NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't think that evil exists. It's a subjective concept, open to anyone's interpretations. For example, as an American, I could consider Osama Bin Laden to be evil, and I would have a good reason to do so, but to many people, he is a hero, so who's to say who's right?

If I say that Americans (and Westerners in general) are right, then that's like saying that we are better than the people who revere Bin Laden, so why are we better? Is it because we're wealthier, more educated, less religious? I don't think our wealth makes us any better, for all our education we still do a lot of stupid things, and religion as a whole can't be blamed for everything.

So what do you think?

less religious

That always makes you better.

So what do you think?

That evil exists or that Osama is evil? Some things are clearly evil by anyone's interpretations.

There is no such thing as evil, or good for that matter.

Evil cannot exist. It has to happen.

Good and evil are matters of perspective.

Duh, Evil exist look at President Bush.
Hey makes me want to :headbang:

Exactly, Good and Evil are all relative to the one witnessing the act.

Black and white are evil terms to think of the world in.

The only good term is grey.

If you don't accept this, you are most certainly EVIL!

If you do accept this, you are good and will not suffer at my hands.

That always makes you better.

Not always. I'm not trying to start a religious debate here, but religion has been responsible for a lot of good things, like charity, and caring for the sick.

I'm no huge fan of religion, but nothing is black and white, you know?

Evil cannot exist. It has to happen.

Does it happen?

So if someone decides to torture people because he/she is bored, that would not be considered evil? Of course there is evil:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil

Not always. I'm not trying to start a religious debate here, but religion has been responsible for a lot of good things, like charity, and caring for the sick.

I'm no huge fan of religion, but nothing is black and white, you know?

Europe: pretty much secular; most countries have free, universal healthcare.

USA: deeply religous; private healthcare, an obscenely high infant mortality rate for a first world country.

So if someone decides to torture people because he/she is bored, that would not be considered evil? Of course there is evil:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil

I would consider it evil but that's just my perspective.

So if someone decides to torture people because he/she is bored, that would not be considered evil? Of course there is evil:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil

I'm not trying to defend any person who does that, but perhaps they have mental problems? Because then you would be saying that anyone with depression or schizophrenia is also evil.

I'm not trying to defend any person who does that, but perhaps they have mental problems? Because then you would be saying that anyone with depression or schizophrenia is also evil.

Depression and schizophrenia is evil!!!

Well... it can lead people to do very dark-grey things.

Black and white are evil terms to think of the world in.

The only good term is grey.

If you don't accept this, you are most certainly EVIL!

If you do accept this, you are good and will not suffer at my hands.

Guess I'm going to suffer!

Guess I'm going to suffer!

Yes, yes you will.

Except if you join the Neutral Party.

Does it happen?

Yes, it does, but it is not a thing. It comes and goes like a frame of mind.

Yes, yes you will.

Except if you join the Neutral Party.

Why?

Aren't you saying that a black and white issue is whether I support your view?

It's white if I think that all areas are grey and black if I don't.

I'd like to add some cases of evil found in entertainment media.

South Park, The Super Friends, and the fairy God parents had episodes featuring the evil counterparts of the main charactors.

Charmed featured an episode where a teddy bear became majicaly charmed to make a baby grow up to become evil.

X files featured an evil force that made is presense known by turning the eyes red.

A Power Rangers episode featured an evil ray where standing in the path of the ray cuased one to become evil.

The Street Fighter movie featured evil VR gear where evil was forced fead to a victom through evil sites and sounds.

Depression and schizophrenia is evil!!!

Well... it can lead people to do very dark-grey things.

Someone with depression could commit suicide. I wouldn't say that's evil. Someone with schizophrenia most likely will withdraw from the world, I wouldn't say that's evil.

I'd like to add some cases of evil found in entertainment media.

South Park, The Super Friends, and the fairy God parents had episodes featuring the evil counterparts of the main charactors.

Charmed featured an episode where a teddy bear became majicaly charmed to make a baby grow up to become evil.

X files featured an evil force that made is presense known by turning the eyes red.

A Power Rangers episode featured an evil ray where standing in the path of the ray cuased one to become evil.

