Evil in the Eye of the Beholder?

Hmmm, Good points, Murder, Incest, and Stealing.


This raises another idea. The idea that universal evil changes over time. In the Bible for instance, Murder wasnt considered bad as long as it was done in the right reguards. They went on a eye for eye tooth for tooth leg for leg philosophy. So as long as you were justifed, it is ok.

Incest is a good idea too, and I cant come up for a idea for that one except for people in the Appalacians would dissagree whole heartedly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Stealing, I dont think that stealing is veiwed as a universal evil. If a family needs food and they have to steal for it then in there eyes it is nesseciery. Just look at Robin Hood.


Instead, I would add, hmmm, shit...cant come uyp with anything.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evil is a human definition, and can therefore only exist in human perception.
Or can it? A dog that is getting abused by its owner somehow gives the impression of knowing that what the owner is doing is wrong. The dog can sense the "evil" intention, but not identify it as a moral concept.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

I think evil can exist to a POV. Anything that is fundamentally opposed to the POV is eligable for consideration as evil. Seems to generally make the cut.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There isn't a universal evil.

Good and evil are subjective concepts based upon a set of ethics. There is alot of ethical systems out there, and not everone has the same set.

So, yes. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Most subjective concepts are, in the end.

 

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

Evil is the result of an thought/action and can only exist (from our perspective) in human perception because the human has a free-will.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

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

WTF?
If evil is the result of an action or a thought, tell me what defines evil so that I might avoid it. What kinds of actions/thoughts lead to evil results?

Also, please clarify that sentence.
If evil is a result that can only exist inside of human perception because a human has free will, are you saying we only choose to perceive evil, or that we can only perceive these results because we have choice? Or, are you saying that evil exists outside of human perception, and we only think that it is human perception because we choose to?

 

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

Actions or thoughts with an intention to harm oneself or another living being purely for selfish reasons.

No, i am saying we are capable of understanding what is evil.

I believe it does exist outside of human perception, but that argument would take us down a religous road which i don't think is necassery for this thread or forum.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

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

Too many loopholes in that. For instance:
Let's say me and an old man are stranded on an island. We are both going to die of starvation. If I kill the old man and eat him because I am hungry, that would be evil by your definition.
But, if I am a doctor, who has happened to figure out the cure for cancer, and I eat him to try to ensure that I will be alive to give this cure to the world, its not evil.
Same action has been done, with the same imediate results. One is evil by that diffinition and one isn't. In one I am killing him just to save me. In the other, i am killling him to save the world.

Or we can flip it around. I'm still the doctor. This time however, I let the old man eat me. Now, was it evil of me to do so? I saved his life for I don't know how long, but i just screwed the rest of the world. Either way, I wouldn't call letting myself get eaten a selfish act, yet I am indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. Was it evil of him to eat me? Would it be if he knew about my cure for cancer?

What about things that aren't selfish or selfless? Let's say in a certain society that if the first child of a couple is female, they leave it outside to die. Is that evil? The couple certainly isn't gaining by it.

Or what about things that don't involve knowingly hurting people?
If I find a jug of water in the desert and take it and drink it because I am thirsty? I don't know if doing so will hurt anyone. I don't know if that jug belongs to anyone else, and by doing so I have just stolen a family's only water source. So should I not save my self for fear of hurting someone else, or is it ok to do what ever I like as long as I don't know wheather it will or not.

The problem is that you are stating that there is an absolute moral right and wrong. That it exists in more than just perceptions. More importantly, you are defining it by the intentions and the results, and not the actions themselves.

Raping a woman isn't evil if the guy believes she wants it and that he is only doing it to help her by your logic. That doesn't fly with me.

How?

What would make you think that? (that it exists outside human perception)
As far as necessary goes, think again. The only way you can support your position is with a seperate observer that is infallible. That being the case, you should either not dabble with reasoning, or learn how to do so seperately from personal beliefs.

 

Come, come. Talking something to death may seem to sent it to never-never land, but evil is with us whether it is ever explained or not.

"Evil" is not the deed, it is the spirit, attitude, thoughts, whichever you prefer, that causes the deeds. Evil is not the person, it is the "thing" that has gotten hold of that person.

I will share a story. Fable? Perhaps. You judge.

A man was taking journeys out of his body, and on one occasion he found himself (out of the body) being chased by a monster. It was an awful looking thing. The next time he went out of his body, there it was again. This time it got closer and closer until it was on his back breathing so close that he could feel its breath.
No matter how many times he tried to chase it away, it seemed determined to be near him. Though it was doing him no harm, it frightened him.

Back in his body, he found that he was wet with sweat, and shivering. He contemplated the monster, trying to understand wheere it came from and why it would not leave him alone. On his next journey, he asked the monster. The monster replied, "You made me, and now you want me to go away. I do not know where else to go." He then realized that the monster was harmless. And once he realized that it was harmless, it was no more.

