Intelligence linked with evil?

[ImperatorMortis]

I just posted something like this in my "faith in humanity" thread, but I'm curious to see what people thought about this?

The more intelligent a species the more likely for there to be evil people? I thought about Dolphins they're one of if not the most intelligent marine animal on the planet, some scientists even debate that Dolphins are just as or near intelligent as Humans.

In the wild male Dolphins are known to gang rape other dolphins, and humans sometimes, doesn't matter if the victim is male or female. Dolphins, and Orca's also kill for the fun of it, and Dolphins even war with each other. So maybe Humans aren't evil because that's just the way we are, maybe its because intelligence allows for such things.

So yeah, what do you guys/girls think of my theory, do you like it? Hate it? And if you agree do you have something to add? I'm pretty interested in your responses.

[Mustavus]

Well. Bleargh. Had a big thoughtful thingamajig written up and then the forum ate it. In short:

Yes. Intelligence enables evil, as well as good. This is simply because intelligence is what enables you to have thoughts beyond needing to satisfy basic physical and mental needs like eating and socialization. Animals can be pleasant or destructive, but it's usually entirely based on instinctual reactions to their environment. A good example is a cat being too stupid to realize a new puppy it's never seen before isn't its offspring.

This is why you end up hearing stories about dolphins helping lost-at-sea humans back to shore without training (yes, this is a thing that has happened more than once), and why you've donated more to charity than your neighbor's parakeet. You might've thought it's because you have thumbs, but it's actually because birds aren't even aware of living things outside of their direct vicinity.

[Insani]

Intelligence enables greed.

Greed enables evil.

And greed is the way of the world, my friend.

[kraine]

I just posted something like this in my "faith in humanity" thread, but I'm curious to see what people thought about this?

The more intelligent a species the more likely for there to be evil people? I thought about Dolphins they're one of if not the most intelligent marine animal on the planet, some scientists even debate that Dolphins are just as or near intelligent as Humans.

In the wild male Dolphins are known to gang rape other dolphins, and humans sometimes, doesn't matter if the victim is male or female. Dolphins, and Orca's also kill for the fun of it, and Dolphins even war with each other. So maybe Humans aren't evil because that's just the way we are, maybe its because intelligence allows for such things.

So yeah, what do you guys/girls think of my theory, do you like it? Hate it? And if you agree do you have something to add? I'm pretty interested in your responses.

That's just how dolphin groups function, really. It's not as much "evil" for them as the fact that they're a highly polygamous species(like most mammals) that lives in pods where individuals demonstrate dominance. If you're classifying evil as some kind of savagery, then I'd say no, intelligence doesn't breed more acts like that. What is a seemingly random act of evil may actually have evolutionary benefits for an individual, particularly rape. Obviously for intelligent creatures like humans, this is one of the most savage acts we can think of. I think our intelligence and societal structure cuts down on this kind of "evil," but we have found ways to subjugate others in our own way. In my mind, the real difference is that we actually define evil.

[ImperatorMortis]

That's just how dolphin groups function, really. It's not as much "evil" for them as the fact that they're a highly polygamous species(like most mammals) that lives in pods where individuals demonstrate dominance. If you're classifying evil as some kind of savagery, then I'd say no, intelligence doesn't breed more acts like that. What is a seemingly random act of evil may actually have evolutionary benefits for an individual, particularly rape. Obviously for intelligent creatures like humans, this is one of the most savage acts we can think of. I think our intelligence and societal structure cuts down on this kind of "evil," but we have found ways to subjugate others in our own way. In my mind, the real difference is that we actually define evil.

I see what you mean. Maybe I should have put "evil" in quotes?

[Mustavus]

I'm suddenly reminded of Isabella Roselini's "Green Porno" series. It's how I learned ducks only reproduce through rape, and bed bugs only reproduce through what anyone would recognize as assault.

[DecidedlyDevious]

Intelligence doesn't bring about things we find evil. Our definition of "evil" exists with all kinds of animals. We just give them a break because "they don't know any better." Which is why it would make it seem like intelligence is linked with evil. Intelligence might make us more creative with it, though.

[Hanky Panky]

The greater a species' intelligence, the greater capacity it has for good or evil. Which, let me remind you, are entirely subjective to each person.

[IDSeeker]

Good and evil don't objectively exist: there are only various degree of social acceptance.

