Evil in the Eye of the Beholder?

Is evil in the eye of the beholder? Do people veiw certian deeds as evil and good according to their upbringing? Is there a universal evil, then what is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anyone have a point of veiw. Most people think that all evil is universal. I tend to dissagree though. ANyone care to join me self debate?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

evil is a subjective term, it relates to a persons moral stance on what they deem good and bad, evil is that which allows this bad to happen, people notions of good and bad are fundamentally different depending on social environment, religion, beliefs and influences. Some may believe that if there is good cause that is reason to kill someone, others believe that to kill someone is evil thus making it in the eye of the beholder

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is intentionally causing harm to other living beings for the purpose of ones own selfish interest. I believe it is therefore universal.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

So injecting someone with a vaccin against a disease, is evil?

Or if that does not constitute 'harm':

when a submarine has a hole in it and they have to seal parts of the boat quickly, leaving some men to drown inside the sealed compartments?

It all depends on your personal reference set.

 

There really is no good and evil. Just perception and opinion. It seems the ideas of "evil" and "good" only exist in humans.

No animals other than human are "evil"...


It's just another classification. I did an essay touching on this very topic.

 

If you are attempting to save lives then the intention is not one of selfish interest.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Two people on a remote island. One has the vaccin, the other don't want the needle in his body. The first person forces the other in self interest.

And in the submarine, the situation is more clear. It is self preservation, but not evil.

 

Then we are in agreement.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Re: Re: Evil in the Eye of the Beholder?

So the natural food chain is evil? I am evil for eating? Whatever I eat was alive at some time, it's for my selfish interest and it certainly harms that which I ate.

I mean, what interest is more selfish than my survival?

 

wesmorris is an evil evil man

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...evil is in the eye of the beholder
it's such a subjective term, without even a definition.
i mean, a modern definition. the old definition "satan is evil" doesn't seem to work anymore

 

Thanks for responding......


Do you think that evil is to have intent to hurt a person?

Or mabye you have to and then it would be consirered stratigy?

 

Yes maybe cruelty is evil.

 

Nah, I just think that evil is to have the intent to harm a person.

 

Speaking of evil...

Which of the following is evil? OR rather what is EVIL?

The person who commits the act of evil

or the ones who sit idly by watching the act of evil???

food for thought O_O


Also---Ignorance can be a sign of evil.
Too much intelligence can also be evil....(think of serial killers and Hitler people)

So .....? More food for thought.

 

The only really good evil people are the ones that think they're always right and never wrong. Osama Bin Laden for example, he knows he's right. That’s what makes him a bad guy, he doesn't believe that he's doing wrong; he believes that he’s fighting a war against the bad guys (America).

 

So, Evil IS in the Eye's of the beholder.....

 

An age dilemma, for sure, ~GOOD and EVIL,!

Most of us do not intentionally do things to hurt ourselves, or others. Those of us who do, -do evil.

"Evil," ought to describe deeds rather than individuals, in most instances. Individuals are sometimes campaign agents for good and evil!

We are all a combination of tendencies related to whatever pushes our buttons, but the "good" and "evil" are not our products. They were here before us. We are born into them. And, as the old saying goes, it depends upon which wolf (within)we develope as to which will be the stronger.

When I do things that serve me well, I exercise the good wolf. When I am congnizant of my temple's needs, and care for my temple, I nourish the good wolf. When I serve my hunger for knowledge and my thirst for rightness, I educate the good wolf. When I fail to do these things, I sin.

When I -deliberately- defile, abuse and neglect what God has given me, I serve evil. Evil is deliberate sin. As for my earthly brothers and sisters: If I should deliberately harm, discourage, torment or kill, I would be serving evil. However, if I uphold, encourage, love and cherish those who come into my life, to the best of my ability, that is "good."

Responsibility according to ability is a good guide, because some of us are handicapped by misconceptions. When we are, that is another matter.

To rid the earth of evil is not our quest--we are not qualified--but to give it no energy surely ought to be.


That is more or less my take on "good" and "evil."

PMT

 

Yup, pretty much.

Osama knows it in his heart that he is right. To him, what he does, isn't evil the least bit.

Evil really is in the eye of the beholder but some things are just universal and considered bad.

Murder, incest, stealing...etc etc....

Most socities have placed laws to prevent these action and to punish it. But each society has different meaning of those evils.

In US suicide is illegal and looked down upon but in Japan it is understood that sometimes a man must sacrifice his life to retain his honor. Also in US suicide is a desparate last act of sanity and is a messy process but in Japan it is quite civil when one decides he/she must take his life for dishonoring his/her family or his/her name.

The person spends time praying and says all the paryers before the passing and family and friends are there to honor his act and even help out. Ofcourse this is the honorable way to do it...in Japan teenagers and others still commit suicide the dishonorable way.

A long winded example? yes......but in my opinion it shows the differences held by two different socities of the same act.