NationStates Jolt Archive

Capable of evil. It does mean that. In that moment, this person was evil.
Yes, being capable of doing evil is not evil itself.
Heh you need to explore my question a bit fulley to realise your mistake.

If I am labeled a hypocrit, then why is that so?

You speak of peace and beat your wife, therefore you are a hypocrite.

it doesn't need to be realistic, it's a thought experiment designed to test principles. the question is, does such a person properly belong grouped with those who do good that they intended to do?

Grouped in what way? Would they be as fun to hand-out with? probably not.

I would say yes.

really? why so?

Yes, being capable of doing evil is not evil itself.

When someone does evil, someone is evil at that very moment one is doing the bad deed. Actions are, as it has already being stated, neutral. The intent of evil or good is within people.

Grouped in what way?

in that when classify what is good and what is bad, these people/their actions all fall together. is a good action with good intentions the same as a good action with evil intentions?

Being a hypocrites does not make one "evil".

The only truly "evil" entities are sci-fi/horror films.

The question I'm adressing here is not what is evil, but what defines a persons, thoughts, words, or as I contend actions.

In my question it is clear that I am a hypocrit. That is the definition that has been given me, I ask for what reason.

If my thoughts define me, then I can not be called a hypocrit, if my words define me then I can not be called a hypocrit.

It is my actions that have caused the label hypocrit to be used.

Yes, being capable of doing evil is not evil itself.


You speak of peace and beat your wife, therefore you are a hypocrite.

Yes, my actions are differant from my words. Thus my words do not matter, it is my actions that I am judged upon.

really? why so?

When that person dies and is remembered. In what light will he be remembered?

in that when classify what is good and what is bad, these people/their actions all fall together. is a good action with good intentions the same as a good action with evil intentions?

I would feel more like commending someone personally for the good, but in reality both actions have the same effect.

When that person dies and is remembered. In what light will he be remembered?

If you take the example I gave of Adolf Hitler, he will be remembered as a bad person.

If you take the example I gave of Adolf Hitler, he will be remembered as a bad person.

Heh yeah but I'm talking about the person in Free's example. The one that wants to do evil, but inadvertantly does good.

I contend that when he dies, he will be remembered as a good person.

I contend that when he dies, he will be remembered as a good person.

That, or not remembered at all.

Yes, my actions are differant from my words. Thus my words do not matter, it is my actions that I am judged upon.
Not necessarily, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, but this is not what he is remembered for, he is remembered for his word and his thought.
When someone does evil, someone is evil at that very moment one is doing the bad deed. Actions are, as it has already being stated, neutral. The intent of evil or good is within people.

No, you are not evil at the time of doing something evil, you are just doing something evil.

Ahh I'm glad you said that. So then you would agree that the words and thoughts, are supperceded by the actions?

That if you think good, and talk good, but do evil then you are evil?

I think we have to be careful here. Is what the person did truly evil or was just misguided? If one thinks good and talks good and one does an evil thing. It may be that person was unaware that the action was viewed as evil.


For example: If I think it is good to be charitable and if I say it it is Good to give to the poor and then later you catch me walking a homeless man without giving him anything. It could on the surface look 'evil". It may be that I left my wallet upstairs. It may be that I had no money with me at the moment. It may be that I believe in giving to recognized charities. It may be that I previously gave to him and you didn't see.

I suppose that could be considered a neutral act but the point is generally I think good, talk good, act good. Think bad, talk bad, do bad.

No, you are not evil at the time of doing something evil, you are just doing something evil.

The intention to do evil is there. Hence, when you're being evil, doing something evil, you ARE evil at that moment. Once again, actions are neutral. We, humans, are the ones who give it the evil or good connotation.

Not necessarily, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, but this is not what he is remembered for, he is remembered for his word and his thought.


No, you are not evil at the time of doing something evil, you are just doing something evil.

Meh! One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In the case of Nelson Mandela he was indeed a freedom fighter. Ohh and he is still alive, and once he is dead, I'll bet you a great sum that he will be remembered not as a terrorist but a fredom fighter and of course that little thing he did to bring down the apartied system.

