Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

What are your definitions of "good" and "evil"?

Good: being generous, truly caring about others, being tolerant.

Evil: taking pleasure in others' suffering, totally lacking in empathy towards others, thinking strictly about yourself, being intolerant and racist, prone to violence towards others.

Spot-on! Thanks Michael!

Those are good definitions given by Michel.
When I think of evil in literature, I think of the characters created by James Lee Burke. They are the kind of evil that keeps me awake at night. Burke writes so beautifully, yet I can only read one of his books every few years because the level of evil of some of his characters sickens my soul.

I define good and evil as the light and the darkness. It's a spiritual thing.
And I believe the only force in the Universe is Good. People get too far away from the light.
No, I'm not as weird as I sound.

“Show me your good side
and I will show you mine

No one is intrinsically good or evil”

(From my collection of poetry: Lamentation)

The definition of good and evil can be subjective. Take kindness. How can that be a bad things? But some might take the view that you can be too kind - kind to fault - to the detriment of the receiver of that kindness.

But we can all intuitively know what is good and evil to us but that will surely be different to someone else (instead of fixating on the definition, we should try and understand the context). Characters like that described in the comment by Raymond resides mainly in fiction. For most people, I feel, we are a mishmash of a bit of good and a bit evil (a bit strong).

“If I show my good side and you show your evil side
Remember there is good and evil in everyone “

As I recall, the devil was an angel once.

H. wrote: "What are your definitions of "good" and "evil"?"

Interesting - why do you ask?

I am a Christian and I think the practice of evil is spiritual and comes from a choice we make to let evil in. Thomas Aquinas said that the pets we love go to heaven because of our love for them, and we know that our pets do good to us because of their love for us. Good, I therefore think, even in the animal kingdom, comes from love.

I wonder if we do good to others because of love for our fellow man or because it is the right thing to do? Are they the same thing?

"Fairytales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already because it is in the world already. What fairytales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of evil.

The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairytale provides is a St. George to kill the dragon."

C.K. Chesterton (Writer/Philosopher/Poet) 1874 - 1936

Thoughts, feelings and deeds that are good come from love...those that are evil come from hate, as in racism. Racism is a perversion of the innate instinct to accept another person as one would accept oneself. The hater has not examined himself for ultimate self-acceptance--and it always shows, often at the expense of another.

Jim wrote: ""Fairytales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already because it is in the world already. What fairytales give the child is his first clear idea of the po..."

I think good and evil are white-washed today and this applies to fairy tales. When I was a little, the Boy Who Cried Wolf got eaten, not reformed, and the original Grim's Fairy tales are quite terrifying. Goodness me, you should read what happens in Cinderella!

Evil deed is at times in the eye of the beholder for the individual wholly responsible for it may not see it as such, possibly due to lack of conscience and empathy. This kind of abnormal behaviour takes central role in my crime fiction series and describes how the dastardly criminal gang would joke and laugh after each killing. They often enact their role while relaxing in their home environment. Though a work of fiction, it is not far removed from real life.
We all know what goodness is and therefore needs no further definition. A good act is obvious to anyone lucky enough to be at the receiving end.

Jim wrote: ""Fairytales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already because it is in the world already. What fairytales give the child is his first clear idea of the po..."

Speaking of fairytales, in most of them, the evil is ugly and the good beautiful. Witches are portrayed as ugly old women, especially in films. The exception I can think of is Beauty and the Beast where the ugly is in fact good.
In Sleeping Beauty, the curse is laid by a fairy who was forgotten when the invitations were sent. Not a witch, as she is often portrayed. As a Fairy, she would not have been ugly.
But these fairytales instil in our children that ugly is evil. This is not a good thing.

As writers are often told, the evil person doesn't believe he/she is evil. The man who beats his children when they misbehave thinks he's doing the right thing in teaching them to behave.
Also, ignorance can lead people to perform acts that many would think of as evil. Ignorance of the long-term consequences. They might think it does no harm because they see nothing bad happening immediately.
Someone mentioned lack of empathy as being evil, but that is not something we have a choice about. One can strive for it, and appreciate someone else's problems and not actually feel their emotions, as a true empath does. That the person doesn't actually feel the emotions does not mean they are evil. Be careful not to confuse empathy with sympathy.
Good, on the other hand is striving to leave the world in a better position than you entered it. But be careful, evil can masquerade as good. But that's another discussion.