The Street Fighter movie featured evil VR gear where evil was forced fead to a victom through evil sites and sounds.

hmm...Your entertainment tastes are certainly questionable...:cool:

I'd like to add some cases of evil found in entertainment media.

South Park, The Super Friends, and the fairy God parents had episodes featuring the evil counterparts of the main charactors.

Charmed featured an episode where a teddy bear became majicaly charmed to make a baby grow up to become evil.

X files featured an evil force that made is presense known by turning the eyes red.

A Power Rangers episode featured an evil ray where standing in the path of the ray cuased one to become evil.

The Street Fighter movie featured evil VR gear where evil was forced fead to a victom through evil sites and sounds.

The personification of evil is a very common device in works of fiction of any kind. Despite calling someone "evil", that doesn't actually make them a thing called Evil. They do evil things, they act in an evil fashoin. Saying they're evil, though, is the same as saying they're "the winner" or "ferocious" or "greedy". These things can change, and there is no essence, no real thing called victory, or ferocity, or greed.

I must say that the poll options seem pretty biased towards the 'yes' camp.

Why?

Aren't you saying that a black and white issue is whether I support your view?

It's white if I think that all areas are grey and black if I don't.

Yes, yes it is.
I did that on purpose.

In truth, I don't care if you see the world in black and white, or grey, or grey and white, or black and grey, or grey, or whatever. See it your way and I'll go about painting everything a dull, vivid and exciting grey colour.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I would contend that nations such as North Korea and organizations such the Taliban are/were evil because of how fundamentally violate the natural rights of their subjects. I would contend that for the most part, Western Nation are not evil because they do things that help advance the cause of freedom. Evil is the violation of the dignity of man, woman, child, and the land. Ideally, the Western Nations would stop looking out for themselves and fully pursue the cause of humanity, liberating nations from corrupt governments by any means necessary. I think that the United Nations should of have been involved in Iraq and still should. We need a global movement by both non-violent and when necessary violent means to upend governments such as North Korea and to end the violence in places such as Darfur. Projects need to be taken to rebuild the infrastructure done by unwise land redistribution projects in Africa. I would dare say that we also need to do something about Vladimir Putin and the direction he's taking Russia and lets not even talk about China. We need to unite our forces and stop sitting on our hands. We are doing nothing.

Someone with depression could commit suicide. I wouldn't say that's evil. Someone with schizophrenia most likely will withdraw from the world, I wouldn't say that's evil.

Hence, dark-grey to grey, to maybe light-grey.

Evil? Maybe sometimes, but even then, it's probably not entirely black. Since if you look hard enough, you can find a hint of black/white in anything, it leads me to believe there is no pure evil and no pure good.

If evil is defined as being something that can still be good, yes, there is evil.

If evil is defined as evil evil evil evil evil... then no.

Yes, yes it is.
I did that on purpose.

In truth, I don't care if you see the world in black and white, or grey, or grey and white, or black and grey, or grey, or whatever. See it your way and I'll go about painting everything a dull, vivid and exciting grey colour.

Sorry! I get carried away at times!

Sorry! I get carried away at times!

:p tis okay, I didn't make it obvious that I was joking. And people here... they don't always joke about very odd stuff, so.. yeah.

Hence, dark-grey to grey, to maybe light-grey.

Evil? Maybe sometimes, but even then, it's probably not entirely black. Since if you look hard enough, you can find a hint of black/white in anything, it leads me to believe there is no pure evil and no pure good.

If evil is defined as being something that can still be good, yes, there is evil.

If evil is defined as evil evil evil evil evil... then no.