If my thoughts define me, then I can not be called a hypocrit, if my words define me then I can not be called a hypocrit.

that doesn't work at all. on either way of talking about hypocrisy - taking actions that are opposed to your stated intentions or professing intentions one does not actually have - the hypocrisy remains.

That, or not remembered at all.

Or that, but that does not help the example at all!:p

Or that, but that does not help the example at all!:p

If I was given the choice of wether to be remembered as a good or bad person, I rather not be remembered.

I think we have to be careful here. Is what the person did truly evil or was just misguided? If one thinks good and talks good and one does an evil thing. It may be that person was unaware that the action was viewed as evil.


For example: If I think it is good to be charitable and if I say it it is Good to give to the poor and then later you catch me walking a homeless man without giving him anything. It could on the surface look 'evil". It may be that I left my wallet upstairs. It may be that I had no money with me at the moment. It may be that I believe in giving to recognized charities. It may be that I previously gave to him and you didn't see.

I suppose that could be considered a neutral act but the point is generally I think good, talk good, act good. Think bad, talk bad, do bad.

Well granted any talk of morality automaticlay comes with the caveat of subjectivity.

that doesn't work at all. on either way of talking about hypocrisy - taking actions that are opposed to your stated intentions or professing intentions one does not actually have - the hypocrisy remains.

Indeed, but the fundemental thing to realise, is that the actions are the thing that matter. If I talked the talk and walked the walk, then I cannot be a hypocrit.
It is my actions then not my words that earn me that label.

The word hypocrite, is meaningless if my actions are not involved. To ACT contrary to what one says.

The intention to do evil is there. Hence, when you're being evil, doing something evil, you ARE evil at that moment. Once again, actions are neutral. We, humans, are the ones who give it the evil or good connotation.

You are not evil at that moment, you are doing evil.

You are not evil at that moment, you are doing evil.

So you're postulating that people are neutral? I don't think so. When you're doing evil, you're evil. When you're doing good, you're good.

in that when classify what is good and what is bad, these people/their actions all fall together. is a good action with good intentions the same as a good action with evil intentions?

good action with good intentions is of course what we strive for.

a good action with evil intentions -> I can not think of an example of this that happens in real life. In the previous example if you try to kick a puppy and miss, you are still guilty of the attempt. To harm another creature for no reason could be considered evil. Is it cruel? I would say yes. Is it selfish? I would say yes. The fact that you didn't actually harm it is a fortunate circumstance. The fact that it further caused the school bus to be saved is fortunate consequence and likely more to do with chance.

No, because it would cause a population explosion.

Deplete Genetic stocks and make disease kill faster and make us able to make entire clone armies. Playing god is dangerous. Also robots should never have intelligence.

I would feel more like commending someone personally for the good, but in reality both actions have the same effect.

which would seem to open us to a different way of cutting up the moral world. the good intentions make a person worthy of praise (though perhaps only if they can actually bring those good intentions to fruition), which is more or less similar to what is intended by calling someone a 'good person'. on the other hand, there seems to also be an objective accounting of something like utility that we can also think of as 'the good', the value of which is independent of the intentions of of the actors. both things are relevant to goodness, just in different guises and perhaps for different purposes.

No, because it would cause a population explosion.

Deplete Genetic stocks and make disease kill faster and make us able to make entire clone armies. Playing god is dangerous. Also robots should never have intelligence.

Kindly... oh please, kindly read the OP.

NO MATTER THE SIZE OF YOUR CHURCH

That´s a false question.
It´s not about numbers, it´s about creed...and as far as creed is concerned there´s only 3 churches one can talk about without start laughing and those are the Roman Catholic, and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches.

NO MATTER THE SIZE OF YOUR CHURCH

That´s a false question.
It´s not about numbers, it´s about creed...and as far as creed is concerned there´s only 3 churches one can talk about without start laughing and those are the Roman Catholic, and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches.

Ah, yes... the fresh scent of n00bs. Go back to the damn OP and read it. Actually read it before you post this kind of crap. Kthnxbai. :rolleyes:

You are not evil at that moment, you are doing evil.

Not convinced by my argument huh?

Lets try another track then.

Causeality.


You agree that such a thing as an evil action exists?

From whence does the actions spring?

