What do you think of such people who say such things? My stepfather used to say the same thing to me but he was religious. he reconciled this to rationalize that all wrongs were wrongs, so therefore his sin is not worse than others. he would equate my forgetting to ask him first before i asked a friend to spend the night as just as wrong as any other sin such as his rape. so i was severely beaten but yet he felt he should be forgiven for all sins and not have to pay for any consequences. this was his excuse to keep on doing harm, massively. of course, this was all bullshit to excuse himself but these are the dishonest mind-games people play with their own heads and use it against others too. the trick was omitting and pretending that the 'gravity' of actions were the same, so therefore it's all equal. you know, that a million dollars is the same as one dollar because it's technically just money. that type of logic. It's a very dishonest tactic. Never took accountabililty and worse, when he felt wronged or infringed on, he would demand justice but demonize others as wrong but never him, just even if he was displeased or someone was not giving into him. If it was his daughter, then it was wrong but not for others. He knew what he was doing, it was all about power and abusing that power. Interesting, isn't it? hypocritical much? The thing is though, these same people go about their lives constantly evaluating good vs evil, beneficial vs harmful, right vs wrong when it comes to them and their life. those who think there is no good nor evil is the root of sociopathy. Honestly, these types of people do not even deserve consideration, since they don't have any consideration for you. you are just a commodity or object, beneficial or expendable. This technically means they should have no problem with anything going on in the world that could remotely be identified with humanity and it's concerns except power and money. they should have no problem with despotic regimes or any harmful actions against humanity or anything, for that matter. even most children have a sense of right and wrong, just naturally or instinctively as in feeling what is harmful vs beneficial, fair vs unfair etc. can sense when they are being treated fairly vs not, exploited vs not, exploitive of other vs not. we have an inner knowing and a sense and can read others too as well as empathize. those who don't empathize or just out for themselves, you know to stay away from.
Furthermore, why would these same types of people argue against religion, even on this forum? what do they care since they have no concept or care about good vs evil, right or wrong, good vs bad, beneficial vs harmful etc. Even the spanish inquisition, even if they were not witches, the point was they were scapegoats just like the jews in the holocaust. what do they care since there is no right or wrong. it's just cause and effect, anything goes. la dee da. of course, unless it's happening to them. then that's a different story. are they just so upset about the technicality of it? that god can't be proven or disproven? who the fuck cares? is it affecting their lives so much? or is it that some ethical values stem from religious teachings and they want that abolished? i can see it concerning those who actually care about ethics and the misuse of it but not those who don't give a shit! i mean, technically, if we were to go strictly with nature, despotic, oppressive regimes are a-okay. relgion is just a ruse and an excuse to gain power just like the church but even atheistic countries can do the same.
They exist as much as any ideas / distinction-makings that are put into practice or exhibit effects. "Good and evil" are general , contrasting concepts invented by people. Their specific details and preferences filled in by a particular school of thought (even religions and governments have to begin with a vague or elaborate prescriptive scheme). Feelings or reactions of "like and dislike" were probably the limit of what we were natively / primitively equipped with, before intellect in conjunction with reciprocal behaviors kicked in. After that there would be traditions, customs, and adages already available to be downloaded into a child's mind from the outset. The need for sophisticated morality emerges from those group interactions -- i.e., the lone castaway hardly has to be concerned with and legislate his/her social behavior on an island that is minus a human community. Since a collective stimulates the formation of such standards (rather than the individual), the creative discourse will usually fixate on rules and violations that are deemed constructive for that society as a whole. Or which in parallel benefit certain dominant cliques within it, optionally disparaging the status of others, should the existence of either / both situations be the case. Differing judgements arise, whereby the fine-tuning of the system favoring one faction is deemed evil or bad relative to how it impacts another. (In early eras, obviously negative qualities would be projected upon enemy tribes, too; but the latter is potentially outside the immediate ethical strategies concocted for "what benefits our culture", anyway.) Over time the individual may acquire "rights" potent enough to compete with, challenge, or conflict with the level of attention given to facilitating the needs and goals of the group or subdivisions within it. Granting that local legal means is adequately available to trigger consequences when those abstract principles are encroached upon / breached.
Is it really honest to characterize entire classes of people based on a single second-hand observation by someone with a fairly obvious axe to grind? I say "such things" in particular relevant context, and I'm neither more than average dishonest nor demonizing anyone. There is no such thing as good or evil, since these are concepts. They are descriptions and evaluations attributed to behaviour, and have no independent existence. As concepts, they are commonly known to all or most humans - though no other species - and have a generally accepted popular meaning, but are are subjectively described and evaluated by each person who uses the terms. Others I know who say "such things" are usually not sociopaths, either. Some are philosophers, and many more discuss philosophy, ethics, morality, law and jurisprudence, social organization and order, education and child-rearing in a constructive and open-minded manner. Some may be dishonest, hypocritical or criminal - I don't know. I do not feel qualified to judge or categorize all of them at one fell swoop.
Good and evil are human inventions. It is more accurate to say there is no such thing as objective good or evil.
of course it's a human invention! If i kick a rock, it doesn't care one way or the other, neither good nor evil because it doesn't sense a thing. it's not alive. if a hurricane destroys your home, it is not evil as it has no consciousness and no intent. it may be destructive in consequences but that is not what evil denotes. it is another level and plane of life when consciousness is involved and where/when good and evil can be willfully exercised. but we have conscious awareness and that awareness comes with it moral accountability and resonsibility. there is good and evil because they apply to lifeforms such as humans who have the capacity to knowingly inflict gratuitous violence and understand it's impact or not. evil means knowingly harmful motivation and intent, knowing unfairness etc. that is the key, it resides at the seed/root of awareness and that is why where true evil can develop (awareness/accountability). evil or good is not a particular tool/object, good or evil is purely in the intent/motivational aspect. a surgeon can use a knife to save a life and a murderer can use it to take one. good and evil is in the why end of the spectrum and that why (good or evil) will determine it's type and the 'how' of execution. of course there is no 'objective' good or evil. but we could use this same argument for the non-existence of other things. it's like saying your thoughts are not real, your feelings are not real, your motivations and intent is not real etc. these are biochemical processes but it is not concretely real. it's unbelievable that is the simple, lame basis for those who say there is neither good nor evil. no, i can't hold it in my hand or put it in a jar for show and tell. like duh, really? that's not what we were discussing or the point and that is not what good or evil means. good or evil is not a physical object. What's stupidly condescending is that this simple point was used as the excuse there is neither good nor evil as if people aren't already aware that good nor evil is not physical. it occurs on another plane of existence and that is consciousness and awareness. and devaluing this as not real is also unrealistic.
It is not always apparent, when someone talks about good or evil, that they are acknowledging it as a human invention. I think this thread was inspired by a previous thread, wherein good and evil were being discussed by you, and it may not have been apparent that you acknowledged it as only human.
I have to offer one small caveat. I think there are good actions and bad actions, some intentional (which is worse) and some accidental (which is excusable). I don't think "good" and "evil" exist in the world, except as human constructs. To clarify, sailors exist in the world, but Popeye exists only as a human construct, even though it was based on a real person. Similarly, tramps exist in the world, but the Son of God existed only as a human construct, even though it was based on a real person.