It has been a while since I read this. (Journeys Out of the Body, Robert Monroe) Whereas, I am not into that, I found the book fascinating to a point. That story stuck with me, and when things commence getting out of whack, I ask myself: "What am I creating." When we fill the atmosphere with awful intense feelings, and have all manner of thought as to how we are going to set things straight, we start on our monster, and then it gets so awful that it can destroy us, not because it has power, but because we have lost touch with what we are doing with our lives, and all we see is something scary. (That is , more or less, what I got from it).

We do not usually set out to be bad, go wrong, cause ourselves heartache, but we do. Other people do awful things, not us! Other people are ruining their lives, not us! Then one day we see a monster, and my God! it belongs to us. It feels like evil is in our midst, and we do not know where it came from. Unless we come to terms with whatever is hindering us from our purpose on this earth, whatever it may be, we leave the door open, so to speak, -to all manner of undesireable things.

Behavior breeds behavior. Good begets good, and evil begets evil. I believe that evil is born in ignorance. In fact, I am convinced of this. One has to be ignorant of something to let himself be led into the darkness of evil. Knowing this should help us to understand that getting there was not truly intentional, but once there, staying there usually is. Interesting.

Want to avoid religion, okay? How about good sense. "Shun the very appearance of evil," someone said.

I have worked with some very troubled individuals, and I can tell you, this is good advice. PMT

 

reasoning

TO MEPHURA: How can we reason without accessing our own personal beliefs. That is ridiculous. Perhaps I did not fully catch your meaning. PMT

 

Sorry Wes, but what is POV?

 

yes
POV=Point of veiw

PMT

Its pretty easy actually.
I believe in alot of things. Most of my personal beliefs, however, are logical or reasonable. I remove my personal feelings and beliefs from the argument. It is better to let the argument stand on its own merits instead of resting on a foundation of beliefs that may not be shared by everyone.

Reasoning implies thought. Beliefs aren't alwas thought out. It's not ridiculous. It's how you build an argument.

For example; I do not like abortion. I think there are other ways to solve the situations that that it is used as a quick fix for. In short, I think it shouldn't be allowed except in very specific circumstances.

However, I can't find it morally wrong. The goods outweigh the wrongs as far as I reason them. So, despite my personal beliefs, I have to say that there isn't anything wrong with it.

It you think this is ridiculous or impossible, don't argue with me. Beliefs and emotions are often the weakest point in any argument, and I will attack them, regardless of whether or not I share them.

 

Due to the nature of this post, ie it is more relating an story than stating a stance, I am going to tell you what bothers me about it. I might have trouble keeping my feelings in though. I tend to turn them off when I post. However, as I am letting emotions and beliefs spill here, I may tend to ramble.

I'll tell you why this bothers me. Why it is that I will argue against anyone that supports this view of evil existing of and on its own.
It is, in my eyes, a way of handing off responsibility. You want to say that evil is a thing, a thought, a force, etc. fine. The problem with this is that you deny the true root. If you say it exists externally, and independantly of man, then you are allowing evil to take the blame for your and other's actions.( "oh, this evil force compelled me to do this." "he/she was possessed by a demon" etc.) To me, this is bullshit. Plain and simple.

Evil is a name, an abstract idea, nothing more. It only has relevance in how we perceive it. If you perceive my actions, thoughts, ideas, whatever to be evil, that is fine with me. They are mine, and I choose to have them.

No mystical force is compelling me. No external agent is forcing my hand. When I act, I am fully aware of most of the possible consiquences of my actions. I make my choice baised on that. We all do.

I stand where I do because I have thought about issues that concern me and reached a decission based on who I am. I will not blindly accept that something is right or wrong, good or evil, because this man said so, or it is written in a book. I choose to think for myself, not blindly follow others.

This is why I will attack arguments of this nature. If I can be said to hate anything, it is ignorance. When you base an argument off of personal beliefs and expect it to stand up, that is ignorance. You aren't going to convince anyone that you are right with the "because I said so" approach, especially not me. I have no respect for it.

What I do respect is a thoughtful question or answer. Resorting to doctrine is neither. By taking that path, you aren't thinking about anything. You aren't questioning anything. You enter the situation knowing where things stand. Anything I argue can be swayed. I enter the argument with an expectation, not a belief. I expect things to be one way. They may not be, but for me to accept that, it is going to have to be supported with better than demons and gods.

I think it's a allegory. You can either let your thoughts/beliefs control you, or you can realize that you created them and control them.

Interesting...