But, you can limit your actions by defining what is "good" and what is "evil" (for you personally) through social interactions (the media partially counts) or plain common sense ("if I kill someone, I know I'll go to jail: I don't need to test it").

[ImperatorMortis]

I'm suddenly reminded of Isabella Roselini's "Green Porno" series. It's how I learned ducks only reproduce through rape, and bed bugs only reproduce through what anyone would recognize as assault.

I will never look at ducks the same way again. So... Instead of throwing bread crumbs at the lake I should be throwing rocks?

"Rapist! Yeah I'm talking to you duck with the nice crest! You're a scumbag! Eat a rock!" *gets arrested for animal cruelty*

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

I disagree that there is no such thing as "good" or "evil".

Evil is that which purposefully and unnecessarily hurts others.

Good is that which purposefully and unnecessarily helps others.

To clarify a bit, both of those definitions require the intelligence to resist instinct and choose for one's self. In addition, I fully recognize and almost expect that someone will prove my definitions wrong, but I would like to make clear that I think I can be personally wrong about what good and evil are and there still be an actual good and evil.

[IDSeeker]

I disagree that there is no such thing as "good" or "evil".

Evil is that which purposefully and unnecessarily hurts others.

Good is that which purposefully and unnecessarily helps others.

DOUBLE POST: I tried editing, but the forum isn't letting me soooooo

To clarify a bit because I was a bit hasty, both of those definitions require the intelligence to resist instinct and choose for one's self. In addition, I fully recognize and almost expect that someone will prove my definitions wrong, but I would like to make clear that I think I can be personally wrong about what good and evil are and there still be an actual good and evil.

As you said, good and evil are basically in one's mind: you decide what is "good" and what is "evil" (a twisted man could think that killing people is "good" because he thinks that it will save the nature or something). This means that those two concepts change from different individuals (what is good for one might be evil for another). This, in turn, means that "objective good" and "objective evil" do not exist; we can have only "a kind of good that is portrayed as such from the majority of society" (like saving lives) and "a kind of evil that is portrayed as such from the majority of society" (like killing). Thus, my theory that "Good and evil don't objectively exist: there are only various degree of social acceptance".

[ProfessorApe]

"Evil" and "Good" are subjective; there is no fine point between them, it depends on what others beleive.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

As you said, good and evil are basically in one's mind: you decide what is "good" and what is "evil" (a twisted man could think that killing people is "good" because he thinks that it will save the nature or something). This means that those two concepts change from different individuals (what is good for one might be evil for another). This, in turn, means that "objective good" and "objective evil" do not exist; we can have only "a kind of good that is portrayed as such from the majority of society" (like saving lives) and "a kind of evil that is portrayed as such from the majority of society" (like killing). Thus, my theory that "Good and evil don't objectively exist: there are only various degree of social acceptance".

If for some strange reason a bunch of a people believe two plus two is three and others believe it is five and others believe it is sixteen, it does not mean the answer to the question "What is two plus two?" is subjective. It means everyone is wrong.

Though I understand that you think morality is subjective and readily accept that as a difference in our opinions, I don't understand the argument "well different people believe different things so it must be subjective." I have never found this to be a logical argument.

Also, to be honest, I am a little miffed that you said what I said was that "good and evil are all in the mind". I never said that.

[Wessolf27]

I believe that it's more correct to say that though we might have certain opinions on how to define good or evil, there are still a lot of things which we find as an objective value or virtue. I don't mean to apply this to all cases, but at most, I believe there's a fundamental human quality that everyone shares that lets us know what is good or bad.

Morality isn't exactly as subjective as it seems. To simply decide that Morality is ultimately subjective would mean that there is no sense in the world, the words would lose their meaning, and there would no longer be any sort of compass on how we decide our actions. If people suddenly decided that morality is subjective, then that means that people can do anything and everything that they want to without any consequence. You could kill that person you hate so much and decide that it's a good thing. But the thing is, we don't.

But then, why don't we? Is it simply because there is a law in your society or religion that forbids you to do a certain action, and because of the fear of being prosecuted for doing an "evil" act? If say we remove these acts, then why do we still do things without wanton disregard for anything? Why is it that we might feel respect for a certain person(s) and decide that we do not want to bring harm to them in any way? Doesn't this mean that there is some "thing" or "quality" that we cannot simply ignore as being simply subjective?

