Difference between revisions of "Good and evil"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
 +
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | The death of the death of absolute truth
 +
|-
 +
| style="padding:15px;" |And what about the idea that there is no absolute truth? I mean, first of all, ''the statement itself is a declaration of absolute truth''. If you have a moral relativist friend who says, "There is no such thing as absolute truth," he's laying out a truth that he believes will never change. He should put it this way: "It is absolute truth, that there is no such thing as absolute truth." Isn't that crazy? It's self-refuting. It's like me saying, "This sentence does not exist." 
 +
<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Ryan Dobson<ref name="Dobson"/> </div>
 +
|}
 
'''Good and evil''' are two opposite concepts describing actions that are [[moral]] ([[Virtue|good]]) and those that are not ([[evil]]). The idea that good and evil exist is the opposite view to [[moral relativism]] (see [[postmodernism]]), which contends that there are no such things as absolute good and evil, and that the prevailing moral code in any society is merely a set of ultimately arbitrary conventions.
 
'''Good and evil''' are two opposite concepts describing actions that are [[moral]] ([[Virtue|good]]) and those that are not ([[evil]]). The idea that good and evil exist is the opposite view to [[moral relativism]] (see [[postmodernism]]), which contends that there are no such things as absolute good and evil, and that the prevailing moral code in any society is merely a set of ultimately arbitrary conventions.
  

Revision as of 19:30, July 11, 2025

The death of the death of absolute truth
And what about the idea that there is no absolute truth? I mean, first of all, the statement itself is a declaration of absolute truth. If you have a moral relativist friend who says, "There is no such thing as absolute truth," he's laying out a truth that he believes will never change. He should put it this way: "It is absolute truth, that there is no such thing as absolute truth." Isn't that crazy? It's self-refuting. It's like me saying, "This sentence does not exist."
— Ryan Dobson[1]

Good and evil are two opposite concepts describing actions that are moral (good) and those that are not (evil). The idea that good and evil exist is the opposite view to moral relativism (see postmodernism), which contends that there are no such things as absolute good and evil, and that the prevailing moral code in any society is merely a set of ultimately arbitrary conventions.

Most religions include a belief in the dichotomy of good and evil, often represented by two opposing figures such as God and the devil. Good can then be defined as anything in accordance with God's will. Zoroastrianism has been claimed to be the first religion to frame morality in these terms, but it is also a cornerstone of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and many other faiths. However, even within a religion where it is agreed that good and evil exist, discerning the difference between the two in specific cases tends to prove problematic. In World Scripture we read:

“ How can we define what is good and what is evil? Are there universal indicators behind, within, or consequent upon an action by which one can determine whether it was a good or an evil act? How can one tell whether a person is good or evil? The scriptures of the world's religions provide a variety of answers to these questions.[2] ”

Some humanist schools of thought also acknowledge the existence of good and evil, although in the claimed absence of a divine will it can be harder to explain their origin. Good may be defined as anything which produces happiness, or which avoids suffering, or which advances the goals of society.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Dobson
  2. ↑ World Scripture - Good and Evil