Good vs Evil. Can both really co-exist?

[KaputAngelSparklyPhobia]

If there is no Good, there is no Evil. If there is no Evil, there is no Good. So it seems, they must need each other, they do have to co-exist no matter what, but then the constant battle that has raged on ever since the dawn of mankind has come to the point that one must vanquish the other.

[Triple G]

引用自 kbiz：

I don't think your example has to do with good vs bad. You're talking about a distribution of outcomes. That's called luck. Or, better yet, probability.

Probability is entirely different - in my opinion.

It´s about a result. Which can be met, can be "better" (good) or can be "worse" (bad). It´s a way to explain it while staying objective.

Any other good or bad works the same. I just wanted to say that these don´t have to be relative to each other, because the feeling may differ, even if the difference is measured to be objectively the same.

Because i said that both terms work individually and independent from each other - more or less. Because in the other example You didn´t need to know about "bad", to feel good and vice versa. Isolate from each other as You said now. And there is no trade off, as You feel either good or bad - not both at the same time.

[Xero_Daxter]

I wouldn't say I am evil. I am an inconvenience. Like the time I put a rock in my dad's shoe.

[xAlphaStarOmegax]

引用自 Xero_Daxter：

I wouldn't say I am evil. I am an inconvenience. Like the time I put a rock in my dad's shoe.

A rock is bad, but could you imagine a lego? :/

[Xero_Daxter]

引用自 xAlphaStarOmegax：

引用自 Xero_Daxter：

I wouldn't say I am evil. I am an inconvenience. Like the time I put a rock in my dad's shoe.

A rock is bad, but could you imagine a lego? :/

If it was a Lego they would have to give me 4 death sentences just in case the first 3 didn’t work.

[kbiz]

引用自 Triple G：

引用自 kbiz：

I don't think your example has to do with good vs bad. You're talking about a distribution of outcomes. That's called luck. Or, better yet, probability.

Probability is entirely different - in my opinion.

It´s about a result. Which can be met, can be "better" (good) or can be "worse" (bad). It´s a way to explain it while staying objective.

Any other good or bad works the same. I just wanted to say that these don´t have to be relative to each other, because the feeling may differ, even if the difference is measured to be objectively the same.

Because i said that both terms work individually and independent from each other - more or less. Because in the other example You didn´t need to know about "bad", to feel good and vice versa. Isolate from each other as You said now. And there is no trade off, as You feel either good or bad - not both at the same time.

Sure, you can call the outcomes of probability good or bad like anything else. Sure, the distribution defines the range and some results are better or worse. Some will be good and some will be bad. Still relative though.

I'm talking more about morality though. For example, the Golden Rule is good - versus the alternative.

[xAlphaStarOmegax]

引用自 Xero_Daxter：

引用自 xAlphaStarOmegax：

A rock is bad, but could you imagine a lego? :/

If it was a Lego they would have to give me 4 death sentences just in case the first 3 didn’t work.

I honestly don't even know what's worse: having a toothache, an earache,  stubbing one's toe, or stepping on a Lego.

[Fire Angel]

Yin and Yang ☯️

[Triple G]

引用自 kbiz：

Sure, you can call the outcomes of probability good or bad like anything else. Sure, the distribution defines the range and some results are better or worse. Some will be good and some will be bad. Still relative though.

I'm talking more about morality though. For example, the Golden Rule is good - versus the alternative.

I understood it. But i tried it in three different ways to explain:

引用自 Triple G：

引用自 Sashie：

What makes a thing good? It makes things better for you, or your kind. But everything goes away. Therefore how can anything be good?

If You feel good about it. It´s nothing more than that. Else You need goals to "objectively" say what "good" is. But it´s subjective in any way, as You set the goal subjectively, too.

There is no rule about good or bad - it´s only a feeling. Nothing more. It doesn´t exist objectively. There is no good and bad outside of the feeling. Except:

引用自 Triple G：

Or if You believe in religion relative to the understanding of the religion of it. Or if You believe in the laws we have - relative to that. Or if You believe in the goals of any business - relative to this. Also relative to Your exceptions about something. But good isn´t relative to bad as few people would measure it that way as it´s next to impossible.

Morals exist in religion. So probably the religion tells You what You have to take as "good" - and what You have to take as "bad". In philosophy it would be ethics. But there You also need certain goal, or values. For example say: "Life is valuable", because it isn´t valuable by default. But if life is valuable - killing, or making someone´s life worse is "bad", and healing people or making someone´s life better is "good". But You need to define it first - and everything about it is subjective. If there is no one to think about "good" and "bad" - it doesn´t exist. In religion there would be some god or a higher being, which still exists and defines it - even if it may be the interpretation of a human - in the case that there is no god.

I don´t know how else to describe it any more. I pulled all my creativity for now i guess. But i´m also a bit tired... :o)

[76561199522131651]

引用自 KaputAngelSparklyPhobia：

If there is no Good, there is no Evil. If there is no Evil, there is no Good.

Elaborate.

[kbiz]

引用自 Triple G：

There is no rule about good or bad - it´s only a feeling. Nothing more. It doesn´t exist objectively. There is no good and bad outside of the feeling.

Yes, good and bad doesn't objectively exist. Those terms exist in our minds - as polar opposites - on a relative basis - defining the spectrum - or range. People won't place the same things at the same place either. Who knew.

Good can be equated to what works. Bad, the opposite. Good perhaps maximizes the success of the species. I don't know.

Good and bad? Broad terms.

[Hammer Of Evil]

i feel qualified to elaborate on this topic and probably will elect not to.

[kbiz]

引用自 Hammer Of Evil：

i feel qualified to elaborate on this topic and probably will elect not to.

C'mon. I did it. Perspective! Perspective! Perspective! Heh.

[saranacX]

引用自 Hammer Of Evil：

i feel qualified to elaborate on this topic and probably will elect not to.

But can there be a Hammer Of Evil with no Hammer Of Good?

[talemore]

He who blah shall blah in the steam of blah

[kbiz]

Words are like a babbling brook - rippling by.