behaviours whether good or bad vary in their definition by many. For instance, the banality of evil, some commit deeds that are considered 'evil' by standardised norms but completely believe their behaviour to be good. So how can you say for sure that something is 'good' or 'evil'. That would only leave good and bad intentions/behaviours.
I don't need a sophisticated response, just any discussion on the basis of what I wrote :)
Well, of course the true "evil" and "good" don't exist. War is a thing, and whoever wins always say that their opponent started first and make up bullshit about all the bad things they've done... (even though 50% of it is false).
A hacker can just decide to attack the largest data server of some really large company just to expose their crimes or just to take revenge on them for something bad they did in the past.
Edward Snowden even went head on with the FBI or CIA... and people are still debating whether he's a bad person for doing it...
Nothing is right, and nothing is wrong... the only thing you should base your actions on is whether you want the same thing done to you or not, if you were in their position.
a mutualized sense of morality is essential to fostering and sustaining social connection. That is the evolutionary and practical basis of the concept of good/evil. These words are labels for actions that are desirable/ideal vs undesirable/destructive when it comes to achieving social harmony. You may notice that without exception all objectively "good" acts are ones which benefit the society in the question, while those objectively "bad" acts, of course, bring about the opposite effect.
The supposed subjectivity of good/evil here comes from differences in perception of what is beneficial or productive in society. In reality there is one answer to what is good and what is not good for a society, yet as it happens people are prone to various miscalculations in their judgment, these being cognitive biases, faulty generalizations, etc.
In consideration of this, I would say what is truly necessary in order to evaluate good/evil is to keep in mind the bigger picture, the root of all that constitutes the purpose of our classifications, and to use this as a reference when evaluating what is right and wrong. Obviously though, and as we can see every day of our lives in social interactions on every conceivable scale in the world, people cannot easily do this, as they are prone to distortion in their own perceptions.
When an object can be measured and described in a million ways, it can often be tricky to know which measurements to attribute to what contexts and furthermore to the demands of the context.
I agree. Morality does not technically exist. People/animals who cared more about the well-being of others were more likely to pass on their genes (I mean, the offspring of an animal who cared about the well-being of its children would be far more likely to survive than the offspring of an animal that had no empathy). Morality is entirely a human construct, and everyone has a different interpretation of it.
I used to believe in moral relativity and moral grey areas. But now I do believe there is indeed good and evil. If ones existence is almost entirely antagonistic toward other life on earth, they're functionally evil. and vise versa. for example, Dahmer and Darrell Brooks are evil. just be cause they enjoyed their evil deeds does not make them less evil. That being said, it's rare to find people who are truly evil or truly good, most fall on a spectrum.