How confident are you in your ability to judge what is good for you, and what is evil?

I am very confident that I have the ability
To do so. I was born back in 1930.
I now enclose a good article which might be helpful :-

Morality play is a form of drama that flourished in the 1400's. The morality play developed from the mystery play, which dramatized Biblical events, and the miracle play, which dramatized the lives of saints. Morality plays were essentially dramatized sermons.
Their general theme was the struggle between good and evil for the allegiance of the human soul. The style of the morality play was usually allegorical, with the actors portraying such figures as Virtue, Vice, Riches, Poverty, Knowledge, Ignorance, Grace, or the Seven Deadly Sins. The play was centered on an allegorical figure sometimes called Mankind or Humanity. The figure represented common people and their souls. The antagonist of the Mankind figure was usually the Vice figure, who sometimes appeared as the Devil or under several other names. Often Vice was a comic figure full of tricks and disguises. But despite his comedy, Vice represented eternal damnation for the Mankind figure foolish enough to be deceived by him. Unlike the mystery plays, which were performed by amateurs, morality plays were performed by professional and sometimes traveling actors.

Contributor: Albert Wertheim, Ph.D. Prof. of English, Theatre and Drama, and Comparative Literature and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Indiana Univ.

I am very confident that I have the ability
to do so. I was born back in 1930.
But your definition of good and evil may have changed over the years, so your choices have changed too. And what you consider a good choice today maybe an evil choice next year.

It's hard to say because morality has evolved so much. Many things that were once considered immoral and shameful are now considered acceptable or only mildly frowned upon. i.e. homosexuality, adultery, co-habitation before marriage, divorce, gambling, porn, alcohol/drugs, children out of wedlock. Evil is sometimes hard to define, but I usually know it when I see it.

It's hard to say because morality has evolved so much. Many things that were once considered immoral and shameful are now considered acceptable or only mildly frowned upon., i.e., homosexuality, adultery, co-habitation before marriage, divorce, gambling, porn, alcohol/drugs, children out of wedlock. Evil is sometimes hard to define, but I usually know it when I see it.
How about evil being something as simple as poor choices? We may think they are good choices when we grab onto them, but later find out they were very bad choices. That's a kind of evil too. Evil doesn't have to be only the grand things we give a name to, like homosexuality or adultery. Evil can be an everyday thing, such as a poor choice that was made this morning.

How confident are you in your ability to judge what is good for you, and what is evil?
Ok so far. :)

Ok so far. :)
No regrets? ;)

No regrets for me. Everything that people might consider good or bad, always turned out to be something that needed to be experienced.

Life long growing,

Joe

No regrets for me. Everything that people might consider good or bad, always turned out to be something that needed to be experienced.

Life long growing,

Joe
I was hoping you would show up! Do you remember this discussion in The Shack?

Yes... very much so.

No regrets? ;)None worth fretting over. Like Joe said they all lead to having experienced something.

I feel pretty confident at my age (47) I have experienced enough as to know the difference between "good" and "bad", "right" or "wrong".

EVIL is a word that should be reserved for people like the man who shot those four police officers in Tacoma, in cold blood.

Like Webster's states: "morally reprehensible".

Hilter was evil.

Simply breaking a commandment lets say, is "wrong", or "bad", but not necessarily "evil".

When I was a little boy, I was known to be bad sometimes, but I was not evil.

But this is my opinion only.

How confident are you in your ability to judge what is good for you, and what is evil?

What do you mean good for you. Good must not only be good for me but good for all otherwise I am in a situational dilemma and what is good for me may actually be evil.

I believe that I know the difference between good and evil and that I know when I have failed to do the right thing

My rule book is the bible, God's Word, that's works good for me.
We reap what we sow, more than we sow, and later than we sow.
God always follows though on both His promises and His threats.

Blessings, Maggie 3

What do you mean good for you. Good must not only be good for me but good for all otherwise I am in a situational dilemma and what is good for me may actually be evil.


Here we see evidence of Plato's greatest mistake, "the good in itself". So, Paraclete, if "good" is a quality, and not an ideal, perhaps you could tell us what "good" is?

How confident are you in your ability to judge what is good for you, and what is evil?Hello Carol:

I'm not confident at all. Since I'm not religious, I don't believe in evil... So, you'd think the choice would be easy, wouldn't you?? But, nahhh. Cause, I don't believe in good either.

There is just life and what happens to us.

