Ship of Fools: The opposite of evil

Thread: The opposite of evil Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024138

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Everyone would probably agree that the opposite of good is bad. You could say that the words represent a range from "very good" to "very bad" with a lot of places in between. But isn't evil generally held to be the very worst of bad?

I have searched many definitions of the above words and have found no word that could be the expression of the opposite of evil. Virtue seems to come closest but it has many other applications that allow the same range as that between good and bad. Any suggestions?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Holy?

Love?

Light?

God is love in whom there is no darkness at all.....

Trouble arises I spose when evil is just defined as the absence of Good? (as many of the early church fathers did)

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Trouble arises I spose when evil is just defined as the absence of Good?

Why? Or how so?

[ 06. November 2012, 01:03: Message edited by: Ruudy ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Is the absence of something definable? Is it an entity in itself or is it only defined by something which it is not?

Bit like the definitions of atheism.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

"Good and evil" is used as a pairing just as often as "good and bad" is. Eg you would say "the battle between good and evil", not good and bad.

I don't think English provides us with neat pairings, what with the horribly tangled etymology of having nicked words from French, Norse and Germanic origins just to highlight the largest sources.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

The normative pairings we run into most often are good/bad, right/wrong, just/unjust, and good/evil. I think the problem is that the two "goods" in good/bad and in good/evil are different things. But that doesn't mean that good/evil is somehow not valid.

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is the absence of something definable?

Darkness is the absence of light?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Yeah [Smile]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is the absence of something definable?
Darkness is the absence of light?

A vacuum is the absence of matter.
Despair is the absence of hope.

[ 06. November 2012, 05:13: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :

Early Church Fathers 1, Postmodernists 0

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is the absence of something definable? Is it an entity in itself or is it only defined by something which it is not?

Bit like the definitions of atheism.

The absence of something is definable. Absolute 0 or -273°C is the absence of any molecular activity, just stopped. It is the absence of heat.

In some other frames, the absence of things is more difficult. The speed of light is a constant and as fast as anything can go, so complete rest and non-movement is considered the opposite I suppose, except, what is relative to what? Like if I'm on an airplane, and sitting, someone sitting opposite me is not moving and is a rest, but to someone sitting on the ground I'm not at rest, I'm moving say 350 mph. But the person on the ground is moving as the earth moves in rotation and orbit.

I think we get tangled with the wrong comparison frame sometimes, and think about all the various comparisons that are possible, like on the airplane. When the real comparison is more like absolute 0.

I find myself paraphrasing and adapting CS Lewis' ideas on this. That there is God and there is only Good possible at the one end. At the other, is everything that is non-God. Thus, the absence of things that are of God is bad or evil. The problem arises in that us humans have the terrible capacity to argue ourselves into ideas such as things that are bad are good. That evil is of God. Even when it is rather obvious. (or at least I do)

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

Thanks for the thoughts but I haven't seen anything that is comparable to evil on the good side. You can't be just a little bit evil as you can be a little bit good. Good is, essentially, a comparative not an absolute.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Maybe the trouble comes in because evil is neither a pure thing-in-itself, as good can be, nor a simple absence. It is rather a corruption of something originally good, and the remaining good elements in it are what give it its power and peculiar horror. Like seeing a spider with a human face--so much worse than an ordinary spider, however scary.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
The normative pairings we run into most often are good/bad, right/wrong, just/unjust, and good/evil. I think the problem is that the two "goods" in good/bad and in good/evil are different things.

Makes sense to me. A good apple pie is tasty, but not moral. A good king doesn't have to be saintly, he has to be a just and competent ruler.

Wasn't Henry VI both pretty close to a saint and one of the worst kings England has ever had ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Thanks for the thoughts but I haven't seen anything that is comparable to evil on the good side. You can't be just a little bit evil as you can be a little bit good. Good is, essentially, a comparative not an absolute.

IB, it's an interesting topic if you love words like so many of us here do.

However, I don't particularly agree with your understanding of the word of evil as "the very worst of bad".

"Evil" is a word used to place emphasis. On a spectrum of moral goodness "evil" is worse than "bad".

"Evil" means profoundly immoral (without morals), malevolent (badly willed), or depraved (completely crooked). But it doesn't always tell us just how bad or whether something is actually the worst or not. This is shown by the fact that we often need to use/add emphasizers such as "pure evil" or "totally evil" or "completely evil" or "absolutely evil" to stress the grade of evil we are talking about. Some things are more evil than others.

Like so many words, it may not be possible to come up with an exact opposite. Words for which there are opposites are somewhat limited.

Since the meaning of evil (unlike bad) is so tied up in moral gradation rather than other qualities, I would probably go with "benevolent" if forced to pick an opposite.

Posted by Ruudy (# 3939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
T... the two "goods" in good/bad and in good/evil are different things..

It occurs to me that the former is usually an adjective and the latter is usually a noun.

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :

The opposite of evil is "live" because live is evil spelled backwards. This means that your twin is always in the mirror; if you do evil, your good twin looks back at you, and if you do good, your evil twin looks back at you.
But you only see this if you are live. As far as I know!

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious Beachcomber
The opposite of evil is "live" because live is evil spelled backwards.

Now that's an interesting thought and probably a good sermon starter.

I also like it because I have been trying to suggest that the true test of "good" is anything that creates, sustains or enhances life. So do you pronounce live with a short or a long i?

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :

Yes, of course I do; is there a third choice? [Confused]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0