Oh yes definatley. There are those who would kill you for no reason, then there are those who would give you the shirt off of their back even if it was all they had left. It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

Of course i do, as i feel everyone probably does. it's a whole balance issue, ying and yang, can't have 1 without the other. Sure in some instances only 1 side is more obvious, but there's always two sides to any coin. You may get a job one day but you also may have replaced some poor guy who got fired. You can find 20 bucks on the floor but some poor sap lost that cash. It's really apparent everywhere, but not necessarily a bad thing. It does cause a sort of balance to the world that's really needed. Things can't always be bad for people, or always good, it would drive one insane.

Why do you think there is a selection of either black or white tuxedos? The black is obviously for the suave evildoer. And the white for the totally unsuave good doer. You see, these things are very simple. If you watched a little more westerns this would be obvious. Now, get your ass off of the computer and get your ass on the couch and pop in some John Wayne.

Definately! You always have a negative with a positive and vice versa

Yes, they exist. In practice, I think most people act as though "good" is merely the absence of "evil". I disagree. Unless acted upon, "good" is no more than a word. However, if you do something "good" you have actually set "evil" back a step or two. Doing something good does not mean abstaining from doing something evil. It means acting to cause a positive result. Evil is not merely the absence of good, although that is the seed bed. Evil is the motivation to cause harm, however one rationalizes it. Of course there are cultural, religious and political differences in the definitions of "good" and "evil", but on a day-to-day, grass roots, human life basis,evil degrades humanity and good uplifts humanity.

Yup, I do ...and I am one of those anti organized religion folks.

in tmes of trouble who you gohha call...*********** thats who listen good and evil is just a mythical thing that the ancestors made-up. there is no devil or angel that will magiclly wisp us away. all i'm saying is our mind is making all the fictional things we all know we live in a different millenium time to wake-up and believe me i should know

n religion, ethics, and philosophy, the phrase, good and evil refers to the evaluation of objects, desires, and behaviors across a dualistic spectrum —wherein in one direction are those aspects which are morally positive, and the other are morally negative. The good is sometimes viewed as whatever entails reverence towards either life, continuity, happiness, or human flourishing, while evil is given to be the support for their opposites. Many religious and philosophical views will tend to agree that "good and evil" are abstract concepts and not absolutes. There is no consensus over whether or not either goodness or evil are intrinsic to human nature. Goodness has been given many treatments - one is that the good is based on the natural love, bonding, and affection that begins at the earliest stages of personal development. Differing views also exist as to why evil might arise. Many religious and philosophical traditions agree that evil behavior itself is an aberration that results from the imperfect human condition. Sometimes, evil is attributed to the existence of free will and human agency. Some argue that evil itself is ultimately based in an ignorance of truth (ie. human value, sanctity, divinity). A variety of Enlightenment thinkers have alleged the opposite, by suggesting that evil is learned as a consequence of tyrannical social structures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil Good and evil are two polarities - like the positive and negative terminals of an electric battery, or the north and south poles of a magnet. The existence of one is necessary for the existence of the other. Humans can not comprehend absolutes. They can understand any thing through comparison of relative concepts. The value of light is understood only when it is compared with darkness. What one person thinks as evil will be found to be good and and enjoyable to another person. Killing of an animal is evil for some persons, but it meets the requirement of hunger for others. What a person feels as good in the early part of life may appear as evil in the later part of life. Both good and evil are part of human nature. The purpose of their existence is to provide continuous knowledge through a range of human situations.