Another question would be whether or not that idea is simply an instinctual act. "We only do good for others because it's in our instinct to do so." or "We only do good for others because we instinctually expect some sort of gain from them." Would this mean that it is simply in our instinct to decide what is good or evil? To say such things would be to ignore actions that have proven otherwise. Why is it that some people do things for simply altruistic reasons without regard for some equal reward or payment? And seeing these actions, why is it that many people will generally see these actions as being "Good" instead of simply saying that "he only did it because it was in his instinct to do so?".

In addition to this, if all "Good" or "Evil" is subjective, then why is it that we clamor for equal rights for everyone? Shouldn't we simply accept that the institution does these things because "It's normal" for them to do so? If morality is subjective, then why should we even care for the rights of other people? "They're not going to do anything for us in the end anyway.", right? I mean, if good and evil is subjective, then all that matters in the end is whether or not you get something you wanted from the bargain right?

We have many definitions of what might be certain values like "love", "justice", "charity" or some such, but there is a general recognition between many people of what the idea is in spirit. A person might have a certain way of defining what is "beautiful" for them, and another (who might be of the same or different culture) would have a different way of defining what they would define as "beautiful". The idea of "Justice" might be something like that. Or at least, how governments might define "Justice" for each of their countries, as each country has a certain set of laws and constitutions that attempt to protect the value of "Justice" within the framework of their culture and society. (TL; DR: People have differing opinions on what a certain value might exactly mean, but they have a general idea of what it is)

At the same time, how we define how good or evil a certain action is, heavily depends on the context of the situation. A man who steals so that his family can eat is generally more pardonable than a thief who steals for personal gain. This is a general (though not necessarily universal) idea of how a lot of people define the gravity of the action. They have done the same offense, but it is the context of the action where people would define whether or not it might be a good, an evil, or somewhere between the two of greater or lesser amounts.

There is the possibility of people who have a rather absolute idea of what is good or what is evil, but to define acts as only good or evil and not seeing possible exceptions to the circumstance would be a fundamentalist way of thinking as it negates the possibility of seeing the reason for such an act. But generally, it only happens if one decides (or their society makes them think) that this is how the world works.

A person has the free will to decide on how he would act or identify the situation. Doing good or evil are choices that a person can do, yet at the same time. I cannot vouch that a person can do anything simply because of free will, rather our actions are limited by the context of both our nature, upbringing and situation.

And yes, our intelligence enables us to have the free will to decide what is good or evil, but again, it is not the be-all-end-all. To me, "Good" or "evil" aren't simply actions, but rather a certain direction of how a person might decide the choices that he is constantly confronted with.

[IDSeeker]

If for some strange reason a bunch of a people believe two plus two is three and others believe it is five and others believe it is sixteen, it does not mean the answer to the question "What is two plus two?" is subjective. It means everyone is wrong.

Though I understand that you think morality is subjective and readily accept that as a difference in our opinions, I don't understand the argument "well different people believe different things so it must be subjective." I have never found this to be a logical argument.

Also, to be honest, I am a little miffed that you said what I said was that "good and evil are all in the mind". I never said that.

"What is two plus two?" is a question that can have only a single answer that is given by simple math based on physics: it's 4, obviusly; if you say otherwise you're either crazy or ignorant (or joking). However, there's not a straight answer of what can be explained as "good" and "evil". If you take the dolphins example, for them rape is "good" because that is how they reproduce: their society have accepted it and therefore it's "good" for them; while our society look at that kind of act as "evil" and punish the ones who do it. What makes the final choice is the individual, obviusly. Dolphins could decide not to rape and die without a progeny and humans can decide to rape and go to jail (and, in turn, be raped by other prisoners).

The "good and evil are all in the mind" part was deducted from this quote: "both of those definitions require the intelligence to resist instinct and choose for one's self." (it's your mind, or rather it's will, that decide if you'll act as a "good" person or a "evil" person). I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted your words.

-cut-

Your post is pretty good, but you must remember that we (or at least I) are not talking about the human concept of good and evil, but some kind of empirical good and evil. An alien race could regard love, justice, charity and equity as "evil" (where "evil" means "wrong" or "socially unacceptable"). We, as humans, regards those as "good", but that doesn't mean that they're the "objective good" (that, as I said, does not exist). Hence, it's only a matter of society acceptance of the act taken into account.

