Can we be good without knowledge?

[Lozenger]

I was in an English class and this debate came up:

We were looking at Genesis in preparation for reading Paradise Lost and we were saying that by eating from the tree of knowledge, we could therefore have a choice to be good or not - but does this make us more good than we would have been if we did not eat from the tree of knowledge?
Because if we didn't we would not know the difference between good and evil and so couldn't choose to be good either?

So basically do you think we were good before eating from the tree of knowledge, or do you think we are good by choosing to be good over evil? If any of that makes sense at all lol

xxxx

[ecojeanne]

of course we can, haven't you heard of the saying: ignorance is bliss.

[Mish]

We were looking at Genesis in preparation for reading Paradise Lost and we were saying that by eating from the tree of knowledge, we could therefore have a choice to be good or not - but does this make us more good than we would have been if we did not eat from the tree of knowledge?
Because if we didn't we would not know the difference between good and evil and so couldn't choose to be good either?

Uh oh, Religious question. Be prepared for a row with non believers.

I love the theme of Paradise Lost it makes theist mythology more poetic and gives some interesting ideas to think about.

As far as philosophical implication of this mythology goes, I think it assumes that people were innocent before obtaining the knowledge of good and evil. Their mindset must have automatically been set to good (as in, they lived their lives without hurting others and without selfish yearnings). The knowledge of good and evil can be seen as spread of confusion because it brought an alternative perception to humanity. Now people had to become some type and combination of both in order to live fulfilling lives and to protect themselves from "evil doers" (therefore becoming the evil doers themselves). It's relevant in our modern lives because we all need to choose what combination to adopt for ourselves, because being just either one is not sufficient in the world we live. It's an interesting philosophical tale.

[ecojeanne]

Being good is subjective to a certain degree. Obviously outright hurting someone is wrong but yea I think the more innocent (ignorant) one is the less likely they are to be unhappy (coz they are in the dark about factors that may make them unhappy if they knew) and therefore less likely to act out in anger or violence against another.

just my thoughts

[Lipp]

How could they be nothing but good if they decided to eat the apple in the first place?

[doppelgaenger]

The way I particularly interpret those particular verses, is in a more poetic, abstract sense.

I think the tree of knowledge, and the forbidden fruit symbolize the development of the human conscience. Thus, I think the part about Adam devouring the forbidden fruit is a metaphor; without a conscience, man wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong; morality wouldn't be in existence. Well, morality is a social construct; without morality, in a sense, there wouldn't be life, or at least not in the context of nature as we know it.

So, now that you've heard my perspective on those particular verses, I might as well dabble in my personal opinion. Well... I don't think that 'good' is necessarily objective, though often perceived as predominant and instinctual. Neither is 'evil', needn't not be said. The most logical: if man hadn't developed conscience, conscience would not obstruct behavior, and there would be no society... no system. Without these social constructs, you simply can't have society.