Is it good to do evil?

Post Reply New Topic

If it's good to do evil, then how is it evil?

Question mainly targeted for traditional theists (Christians, Muslims, etc.) but anyone who answers yes to the title question is free to chime in as well.

A is not B, and B is C, then how can A be C?

Can you provide more context? Like, why do you think a traditional theist would believe that it is good to do evil?

Murder is considered evil,but if it was someone like Hitler,then maybe yes.

Ok, I'm going by the usual theist argument that it's considered good for humans to have the choice to do evil if God, being good, allows it. But if humans can do evil, then how is it good?

My brain now feels like a dog chasing it's tail.

Isn't that a good thing?

Just to be clear, what does each of the letters represent for this "scenario"?

What sophistry is this? This isn't a question about morality, it's a purely logical statement being misapplied to a real case. Obviously it's not good to do evil as they are opposites. However, it's. not logical to equivate "allowing evil" with "doing evil". Ethics, which are less than mathematical, sorts that out. Here God isn't necessarily doing evil, man is.

Eh. My argument in that case would be that without free will and the ability to do evil, good would be meaningless. If everybody was good by default then there would be nothing special about being good, but if people can choose to do good things or evil things then there is merit when they choose the former.

So what does it matter whether there is merit or not? I wouldn't know, I'm not a theist anyway. I guess I'll have to think about it

No, They are polar opposites.

What? Of course not! It's evil to do evil!

The freedom to choose is what's good, and allows character to be revealed, but the choices selected being either good, evil, or morally neutral have those qualities regardless of the ability to choose between them.

Free will is just free will. It is good or evil depending on what you do with it. It's neither on it's own.

Well, then would it be just as good if people had no free will, or is it really only dependent on how they use their free will?

/\ I agree with the above.

I'd add evil is not a constant, and is based upon motivation, malice, sadism and other factors that are ever changing. The same can be said about good with altruism, mercy, generosity and like displays. Mathematics and like formula are not valid to use in the situation.

Let's use a messed up example. It's a post-apocalyptic wasteland two men meet up on a lonely street getting supplies. Nothing is left to scavenge and both men have AK47's.
1. "Hero 1" has a no food and his wife and kids at his base are starving. He is loaded up with ammo and bandoleers, and a 5 gallon jug of water.
2. "Hero 2" has a no water and his parents and siblings at his base are out of water . He is almost out of ammo, down to one last mag.

Neither has enough to share, If Hero 2 shoots hero 1 it could be out of fear and desperation, and of love of his family. The same could be said in return for the other guy. If one shot at the other and missed the other would feel the guy attacking him was Evil (and be correct) as he is observing morality relative to himself. The other guy might think he was sneaking up and feel in the right shooting him. It's all viewpoint and this is compounded by sadism, malice,etc..

Both men are making personal sacrifices of morality, for the greater good of their loved ones safety. Both would be acting evilly, but motivations could be good at least in their own mind.

Good and evil don't exist beyond as concepts and that is not absolute, or not as out puny brains can understand it.

Thus evil and good are not allowed or disallowed, they just are an opinion viewpoint humans use to quantify behavior. It's moot.