[Wessolf27]

Your post is pretty good, but you must remember that we (or at least I) are not talking about the human concept of good and evil, but some kind of empirical good and evil. An alien race could regard love, justice, charity and equity as "evil" (where "evil" means "wrong" or "socially unacceptable"). We, as humans, regards those as "good", but that doesn't mean that they're the "objective good" (that, as I said, does not exist). Hence, it's only a matter of society acceptance of the act taken into account.

True, I cannot vouch for alien intelligence, they're situation is vastly far different from mine, and in some cases, I would not easily understand the reasons for why they would act as such, but in either case, there's a problem of quantifying aspects such as Good and Evil because of their abstract quality. To constrain the definition would, mean that we would have a strict definition for it with no leeway on what truly might constitute for it depending on the context. However, I should deny with your idea of what an "objective good" means, which, I apologize, haven't exactly explained how I understood it.

From my post earlier. I mentioned that people generally follow a certain direction in governing their actions, on whether it be good or evil. People can be selfish, but they also tend to favor good deeds more than bad ones when taught and experienced how it must be like to feel good or evil. Generally, we've all got our "moral compasses" which direct how we live our lives, and they're generally directed towards doing something either of the least resistance or of doing what is (for them) altruistic and just.

For alien races, I cannot exactly vouch that they will think like we do, but I would assume that they too would certainly have a general direction of how they would act from day to day, and it will most likely be towards what is for them a good thing or a bad thing. Which can be totally alien for us, still, there's a direction, and it's pointing to some... definition of "good" that they would act towards.... This might be the closest I can get for a broader term of what is "objectively good" as it really depends a lot on the context, upbringing and nature of whatever Being is here or there.

In the end, I must deny on your mention that it is only "a matter of society acceptance taken into account" as it attempts to define the idea of a general "good" (which is, if to your counterpoint what is "socially acceptable" in their customs, beliefs and situations) from an alien standpoint within the sphere of human understanding of "Morality" which... is kinda like trying to force a square peg on a round hole. They really just don't fit.

EDIT: On a second reading, I realized that you were also referring to human cultures which also have their own rationalities on what they might define as "good" or "evil", in those cases, the best we can do is to understand and respect their beliefs of why they might generally see something as "Good" or "Evil". They have their own traditions, cultures which can be objectively (at least in the sphere of human knowing) be considered "good" or "evil" or simply plain normal. They have the right after all to act upon their beliefs and traditions, and there is little reason for us to disrupt them.

We cannot force them to simply and instantly abandon their beliefs, even if we are assaulted by them to believe in their beliefs as that will simply cause more strife. Instead, we attempt to let others see what might be a more well-rounded idea of what might be "good" or "evil" in the way that it can benefit everyone and not simply some dominant society.

This might be more from my studies on Multiculturalism, but eh, this is just as relevant dammit!

[IDSeeker]

-cut-

*Phew* I was this close to abuse of Godwin's law lol

Anyway, this phrase is the key:

Generally, we've all got our "moral compasses" which direct how we live our lives

Nobody is born with a natural "moral compass" in his head: someone has to teach them what is right (or good) and what is wrong (or evil). This "moral compass" is formed during the years (expecially during one's childhood) by social interations and parent teaching. Thus, "social acceptance" (or maybe "social behavior"?) is the answer. For example, the brainwashed slaves of a dictatorship will teach their kids to always obey what the "good" dictator has to say, while rebels are portrayed as "evil" men who want to destroy social order and kill the "beloved" dictator.

What I'm saying is: everything in our reality is filtered through our senses, including concepts like what is "good" and what is "evil". The difference between those and "what is two plus two?" is that you can raise your fingers and count how much is it, while you can't do that with ideas.

[AProcrastinatingWriter]

What I'm saying is: everything in our reality is filtered through our senses, including concepts like what is "good" and what is "evil". The difference between those and "what is two plus two?" is that you can raise your fingers and count how much is it, while you can't do that with ideas.

But think of a world in which theoretically you couldn't just raise you fingers and count that many. Wouldn't two plus two still be four, even if no one can mathematically figure out how to arrive at that solution?

You still haven't convinced me that just because no one can say for sure what is right and what is wrong, that means right and wrong don't objectively exist. There was a time wherein no one in this entire universe knew about relativity, or the fact that planets are round, or how to make fire, but relativity and the planets being round and the processes of how to make fire still existed regardless.

