What is Good and Bad? An ECG tells us information about our heartbeat using a graph. It has crests and troughs as to prove that we are alive. A straight line in an ECG means that you are dead. Same is the case with Good and Bad. Heraclitus and St Augustine said that good and bad are complete opposites of each other thereby resulting in universal harmony [1]. Suppose no bad things occur to us we don’t know what is suffering thereby lose the essence of life. So, what is Good and what is Bad? This question has been reckoning philosophers since the ages. Whenever a philosopher thinks that he had solved the question it again re-emerges with new dimensions. In order to arrive at a satisfactory answer we need to answer the following questions …show more content…
Can an act be stated good or bad based on the intention with which it was performed? This one seems to reasonably fair. Any act that we perform has some intention behind it. Mere intention can’t make an act good or bad. Consider a person who is donating money to the poor[2]. It is a good act. But the intention with which he does that is vanity. Even though the poor are getting helped this is not a good act as his intention is not good and is not concerned to help others. We must avoid the most common thinking that morality of an action is determined the intention .But something that is essentially evil with a good intention can’t be called a good. If we take the case of a family which proceeded for abortion for a good cause is an unforgivable mistake and is a bad deed[2]. So good and bad can’t be concluded by intention alone. I disagree with the statement of Peter …show more content…
They taught us that justice, kindness, mercy and truth are good traits. They also taught us that violence, avarice and falsehood are bad traits. So we humans are following the traits that god told us to follow. Assuming that god exists. Suppose that god had told us to follow violence and injustice. What might have happened in the early days when people were not fully aware of what is good and bad. So we would be following injustice and violence as we were instructed to do so. These people did not care to ponder that pronouncing some acts as good and others as bad has no rationale. But the nature of man is in such a way that he loves truth, justice and hates falsehood and injustice. So the origin of good and evil is not from divine guidance. According to Aristotle a famous philosopher, knowledge of good and evil and its criteria are imbued in man and he can differentiate between the two if he desires so[1]. So it is upto the person to decide what is right or wrong. I agree with Aristotle’s point of view. In fact God has left the choice to us to decide what is good and what is
If “evil” cannot be understood simply, then similarly, its opposite --“good”-- cannot be comprehended plainly either. For that reason, it can be said that the
This shows how good acts have no good motivation behind
If one’s traditions are evil, the odds are slim for one’s morals to be good. Some evil is planted within humans from the moment a person is born. The way a child is brought up determines their beliefs, motivations, and actions. Some people grow up with a skewed concept of good and evil, which can lead to confusion of what is truly good and evil.
Since the beginning of the world, everyone has their own point of view on the battle between good and evil. Since these two are opposite behaviors, good and evil must have nothing in common, right? I believe that evil is only evil by the way someone perceives it to be. For example, let 's say a man robbed a woman 's purse ; to that guy who stole the purse, it 's probably the only way to get enough money to stay, but to the woman she just lost the money she had earned. Now to the woman, the man was bad, but to the man, he is just trying to survive.
For an extreme example, a terrorist thinks he is doing the right thing by setting off a bomb. Many situations in life can put into action inherent good, and many people will channel this good. Inherent good can be difficult to explain, but many examples can explain it in great detail. Nobody is born with the intention of being a bad person. Sometimes people believe that the evil people in the world have always been bad, but that is incorrect.
The reality is that good and evil cannot be divided due to a difference of beliefs. This means that a person may see something as evil that another person see as good.
Although everyone has the capacity to act good, there is also evil within everyone and it is only
This shows why Hobbes believed in the monarchial form of government. Good is considered as morally righteous and evil is moral wrongdoing. I think that humans are inherently evil because they have to make an effort
There are many references in the novel that reflect upon the theme of good vs. evil. A quote that expresses “good” is, “Thus are we ministers of God's own wish. That the world, and men for whom His Son die, will not be given over to monsters, whose very existence would defame Him. He have allowed us to redeem one soul already, and we go out as the old knights of the Cross to redeem more. Like them we shall travel towards the sunrise.
The world we live in is filled with crime, evil, and injustice, but do people have the desire to do bad things knowing that they are bad, or do they do them thinking that they are good? In this essay, I examine Socrates argument, found in Plato’s Meno, that no one knowingly desires bad things. If Socrates were right, it would mean that it is impossible for someone to perform a bad action based on their desire for that bad thing. Instead, all bad desires result from the ignorance of the person performing the action in falsely believing that the action is good. Though Socrates presents a compelling argument, I argue that it is possible for someone to act badly, all the while knowing that what they desire is bad.
In Man’s Nature Is Good and Man’s Nature Is Evil, Mencius and Hsun Tzu argue about the true meaning of human nature. Mencius believed that humans are inherently good and Hsun Tzu believed that humans are naturally evil. Is it possible humans can be both good and evil? When it comes to whether human nature is good or evil, most people will choose one or the other.
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).
We can not measure how good or bad someone 's actions are. This means that we can not judge if someone is good or evil. Is giving food to the homeless just as good as saying please and thank you? Since we are unable to measure how good an action is we are also unable to measure if the good actions someone has done outweighs the bad actions someone has done. An example of this is Robin Hood.
The understanding that some people are good or bad widespread all over the world.” The evil comes from human history and continue until today” and even today this statement has existed. Moreover, when people want to explain why people do some evil acts, the discussion often end with words like “people initially are born evil”. However, some other people argued that people are born good. Because of these many critics has debates such as: are people born bad, good or just like naked board without any morality.
If a person knows what is ‘good’, then their manner of behaviour will always be good, as they possess the knowledge of how to do so. If a person acts in a ‘bad’ or evil way, this is simply because they lack the knowledge of how to act in a virtuous manner. For Socrates, it was simply a case of knowledge being conducive to good behaviour, and ignorance being conducive to bad behaviour. No-one chooses to act in an evil way, according to Socrates. We aim for good behaviour but fall short of