Redrum's Essay

[Redrum]

Why is it right to do good rather than Evil?
By
Redrum

To answer this question we must ask: what is good, and what is evil? What is this concept? To be honest the answer to these questions revolves round three key factors in our lives. These factors are the rules of our society, Religion and the fundamentals of human nature. All three have an impact on the way that we think, and react, to the concepts of good and evil, also changing the forms of the two worlds.
Now, why is it right to do good rather than evil? Because by doing the right thing we are, for one, not doing wrong. And by doing wrong, or “evil” as the question dictates, you are not doing the good thing. So in either case you cannot be doing the other through the actions that fit into the “slot” which the concept belongs.

So to the standard of the rules that the person follows either one of these things (right or wrong) will simply fit into the ways that the person follows. It also depends whether the man, or woman, is completely orthodox. Then the society, culture or religion that they belong to and, yet again, this depends upon the ideology to which they belong; Therefore answering the question why it is right to do good rather than evil, to a certain extent.

The concepts, of good and evil, are the fundamental which “the building blocks of human nature” are. These concepts can’t be reduced; like 1+1=2 you cannot reduce it anymore, as these are the fundamental building blocks maths. Good and evil are the foundations of human society and nature.
Good and positive actions have a positive outcome while bad actions will have a negative impact. Therefore, how things begin, whether positive or negative will have a massive upon on how the society, and the people who live within it, will act accordingly.

[Gillianren]

Okay, here's my comment. That's not an essay.

[NEOWatcher]

Okay, here's my comment. That's not an essay.
Wow; didn't even get to the title before getting the Gillianren treatment. That might be a new record. :eek:

[Paul Beardsley]

A 311 word platitude.

I wonder if it was written whilst intoxicated.

[Asterix]

I think you should have a look at the beginning of Jenseits von Gut und Böse by Nietzsche.

[kleindoofy]

First off, Gillianren is right: that's not an essay.

Second, you didn't answer your own question: "why?".

Third, your premises are vague and highly subjective, wide open to simple refutation. The arguments (are there any?) follow suit.

... Because by doing the right thing we are, for one, not doing wrong. And by doing wrong, or “evil” as the question dictates, you are not doing the good thing. So in either case you cannot be doing the other through the actions that fit into the “slot” which the concept belongs. ...
So if I give a begger some change, I've done good. But if he uses the money to go kill himself with cheap booze, I have done evil, because I had to guess he would do that. But all three sets of rules say I must give to the poor and that not doing so would be evil.

But even if he doesn't booze himself to death, will he report the money to the welfare office and have it deducted from his welfare money? If not, and I have to expect this behavior, I have become an accessory to fraud and have done evil.

... The concepts, of good and evil, are the fundamental which “the building blocks of human nature” are. ...
No, those concepts are not elements, they are complex compound molecules.

[01101001]

Why is it right to do good rather than Evil?
By
Redrum

If it's right to do good, that was wrong.

[Roving Philosopher]

Your second paragraph is just begging the question. "It is right to do good because it is wrong to do evil"

Your third paragraph might be the start of an explanation as to what motivates people to do good rather than evil, but why it is right to do good instead of evil is a somewhat different question.

Finally, while good and evil are rather unique to humans (we generally don't speak with any seriousness of animals being good or evil), I don't know that I'd go so far as to say these are fundamental building blocks of human nature. And it is demostrably false that "good and positive actions have a positive outcome", unless you are judging the action by the outcome. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[AndrewJ]

Good and Evil are manifestitations of right and wrong which are political/anthropological constructs.

[Cougar]

...political/anthropological constructs.

I'd say early anthropological...

"Ethical rules... were not originally invented by some enlightened human lawgiver. They go deep into our evolutionary past. They were with our ancestral line from a time before we were human." - Carl Sagan


...this depends upon the ideology to which they belong...

As Sagan says, human social behavior has a much deeper foundation than any contemporary ideology....

[AndrewJ]

"Ethical rules... ." - Carl Sagan

As Sagan says....

I blame Sagan's revalation of the cosmic big-picture for my lack of success with women.

[Ara Pacis]

I think there is often confusion between right & wrong, good & evil, and ethics.

The bard probably said it best "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

As for religious morality, if you believe in a supreme being then the better terms to use might be godly & ungodly, because as a human you may think that something the deity does is wrong, but that's an inconsistent examination because you're using a different set of ethics (human) than the deity is using.

[gzhpcu]

So if I give a begger some change, I've done good. But if he uses the money to go kill himself with cheap booze, I have done evil, because I had to guess he would do that. But all three sets of rules say I must give to the poor and that not doing so would be evil.

But even if he doesn't booze himself to death, will he report the money to the welfare office and have it deducted from his welfare money? If not, and I have to expect this behavior, I have become an accessory to fraud and have done evil.

IMHO, this is rationalizing too much. You felt sorry for him, and you gave him some change. Your intent was to do good. What happens afterwards has nothing to do with original action, it is no longer in your hands.

We do good, because it makes us feel good.

[Ara Pacis]

We do good, because it makes us feel good.

Or more generally: Whatever it is we do, we do because it seems like a good idea at the time.

[gzhpcu]

Or more generally: Whatever it is we do, we do because it seems like a good idea at the time.
Not so sure about that. A thief probably thinks stealing a car is a good idea... When you are kind to someone and do something altruistically, you feel good, but you did not do it because you thought it was a good idea, but rather the right thing to do... IMHO, of course...:)

[gzhpcu]

Doing good can be dangerous, however...