I am trying to say that in my opinion morality is like physics; a force outside of beings' ideas. We have wrong theories on physics now, we have throughout the entirety of history, but that doesn't mean the rules of physics are subjective (though physics themselves are, thanks to relativity). What it means is that some people throughout history and still today are wrong about some aspects of physics. Similarly, the fact that people have certain ideas or the ability to suppress or ignore instincts and choose for ones' self doesn't mean good and evil don't exist. It means some or all cultures have been wrong about what the rules of morality are, as have some or all people.

I am fine with you having a different opinion. However, repeatedly stating that "people have different ideas from each other on what good and evil are" will never prove that morality is subjective to someone who believes there is a morality outside of peoples' ideas.

[_Quietus_]

Wellllllll
no
We had to LEARN to be good, so the faster and more easily a spieces can learn, the less evil it is...

On the cross hand, a very intelligent person may use their intelligence to manipulate people. But I'm talking about humans of course.

[IDSeeker]

I am trying to say that in my opinion morality is like physics; a force outside of beings' ideas. We have wrong theories on physics now, we have throughout the entirety of history, but that doesn't mean the rules of physics are subjective (though physics themselves are, thanks to relativity). What it means is that some people throughout history and still today are wrong about some aspects of physics. Similarly, the fact that people have certain ideas or the ability to suppress or ignore instincts and choose for ones' self doesn't mean good and evil don't exist. It means some or all cultures have been wrong about what the rules of morality are, as have some or all people.

I am fine with you having a different opinion. However, repeatedly stating that "people have different ideas from each other on what good and evil are" will never prove that morality is subjective to someone who believes there is a morality outside of peoples' ideas.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I guess this is where our viewpoints diverge drastically: you think that the tree ("good" and "evil") will make a sound because it's something physical that can exist even with no one around to witness it; while I think the tree is nothing more than a construct of our mind and thus cannot do any sort of sound if there is no one willing to imagine it. Fair enough. It was fun to discussing with you.

[kholhaus]

Good and Evil is a concept that came about because humans invented it, and most likely stemmed from religious faiths. This is opposed to other concepts that resulted from studying Nature, and basing certain ideas off patterns we found, rather than creating it from the fabric of the mind.

It's been changed so much over history that it's pretty much just a system of simply categorizing different mindsets into easy to follow maps.

However, from some perspectives, Evil is unavoidable. Whether you determine which qualities fall into which category, is related to your environment, your experience, and most likely your first thoughts on something, subconsciously inserted by human instincts (which in themselves are unique to humans). Good is us, Evil is them. Or in other words, Our tribe is us, so we don't fight; Their tribe kill us, and fight for resources. We just happened to come up with an idea for them.

If we never invented the words, we would never have a way of communicating who is 'good' or who is 'bad', and it reminds me of a sort of Newspeak Orwellian type deal.

Intelligence and opinions provide the ability to discern good and evil. It provides awareness of our actions, and others.
Good and Evil are also entirely subjective, not objective.

This is why different cultures, early on, had different ideas of who was Good or Evil. In the Crusades, both sides were fighting for what they thought was 'Good'. Yet, they pillaged and raped innocents when over there in foreign countries.

I think now, however, that the world has grown so globally together, that Good and Evil ideals are slowly merging in cultures.

Good and Evil DO exist, but only to conveniently label the events, peoples and such that occur in our lives.

It's fun to write things like these at night.

[Wessolf27]

Nobody is born with a natural "moral compass" in his head: someone has to teach them what is right (or good) and what is wrong (or evil). This "moral compass" is formed during the years (expecially during one's childhood) by social interations and parent teaching. Thus, "social acceptance" (or maybe "social behavior"?) is the answer. For example, the brainwashed slaves of a dictatorship will teach their kids to always obey what the "good" dictator has to say, while rebels are portrayed as "evil" men who want to destroy social order and kill the "beloved" dictator.

What I'm saying is: everything in our reality is filtered through our senses, including concepts like what is "good" and what is "evil". The difference between those and "what is two plus two?" is that you can raise your fingers and count how much is it, while you can't do that with ideas.

Where have I said that people are born with a moral compass? A general direction to how people lead their lives have always been a trial-and-error process that they have started ever since childhood. I agree with you on that. I also agree that there is a sense of subjectivity with the idea of good and evil But even then. Let's put a few things on the table where we can both see things.