NO MATTER THE SIZE OF YOUR CHURCH

That´s a false question.
It´s not about numbers, it´s about creed...and as far as creed is concerned there´s only 3 churches one can talk about without start laughing and those are the Roman Catholic, and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches.

Duck, flaming arrows heading your way.

So you're postulating that people are neutral? I don't think so. When you're doing evil, you're evil. When you're doing good, you're good.
That's not what you said earlier. One is not evil at the time one's action is.

Isn't this getting a bit repetitive.
NO MATTER THE SIZE OF YOUR CHURCH

That´s a false question.
It´s not about numbers, it´s about creed...and as far as creed is concerned there´s only 3 churches one can talk about without start laughing and those are the Roman Catholic, and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches.

Read the OP.

Duck, flaming arrows heading your way.

Because it's so obvious by his/her magestic post that he/she read and really analyzed the OP.

That's not what you said earlier. One is not evil at the time one's action is.

Isn't this getting a bit repetitive.

Yeah, I'm gonna stop now. My head hurts, I need lunch and a nice stroll through the city.

Not convinced by my argument huh?

Lets try another track then.

Causeality.


You agree that such a thing as an evil action exists?

From whence does the actions spring?

Causality is a terrible theory.

Causality is a terrible theory.

But it's very real.

Duck, flaming arrows heading your way.

I´m quite used to it, thank you very much

That's not what you said earlier. One is not evil at the time one's action is.

Isn't this getting a bit repetitive.


You know it's bound to get repetative when you refuse to put your case across.

Let me demonstrate all that you have been doing.

Me: Actions are what defines us, so if an action is evil, then the actor is also evil.

You: Nu-uh!

Me: Yes, what I say is correct and here is why.......

You: Nu-uh!

Me: Okay then explain why you say this:

You: Umm Sooooo Nana.....

Yeah, I'm gonna stop now. My head hurts, I need lunch and a nice stroll through the city.

Lunch? How far behind is Puerto Rico?

Causality is a terrible theory.

And why do yoy say this? Elaborate my young freind please!

[QUOTE=Ring of Isengard;14726576]That's not what you said earlier. One is not evil at the time one's action is.

Isn't this getting a bit repetitive.[QUOTE]


You know it's bound to get repetative when you refuse to put your case across.

Let me demonstrate all that you have been doing.

Me: Actions are what defines us, so if an action is evil, then the actor is also evil.

You: Nu-uh!

Me: Yes, what I say is correct and here is why.......

You: Nu-uh!

Me: Okay then explain why you say this:

You: Umm Sooooo Nana.....

Humans just do what makes them happy. If you are one of those inconvenienced, you call the person "evil".

Lunch? How far behind is Puerto Rico?

It's 12:11 hrs right now. About 6 hours behind, I think.

I´m quite used to it, thank you very much

:rolleyes:

It's 12:11 hrs right now. About 6 hours behind, I think.

Woo hoo 17:20 here ten mins left then home I go.

Woo hoo 17:20 here ten mins left then home I go.

Yeah, I miss being in Europe.:(

Yeah, I miss being in Europe.:(

Why? Europe sucks.

Why? Europe sucks.

It does not, RoI.

Indeed, but the fundemental thing to realise, is that the actions are the thing that matter. If I talked the talk and walked the walk, then I cannot be a hypocrit.
It is my actions then not my words that earn me that label.

The word hypocrite, is meaningless if my actions are not involved. To ACT contrary to what one says.

hypocrisy relies on the idea that both actions and intentions matter. if anything, the intentions matter more. i can be a hypocrite by publicly saying i believe or intend one thing while privately believing or intending otherwise. conversely, i am not a hypocrite if my actions accidentally run counter to my stated intentions. in that case i would merely be unfortunate.

hypocrisy relies on the idea that both actions and intentions matter. if anything, the intentions matter more. i can be a hypocrite by publicly saying i believe or intend one thing while privately believing or intending otherwise. conversely, i am not a hypocrite if my actions accidentally run counter to my stated intentions. in that case i would merely be unfortunate.

Do you believe in casuality then?

hypocrisy relies on the idea that both actions and intentions matter. if anything, the intentions matter more. i can be a hypocrite by publicly saying i believe or intend one thing while privately believing or intending otherwise.