Am I evil because I choose to end a bugs life? I'll bet the bug thinks so. And, if it can't think, does that make my act any less evil? How big does an animal have to be before squashing it is "evil"? Does size matter?

excon

Since I'm not religious, I don't believe in evil... So, you'd think the choice would be easy, wouldn't you??? But, nahhh. Cause, I don't believe in good either.
But you can choose good or evil -- choose to rob a 7-11 or not, hit your girlfriend or not, teach poker to an Internet friend or not. You have choices.

Am I evil because I choose to end a bugs life? I'll bet the bug thinks so. And, if it can't think, does that make my act any less evil? How big does an animal have to be before squashing it is "evil"? Does size matter?

excon

Good questions. If your intent, motive or feeling for killing the bug was because you simply hate bugs, it is evil.
The difference between good and evil is directly proportionate to motive. Knowing the diffrence between right and wrong, and doing wrong in spite of it, is evil, a sin, or criminal.

Good questions. If your intent, motive or feeling for killing the bug was because you simply hate bugs, it is evil.
The difference between good and evil is directly proportionate to motive. Knowing the diffrence between right and wrong, and doing wrong inspite of it, is evil, a sin, or criminal.

J.S. Mill would look at this in a different light. He would say that the consequences of a given action determine rightness or wrongness, not the motive from which it was done.

An action is right in so far as it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. An action is wrong it it produces the opposite.

Mill would say that it is not important if you hate bugs or love them. What is important is the outcome of killing bugs. If for some reason you spent your life trying to kill as many termites as you possibly can then it is likely such an action would promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This is true if killing termites somehow saved many houses from being destroyed.

This is an interesting approach to utilitarianism because I don't think Mill ever considered that his principle would somehow include killing animals.

J.S. Mill would look at this in a different light. He would say that the consequences of a given action determine rightness or wrongness, not the motive from which it was done.

An action is right in so far as it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. An action is wrong it it produces the opposite.

Mill would say that it is not important if you hate bugs or love them. What is important is the outcome of killing bugs. If for some reason you spent your life trying to kill as many termites as you possibly can then it is likely such an action would promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This is true if killing termites somehow saved many houses from being destroyed.

This is an interesting approach to utilitarianism because I don't think Mill ever considered that his principle would somehow include killing animals.

The example of killing insects, as in exterminating termites, is the same purpose as in an insect biting or stinging a human. In either case, it has no bearing on right or wrong, it is a simple instinct of preservation. The exterminater destroys the termites to preserve someone's inhabitants as a bee might sting a human as an instinct to protect his hive. Insects, or any other animals do not possess the reasoning ability to distinguish right or wrong. It is all instinctual. As human beings, we have evolved either through a natural process, or through a higher power, or through both as I personally believe, the ability of conscience. With that, we can make decisions based on right or wrong, where as the animal can not and does not. It is a gift, but can also be a down fall. Man's intentions does not always warrant a bad outcome. But his motives determines if his decisions was either the intent of right or wrong, good or evil. If a man kills another man out of hate, jealousy, etc. it is wrong. If a man kills another to protect his family and had no other choice, his motives were derived from his instinct of preservation and love for his family. In either case, the outcome is the same. The judgement of both men would not be the same even though they share the same outcome, but rather by their motives.

What the bible says is right, that is right for me. What the bible says is wrong, is wrong for me.

[QUOTE=sabrewolfe;2144534]... Insects, or any other animals do not possess the reasoning ability to distinguish right or wrong. It is all instinctual. As human beings, we have evolved either through a natural process, or through a higher power, or through both as I personally believe, the ability of conscience. With that, we can make decisions based on right or wrong, where as the animal can not and does not... Quote



Hello sabrewolfe,

Yes, individual motives are of course important. In my opinion Utilitarianism is more a political theory bound up with the idea of democratic government and political institutions. Sometimes this is referred to as,'the will of the people'

For example. In general elections it is impossible to take into account the motives of people when they vote. The mass of population would have a huge number reasons they vote for one party and not another. The only alternative is to ignore motives and assume that when one party gets into power it is not a case of good or bad in a moral sense, but simply right if that is what the majority of people want.

I think the rights and wrongs of this world, are learnt as the years tick by, life is a learning curve.

As a child your parents try to point you in the right direction,as you grow you develop your own sense of morals, which will give you the ability to recognise the difference between right or wrong, good or evil, how ever you wish to phrase it.

Having built a solid foundation from a very young age, you will then be prepared for your life ahead.