Good vs. Evil Options

[*Kathleen*]

Do you think good and evil in the world balances out, or do you believe that one is more concentrated on Earth? I'll wait to speak my opinion once someone else does.

[tkproduce]

Do you think good and evil in the world balances out, or do you believe that one is more concentrated on Earth? I'll wait to speak my opinion once someone else does.

Define "evil"

[RiddleMeWonders]

Well..... Really and truly, I dont think anything (except God and Jesus) is completley good or evil. Even if it is expected to be. So yeah, I guessed they are balanced out.. but if people don't care anymore, or do care, and do nothing to show those people who don't know that there are people who care about them, the balance might waver..

[waccoon]

if you mean good vs evil as in morally good or morally wrong, sure, immorality exists. i dont think there's this perfect balance of good and evil - if you're good, you're good.

[tkproduce]

"good" and "evil" as we know it only exist because humans exist. Cheating, stealing, murder, rape - they're just normal everyday occurences for the natural world, where survival is the only aim. It is only when it comes to intelligent beings like humans when things start to get classified as "right" or "wrong".

I don't know how to quantify "good" or "evil". Is a man sacrificing his own life to save a drowning kid more or less "good" than the "evil" behind the September 11 incident for example? What do you mean by "balancing out"?

[*Kathleen*]

As in all the wrongs in the world (made by man or whatever) are justified. For example, as one person dies, another person is born. That was just an example of what I mean, but not "good" and "evil".

[ComradeRed]

Progress exists, therefore the good outweighs the evil.

[*Kathleen*]

Yes, but does evil balance it out in other ways? In a war, you're supposedly making progression, right? In the end, something will be settled. It still doesn't justify all the lives lost by it. I don't know if that was a good example, but yeah.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but does evil balance it out in other ways? In a war, you're supposedly making progression, right? In the end, something will be settled. It still doesn't justify all the lives lost by it. I don't know if that was a good example, but yeah.

War is inherently regressive since it destroys real goods.

[*Kathleen*]

War is inherently regressive since it destroys real goods.

But when a country is fighting for freedom or land and they win, it progresses, does it not?

[tkproduce]

But when a country is fighting for freedom or land and they win, it progresses, does it not?

What's this "progress" mean? Progress in technology? Progress in economy? If a country wins a war (whatever that means) and that is progress, surely the "loser" of the war has gone through a regression?

[*Kathleen*]

Exactly...good and evil balance out.

[*AngelicEyz00*]

There's good and evil in everything I would say. I think they balance out. There wouldn't be any good wothout any evil

[RiddleMeWonders]

""good" and "evil" as we know it only exist because humans exist."
^,^ That's if you believe one thing. Satan was here before Us. God is Good. Memnoch is Evil. Would they not exist even if we didn't?

[tkproduce]

Exactly...good and evil balance out.

I don't think I understand this debate at all... so you're saying "progress" is a "good" thing and "regression" is an "evil" thing... I don't see how you're managing to quantify them so that they "balance out". How do we know whether evil is slightly outweighing the good or vice versa? Surely it depends on different points of view on what is evil and what is good as wel.

[*Kathleen*]

Okay, so define it. I'm just saying in general does good and evil balance out...Is there more good or more evil? Why? That's what I'm asking...

[ComradeRed]

What's this "progress" mean? Progress in technology? Progress in economy? If a country wins a war (whatever that means) and that is progress, surely the "loser" of the war has gone through a regression?

1) In a war, for example the United States has recently defeated Iraq in a war. Because the war ITSELF consumes productive goods, BOTH countries are said to have regressed, though clearly Iraq has regressed further.

2) Life is NOT zero-sum. If it were, we'd still be living in a cave and spearing gazelle. Progress in general is progress towards a higher quality of life. That undeniably exists.

[EmeraldKnight]

This is an interesting topic... i say that you cant truly weigh the good and evil in the world, because the good and evil is in everyone's heart, the battle between good and evil is ultimately decided in one's heart and mind, what we can do though, is look at what ppl have acted upon and how much good and evil actions there are.. and well.. i consider it a paradox too.. because when it comes down to it, there is no real "good" and "evil", there are onli actions taken by ppl acting upon their beliefs, and because our beliefs differ, we judge their actions as either "good" or "evil" and to them, they may see it completely differently..and.. and... gah... i was going somewhere with this.. but it slipped my mind!! dont you hate when that happens? well, i think i covered most of it

but personally i'd say there is actually more good in the world, because as human beings, we tend to focus on the evil and overemphasize it, overly publicize things, and the evil in the world is sticks so firmly in one's mind.. that we sometimes fail to notice or acknowledge the good in life, i mean.. there're so many good things in this world, so many ppl that do so many acts of kindness.. that sometimes.. we take it for granted.. i mean.. several thousand random acts of kindness sticks far less easily than 1 act of evil.. its how we are...

kinda like this quote i remember from english, "the evil that men do live after them but the good dies with their ashes" something like that, from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, but yeah.. the points there, and did I go a little overboard on this? my apologies

[timeflies51]

"good" and "evil" as we know it only exist because humans exist. Cheating, stealing, murder, rape - they're just normal everyday occurences for the natural world, where survival is the only aim. It is only when it comes to intelligent beings like humans when things start to get classified as "right" or "wrong".

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Every human has their own defintion of good and evil. One person may think that one thing is good, while another may think it is evil. Because there is no common consensus on what is good and what is evil, how could we ever know if there is a balance?

[*nightmare4taki*]

I personally think they balance out. In every great story there is a protagonist and an antagonist, both feed off one another. One will be looked upon as the good guy, and the other as the bad guy. But in many cases in order for the protagonist to overcome the antagonist he must show some act of aggression such as fighting.

So Is it then possible to say that the protagonist also has evil characteristics since he turned to violence in order to defeat his/her counterpart?

I mean when two opposing sides fight a war, both sides fighting feel that they are fighting for a just cause and their opponent is looked upon as evil.

[RCcola]

this is a pretty intense topic.

i think everything does balance out. you don't see it at first, but in time things return to equilibrium. even if it takes a while.

[ichigofan]

For everything that is good in the world theres always an opposite component, so the world in a way is balanced

[innovation]

Progress exists, therefore the good outweighs the evil.

Wow, this is an extremely old statement, but heck, I'm going to refute it because it sounds like something an imperialistic neoconservative would say (sorry).

For too long, the United States has attributed "progress" to "good", and in many cases, the U.S.'s power in this world lies in its ability to determine the definition of "progress" in order to suit its political goals. It seems to me like many aspects of "progress" (technological, scientific, economic) are amoral, whereas the label "good" implies a sense of morality. Thus, I don't think that society's "progress" as it is conventionally defined can act as an accurate barometer for the world's "goodness".