Good and Evil - Are there objective values?

[Poet]

Do you think there are objective values? That we can for instance say that something is good or evil. Or do you think all values are subjective and just created by human will? To give you an example: Most people would say that killing another human being is evil. Still there might be people which think the exact opposite (for instance killing during war is ethically justified and therefore good etc.). Can we say that these people are wrong with their opinion? I think the LOO actually would state that there are no objective values in creation/nature. Values only come into existence because human beings create them, e.g. when I believe killing others is evil.

So the LOO is also in contrary to the teachings of the church which says there is natural law, that is objective values which are hidden in nature. Above I added a video of Graham Hancock who also discusses this question.

[Aion]

I believe they are words attempting to express an idea.

The objective realities are the words. The word "evil" is real. The word "good" is real. The word evil has a particular definition, as does the word good.

What is subjective is the application of the words. So, evil exists as an idea, a concept and a word, but what it is applied to is subject to the individual use. The same is true for good.

The difficulty comes in defining the conditions for good and for evil.

[Minyatur]

It's all about perspective just like many-ness is in the first place. One exploring different ways of seeing things through living different circumstances.

[Reaper]

What you are asking for is people's subjective opinion on objective values. If objective values exist, they can only be defined subjectively, and therefore never truly defined.

[Raz]

I think good and evil is just a word/concept we as a me use for coping with what is misunderstood. it´s all one entity exploring diversity within this density.

[Diana]

I really liked these questions from Hancock:

"Does the action that I am about to take transgress on the sovereignty of others? Does the action I am about to take add even one iota to the misery in the world, or does it reduce it?"

I am not a proponent of good/evil, right/wrong. Neither do I see myself in the karmic soup, helping others by providing catalyst. If I do, it is without intention, and I avoid involvement beyond listening. So from my point of view, though it is dubious why I am here, while I'm here I want to leave the least footprint of harm that I can. I don't see this as "good' or "right." It's just what I feel compelled to do and I conjecture it is because causing harm slows, debilitates, and hampers the perpetuation of life in its full potential. If an entity must suffer as part of a path in order to have negative experience, I don't see that as life in its full potential. I see that as a sidetrack to experience something ephemeral which may lead to certain realizations. I have yet to hear one channeled message where an alleged higher being is seeking negative and suffering experiences. That seems part of the duality here, as Hancock said, in learning to make choices, and aligns with what Ra said about 3D and free will. And the negative path, according to Ra, will only take an entity so far.

[Minyatur]

I really liked these questions from Hancock:

"Does the action that I am about to take transgress on the sovereignty of others? Does the action I am about to take add even one iota to the misery in the world, or does it reduce it?"

I am not a proponent of good/evil, right/wrong. Neither do I see myself in the karmic soup, helping others by providing catalyst. If I do, it is without intention, and I avoid involvement beyond listening. So from my point of view, though it is dubious why I am here, while I'm here I want to leave the least footprint of harm that I can. I don't see this as "good' or "right." It's just what I feel compelled to do and I conjecture it is because causing harm slows, debilitates, and hampers the perpetuation of life in its full potential. If an entity must suffer as part of a path in order to have negative experience, I don't see that as life in its full potential. I see that as a sidetrack to experience something ephemeral which may lead to certain realizations. I have yet to hear one channeled message where an alleged higher being is seeking negative and suffering experiences. That seems part of the duality here, as Hancock said, in learning to make choices, and aligns with what Ra said about 3D and free will. And the negative path, according to Ra, will only take an entity so far.

Well said and I think it is like this for everyone. We are simply compelled to different things through our different circumstances and as such even if we are One, we also are many-ness. 

I think the STO path can also only take an entity so far though, even if Ra only mentionned it indirectly unlike what he did for the other path.

[Poet]

What you are asking for is people's subjective opinion on objective values. If objective values exist, they can only be defined subjectively, and therefore never truly defined.