No, you would just be lying.

Not convinced by my argument huh?

Lets try another track then.

Causeality.


You agree that such a thing as an evil action exists?

From whence does the actions spring?

From intention.

I am hungry.

I want to resolve this conflict so i go to the fridge a make a sandwich.


Intention: To resolve a conflict, let's say. My grumbling tummy.

Now then an old lady is standing at the corner of a busy street and has a walker.

Good Intention: I should offer to help that lady across the street

Good Action: I walk over and ask if she needs help crossing the street. She replies yes. We proceed across the street. If she says no still good intention and action.


Evil Intention: While that lady is paying attention to the traffic i should go over their and steal her purse.

Evil action; I run by and grab her purse, possibly knocking her to the ground and run down a back alley. If I get caught and she she gets her purse back, still an evil action and I should be punished. If I chicken out and say oh there is a cop on the corner. I can't do it. Still an evil thought.


Neutral Intention: Damn I am late for work. I hope the boss doesn't catch me. Oh hey look there is an old lady. Man, sucks getting old. Let me just slip by her.

Neutral Intention: I slip past her and into the back door of my office and avoid detection of the boss. Both the action and the thought are neutral.

I could have helped but I didn't. It could be consider selfish but not evil. It is not necessarily unjust or cruel.

hypocrisy relies on the idea that both actions and intentions matter. if anything, the intentions matter more. i can be a hypocrite by publicly saying i believe or intend one thing while privately believing or intending otherwise. conversely, i am not a hypocrite if my actions accidentally run counter to my stated intentions. in that case i would merely be unfortunate.

Okay perhaps poor choice of thought experiment, but is not public speaking an action?

No, you would just be lying.

hypocrisy is a sort of specialized form of lying

From intention.

I am hungry.

I want to resolve this conflict so i go to the fridge a make a sandwich.


Intention: To resolve a conflict, let's say. My grumbling tummy.

Now then an old lady is standing at the corner of a busy street and has a walker.

Good Intention: I should offer to help that lady across the street

Good Action: I walk over and ask if she needs help crossing the street. She replies yes. We proceed across the street. If she says no still good intention and action.


Evil Intention: While that lady is paying attention to the traffic i should go over their and steal her purse.

Evil action; I run by and grab her purse, possibly knocking her to the ground and run down a back alley. If I get caught and she she gets her purse back, still an evil action and I should be punished. If I chicken out and say oh there is a cop on the corner. I can't do it. Still an evil thought.


Neutral Intention: Damn I am late for work. I hope the boss doesn't catch me. Oh hey look there is an old lady. Man, sucks getting old. Let me just slip by her.

Neutral Intention: I slip past her and into the back door of my office and avoid detection of the boss. Both the action and the thought are neutral.

I could have helped but I didn't. It could be consider selfish but not evil. It is not necessarily unjust or cruel.

And in every case, there is an actor for both the act and the intention.

You have the intention, you perform the act. They both stem from the same soure, the cause is in fact a human. Both the intent and the act cannot exist without the actor.

So then an evil thought, which transfers into an evil act, must make the actor evil at the time of the act?

hypocrisy relies on the idea that both actions and intentions matter. if anything, the intentions matter more. i can be a hypocrite by publicly saying i believe or intend one thing while privately believing or intending otherwise. conversely, i am not a hypocrite if my actions accidentally run counter to my stated intentions. in that case i would merely be unfortunate.

What comes to mind on this one is smoking.


Father: Son, smoking is bad for you. Don't do it.
Son: But Dad you smoke?
Father: Yes but I have had a hard day and need to relax.

Smoking is bad for you, the fact that I do it, is not the point. I may have started a long time ago and I am having difficulty quitting. It doesn't mean I shouldn't stop you from doing so?

It does not, RoI.

It does.

Okay perhaps poor choice of thought experiment, but is not public speaking an action?

sure, but it isn't the part of the equation which is hypocritical. it is the part by which we can judge whether the other bit counts as hypocrisy. it's what makes hypocrisy knowable to us.

unless we were talking specifically about some sort of hypocrisy about public speaking...

hypocrisy is a sort of specialized form of lying

Yes, it is lying to comfort one's ego. Lying about beliefs is something different.