I must disagree. Although it may be hard to see what is good and evil at a particular point in time, that does not change the fact that there is good and evil. It may be justified, therefore good, to kill someone who is strangling your baby but not justified, therefore evil, to kill someone who is stealing your jewels. It may be hard to know whether to kill or not to kill, but that doesn't mean it's grey, it means it's hard to tell what's black and what's white.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I would contend that nations such as North Korea and organizations such the Taliban are/were evil because of how fundamentally violate the natural rights of their subjects. I would contend that for the most part, Western Nation are not evil because they do things that help advance the cause of freedom. Evil is the violation of the dignity of man, woman, child, and the land. Ideally, the Western Nations would stop looking out for themselves and fully pursue the cause of humanity, liberating nations from corrupt governments by any means necessary. I think that the United Nations should of have been involved in Iraq and still should. We need a global movement by both non-violent and when necessary violent means to upend governments such as North Korea and to end the violence in places such as Darfur. Projects need to be taken to rebuild the infrastructure done by unwise land redistribution projects in Africa. I would dare say that we also need to do something about Vladimir Putin and the direction he's taking Russia and lets not even talk about China. We need to unite our forces and stop sitting on our hands. We are doing nothing.

Of course the Taliban would have said that were preventing the violation of the dignity of men, women, children by enforcing strict sharia law, thus preventing, for example, women dressing in sexually provocative ways and men drinking alcohol. They would see these acts as violating the dignity of those acting in such a way. I still contend that morality is relative and so is evil.

I must disagree. Although it may be hard to see what is good and evil at a particular point in time, that does not change the fact that there is good and evil. It may be justified, therefore good, to kill someone who is strangling your baby but not justified, therefore evil, to kill someone who is stealing your jewels. It may be hard to know whether to kill or not to kill, but that doesn't mean it's grey, it means it's hard to tell what's black and what's white.

There is a tiny bit of white in killing someone who is stealing your jewels. He is committing a crime, and he may potentially harm you if he is capable of stealing.

Bad argument, but it still shows that it is possible to put a bit of white in a black situation.

Of course the Taliban would have said that were preventing the violation of the dignity of men, women, children by enforcing strict sharia law, thus preventing, for example, women dressing in sexually provocative ways and men drinking alcohol. They would see these acts as violating the dignity of those acting in such a way. I still contend that morality is relative and so is evil.

If morality is relative, is it okay for someone to be a rapist or a mass-murdurer?

Most people would say no, ruining their argument. But they may then say that society determines what is good/evil. Okay so what if society changes? Is it then okay to be a rapist? Most people would again say no, ruining their argument!

There is a tiny bit of white in killing someone who is stealing your jewels. He is committing a crime, and he may potentially harm you if he is capable of stealing.

Bad argument, but it still shows that it is possible to put a bit of white in a black situation.

If he is showing an interest in harming you, then the situation is changed. He is no longer simply stealing your valuables, he is also a danger to your life. The situation changes so black and white shifts: it is now justifiable to kill him. But it's always better to disable, not kill: he may repent!

If morality is relative, is it okay for someone to be a rapist or a mass-murdurer? Well obviously they might think it's okay, but virtually everyone else wouldn't.

Well obviously they might think it's okay, but virtually everyone else wouldn't.

So are you saying that what someone thinks is good does not determine good, or are you only saying that his moral beliefs would be in the minority?

If morality is relative, is it okay for someone to be a rapist or a mass-murdurer?

Most people would say no, ruining their argument. But they may then say that society determines what is good/evil. Okay so what if society changes? Is it then okay to be a rapist? Most people would again say no, ruining their argument!

I'd say no it isn't right whatever the circumstances. However, that's just my perspective.

If he is showing an interest in harming you, then the situation is changed. He is no longer simply stealing your valuables, he is also a danger to your life. The situation changes so black and white shifts: it is now justifiable to kill him. But it's always better to disable, not kill: he may repent!

I guess this argument is pretty stupid of me. I'm basically saying there is grey. But, as a follower of the Reformed Tradition of Christianity, trust me that I'm not contradicting myself. Again I know that sounds stupid.

So are you saying that what someone thinks is good does not determine good, or are you only saying that his moral beliefs would be in the minority?

If you don't think morals and evil are relative would you like to explain where you think morality comes from?

I don't think that evil exists. It's a subjective concept, open to anyone's interpretations. For example, as an American, I could consider Osama Bin Laden to be evil, and I would have a good reason to do so, but to many people, he is a hero, so who's to say who's right?

If I say that Americans (and Westerners in general) are right, then that's like saying that we are better than the people who revere Bin Laden, so why are we better? Is it because we're wealthier, more educated, less religious? I don't think our wealth makes us any better, for all our education we still do a lot of stupid things, and religion as a whole can't be blamed for everything.

