In super hero stories, the super hero is always the "hero" because that's what the people think, and the villain is evil. But have you ever thought of this. The villain thinks the superheros evil and he/she is good? There is no such thing as Good vs Evil (unless the person is truly evil). Its all about perspectives.

Actually, that-game-that-shall-not-be-named-here had a pretty good definition of evil in its lore: The Book of Sorrows. The Deep simply describes evil in terms of anti-social behavior. Or---an even better one from the late Scott Peck---evil is "malignant narcissism". IOW, Evil is a mindset that is utterly self-absorbed to the point where it cannot or will not consider the needs of others PLUS, it is willing (or even enjoys) exploiting or inflicting harm/suffering on others. Either to achieve a goal (treachery) or for the sheer enjoyment of it (sadism...."Master Bruce, some men just want to watch the world burn....." ) . That lack of empathy and lack of consideration for the good of others or the good of a group, imo, are the core of what constitutes human evil. But there has to be an edge of MALICE to in in its orientation to others (People suffering from autism can lack the ability to empathize. They are detached from others, but they do not seek to harm or exploit others....thus one cannot in good conscience consider them "evil".) From a psychiatric perspective its the[b] malignant narcissist. [/b] That person with elements of both anti-social personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. On the flip side, "good" is that ability to feel empathy for others, feel compassion for others....and a willingness to promote the greatest good for the most people, while still respecting individual autonomy. Good is much harder to define because it requires a strong sense of interpersonal boundaries...and in many cases is very situational. IOW, If I lie to you in order to get money from you to benefit myself...its an evil act. If I lie to you, in order to keep you away from someone you plan on murdering....its an act of good. If I lie to you in order to get food from you to give to someone who is starving....its morally grey. I'm doing something that is for the benefit of someone else, and is compassionante...but I'm violating your autonomy by tricking you out of something rather than giving you the freedom to decide if you wish to give or not. Plus definitions of these things change over time as societies and cultures evolve....there are some really good philosophy books on this, but I won't name them because it may be too close to religion for the mods.

Morality is a construct made by those in power to keep people under their control. The people who preach the loudest about good and evil are always corrupt snakes just trying to elevate themselves further at the expense of others.

The context of the quote, I assume, refers to a being's will and the actions taken by that will. Under such context, your rock example is ridiculous. It may be best to use the term "righteousness" rather than "good" to prevent genuine confusion and facetious arguments. I initially wanted to disagree with the quote, but I can think of arguments that would lead me to agree. I suppose specific context is required since the statement is ambiguous, as you've pointed out. I pretty well define evil as the willful denial of righteousness. We then must define righteousness to know what is being denied... Feel free to message me if you'd like to discuss further. This is a discussion I cannot really continue with any sincerity without breaking the CoC. [spoiler]Moral relativism is a cheap cop-out by those adopting Crowley's motto, "Do what thou wilt."[/spoiler]

To me "evil" is causing unecessary harm, like "torture for fun" where being "bad" is necessary harm, like you steal to survive or you need to torture for information that can be used for good. So for me an evil act might indeed be the lack of good in a situation, but also I don't rule out the possibility of someone who does evil things to be good for someone else, maybe a friend or a loyal lover who knows.

"Good" and "evil" are social constructs. You don't objectively "make sense" of good and evil. Your sense of morality is distilled into you by the environment you grew up in. They are what YOU perceive them to be. What you think is evil, another person could honestly believe to be good. Drop some truth on this lad, Voldy. - [quote]There is no good or evil. There is only power and those too weak to seek it.[/quote]

[quote] A rock certainly doesn’t contain “goodness,” so is a rock evil??[/quote] It is inert and neither good nor evil. The statement only applies to people.

Good is present within Evil. So it’s really hard to argue that it’s the absence of it.

Both good and evil are pretty arbitrary terms tbh. They don’t really mean much other than what the person using them thinks is right or wrong. When a volcano erupts and kills a bunch of animal and plant life, is that good or evil? When a star explodes, is that good or evil? When a cat chases and kills a moth, is that good or evil? None of these things involve humans, so why should they be governed by human concepts? Perhaps there are organisms involved in any of these situations who have certain rudimentary ‘concepts’ to do with pain and pleasure, but they’re not us, so we should not suppose to know what they ‘want’ from the situation or try to equate their feelings with ours.

I didn’t finish philosophy class to be dealt more philosophy. [spoiler]But my answer is no. A person might have good intentions, but be seen as bad by another person. Alternatively, everything is usually subjective, and thus what one might perceive as evil might be seen as good to another person. [/spoiler]

My argument would require me to use biblical sources, so if you want my reasoning, we have to use private messages. [spoiler]nibbles crayon[/spoiler]