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/04/27/dnt.fl.guy.drowns.saving.kids.wsvn

[Redrum]

It is easy to critisise but why don't you share some original thoughts?

[Gillianren]

You asked what we thought. We told you. I also don't think they're terribly original thoughts.

[kleindoofy]

@Gillianren

We still have to give Redrum credit for doing something about 95% of the members of our society never do: thinking.

It's irrelevant how original the thoughts are, thinking is always to be admired, at least as a first step.

Now it's time for Redrum to take the second step: refining his thoughts through education, peer discussion, self-criticizm, and study.

There's never a flower without a seed, but the seed still needs water, earth and light to grow and bloom.

[Salty]

First off, Gillianren is right: that's not an essay.

Second, you didn't answer your own question: "why?".

Third, your premises are vague and highly subjective, wide open to simple refutation. The arguments (are there any?) follow suit.


So if I give a begger some change, I've done good. But if he uses the money to go kill himself with cheap booze, I have done evil, because I had to guess he would do that. But all three sets of rules say I must give to the poor and that not doing so would be evil.

But even if he doesn't booze himself to death, will he report the money to the welfare office and have it deducted from his welfare money? If not, and I have to expect this behavior, I have become an accessory to fraud and have done evil.


No, those concepts are not elements, they are complex compound molecules.


I'm looking at you example of giving a beggar some change. You did a good deed.
"But if he uses the money....". Not only is this an assumption but also its an unwarranted judgement. Furthermore, you have done your good deed and are not responsible for the beggar's freedom of choice.
Truthfully, you have no way to determine what he or she will do with the moeny. You can only assume. You remember how to spell it? *** U Me.
When you assume, you make an *** of you and me. So, that's why I snipped at your assumptions. Your rebuttal, if I may point it out, appears to be based solely on assumptions about the beggar's behavior.

It's good to give alms, without second guessing the beggar: remember, you're responsible for your freedom of choice, not anybody else's except your childrens'.

[Salty]

I'd say early anthropological...

"Ethical rules... were not originally invented by some enlightened human lawgiver. They go deep into our evolutionary past. They were with our ancestral line from a time before we were human." - Carl Sagan




As Sagan says, human social behavior has a much deeper foundation than any contemporary ideology....

I disagree with Carl Sagan's opinion about ethical rules. But, I'd just like to agree to disagree with you, since the man is dead.

[Salty]

Why is it right to do good rather than Evil?
By
Redrum

To answer this question we must ask: what is good, and what is evil? What is this concept? To be honest the answer to these questions revolves round three key factors in our lives. These factors are the rules of our society, Religion and the fundamentals of human nature. All three have an impact on the way that we think, and react, to the concepts of good and evil, also changing the forms of the two worlds.
Now, why is it right to do good rather than evil? Because by doing the right thing we are, for one, not doing wrong. And by doing wrong, or “evil” as the question dictates, you are not doing the good thing. So in either case you cannot be doing the other through the actions that fit into the “slot” which the concept belongs.

So to the standard of the rules that the person follows either one of these things (right or wrong) will simply fit into the ways that the person follows. It also depends whether the man, or woman, is completely orthodox. Then the society, culture or religion that they belong to and, yet again, this depends upon the ideology to which they belong; Therefore answering the question why it is right to do good rather than evil, to a certain extent.

The concepts, of good and evil, are the fundamental which “the building blocks of human nature” are. These concepts can’t be reduced; like 1+1=2 you cannot reduce it anymore, as these are the fundamental building blocks maths. Good and evil are the foundations of human society and nature.
Good and positive actions have a positive outcome while bad actions will have a negative impact. Therefore, how things begin, whether positive or negative will have a massive upon on how the society, and the people who live within it, will act accordingly.

I think it looks like you tried to put too much into too little verbiage. You have at least three topics, and little extropalation of any of them.

I will agree, that the end does not justify the means; but rather that the means determine the end.

[Ara Pacis]

Not so sure about that. A thief probably thinks stealing a car is a good idea... When you are kind to someone and do something altruistically, you feel good, but you did not do it because you thought it was a good idea, but rather the right thing to do... IMHO, of course...:)

I don't see your distinction.

[gzhpcu]

I don't see your distinction.
It is all under what one understands under "feeling good". I contend that feeling good for having done a good deed is a different feeling to what a thief experiences in stealing a car.

[Salty]

It is all under what one understands under "feeling good". I contend that feeling good for having done a good deed is a different feeling to what a thief experiences in stealing a car.

Maybe you're both right. There's different "good" feelings. An almsgiver has the satisfactory feeling of helping another. The thief has an adrenalin rush from triumphing over the car's owner or the cops or society or whatever his beef is, for example.

[Ara Pacis]

It is all under what one understands under "feeling good". I contend that feeling good for having done a good deed is a different feeling to what a thief experiences in stealing a car.

Ah, I see what you mean and it isn't what I meant. I said they do it because it seems like a good idea at the time, not that it feels like a good idea at the time. I'm thinking of the rational decision process, which, despite it's name, need not be seem rational nor feel good.

[Jason_Roberts]

Good and evil are human contrivances. That says enough without having to elaborate.

The Universe is a cold, arbitrary thing based on cause and effect. When that's taken into consideration it follows that society wouldn't (or shouldn't) be all that different. Some causes don't construct the expected effects, and some effects aren't at all constructive.

I actually have a strong personal opinion regarding people who still harbor a philosophical belief in good or evil. Unfortunately, I can't get into that here.

"Good" versus "evil" thinking is not taking into account the bigger, or more realistic picture.

There is right and wrong, which is a pretty straightforward and self-evident concept.