Yes, that is a good point. How should a finite human "subject" come to overall and objective values about what is evil and what is not?

The thing is if there are no overall and objective values, then everything can be justified. There is no basis to say something is good or something is evil, or something is ethically justified or not. At least not from a kind of objective viewpoint which would have to apply to all people. What may be ethically justified in one country or culture might be unmoral in another.

[ScottK]

As I would see it, there are two aspects to this question - both of which need to be delved into because the answers are different, IMO.

The first question is defining good or evil at a spiritual level.  I would look at this with regard to how you would judge your actions in the life review after death, which probably boils down to whether you went against what you believed was right at the time and whether you caused harm to others..

Then there's the societal level of defining good and evil, which is more the prevailing opinion of the society, or alternately, an elite could write down a set of rules which they are given the authority to interpret in order to define for the society what is good or evil..

I don't have a clean answer on the question, but I thought I would chime in to breakdown the concept a bit.  Good thread

[Stranger]

Do you think there are objective values? That we can for instance say that something is good or evil. Or do you think all values are subjective and just created by human will? To give you an example: Most people would say that killing another human being is evil. Still there might be people which think the exact opposite (for instance killing during war is ethically justified and therefore good etc.). Can we say that these people are wrong with their opinion? I think the LOO actually would state that there are no objective values in creation/nature. Values only come into existence because human beings create them, e.g. when I believe killing others is evil.

So the LOO is also in contrary to the teachings of the church which says there is natural law, that is objective values which are hidden in nature. Above I added a video of Graham Hancock who also discusses this question.

Let's recognize the two levels at play here.  In ultimate reality there is no right or wrong -- just being exploring itself through thinking up ideas and imbuing them with consciousness.  All exists in bliss.  At the level of creation, there is a game set up by the Logos with very specific, mathematically precise rules.  Two paths of advancement are set up, which are real in the sense that the Logos wishes to pretend they are real, and wishes all the parts of his consciousness which participate in the game (i.e., us) to experience them as real.  Therefore, they are real to us and not optional (unless we contact intelligent infinity, perhaps?). In this way, they have objective reality, in the same exact way that rules of soccer have objective reality, or more accurately, in the same way that the laws of physics in a video game have objective reality. They may be conventions, but the character you're playing still can't walk through solid walls.

The Logos freely showers all of his creation with love/light in infinite abundance.  One of the two paths chooses to accept the light they receive from the Logos/Creator and radiate it outward to the entire Creation.  The other path chooses to take light for itself from other entities through force (coercion), deception, or most frequently a combination of the two.  In between the two paths are those who do a little bit of this and a little bit of that, in what Ra calls "the sinkhole of indifference".

The two paths have emotional consequences for those who are the recipients of their actions.  The path of sharing light provides help, encouragement, support, healing, kindness.  The path of taking away light provides suffering, fear, and, for those who are not at the bottom of the food chain, the satisfaction of having power over others.  It is these impacts that lead us to call one "good" and the other "evil" - "evil" simply doesn't feel good to the recipient, while "good" feels good to both parties because it embodies the essence of God's love for all creation and through love, connects us to the bliss of pure being.

We can see these forces playing out their roles in the world all around us, regardless of the terminology we use. In general, I believe you'll find quite excellent correspondence between what is called "good" and what we would refer to as actions that contribute to positive polarization, and what is called "evil" and what we would refer to as actions that contribute to negative polarization.

[AnthroHeart]

Does evil really think it's evil? Or does evil think it's doing good?

[Stranger]

Ask Dick Cheney or Putin.

Typically, folks like that see themselves as "strong leaders" "willing to do what's necessary" to "build (or protect) a powerful (nation, company, family, etc.)" which you "can't do without sacrificing some for the good of the cause."

No one wants to see themselves as evil. Even within ourselves, there is often willful blindness to the way our actions impact others. Without recognizing this, little spiritual progress can be made.