So what do you think?

I think that he's not evil, he's either mislead or (more likely) trying to gain something for himself and his own nation.

Not because he's the spawn of the devil or anything, just because some aspect of his upbringing taught him to act this way.

So are you saying that what someone thinks is good does not determine good, or are you only saying that his moral beliefs would be in the minority?
Well sort of both. More the latter because "good" is still subjective. A rapist would could see nothing wrong with raping, while everyone else thinks rape is horrible. If you're like me who says rape is horrible, then that guy is "bad"? Correct? But if you were in the minority with him and thought rape was "good" the rapist would be "good," right? I believe it all depends on your perspective.

If you don't think morals and evil are relative would you like to explain where you think morality comes from?

God. The truth presented in the Bible is the guideline for morality.

Yes, I'm a Fundamentalist.

I don't think that evil exists. It's a subjective concept, open to anyone's interpretations.
Subjective concepts don't exist? So, like, if you had the subjective concept of trust in a friend, that trust doesn't exist? (even though you have it?)

Black and white are evil terms to think of the world in.

The only good term is grey.

If you don't accept this, you are most certainly EVIL!

If you do accept this, you are good and will not suffer at my hands.
Accepting that is denying its outcome. I therefore feel the only logical thing to do is to request that you, being the first to invalidate your own criteria, be the first one to receive punishment.

I don't think that evil exists. It's a subjective concept, open to anyone's interpretations. For example, as an American, I could consider Osama Bin Laden to be evil, and I would have a good reason to do so, but to many people, he is a hero, so who's to say who's right?

If I say that Americans (and Westerners in general) are right, then that's like saying that we are better than the people who revere Bin Laden, so why are we better? Is it because we're wealthier, more educated, less religious? I don't think our wealth makes us any better, for all our education we still do a lot of stupid things, and religion as a whole can't be blamed for everything.

So what do you think?

Exactly what I've been trying to tell people!:eek:

Well sort of both. More the latter because "good" is still subjective. A rapist would could see nothing wrong with raping, while everyone else thinks rape is horrible. If you're like me who says rape is horrible, then that guy is "bad"? Correct? But if you were in the minority with him and thought rape was "good" the rapist would be "good," right? I believe it all depends on your perspective.

I agree that rape is a horrible sin. But I don't agree that morality is based on perspective.

God. The truth presented in the Bible is the guideline for morality.

Yes, I'm a Fundamentalist.

So are moral actions moral because God approves of them, or does God approve of them because they're moral?

So are moral actions moral because God approves of them, or does God approve of them because they're moral?

Yes.

You're making a distinction where ther is none. God is Goodness. Therefore, moral actions are moral because He decreed them. The result is, He approves them because they are moral and because He approves them they are moral.

while almost everyone would agree that rape and murder are morally reprehensible, it's entirely possible that, given another society (in most cases more primitive, however), such taboos would be commonplace or even endorsed. Morality is subjective, but it does become an evolving process depending on the development of society.

I agree that rape is a horrible sin. But I don't agree that morality is based on perspective.
Sure it does. That's precisely why we have debates about abortion, the Iraq war, basically everything else. I don't really want to turn this into a 400 post thread about abortion, so I'll lay down the basics. Pro-lifers say that killing an embryo is wrong, wrong enough to deny a woman's right to choose. Pro-choicers say that killing an embryo is not necissarily wrong, but it's worse to deny the woman's right to choose. Morality based on perspective.

So what do you think?
I don't believe in evil, but not because it doesn't exist or is subjective, but simply because it is an ideal and does not reflect anything in reality. It is an ideal I choose to recognize as having no value.

Sure it does. That's precisely why we have debates about abortion, the Iraq war, basically everything else. I don't really want to turn this into a 400 post thread about abortion, so I'll lay down the basics. Pro-lifers say that killing an embryo is wrong, wrong enough to deny a woman's right to choose. Pro-choicers say that killing an embryo is not necissarily wrong, but it's worse to deny the woman's right to choose. Morality based on perspective.