Hume mentions once that values can be both objective and subjective. He has cited many instances that there is a general consensus between people, even of widely different cultures to be able to perceive a general idea of what they perceive as a value, whether it be "goodness" (doing what is right), "justice" (giving to others what they are due), "freedom" (the capacity of a person to act within their circumstance) and "love" (creating a certain bond between two people) they generally have an objective idea of what they mean, and this, they can all agree upon. What they cannot agree upon is the means of how they are to be executed as each has their own subjective leanings toward how it is that they should implement such ideas. What happens is, is that values have a sense of being both objective and subjective at the same time. So in a way, yes, in a general sense concepts such as "good" and "evil" can be subjective.

But although this is the case, I have to ask why is it that there are still circumstances when people of vastly different upbringings, still have the capacity to share in a certain reaction whether positive or negative towards a certain act which can be perceived as good or evil? Why is it that we accept mothers who care for their children as being "good" and people who abuse other people as "evil"? Isn't there some sort of underlying unconscious that tells us that certain acts are good or evil regardless of where we come from and how we're brought up?

"Good" and "evil" at the start, sound like a search for what is socially acceptable. But the problem with this is that seeing them as such discredits the things that have been coming up even from within our own societies. If they were simply a means to preserve some kind of status quo by trying to fit in a society, then why is it that there have been cases of people fighting for their rights? Wouldn't it be that people should be assimilated into the dominant culture then? Wouldn't it be that if that was the case, people who are within a dominant identity shouldn't associate with others who are within the minority, yet they still do because they are doing what they feel is right? Shouldn't it be that he should just ignore "the Others" who aren't him because society tells him that they're not worth thinking about?

When people enter in dialogue where two people communicate and understand what the other is saying, as each side is listening and giving weight to the demands of their counterpart, isn't it that there is a certain sense that they are trying to find some means to find some sort of common ground of what they both see as "good" instead of simply discrediting what the other has to say just because it's outside of what is "good" for his status quo? Yes, at times, it can be very uncomfortable, but there are people who at least try to take into consideration the demands of others and try to synthesize a fuller understanding of the situation. Doesn't this synthesis mean that we're at least attempting to still find that fuller understanding of what is supposed to be "good" or "evil"? Isn't the very fact that we can see eye-to-eye with other people of vastly different ideals a capacity to think beyond our status quo?

The very fact that there is a bridging of cultures and not simply a forced assimilation or reduction of cultures means that people know that there is a sense of "goodness" in respecting the cultural beliefs of other societies, and at the same time, aren't they also invitations in creating a dialogue where they can try to find what they can all believe to be "good"?

P.S. I apologize for having rather long messages concerning the topic, but the idea that morality is only subjective is something that I cannot vouch for.

[CSJ]

To help tl;dr what others have said...

Evil implies that the individual in question intentionally chooses what is determined (by whatever measure used by the observer) as the 'evil' response to a situation. As an organism which lacks cognitive rationalisation cannot make such a choice, the possibility of said organism being 'evil' in this sense is impossible. So... rather than saying that 'intelligent' people are more likely to be 'evil', it can be argued that having a certain level of intelligence is a prerequisite for being considered 'evil' in the first place. This is why animals are generally exempt from human moral maxims (though this is strictly untrue, hence why some people still insist on calling animals 'good' or 'bad' and treating them differently on this basis - we're just in denial about applying our own logical paradigms to everyone and everything else).

As a general (not necessarily universal) rule, society seems to expect people who are 'more intelligent' to behave in accordance with a higher set of values than what is considered to be the 'average' person. I believe that these two factors combined mean that people tend to single-out people they think are 'intelligent' and 'evil' at the same time, rather than your 'average' selfish, facetious douchebag.

[DizzzyZebra]

(Going a bit offtopic)
I wavered personally on the existence of good and evil - although I still think 'evil' is a bit cliched. Maybe just bad. But the definitions do differ a bit so I'll stick to 'evil'. I concluded the same as AProcrastinatingWriter originally posted. However whether someone is good or evil can't be decided by anyone but yourself.

My way of thinking about it is:
Someone could do only good but believe themselves evil, and to my judgement they would therefore be evil. A common case is people thinking they are doing good, but are doing what other people would consider evil. I wouldn't call call them good, but I wouldn't label them evil. That shows a slight asymmetry in the whole thing. I sometimes doubt if good and evil at the true polar oposites of each other. That requires more thought though.

Due to such large differences in cultures, I can't label 'things' good or evil, just good or bad for peoples health/happiness etc through as good as logical deductions as I can do. If health or happiness if what you were aiming for, then these things are good/bad for that purpose.