Therefore, we must understand that the very statement of the question through such categories introduces us to the paradigm of Christian ethics. At the same time, moral philosophy looks at the problem more broadly and formulates questions rather in the following way. What should I do? And why should you behave this way and not otherwise?
Accordingly, reading ethical teachings through the good / evil dichotomy is often an oversimplification. For example, as with Kant's categorical imperative, which some people, due to their cultural background, can reduce to the golden rule.
So, we can say that the question of good and evil is a derivative of the basic questions of ethics. In principle, according to the ancient trends, it is noticeable that in reasoning about morality, people may clearly use other categories (pleasure in Aristippus or virtue in Aristotle).
Good and evil are two basic substances that contain key questions: what is truth? the meaning of human existence ? etc.
These concepts are explained in philosophy in different ways. It all depends on the philosophical trend to which this philosopher belongs.
Good is God. Evil is the devil.
Good is existence in pleasure.
Evil is enslavement.
Good is work for the good of a common cause.
Evil is parasitism.
Shan means kindness, generosity, or compassion. Lao Tzu emphasizes that kindness is the virtue of action: “The wise man is kind to the good. He is also kind to the unkind. This is the goodness of the Action itself.” This is dispassionate compassion. In this case, the goodness of an Action is not subject to evaluation by the Hun consciousness; nor is it a question of acceptance or rejection of such kindness by egoistic po. True kindness manifests itself without any hope of personal gain. It is not hindered by the lack of personal or public recognition. “Everyone in the world recognizes that beauty is beauty, because there is also ugliness. Everyone recognizes that good is good, for there is also evil.” With respect.
Ancient philosophers gave the following answers::
SOCRATES: “The highest wisdom is the ability to distinguish between Good and Evil.”
“For those who do not distinguish between Good and Evil, all other sciences are useless.”
CONFUCIUS: Evil must be paid fairly, and good must be paid with good.” “- Confucius is an ancient thinker and philosopher of China.
There is one zone here – black and white. Where there is no doubt-anything that violates the criminal code or any other law is evil.
And there is a gray zone, a transitional one, where the boundaries between good and evil are blurred and the same action can be considered evil by some, and not by others.
Well, it's like “Killing and eating a chicken is “evil in the gray zone”. maybe evil, but maybe not evil.
So the philosophers (Lao Tzu) about this “gray zone” 3 thousand years ago wrote such eternal wisdom:
“As soon as we know that good is good, how is it no longer good?”
On the burning example:
As soon as people agreed that blacks should be respected and treated with mercy, and not as an inferior race, then immediately there was a bias: Those who even call them “Negroes” began to condemn and even punish. And such a kind attitude towards blacks is no longer good.
The same applies to homosexuals and feminists.
As soon as they agreed that a woman is equal to a man, there were immediately those who began to condemn and punish some Tarpishchev for a harmless joke about the world champion.
And such good, according to the philosophers of pre-Hasism and Christianity, is no longer good.
Come on, Tarpishchev's punishment.
When the Western world cursed Gaddafi for his sins, it was a good thing. But when American troops protected the poor and oppressed inhabitants of Libya, killing the evil in the person of Gaddafi, how good became no longer “good”, but quite a tangible evil. Already on the scale of an entire country and an entire nation.
And imagine how much good can be done if you bring good to the whole world in such a police way!?
This quote from the Tao is universal and sufficient to describe the entire theory of relativity about good and evil.
Philosophers explained, but not as philosophers. Philosophy is the science of the universal laws of nature and society. There is no concept of good and evil in them. Good and evil are moral categories of human consciousness. And everyone has their own ideas.
Let's be honest: philosophers have explained these concepts in different ways, even to the point of rejecting the very concepts of good and evil.
The very search for them suggests that a person intuitively understands that there is a certain absolute, relative to which it is possible to determine what is good and what is evil.
The rejection of such a search, and their replacement, for example, with the concepts: profitable/unprofitable (utilitarianism) or pleasant/painful (hedonism) – does not indicate the absence of an absolute criterion, but only an attempt to categorize things differently relative to it.
