Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yeah, good and evil are not two natural opposites. The reason why I think so is because it's primarily our own species that's putting every species on earth at risk, with mega deadly nukes, lots of extreme climate change, and damage to other infrastructures, like stable food chains that actually work and don't cause too much other extinction.
` Individual people . . . kinda myself included . . . do lots of unnecesary things that they kinda think helps their own survival. We want to make money to get food, so we associate money with survival deep down inside. But money also goes with lots of other luxeries, so we end up wanting tons of other things. And if we're working so hard for so much stuff, we end up actually needing some of it to cope with all the tons of work, but we then need to work harder to pay for that (the Overspent American is a really good book). Tons more work is being made to make more stuff for people to use their extra money on, resulting in more things that people need to work more for. To make it cheaper, we (as in American companies, and then ourselves for being the company or being the consumer or even being the one who lets themself get exploited) make exploit workers here and in other places, but that's still more work. With all of that stess, you'd expect someone to crack and do crack (what a sick joke) or rape someone.
` And in all of that manufacturing, we're ending up with pollution. But back to the association of money with survival (and of course, ones own survival requires being nice and helping others, so greed is a distraction from kindness right there). Power too, since if you have a lot of subjects, they can make your food and whatnot for you. That's pretty much greed, which I think is the evil. I don't think that people can be evil themselves, but we just do evil things.

` Now, here's where I say that war is evil. War does come through greed. Even if it's one of those ceremonial wars to please some war God, think about what what the priests get to see. If you think about the Trojan war, whether or not real, all of those soldiers got to capture women as slaves (most likely for rape . . . how gross), and got to take stuff from the city, and got to take stuff from the dead bodies. And today, there are spoils of war. Some companies are payed to rebuild, others are payed to make arms and armor and bombs that could make everything extinct (I have an Australian uncle who was, or still is, a nuclear physisist who used to make nuclear bombs in here before he moved back).
` And if you agree with me on the no murder commandment, then you can agree with me that violent war is evil. It's a total desicration of it! Yeah, I do believe that war is pretty much the evil. It's the kind of thing that's going to make us extinct if we don't stop (due to other pollution bombs and giant tank emmision causes), and the reason why war (or evil) isn't exactly natural is because it's not something other species do.

evil is whatever hurts people.

that's right i said people; hurting any other creature is objectionable and offensive, but true evil is what mostly hurts people.

so -cutting taxes for the rich while cutting benefits for the poor, the way Bush keeps doing, is, on balance, evil.

pollution is evil, for it harms millions.

economic imbalances, lack of opportunity, is evil.

prejudice is evil.

landfalling hurricanes are evil, and landfalling tsunamis, and earthquakes in populated areas.

surely we can all agree that whatever we say evil is, it should include these things.

actually evil depends on the persons perspective
lets say you defended someone who was poor that stole from an old lady that wouldnt spare some money due to racial bias

who is more evil?
the thief for stealing?
the old woman for not giving money simply because of the persons heritage?
or you for defending someone who stole?

the only true evil is something that even when used for gain, benefits none

Evil is a very different topic, it requires lots of attention and definiton.

Aristotle, veiwed evil as a choice that man can take, between Gods (or in his time, the Gods plural) or a different option, this is explained in detail in chapter two of Nicomachean Ethics titled The Nature of Moral Virtue this chapter explains the difference from the good moral choice, or the dark evil veiw, its a fairly long chapter so im not going to type it out, but if you really want to read it, it should be at a nearby library or bookstore.

The technical websters definiton of evil is as follows:

"1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY "

My definiton is that it is what is not moral correct, and is done to harm others either physically or mentally, like terrorisim, there are two sides to evil though, like with Al Queda they veiw what we see as evil, as worshiping Allah, through a twisted form of Islamic that may not be twisted to them.

reply if you want any more info

Evil is relative. It all depends on your point of view. Some people think that being a homosexual is evil....I do not obviously.
My definition of evil is that it doesn't really exist.
'Good' is where the majority of a population's viewpoints lie at one time. That will change in good time and is changing even as you read these words.
Technically, most evil people don't even think that they are evil. If you think about it. The people of one country are told that the people of another are evil and that they are going to take away their freedoms. On the other hand. The citizans of the country that the first people despise are being told the same thing. That may be propaganda created by the leaders of each of those two nations but the principles are the same.

Well in that case I pose to you this question:

In certain parts of the natural world called "the Chapparal," fires are necessary to clear out the underbrush and bring new life to the dormant seeds lying in the ground. At the same time, the fire destroys much of the living organisms in the area.

Is the fire considered evil? Or is it the fault of the Chapparal? The fire cannot control it's tendencies, it simply burns away what is in its path. It brings new life to the area and allows the ecosystem to exist. Like the fire, the Chapparal cannot control its nature either, it was developed that way over millions and millions of years. Is it evil for existing in a way that requires death?

How do you define what is good and evil? What helps one thing must inevitably harm another, such is the nature of the world. For a predator to survive, it must eat prey; does this make it evil for wishing to survive? Hurricanes, tsunamis, gales, and other phenomena of weather wreak destruction over human civilization, but are necessary for balanacing out inconsistencies in the atmospheric temperature and pressure. Are they evil for curing the world as a whole?

There are many times in life as well as nature that things are not as they seem. Don't be so quick to judge what is good and what is bad. The point of this discussion is to explore this concept further, to look at the bigger picture, because that's what is required to truly judge anything.