Can you have good without evil?

Depends on how you look at it. I mean, what is evil exactly? I like the idea that evil is really just the absence of good. It doesn't actually create anything. Whenever it is completely present, it's like a virus that destroys the host before it can spread. It only destroys. In that case, it's kind of like saying "Can we have air without vacuum?" Absolutely. Evil doesn't make good possible, it just shows where good isn't.

So kinda, the answer is yes - With infinite good, there wouldn't be any evil. With infinite evil, there would simply be nothing.

Or I could have just pulled all that out of my ass after taking way too many philosophy and theology classes. Your choice.

Nothing exists unless the opposite also exists.

In a utopian society where we all got along and put hatred and differences aside it might be possible. MIGHT! We're a LONG way from that right now.

If we wipe away what we know that is evil now, the standards of what is evil will change, however it won't be true evil, it would just be not good.

We can have good without evil, but not in this lifetime.

Conversely, there cannot be evil without good as evil is essentially the absence of good.

This is something I could debate of DAYS on!

The ethical balance of Good vs. Evil. - Which is worse being a coward or over-confident? both can have negative affects- and in a moment when needed the most, both can be deadly. Or Being over sensitive or having a temper?

Character: What do you believe is right or wrong? There must be a genuine self-awareness of who you are at your very core.

Values: Values are the fundamental principles or rules when lived by make you "ethical" or not. You must have deeply-held core values that show themselves visibly in the everyday moral decisions you make.

Perspective: Perspective prevents you from leaning to one extreme or another. Having an ethical perspective requires the ability to be flexible in interpreting and analyzing things morally.

Responsibility: Ethically balanced people accept responsibility for their ethical shortcomings and make a genuine effort to change for the better. It is more than blame. It is an effort to do what it takes to change and move forward.

What type of Ethical/Moral person are YOU?

SGT (Join to see) - For good to be diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain of its original nature as long as it exists at all. For no matter what kind or however insignificant a thing may be, the good which is its "nature" cannot be destroyed without the thing itself being destroyed. There is good reason, therefore, to praise an uncorrupted thing, and if it were indeed an incorruptible thing which could not be destroyed, it would doubtless be all the more worthy of praise. When, however, a thing is corrupted, its corruption is an evil because it is, by just so much, a privation of the good. Where there is no privation of the good, there is no evil. Where there is evil, there is a corresponding diminution of the good. As long, then, as a thing is being corrupted, there is good in it of which it is being deprived; and in this process, if something of its being remains that cannot be further corrupted, this will then be an incorruptible entity, and to this great good it will have come through the process of corruption. But even if the corruption is not arrested, it still does not cease having some good of which it cannot be further deprived. If, however, the corruption comes to be total and entire, there is no good left either, because it is no longer an entity at all. Wherefore corruption cannot consume the good without also consuming the thing itself. Every actual entity is therefore good; a greater good if it cannot be corrupted, a lesser good if it can be. Yet only the foolish and unknowing can deny that it is still good even when corrupted. Whenever a thing is consumed by corruption, not even the corruption remains, for it is nothing in itself, having no subsistent being in which to exist. From this it follows that there is nothing to be called evil if there is nothing good. A good that wholly lacks an evil aspect is entirely good. Where there is some evil in a thing, its good is defective or defectible. Thus there can be no evil where there is no good. This leads us to a surprising conclusion: that, since every being, in so far as it is a being, is good, if we then say that a defective thing is bad, it would seem to mean that we are saying that what is evil is good, that only what is good is ever evil and that there is no evil apart from something good. This is because every actual entity is good. Nothing evil exists in itself, but only as an evil aspect of some actual entity. Therefore, there can be nothing evil except something good. Absurd as this sounds, nevertheless the logical connections of the argument compel us to it as inevitable.

From http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/346aug.html

Good and evil are constructs that people use to explain why other people (or themselves) act in certain ways or do certain things. There is no good OR evil. People do bad things. People do good things. Neither is dependent on the other.

I voted no ... doesn't seem possible to me that you could have one without the other. But I will do you one better: if everyone was good (meaning there was no evil) ... would it even be called good? Wouldn't it just be the way people are?

SPC Charles Brown
SGT (Join to see)
TSgt Hunter Logan

Good is a point of view. There are no moral absolutes. It isn't black and white, only shades of gray.

@SPC Charles Brown Since this is your topic: Define Good and Evil