Too many people, after behaving badly, try to excuse their conduct or words by the old 'the Devil made me do it'. No, the Devil didn't make you do it. First, I don't believe in the Devil or God or angels, as I am an atheist and humanist. You can't be influenced by someone that doesn't exist, unless you purposely choose to blame that someone in order not to recognize your own failing. Second, we HAVE to own our actions and words if we want to truly improve ourselves. As for ignorance being an excuse for having committed evil, then by using that defence, all those lynching mobs and the likes of the Salem Puritans who executed innocent people for supposed 'sorcery' should get a free pass on strength of 'ignorance'? NO! Let's stop finding excuses (mostly of the religious kind) to avoid responsibility for our actions or words. If your words make somebody else cry or you refuse to help someone in danger or distress, then don't blame the Devil for it! You did it! For me, refusing to acknowledge responsibility for our acts or words or ignoring what we did or didn't do, is one reason why so much 'evil' is committed on this World. Stop playing semantics and argue fancy phylosophical points in order to excuse bad conduct! If you did something wrong, then own it and try to improve yourself by learning your lesson instead of saying 'oh, I let the Devil get into me'.

Thanks Raymond! I agree. What do you think it is about Burke's evil characters that makes them so disturbing?

Thanks Margaret! I didn't know that about Acquinas! I would love to be with my dogs (Freddy and Goldie) once again.

I asked the question about good and evil because I believe that experiencing these and understanding them is why we are here. We are tasting the Biblical "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil."

Thanks Jim! I hope Chesterton is right. What bothers me is that there is so much evil in the world. If all children long to defeat evil, then only ignorance or misunderstanding can account for the many who become adults embracing evil.

Jim wrote: ""Fairytales do not give the child the idea of the evil or the ugly; that is in the child already because it is in the world already. What fairytales give the child is his first clear idea of the po..."

If Chesterton is right, then an author who can create a very credible evil character and orchestrate, in a reasonable way, its defeat will have a very successful book. There are various motives for evil: gain, jealousy, hate, etc. I think that the motive that makes evil most sinister is evil for the sake of evil. That's the purest kind of evil and it makes no sense at all. Then there is power -- the great magnifier of both good and evil. Combine these with the unknown, the darkness and you've got something very disturbing. Now, make it extremely ugly and repulsive to sight, hearing and smell and you've got a high-valence character indeed.

These comments all give me something to think about. How much evil do I want in my novel, characters, and plot? Where does that evil come from? Do they know they are doing evil or think they are doing good? Can the evil be overcome by good?
Is the pretty ugly, and the evil pretty? Is something good like love, empathy, or understanding taken too far where it cripples people because they aren't allowed to experience the results of their decisions negative and maybe even evil? Can the evil be overcome by good or is the good overcome by evil? Lots to think about. Thanks.

This string appears to me to be leaning towards seeing good and evil as a binary sort of thing. For the writer, I think the trick is to write good to evil as a continuum and perhaps not even a one dimensional continuum. It is also important to capture the impact of culture on the definition of good to evil.

Michel wrote: "Too many people, after behaving badly, try to excuse their conduct or words by the old 'the Devil made me do it'. No, the Devil didn't make you do it. First, I don't believe in the Devil or God or ..."

Even if you believe in God and the Devil, you still have the choice. You can do what the Devil prompts or reject it. It's always the individual's responsibility.

V.M. wrote: "Michel wrote: "Too many people, after behaving badly, try to excuse their conduct or words by the old 'the Devil made me do it'. No, the Devil didn't make you do it. First, I don't believe in the D..."

You make an excellent point, V.M.

"Don't tell me about your God with words. Show me about your God with your actions."
Steve Maracoli (Author/Radio Commentator) 1975 - Still Living

H. wrote: "Thanks Raymond! I agree. What do you think it is about Burke's evil characters that makes them so disturbing?"

That is an excellent question, Hank. I will have to give that some thought. Could it be their complete lack of compassion? Or their remorseless intent to harm the innocent?

I'm writing today. When I have more time, I am going to explore this more.

There is no good and evil just as there is no black and white. There are only infinite shades of gray. Most people who we think as evil are seldom evil in their own eyes. Adolf Hitler did not put Europe to the Sword, kill over 30 million people (no one knows for sure), and took Germany down the drain because he said to himself I am a bad evil bastard who just wants to screw the world. He did it because he actually believe that was the only way to save Germany after WWI. evil. Joseph Stalin may have killed more of his own people than Hitler, but you seldom see the bad press associated with him as with The Fuhrer. In my books there is evil, but the people do not think of themselves as. evil. They think of themselves as doing what is necessary for the situation. Judgements of good and evil are made by historians, theologians, and people who win wars.

Wilbur wrote: "There is no good and evil just as there is no black and white. There are only infinite shades of gray. Most people who we think as evil are seldom evil in their own eyes. Adolf Hitler did not put E..."

Well said!

