Relative good vs relative evil. Should they exist ( for now)?

[Sharp_Kid]

So everything is action and reaction (or an analogy thereof)?
I can't disagree in principle, but if that's your point why bother to begin the thread questioning good and bad?
Let's begin the discussion again with hot and cold.
Although that doesn't work, because cold is just the absense of heat, in which case we're back to the point about whether the absense of good acts is in itself bad and we still need a relative scale because what we consider hot here in the UK may not be considered hot by an African chap.
But that's my point really.
Have I made that more confusing?

[Sharp_Kid]

Oh, and of course positive and negative charge existed before we had the capabailities to prove their existense, otherwise the observable actions and reactions which led us to investigate their existense wouldn't have been observable.

[DistantCelt]

Originally Posted by Sharp_Kid

So everything is action and reaction (or an analogy thereof)?
I can't disagree in principle, but if that's your point why bother to begin the thread questioning good and bad?
Let's begin the discussion again with hot and cold.
Although that doesn't work, because cold is just the absense of heat, in which case we're back to the point about whether the absense of good acts is in itself bad and we still need a relative scale because what we consider hot here in the UK may not be considered hot by an African chap.
But that's my point really.
Have I made that more confusing?

My point is, there is no such thing as good and bad. There are only actions and its consequences. There is no inherent meaning to anything in this universe. The only meaning there is, is what you put in it. To me, the shroud of Turin is just an old smelly piece of yarn. To some it is a holy relic. To others, its a historical artifact. There is no inherent meaning in that object- each one of us puts a meaning into it.
Which means, there is no such thing as good or bad. Only actions and its reactions. If the reaction is desirable, the action must be performed. If the reaction is undersirable, the action must not be performed. There is no question of 'good and bad', because good and bad ultimately does not exist. hell, in just one species ( us humans) the definition of whats good and whats bad fluctuates wildly. But one thing that does not change or cannot be escaped is causality- action and its reaction(s)


As far as existence goes,existence and non-existance are very much like good and bad. Neither can be defined without knowledge of the other. Therefore, neither can exist on its own. Which leads to the conclusion that 'before existance, there was neither non existance'. Yes, i know it is quite a thing to wrap your mind around but it does make sense.

PS: Dont ask me ' well if before existance there was no non-existance, what was there ?' For i have no idea. Havnt contemplated that far out.

[Sharp_Kid]

I would say that the existence and non existence question you posed is different because our perception of pre-universal existence is based on total speculation and also is dependent on our perception that time is linear.

But in principle, what we're discussing here is whether the absense of one definitive state or item qualifies as the presence of another definitive state or item and whether that applies to such entities as bad and good, positive and negative, where a neutral state also applies.
That was what I tried to say in the beginning.

Disregard the fact that we have different levels of perception of good and bad and consider for one moment a single entity who is observing positive and negative charges.
He sees a particle of neutral charge.
He sees a particle of positive charge.
He sees no negativley charged particles.
Does this then cause the positive charge on the second particle not to exist?

Similarly:
Our same observer sees someone walk past an old lady, heavily laden with shopping bags, at the side of a road she obviously wishes to cross (which he considers to be a neutral act (no bad was done and yet no good was done)).
He then observes someone help the old lady across the street with her shopping (which he considers to be a good act).
He does not observe anyone push the old lady under a truck and steal her garlic bread (which he considers bad).
Does the lack of a bad person make the good person neutral?

[DistantCelt]

Our same observer sees someone walk past an old lady, heavily laden with shopping bags, at the side of a road she obviously wishes to cross (which he considers to be a neutral act (no bad was done and yet no good was done)).
He then observes someone help the old lady across the street with her shopping (which he considers to be a good act).
He does not observe anyone push the old lady under a truck and steal her garlic bread (which he considers bad).
Does the lack of a bad person make the good person neutral?

The lack of 'good', ie, lets say one doesnt know what 'good' is, makes all those scenarios simple action-reaction chains. Not inherently good or bad. For good and bad are subjective. The action and its reaction exists independent of those two relative and inter-dependent terms ( good and bad) but the reason for someone to do one particular action and not another has ultimately nothing to do with good or bad. Either a decision is instinctive or it is well thought out. Instinctive decisions are ultimately impulsive and reactionary- it may be my instinct to help someone across the road and it would be the instict of Ted Bundy to push that someone in front of oncomming traffic.
When a decision is thought out, the only thing that influences its execution is the consequences for that decision and whether one wants those consequences to happen or not.

[Sharp_Kid]

I completely and utterly agree with you, but relative good and relative bad are only worth discussing at all if there is a value set to measure them against, otherwise nothing exists within our frame of reference because there is no frame of reference for it to exist within.
My point is, and has been, if we're going to name and discuss good and bad, we need to give them values and reference points.
If we remove those, there is nothing to discuss and this discussion is about nothing, which will undoubtedly cause our minds to melt and the devil will own our souls for all eternity, Amen.