People may have perspectives about morality. They may believe that abortion is moral or not. They may change the question and believe that it is moral to have the right to choose or not. But is there a higher law governing morality? I say yes, as a traditionalist Christian.

People may have perspectives about morality. They may believe that abortion is moral or not. They may change the question and believe that it is moral to have the right to choose or not. But is there a higher law governing morality? I say yes, as a traditionalist Christian.
Well then that's where the argument is over. Thank you, it's been fun. :D

:fluffle: :mp5:

Hm... there seems to be a bit of evil up there. Anyway, there is certainly evil. For example... there isn't a single country that doesn't have a law against murder. Even messed up countries like Saddam's Iraq (as opposed to the modern day Iraq) it was illegal to murder. Saddam was nearly assassinated when entering a certain village, so he had them all executed (yes, i realize the irony... that's Saddam for you). He didn't just say "well you know I do murder people, so it's perfectly natural that other people would want to murder me back!"

Or you could try asking people who live in other countries whether they are allowed to murder people. You won't find very many. And if you do find someone from a country where murder is allowed, a lot of those people won't be very happy about it.

EDIT: even in those little obscure villages in the wilderness of Africa don't permit murder. And if they do (headhunters, cannibals) they usually have an excuse of some sort. If it was natural for them to murder, they wouldn't have an excuse, they would say "What? Murder?... I have no idea what you're talking about. Oh that? Well yes we do kill people, but it's never seemed like the wrong thing to do. In fact it seems perfectly natural that we should kill people."

Black and white are evil terms to think of the world in.

The only good term is grey.

If you don't accept this, you are most certainly EVIL!

If you do accept this, you are good and will not suffer at my hands.

Isn't the statement that the only "good" term is grey a black and white statement? You are claiming that the other terms for viewing the world are "bad".

Some might respond, "Maybe the person means that it is 'good' for him/her." This is not the case. He/she is making a universal statement.

Yes, good and evil exist. Sadly the human race suffers from depravity. Myself included. Relativism is a cop-out, because everyone has opinions about how everyone should act. Otherwise, the vote would not work, and we would have anarchy...

Well then that's where the argument is over. Thank you, it's been fun. :D

Sorry! I enjoy hearing other viewpoints. It gives me stuff to think about.

Please don't think I'm unchanging in my views. One of the reasons I am so staunch is because my views have changed. If you can show how me how I am wrong, I have the responsibility to change. But, that doesn't mean I won't fight it and it won't take a long time. I have a responsibility to try to reconcile the facts first. :)

Hm... there seems to be a bit of evil up there. Anyway, there is certainly evil. For example... there isn't a single country that doesn't have a law against murder...
Because of self preservation, not because of evil.

Yes.

You're making a distinction where ther is none. God is Goodness. Therefore, moral actions are moral because He decreed them. The result is, He approves them because they are moral and because He approves them they are moral.

But if morality comes from God's commandments then there can't be Moral Truths. By their definition Moral Truths are immutable and if the Bible is to be believed then God's commandments can change, with Jesus's New Covenant altering the rules of the Old Testament and its 'eye for an eye' view of morality.

Theoretically the laws could change again in the future, to use your example rape could become acceptable. Would you condemn this as wrong or would you accept it?

with Jesus's New Covenant altering the rules of the Old Testament and its 'eye for an eye' view of morality.

Sorry! Jesus was speaking to interaction between persons: forgiveness, not taking revenge, kindness as a tool leading to repentance. "Eye for an eye" was setting up punishment for the civil government. The murdurer may say they are sorry, but some sins are great enough to require punishment before death: murder, rape, stealing. It also discourages others from sinning when "God said" isn't enough.

If there were no good an evil how could the world ever be in balance? With just "grey" there'd never be equality, balance or harmony. Without good, the world would spiral into eternal chaos. Without evil, the same thing would happen. Without Ying and Yang there can be no world.

Sorry! I enjoy hearing other viewpoints. It gives me stuff to think about.