Speaking generally, I think we all would agree that evil is anything that threatens to harm or kill us and that good would be its opposite. Our reactions to evil are fight, flight or suffer. Regardless of our choice, I think we would feel some degree of fear.
Psychological research has established that fear is a stronger motive than any other. Maslow's hierarchy of needs begins with physiological things -- things necessary for survival. We consider those things to be good. So, it would be fair to say that good is the quality attributed to things that support life –- things that support the acquisition of critically needed things. Note that good does not exist without need and the greater the need, the greater the goodness of that which satisfies it. Food isn’t good unless a person is hungry. Food is marvelously good if one is starving. The more necessary something is for life, the greater its goodness.
Evil, then, would be the quality attributed to things that bring death – things that obstruct the acquisition of critically needed things. The more necessary something is to life, the greater the evil of obstructing its acquisition. Even greater evil is associated with direct attack upon life itself, such as injury and killing.

Wilbur is right. In life, good and evil are mixed. We have neither light nor dark but a blend.

I define an evil person as one whose actions are not affected by others feelings. They show no empathy, compassion, love, or remorse. They can sleep at night and live with their actions no matter how horrible. An evil person is happiest bringing despair to others. A good person can do something bad but regret their actions. They feel emotion and care for others.

Thanks K.C. We've all seen them in action. Astonishing!

H. wrote: "Speaking generally, I think we all would agree that evil is anything that threatens to harm or kill us and that good would be its opposite. Our reactions to evil are fight, flight or suffer. Regard..."
You are right. I think good and evil are often intertwined and they both have a spectrum. Evil is certainly about harm to others whereas good builds bonds between people.
According to Aristotle, at its "best", Evil is the result of humankind losing control of reason and at its "worst" it is about consciously deciding to break bonds between people who know or love each other. Greed is at the "best" end while treachery is the worst evil.
It is possibly for Evil people to do good things and vice versa. I think it is a state of mind.

Wow, that made me think. I must apologise for the length of my answer but I quickly realised that there was no answer.

You cannot define good or evil. They are concepts, labels that mean nothing.

First, to even consider the idea, you need to define better.

Do we mean as a group, or a nation or an individual?

Then do we mean how we feel, how others think?

Then we have to consider which of the above is correct?

So examples.

A serial killer may see no wrong in his actions. He is an angel of the lord, so is he evil? (ask the serial killer, not the victim's families)
Germany / Japans actions during the war were for the good of the people. Were they evil? (ask the survivors of the German / Japanese camps)
A child stomps on Insects? Is that evil? (Happens every day)
An individual gives to a church that promotes child sex? Is that evil? (Free love in the sixties practised such actions)
A farmer slaughters animals for food? Is that evil? (ask a passionate vegan)
An individual practises same-gender sex. Is that evil? (check the legality of such actions worldwide in religion and law up until recently)
And finally, to save on the biggest argument of all I won't go down the path of racism in every colour and culture that has ever existed on this planet, not just the current groupings.

And even if you're sure of that answer, would everyone agree with you...

Times change, countries changes, views change, people change constantly. There is no solid basis for a view on the reality of right and wrong.

Finally, a classic example is oft used in Ethics.

If you could go back in time, would you kill Hitler as a baby?

If yes … so it is acceptable to kill an innocent baby?
If no … You would let that monster live knowing what he will do?

Either choice is evil, depending on who you ask.

Great conversation. Clearly people who inflict enormous suffering on others have little or no capacity to question their own motives. And I think they are totally convinced they are doing good. They see themselves as destroyers of evil in other people. It's always struck me that in attacking evil, Jesus turned his greatest fury on the most self-righteous religious leaders. He seemed to confront them with a great paradox: The greatest evil is to label others as evil.

Brian wrote: "Great conversation. Clearly people who inflict enormous suffering on others have little or no capacity to question their own motives. And I think they are totally convinced they are doing good. The..."

But where would we be without labels?

We need labels to define things / pigeonhole them and make life easier.

The examples listed by Douglas in message 30 brought to mind a quote from one of William Shakespeare's famous plays.

"Nothing is neither good nor bad. Thinking makes it so"
(Hamlet)

As it has been said, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". The same could be said regarding good and evil.
"one man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter"

Imagine: You're out for a jog along a wooded path and encounter a mother bear with her cub. She growls and advances toward you. You would understandably feel fear. This does not make her an evil bear. She fears that you might be a threat to her cub and is reacting to your presence.

This doesn't answer your original question; it merely provides more fodder for discussion.

I would suggest that an evil act is something performed willfully to the detriment of others, but does that make the person that performs the action "evil"? Life is filled with occasions where wrongs are performed for the right reasons. These might simply be summed up as "rationalizations for wrongdoings" by some, while others would describe them as "extenuating circumstances".

So perhaps evil is wantonly performing acts of mayhem and destruction and reveling in the effects, but even that is open to interpretation.