And in every case, there is an actor for both the act and the intention.

You have the intention, you perform the act. They both stem from the same source, the cause is in fact a human. Both the intent and the act cannot exist without the actor.

So then an evil thought, which transfers into an evil act, must make the actor evil at the time of the act?

I agree. You can to some degree separate the deed from the action. However it does make the person evil, good, or neutral depending on the the intent.

Yes, it is lying to comfort one's ego. Lying about beliefs is something different.

it seems to me that one can lie about one's beliefs without being hypocritical, but i'm not sure one can be hypocritical without lying about their beliefs. the distinction seems to be based on the nature and intended purpose of the lie. do you have an example in mind?

It does.

I can understand if you say England sucks. But I assure you, Spain does not, France does not, Portugal and Italy do not so...

I can understand if you say England sucks. But I assure you, Spain does not, France does not, Portugal and Italy do not so...

They do, these days.

Besides I hate the frogs.

They do, these days.

Besides I hate the frogs.

Ay, per quí carvayón mais confusu. Nun me mola, peru nan de nan.:confused:

Ay, per quí carvayón mais confusu. Nun me mola, peru nan de nan.:confused:

HG;IF QWIHR jepefPu hJPuj G;py 78PG ulYP GTP?

it seems to me that one can lie about one's beliefs without being hypocritical, but i'm not sure one can be hypocritical without lying about their beliefs. the distinction seems to be based on the nature and intended purpose of the lie. do you have an example in mind?

A politician lying about his beliefs concerning immigration in order to win office is not a hypocrite. A politician who claims, and believes, he loves peace, while starting wars, is.

A politician lying about his beliefs concerning immigration in order to win office is not a hypocrite. A politician who claims, and believes, he loves peace, while starting wars, is.

oddly, i'd actually use it somewhat the other way 'round. the hypocrite is one who pretends they favor one thing while really believing and/or doing otherwise. i mean, if a christian thinks that they ought not sin, but then sins anyway, that ain't necessarily hypocrisy. sometimes it is hard to live up to ones stated (and honest) beliefs for various reasons.

I was reading through these ERA lyrics and, mesmerized, I came upon the realization that what they postulate is true:

Mahma kana fek (No matter what happens in your World)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

Onshor salama fe el- donea (You are able to spread peace)

Ya lael... (Approach, night...)

Ya aen... (Approach, eyes...)

El-nour fe aleaman (There's always the light of faith)

No matter what, the fact that you believe in something and that this something brings you to the light is enough. It can be God, it can be Allah, it can be Buddah, it can be Nature, or Nothing at all, if this belief makes you happy, if this belief brings you completion, then it's ok.

What do you think, NSG?

So you've become a good catholic your going to confess, get married and start making babies until you drop ?

So you've become a good catholic your going to confess, get married and start making babies until you drop ?

Gee I hope not.

What did I tell you about the apocalypse?

Gee I hope not.

What did I tell you about the apocalypse?

We all owe god an Apocalypse.

I agree. You can to some degree separate the deed from the action. However it does make the person evil, good, or neutral depending on the the intent.

Indeed, the idea that I'm trying to get across to RoI is one of definition and being. I guess it can be summed up with the phrase 'being is doing'

Take a spoon for example, we define it for what it does. You can't spoon soup with a knife, you'll need a spoon for that action.

So you've become a good catholic your going to confess, get married and start making babies until you drop ?

No, I have not become a good Catholic. No, I'm not ready to confess anything. No, I'm not about to get married and I don't plan on making babies until I drop.

This thread ran its course. It should be locked.

No, I have not become a good Catholic. No, I'm not ready to confess anything. No, I'm not about to get married and I don't plan on making babies until I drop.

This thread ran its course. It should be locked.

because of what I said ?

Most likely

because of what I said ?

No Greed, not because of what you said. It just did.

No Greed, not because of what you said. It just did.

Until they lock it we can make fun of you finding religion because your home sick.

Until they lock it we can make fun of you finding religion because your home sick.

Please... don't. Please.

Until they lock it we can make fun of you finding religion because you're home sick.

*fixed* :D

Nanatsu requested that this thread be closed.