Thats a yes , big time

Of course not. The only difference between the two is opnion, nothing more and nothing less. What is one man's 'good' is anothers 'evil'. I've written an essay on this very matter actually, and it has been posted. Forgive the length, I beg! Good and Evil: The Most Dangerous Variables In this world of ever changing circumstance, vast varying opinions, where the times constantly change, there are, so it seems, no constants. An action done with the best intentions may be seen as an act of Evil that must be punished, even if it is not so. Why is that? The reverse may also be seen as true, where an action done with the intention of Evil might be viewed as one of great Good. Again, why? What has been accepted and approved at one point in time may be considered a horrific crime, and in another time, a terrific Good. The Inquisitions, for instance is a wondrous example of this theory. What is Good? What is Evil? Are these two concepts set in unvarying stone, where one act of Evil is always so? Where an act of Good is always that? Or are there shades of gray in this black and white painting; uncertainty and room for doubt? Does the theory of saving lives, innocents, and the just people of a country make genocide, such as the Romans believed, to be a proper, a good, and what’s more the right course of action? By butchering, slaughtering, and killing many people they were able to keep their civilization in perfect harmony for many centuries, during which time they built one of the worlds greatest empires. However, when they did not use the weapon of genocide against the Gothic tribes, they eventually united and overran and killed the Romans. This action of mercy, of Good killed their own citizens, just and unjust alike. Is protecting the weak and the Good by doing Evil what is Good? Or is protecting the weak and the Good by doing an Evil act nothing more then an act of Evil? By committing an act of Good the Romans killed themselves. When they committed acts of Evil, they lived and prospered for a great many centuries. When Emperor Valens gave the barbaric Goths mercy, when they begged him to not finish them off, and when he consented to their pleas, the Roman civilization signed its death writ. “No act is evil or good in its self but must be judged on the circumstances.” (Atkinson) What may be accepted at one time and what is acceptable now might not always be so. To reiterate: when there was fear of Witchcraft in old Europe in the early 1100’s, a nightmarish event known as the Inquisition began. These Inquisitors, intelligent men of old would go around the country in search of Witches performing their craft, would do terrible things to those they suspected, such as prodding them with red-hot irons until they gained a ‘confession’. (Malleus Maleficarum) If they were found to be ‘guilty’ of Witchcraft, then they would be burned at the stake. They would put the ‘witches’ through nightmarish torture until someone spoke, until they confessed to either Witchcraft or named one of their ‘accomplices’. (The Inquisition) Thousands and thousands died in this manner; hundreds upon hundreds were tortured in manners that are almost too horrible to describe, and why? Because they believed that they were doing the right thing. They would only spare them if they confessed to a crime which they did not commit, and even then not all were safe from the Inquisitor, for those who did confess would have their property taken from them and were also banished from the public. The ones who still remained quiet and would not give a confession would be strangled and eventually, if necessary, burned at the stake. (The Inquisition) “A prisoner in the Inquisition is never allowed to see the face of his accuser, or of the witnesses against him, but every method is taken by threats and tortures, to oblige him to accuse himself, and by that means corroborate their evidence.” (Foxe) Though it must be stated that there was far more to the Inquisitions than what has been previously stated, due to the fact that the greed of men also played a very large role in this abomination. Yes, the ‘Good’ and ‘pious’ Inquisitors did much of their wretched deeds for pure gain alone. This fact is best represented in a quote by John Foxe, the author of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, “A defence in the Inquisition is of little use to the prisoner, for a suspicion only is deemed sufficient cause of condemnation, and the greater his wealth the greater his danger.” Could it possibly be said that selfishness at the expense of others, especially when the price the accused pay was as large as it was in the Inquisitions, is Evil? Or put more plainly, could selfishness be called Evil? After all, many trials in the Inquisition were held due to this fact and this fact alone. However, when the trials were held because the people believed that they were doing a great act of Good, they were still, in the eyes of the world today, a great Evil. Why is that? In the days of old their actions were viewed as Good, while today their actions are viewed as both criminal and insane. Why? Is it because we now know today that there is no such thing as a witch, and they were only foolish? Or do we look at it so differently now because we don’t have the same morals, beliefs and values? (Inquisition: Introduction, The Inquisition) “Terror is nothing more than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.” (Robespierre) At what point though, does a truly just, a truly Good cause become an infamous act of Evil? The Reign of Terror, a dreadful time in Frances history, where bloodshed and fear were plentiful illustrates this hideous point quite beautifully. During the Terror, which started with the execution of Marie Antoinette on the 16th of October in 1793, one could not breathe a word against the new government without being relieved of their head. There was a grim fear that all who disagreed were ‘traitors’ and that in this new government “softness to traitors will destroy us.” (Robespierre) So the only way to keep the peace was to commit genocide against their own citizens or at least in the mind of Maximilien Robespierre and his followers, up until the end of the Terror at least. The death of thirty thousand people was the