Please don't think I'm unchanging in my views. One of the reasons I am so staunch is because my views have changed. If you can show how me how I am wrong, I have the responsibility to change. But, that doesn't mean I won't fight it and it won't take a long time. I have a responsibility to try to reconcile the facts first. :)
Well I've found it fruitless to argue against religion, and I have no problem with your views. That's how you were brought up and nothing I say will change it. For me to continue, I'd have to argue that there is no God in the traditional sense, and I don't think you'll take to that.

:fluffle: :mp5:

Hm... there seems to be a bit of evil up there. Anyway, there is certainly evil. For example... there isn't a single country that doesn't have a law against murder. Even messed up countries like Saddam's Iraq (as opposed to the modern day Iraq) it was illegal to murder. Saddam was nearly assassinated when entering a certain village, so he had them all executed (yes, i realize the irony... that's Saddam for you). He didn't just say "well you know I do murder people, so it's perfectly natural that other people would want to murder me back!"

Or you could try asking people who live in other countries whether they are allowed to murder people. You won't find very many. And if you do find someone from a country where murder is allowed, a lot of those people won't be very happy about it.

EDIT: even in those little obscure villages in the wilderness of Africa don't permit murder. And if they do (headhunters, cannibals) they usually have an excuse of some sort. If it was natural for them to murder, they wouldn't have an excuse, they would say "What? Murder?... I have no idea what you're talking about. Oh that? Well yes we do kill people, but it's never seemed like the wrong thing to do. In fact it seems perfectly natural that we should kill people."

Ad Populum Fallacy.

Because of self preservation, not because of evil.

Are there times when there is no difference? When self-preservation and preventing evil are the same? Maybe.

Well I've found it fruitless to argue against religion, and I have no problem with your views. That's how you were brought up and nothing I say will change it. For me to continue, I'd have to argue that there is no God in the traditional sense, and I don't think you'll take to that.

Probably not, but it's good to try. You might learn something. I might learn something. :p

Probably not, but it's good to try. You might learn something. I might learn something. :p
Eh, not in the mood. Thanks for the invite though :)

Sorry! Jesus was speaking to interaction between persons: forgiveness, not taking revenge, kindness as a tool leading to repentance. "Eye for an eye" was setting up punishment for the civil government. The murdurer may say they are sorry, but some sins are great enough to require punishment before death: murder, rape, stealing. It also discourages others from sinning when "God said" isn't enough.

I'm sorry? Whereas in the OT revenge was considered fine Jesus preached that we should forgive (not necessarily not punish) and do good.

Maybe I should use a clearer example, in the OT law it was considered a sin to eat shellfish and other non-kosher foods. Modern Christianity no longer accepts this so clearly even divine commandments aren't immutable and so there cannot be Moral Truths as such.

I'd love to debate this at length but I've got some work to do before tomorrow (British time). I'm sure there'll be another time :)

Eh, not in the mood. Thanks for the invite though :)

It wasn't really an invitation, more like encouragement to the enemy (joking!!!).

But you're wlecome just the same.

Because several languages have developed words for evil, then it must exist, at least in the cultures where the word developed. The human mind can't conceive of something that doesn't exist, all we can do is juxtapose known images.

Thank you for some interesting thoughts, but I think I'm going to see what else is going on.

Because of self preservation, not because of evil.

Here's the smilies I put up there:
:fluffle: :mp5:

Frankly, I don't see much self preservation going on there. That guy with the gun doesn't really need to protect himself from the flufflers.

Good is what strengthens human society and humanity as a race. Evil is what weakens it. The perspective problems come when we don't really know whether something strengthens or weakens society.

This sounds just like my last philosphy essay for my degree!

I would like to make the point that there is nothing 'objective' (entirely independent) of humanity which can be considered 'evil' or indeed 'good.' This is from the point of view of a scientific atheist, and any counterarguments revolving around religion are changing the question from does 'evil' exist to 'does God exist'. (if you have a God / diety like being they can impose an external code of morals and thus good and evil on us).

All the reasons for an objective evil so far seem to revolve around the fact the certain actions are universally condemned by humans. This does not entail any kind of external existence of 'evil' however. For something to independently exist, it must still exist if there are no humans, never were any humans, and will never be any humans, otherwise it is simply a product of our society, or our biological makeup. The only qualities which fulfil these criteria are the basic scientific facts of shape, size, number, motion etc. (not colour but thats a different argument.) In a world with no humans, there will still be size and shape, but how can you claim there is 'evil' when there are no actions?