Ultimately, (in an attempt to *actually* answer your question) if a book broaches the topic, it is the author's responsibility to relay the story in such a way that the reader willingly conforms, or at least suspends their personal beliefs temporarily, to how it's being portrayed. The concept is (somewhat) malleable and based on context and perspective.

Les Miserables is a beautiful example. I highly recommend it.

H. wrote: "What are your definitions of "good" and "evil"?"

"Good" is "any action whose end result is to make the Universe MORE stable".

"Evil" is "any action whose end result is to make the Universe LESS stable".

That is the most general definition. There are equivalent statements, but they require understanding all sentients in the Universe are eternal beings.

"Good" is "any action whose end result is to INCREASE the total amount of happiness in the Universe".

"Evil" is "any action whose end result is to DECREASE the total amount of happiness in the Universe".

Note this definition allows for punishment, TEMPORARILY making somebody unhappy so he can be happier in the long run.

The above statements can be proven scientifically, would you believe. In the laboratory, by construction of a soul-detector and finally confirming something we have all known in our guts all along, that we are eternal beings with eternal souls and always have been.

And this means that in the end, "good" and "evil" are NOT relative to anything. "Good" and "evil" are ABSOLUTES, harder than iron, and provable by scientific experiment.

I just published a book on this exact subject. It is very short, very easy to read, completely, entirely FREE, and explains my answers above in precise detail.

The Nine Point Five Theses: The Existence Of Souls Deduced By The Scientific Method

Hmm, let me post some of my book description from my Amazon page.

Do you want to know what’s going to happen to you when you die? I can show you the logically deduced answer.

Do you want to know if you really, truly do have a soul? Do you want to know what you will experience in the afterlife? Do you want to know where your soul goes after the afterlife? Analytical chemist Jeff Corkern has thirty years’ experience studying cause and effect. Now he shows how the scientific method and basic principles of logic prove beyond any doubt that the human soul is real.

THE NINE POINT FIVE THESES: THE EXISTENCE OF SOULS DEDUCED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD conclusively demonstrates human beings—in fact, all the Universe’s sentients—are eternal beings with eternal souls and always have been. This demonstration is done in strict accordance with the scientific method, using cold, objective logic and reason, and without any demand for faith or citing one religious text, using plain, everyday language. When you have finished this book, you will know what is going to happen to you when you die. And that death is nothing to be feared (for good people) and never has been.

In THE NINE POINT FIVE THESES: THE EXISTENCE OF SOULS DEDUCED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD you’ll discover:
• That you and all the other sentients in the Universe must be eternal beings with eternal souls, for a profoundly practical, logical reason: It keeps you from blowing the Universe the Hell up.
• That scientific detection of souls and reincarnation will lead to the absolute, utter, permanent, irrevocable destruction of all evil on Earth.
• The correct definition of good and evil—that good, moral behavior is smart behavior, and evil behavior is stupid behavior
• That you and all the other sentients in the Universe reincarnate.
• One possible way of building a soul detector, an electronic gadget that can detect souls.
• That your life and everyone else’s has meaning, meaning like you wouldn’t believe, all the meaning you could ever want.
• That certain types of animals have souls too, and the profound reason this is so.
• That you have been acting, all your life, like you have a soul—whether you believe you do or not.
• That the meaning of life—something that has been argued about since humans first appeared on Earth—is to get smarter.
• That you and all the other sentients in the Universe have totally free will.
• That the Universe’s purpose is to evolve intelligent sentients.
• That there is a negative relationship between emotion drugs and intelligence.

This book will prove to you, in clear, everyday language and with simple logic all of these things, as well as what will happen to you when you die. And afterwards.

The love of God is a law of physics.

That statement will smash the entire world, one day.

Jeffrey wrote: "H. wrote: "What are your definitions of "good" and "evil"?"

"Good" is "any action whose end result is to make the Universe MORE stable".

"Evil" is "any action whose end result is to make the Univ..."

So Jeffrey you are pushing an agenda and a pamphlet?

Have you considered going around the doors, it works well for Jehovah Witnesses?

I don't agree with any of the definition here. For me “Good and Evil” can only be defined by our cultural and biological evolution. And as we know it is nearly impossible to understand the “instinct” or “Motives” of any given action acted by a person.

Sajid wrote: "I don't agree with any of the definition here. For me “Good and Evil” can only be defined by our cultural and biological evolution. And as we know it is nearly impossible to understand the “instinc..."

Sajid I find I could not agree with you more, you have put the issue and lack of solution down perfectly :)

We can discuss it by elaborating my point.

Like beauty and truth, good and evil are in the eye of the beholder. What is good and evil also changes over time. IN 1100, the pope said it was good to slaughter every Saracens they could find in the holy land. The people of the middle east, especially those believers of Islam, still remember that one. We still suffer with its memory.