Good and evil are made-up, arbitrary concepts developed by humanity from a highly subjective standpoint.

nope they are not

Why is that?

Ok, all right then give me an example when hurting an innocent person in any way without their express consent would be considered "good".

Or give me an example where helping an old lady with her groceries would be considered "evil".

This is a semantics discussion, everyone has their own idea of what those words even mean.

The former is evil from a human perspective, the latter is good. But that's the extent of it. Sure, the concepts exist, but only within our society/culture, and what they mean has also changed significantly in just a few thousand years.

Also, the term 'innocent' is also highly subjective, considering how different our standards are; as there are for example cultures that exist today where a woman who was raped could be executed for commiting 'adultery'.

Torturing a person who's innocent of a crime to "get it out of them" is evil, no matter what way you spin it. Lion killing a gazelle is necessary evil. Shooting at an enemy in a war is a far-stretched necessary evil.

Executing a woman for being raped is evil, and society which does that is evil because they are hurting an innocent person, no matter which way you spin it.

Sure you can say that you are OK with doing evil - I'm not judging you here. Just don't pretend that people hurting other people could ever be on a moral high ground if we had different society, because that's simply not true.

EDIT. Sh!t, torturing ANY person, EVER is evil, no matter where or when it happens.

how can you compare the lion gazelle thing with a human torturing another human ? and call the killing of the gazelle a necessary evil. that is too presumptuous! Without a human mind to judge the lion would never be considered as evil but as a meat eating hunter product of millions of years of evolution, and the same goes of course for ze humans and their brains. i belief in the complexity of what is called humanity the act of torture could be considered a similar case as the lion gazelle topic. It is needs what's beyond the behavior .. in all objective joy ....Sure we have a society these days, but even then, in some parts of society torture is considered a means of gaining information... though we all condemn the sadist, the one raised with a broken mind or soul which society did not recognize in a proper way so he could unleash his needs upon the careless... is that evil ? Or is the society at fault here?

The fact that the lion and the gazelle don't ever think about it doesn't mean that one killing the other could EVER, under any circumstances be considered GOOD. Necessary evil, yes.

I think that you people here just lack this crucial idea of "necessary evil". Sometimes "evil" things have to be done, there is no doubt about it. What I stand firmly against though is people who are not only set on doing "evil" things, but also strangely set on making those deeds seem "good" in the eyes of others. Conscience kicking in?

I never said I was okay with 'doing evil', not in any way. I'm very much against doing 'evil', I was just saying that it's OUR concept, there is no empirical truth to it. And a lion killing a gazelle has nothing to do with evil, it's nature. There is no good and evil to it. Good and evil are attributes that we apply to things. They exist in our heads, and that's it. That's how I would personally define it, and I don't believe any argument would change that.


Indeed!

to me this is just a discussion, your whole parading about you, yourself and the others seem to indicate something quite different then what you are proclaiming friend ;-)

i certainly won't disagree with you on what you consider to be as evil. Torture in its self and other vile acts are indeed best considered evil

And believe me, I'm not trying to change your point of view here. Just presenting mine like in the forums of old. I swear nowadays it seems everyone is taking every post personally over the internet.

Okee-dokkee
(dang this silly text based medium, it can be so confusing sometimes :))

To side step the issue of semantics, I will just give my own definition of morality. You really can't completely argue against it since it's mine, only speaking for myself. But if you want to discuss the particulars of my concept, feel free. Just don't quote me a dictionary entry or anything.

"Moral" or "good"(I hate how "good" has come to mean moral) is benefiting sentience, both yours and others.
This concept is very hard to explain, but I think when you do hurtful things, you become more simple. And when you help others with the intent to help, you become more complex, more sentient usually. The intent matters as much as the effect, but you can't just say "well I tried", it's the true intent only you know that matters. This is a definition that rather stands outside of any judgement.

And the ethics of the society you grow up in matter too, because that informs the intent.

It's kind of like my definition of "justice". It's not punishment for wrongdoing IMO. "justice" is acting in a way that is best for the most morale future, the best benefit for sentient beings.

Just wanted to say: from your words, you seem like a very wise person. :)