Good and Evil are perhaps necessary concepts to allow some kind of social order and structure to be maintained, and possibly provide incentives to improve society by being generous or chivalrous etc. Within a human context they may even be used as justification for actions. Take away the humans though, and show me one possible explanation for 'good' or 'evil' without invoking humanity.

- Pull apart as you see fit! -

Evil causes suffering. Good causes happiness. My moral values are not relative and not negotiable. Thus I disagree with the oP.

Here's the smilies I put up there:
:fluffle: :mp5:

Frankly, I don't see much self preservation going on there. That guy with the gun doesn't really need to protect himself from the flufflers.
But the law exists to protect the fluffers and the guy with the gun against any who might harm them (provided they are both citizens). Having a law in place is not an indication of "evil afoot".

So if someone decides to torture people because he/she is bored, that would not be considered evil? Of course there is evil:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil


Of course the Loch Ness Monster is real.

1. Long neck
2. Flippers
3. Shiny skin
4. Little sharp teeth for catching fish
5. Streamlined shape
6. Red tam o' shanter
etc.
:rolleyes:

Evil exists much in the same way holes exist: the only time one notices a hole is when it is of a distinctly different character than the surrounding area. Holes have no existence in and of themselves.

I suppose when you get down to it, evil exists because good exists, although good could exist just fine without evil.

Evil exists much in the same way holes exist: the only time one notices a hole is when it is of a distinctly different character than the surrounding area. Holes have no existence in and of themselves.

I suppose when you get down to it, evil exists because good exists, although good could exist just fine without evil.

So what constitutes good? What makes one act good and a different act evil?

So what constitutes good? What makes one act good and a different act evil?

I would say that good acts result in the creation of value. Of course, this could quickly lead us to be running around in circles trying to nail down definitions, but I would say that in order for something to be recognised as value it has to be recognised as value by both sides in a transaction. "One person's good is another person's evil" doesn't really work.

I would say that good acts result in the creation of value. Of course, this could quickly lead us to be running around in circles trying to nail down definitions, but I would say that in order for something to be recognised as value it has to be recognised as value by both sides in a transaction. "One person's good is another person's evil" doesn't really work.


How is a person affected if they commit an 'evil' act?

Evil is selfishness. He deliberately harms others to benefit himself. It is always he wants to be powerful, he wants to be influential, he wants to be rich. He has no compunctions for who he hurts attempting to gain his selfish goals.

Of course there is Evil. Of course it exist. Think of some very very very bad stuff that somebody does? Like the *worst* stuff. That is evil.

Are there evil people? Like Serial Killers? I think so!

Maybe tho? You R thinking, like is that a *true* something that is evil, that is not human made? Well, I don't think so. It is like Time U kno. Time is man made. There is not time in the Universe. Just mass X velocity right? Right. But of course U do not need a clock 2 have time. U could B an American Indian and say *many moons ago that happened*.

I think if there was no seasons then U could not see the cycle, and if the moon not wax and wane, then U not think it was coming and going, it is always there of course anyway, and so? We would never have think of time.

And I think that if somepeople were not *soo* messed up and crazy, they would not do the *really* bad things 2 others, and so? We would not have the idea of evil.

Just my 4 cents. *LOL*

Suzy :)

Evil is subjective, as it is seen differenly by everyone depending on the morals they were raised on.

Europe: pretty much secular; most countries have free, universal healthcare.

USA: deeply religous; private healthcare, an obscenely high infant mortality rate for a first world country.

I'd be interested to see how you would link those by matter of religion.

So what constitutes good? What makes one act good and a different act evil?

You are asking for a definition of morality. Most philosphers have agreed that while they cannot define morality, they know it exists.

Yes i believe in evil. only because if good to exist evil has to be on the other end. For every Yang there a Ying.