Those philosophers who claim that everything is relative and there are no absolute principles (relativists and those to whom any philosophical search seems superfluous), in fact, in life (although in words, maybe not) adhere to the concepts of good and evil, at least demanding justice and good for themselves.
GOOD is: creation, improvement,fulfillment of one's obligations at the level of “Everything is very good”.
EVIL is: wars, violence, disregard for others, Non-compliance with laws, destruction, careless attitude to their obligations, etc. and as a result, degradation.A degraded society must be destroyed. This is what the Bible and life itself say.
There are thousands of philosophers, as well as philosophies. Everyone has their own opinion about this topic. Sometimes even more than one. Some recognize good and evil and try to give definitions and advice on life. Others categorically deny the existence of good and evil. So there is no consensus.
As many philosophers, so many opinions. But some of them correctly understood good and evil. Good is the harmony of the world, evil is the destruction of the harmony of the world.
In our history class, too, the teacher explained very simply: Martin Luther is bad,Thomas Munzer is good. That was all that mattered.Apparently our historian was also a philosopher.
Evil is something that is not part of God's plan . Of every tree ye shall eat (future tense), but of the tree of good and evil ye shall not eat (apparently yet) – GOD hath commanded .But Lucifer ,the right-hand man of God, fell in love with Eve and seduced her, and she seduced Adam ( not being biologically prepared). Just as Prometheus, who brought people fire from the forge of Hephaestus , and Dennitsa, violating the providence of God, revealed the secret of good and evil to Eve and Adam ahead of schedule .
Philosophy in the matter of understanding Good and Evil bluffs on all 999 percent. Ie, create an explanation for outright downs.
I give an example of understanding what is Good and what is Evil.
Imagine, you come to a restaurant and ask for a portion of borscht.
According to the philosophical doctrine of the inevitability of the coexistence of Good and Evil, you are served a plate with a portion-half borscht and half shit.
I think that comments are unnecessary.
In fact, the Bible openly says that God is when “Everything is very good”, and evil in the human understanding is a destructive idea.
In the science of “Understanding the Word”, the concepts of presenting negative actions and events are completely absent. There are no universal concepts there:Evil, Disease, Theft, Swearing, Destroy, Deceive,Take Away, etc. etc.
I advise everyone, everyone-join the science of “Understanding the WORD”, then your eyes will open to everything that exists and you will become like God, think only constructively.
I read the comments below and realized that this way you can deprive any wise man of his mind.))) You could have said it in a nutshell:
To keep the room clean, you need to make an effort. To make the room dirty, you do not need to put any effort, it will gradually become dirty. It can be concluded that evil is originally and should be written differently: evil/good.
What can I say to this question? There is no need to explain anything here..Do not engage in polemics about the benefits of good and the harms of evil..They are not inherently separable, although they are very different..That good can bring evil and evil good…Separately, both are useless.
I haven't formulated the definition of good yet. But evil, in my worldview, is a conscious activity for obtaining any benefit, causing any harm to the surrounding world. However, by this definition, the line between evil and non-evil is very thin and ambiguous.
Good and evil are one and the same thing in different systems (conditions). There is nothing unambiguous in the world. If evil were unambiguous, then the correct question would be: why does God allow evil?
In fact, philosophers take a much broader view. What they understand is yin and yang.
Originally, ” yin “meant” northern, shadowy ” and “yang” �— “southern, sunny mountainside”. Later, yin was perceived as negative, cold, dark and feminine (simply put – women are evil!), and yang� – as positive, light, warm and masculine.
In the treatise “Nei-ching” on this subject, it says::
So, everything else, inexplicable, for example: why are we living worse and worse, why everything is getting more expensive, regardless of whether oil is getting more expensive or cheaper, where do our taxes go or “when are they stolen there?” “this is all bullshit. Sometimes it's not just crap, but crap, which is most often the most complete.
That is, black is one shade, white-too, but gray… This is where the boundless space for the flight of thought opens up.