result of this mans way of thinking. Why did they do this? Why commit genocide against innocent people who only dislike the government? Why take away their rights in order to protect them? Could it be considered ignorance, and could it not also be considered to be Evil? Or perhaps Robespierre shall speak for himself and try to justify his own actions. (HistoryWiz: The Reign of Terror) “If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible...It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Maximilien Robespierre Speech on the Justification of the Use of Terror” The French were tired of the oppression that had so long plagued them for centuries and were now doing it to themselves. The just, or at least people with just intentions had become unjust, violent, and perhaps ‘Evil’. Because of the Terror, because of all the violent bloodshed, these men, Robespierre in particular, are remembered as some of the most horrible men to walk the Earth. Again, why? Their hearts were in the right places, they only wanted to help the people. However, their definition of helping was horrifically skewed. Is it certainly Good to have Good intentions, but when the action is that horrific, and when it is against your own people in order to maintain and bring the justice they never had, then it maybe can be called Evil. But, one must also wonder; how is this different from the Inquisitions talked about earlier. After all, did the Inquisitors not, in some cases, do what they did for Good, or at least their perception of Good? But with the Inquisition, they were not attempting to protect and procure the rights of the people, but instead were, when the Inquisitor believed that the person was truly a witch, were taking from them their right of religion. In the Terror, when they relieved someone of their head, they did it out of an attempt to preserve the rights of others, even though they were taking away their right of free speech. So, which act was the more Evil and which act was the more Good? Or does it all depend on how you look at it? Must we take into consideration that during the individual times the culture was different, as were the morals and rights? Or is it right to judge a society and what they did, when our own society is so vastly different? Or are their Evil actions simply Evil, even if they had Good intention? Does the end really justify the means? The answer, it seems is no. An act that may have been seen as Evil in the days of yore might be viewed as a great Good in our modern times. Look back to some fifty years ago when the races of America were separated and then integrated. There were a great many people who thought that blacks and whites should still be separated and that any integration would be a most horrific crime. However, now that this country’s prejudice has been eliminated for the most part, at least this particular Evil, that wretched ignorance, it shall never be able to shackle us again, and we are a healthier and stronger country, far more diverse and better off since the races have been integrated. The Evil of prejudice, of ignorance, got in the way of equal rights, or in other words, what is Good. And our society, one once divided into two, literally a society that was black and white, once integrated “was beautiful. White and black together. And it works. To me that is terribly exciting.” (Joseph) If we accept that prejudice is indeed Evil, then would we not also have to accept the fact that ignorance is Evil too? And if ignorance is Evil, then would all forms of ignorance then become Evil? Or is it only when ignorance harms and hinders others? Perhaps one could say that Evil would be hurting everybody because of ignorance? Or is that person only untaught and unknowing of what they do, and therefore neither Good nor Evil? Or is there really an answer to this eternal question, are all things Good and Evil only opinions? Is there really such a thing as ‘Good’? Is “Evil” something that really exists or is it more of an idea, perhaps even a philosophy in its self? Are there really universal, absolute laws that govern our thoughts, which govern our very nature? Or are all these “truths” that are constantly thought of nothing more than opinions? Are there really “Good” men and “Evil” men or just many men with many more opinions? It is the latter that seems to be the most likely. The writer for one believes there is a distinction between the two, in some instances however. To give a brief example, if a man does an act of Good to help the weak, the innocent, and the just, and if he does this simply for the sake of Goodness, then could he not be considered to be a Good? Even if he must commit an act of Evil in order to do something for the greater Good, is he not Good for protecting, for helping and in some instances saving? And if a man commits an act of Evil, just for Evils sake, only to hinder and harm the weak, the innocent and the just, and if he does this for pleasure, then could he not be called Evil? However, in many instances there are far too many shades of grey for a picture to be perfectly black and white. Even with Adolf Hitler, one of the most Evil men in the world in the eyes of a great many, there are still quite a few people who believe he was a wonderful man. And who is to say they are wrong, even if we disagree terribly? After all, did he not only want to help his country? And did he not help Germany to become a very powerful nation in only a little time? He did help a few people, though he did kill far more than those few. He helped the German economy quite a bit, though in the end it was all forgotten. Some remember that, and ignore the Holocaust, whether it is right or wrong. After all, in the end is there anything to prove that they are in the wrong? Is there anything to prove us correctly? In this world of ever changing circumstance, where the times change constantly, where there are a great many people with even more conflicting thoughts and opinions are there really any truths that are universal? Or do Good and Evil not really exist at all? Once again, it is the latter that seems to be appropriate.

YES ... and many other opposites too.

I believe in positive and negative

I am star wars fan, so yes. =)

Yes,and it seems there's a lot of evil these days