Good and Evil are just words, and to define wether they are labels appliable to phenomenon existing in the Real World(tm), we have to define what we individually mean by the words. By this definition, of course, we have to look at the subject from a 1. person view: Good and Evil are labels applied by individuals. No matter how much we try to agree about the use of the words, individuals can never get to a point where they agree 100% on what the words mean. Thus, the concepts of Good and Evil can never be anything more than the views of individuals, no matter how much they agree on applying the label to the same things. Thus, there can very well be Good and Evil in the universe, but only from the viewpoint of individuals. Unfortunately, what we apply to the words can be so diverse that we sometimes grossly misunderstand each other. We should abandon the words Good and Evil and instead use the terms we really mean when we say Good and Evil, like Blasphemous or Helping or Rapist or Cartoon-drawing, or shellfish-eating, or whatever, to avoid the misunderstandings.

If there really is a God, I don't think Good and Evil are his conceptions, I think they are invented by humans to justify Hatred and War.

There is no good or evil just two opposite points of view (just agreeing with what alot of people have said about the subjective nature of these terms).

Although there is one exception:

Of course there is Evil. Of course it exist. Think of some very very very bad stuff that somebody does? Like the *worst* stuff. That is evil.

Are there evil people? Like Serial Killers? I think so!

Maybe tho? You R thinking, like is that a *true* something that is evil, that is not human made? Well, I don't think so. It is like Time U kno. Time is man made. There is not time in the Universe. Just mass X velocity right? Right. But of course U do not need a clock 2 have time. U could B an American Indian and say *many moons ago that happened*.

I think if there was no seasons then U could not see the cycle, and if the moon not wax and wane, then U not think it was coming and going, it is always there of course anyway, and so? We would never have think of time.

And I think that if somepeople were not *soo* messed up and crazy, they would not do the *really* bad things 2 others, and so? We would not have the idea of evil.

Just my 4 cents. *LOL*

Suzy :)

This is evil by anyone's standards.

j/k

There is no good or evil just two opposite points of view (just agreeing with what alot of people have said about the subjective nature of these terms).

Although there is one exception:



This is evil by anyone's standards.

j/k

*LOL* How U can say that? I am *both* good and evil. I know that.

Luv,

Suzy :)

Kreynoria']Evil is selfishness. He deliberately harms others to benefit himself. It is always he wants to be powerful, he wants to be influential, he wants to be rich. He has no compunctions for who he hurts attempting to gain his selfish goals.

In any society, there has to be competition, and when you have competition, you have losers.

Consider this: Andrew Carnegie, a giant of the steel industry during the Industrial Revolution in the US worked his laborers on starvation wages and obscenely long hours. Even children and pregnant women worked in his steel mills.

Then he retired in his 60s, and what did he do with his fortune? He gave most of it, some $400 million, away to libraries, hospitals, etc.

Thus by your argument, Andrew Carnegie was evil simply because he was selfish and ambitious. You're disregarding the fact that he also did good things during his life.

I don't think that evil exists.

So what do you think?

Sure, evil exists.

Just look at Dick Cheney for proof.

This is evil by anyone's standards.

j/k

Indeed. I have seen the light. :cool:

Sure, evil exists.

Just look at Dick Cheney for proof.

I'd rather not look at his ugly mutt unless I absolutely have to.

But he's just doing what he thinks is right (same goes for Bush). I wouldn't say either of them are evil, only misled (but that's just my opinion).

I agree with all the many people who have said that evil is a point of view, though I'll add that if I was to characterize evil, I'd just go with humans.

I agree with all the many people who have said that evil is a point of view, though I'll add that if I was to characterize evil, I'd just go with humans.

Yes, Swedes in particular.

I don't think that evil exists. It's a subjective concept, open to anyone's interpretations.


One word: War


go fight one, that'll change your mind

One word: War


go fight one, that'll change your mind
Could you be a little bit more specific?

Claiming that all morality is subjetive is an ethically lazy veiwpoint. In the entire field of ethics, no philosopher worth his salt really takes such a viewpoint seriously.

Claiming that all morality is subjetive is an ethically lazy veiwpoint. In the entire field of ethics, no philosopher worth his salt really takes such a viewpoint seriously.
Aye; morality itself is not a "subjective thing" so much as it is something that can be viewed either subjectively or objectively at any given time.