Depends on the person. I personally ahd a guilt complex for the longest time. I set out to do things that would hurt me, depress me, etc. I also believed my purpose was in life was necessary evil. In other words, I was here to do the horrible things that needed doing in people's lives so that they might learn and grow from it. (I've done alot of thinking since then. My beliefs are a bit different now.) I was the one ruining lives, and causing pain. That was my purpose. I didn't see any monster. I was the monster.

So is being ignorant of evil, in itself, evil? That seems a bit silly.
Like begets like? Since when? If that was the case bad things wouldn't happen to good people. Good people wouldn't go bad. Things wouldn't change. Getting there isn't intentional? We all make choices. Some of us just deal with the consequences differently than others is all.

Appearances can be decieving.

 

MEPHURA:

I am not sure what to say to you. First I will answer your response to my first message. IN RESPONSE, YOU SAID:
"It you think this is ridiculous or impossible, don't argue with me. Beliefs and emotions are often the weakest point in any argument, and I will attack them, regardless of whether or not I share them."

PMT; Yes, emotions are rather useless in debates. However, to have an arguement there must be a premise that both accept, upon which to build the arguement. Is this not true? If this is true, then beliefs enters into it, because the premise must be something that both believe.

In any event, I thought I made it quite clear that I was simply inquiring. Nothing was said to indicate that I was ready to argue about it. And just a note: You are wasting your time telling me what to do. .....................................................................

In response to my comments on evil, you wrote: "I'll tell you why this bothers me. Why it is that I will argue against anyone that supports this view of evil existing of and on its own. It is, in my eyes, a way of handing off responsibility. You want to say that evil is a thing, a thought, a force, etc. fine. The problem with this is that you deny the true root. If you say it exists externally, and independantly of man, then you are allowing evil to take the blame for your and other's actions.( "oh, this evil force compelled me to do this." "he/she was possessed by a demon" etc.) To me, this is bullshit. Plain and simple. "

You are wrong. Moreover, I am not sure what you meant by evil being independent or external to man. Regardless, those are not my words. It seems, you could not have missed my point more, and from where did the demons come? I mentioned no demons. I did talk about creating one's own monster, (metaphorically). That is not a demon, nor is it independent of man's doings, nor is it real in the true sense.

I take much thought in what I write, because that is what I do, -I write. I write NOT to change people. I have no desire to change someone's belief, nor do I think people are stupid or ignorant who do not share my thoughts on things.

YOUR WORDS: "I stand where I do because I have thought about issues that concern me and reached a decission based on who I am. I will not blindly accept that something is right or wrong, good or evil, because this man said so, or it is written in a book. I choose to think for myself, not blindly follow others"//.

You say that you think for yourself. Are you sure about that? Not following others is one thing; thinking for yourself is another. May I ask, without your becoming angry: How much thought you gave to my words, and then how much thought to your response? I ask this because of your seemingly hasty declarations about things I never said, and your presumptions about what I am thinking.

AND THEN YOU WROTE: "This is why I will attack arguments of this nature. If I can be said to hate anything, it is ignorance. When you base an argument off of personal beliefs and expect it to stand up, that is ignorance.

All beliefs are personal, -and why are you so angry? No one said that you were blindly following others. Arguements of what nature? You commenced with "personal feelings" and wound up with "personal beliefs." These are not necessarily the same. And, I would say to anyone that personal feelings are very unlikely to ever be completely absent.

You also said: "You aren't going to convince anyone that you are right with the 'because I said so' approach, especially not me. I have no respect for it."

Did I say I was right? Did I say that I wanted you to have the same opinion as I do? I was not "trying to convince" you of anything. You seem to be ready for battle, even by yor words. Why? I am not concerned about what you believe, nor am I inclined to try to justify my own beliefs. I said what I said and that is it. If you have any questions, I will respect them and answer them if they are sincere. This type of exchange is not saying that one is right and the other is wrong.

You sounded interesting and I thought I would like to respond. As for the comments on good and evil, there were several, and I gave mine, because mine was not quite the same as the others.

I do like knowing what people think, but only if they care to tell me.

You have twisted not only my words but have also tried to state my intentions, and you are wrong! I have been a rebel since day one, and no one tells me what to do, or what to believe,
-successfully. So, dear heart, if you think I am blindly led, think again. This type of attitude, (speaking of my own) however, it not necessarily something to brag about, and I do not mean to brag. Being hard-headed makes for some hard knocks, but as for thinking, I -do -think for myself. I know what I believe, and why I believe it. I am in a process, just like everyone else. I am not finished!

As for my quote from Robert Monroe's book, he told that story as a true story. I have no reason to dispute it, but it would seem that it was a dream, or something of that sort. I read a lot of things. I just thought that was a good little story.

I will survive your rebukes. Better people than I have been misunderstood. Nonetheless, I believe very strongly in what I said, and have no need to have it confirmed. Peace.

PMT

 

If I except your premise, how exactly are we disagreeing?
Case in point: Sme here think evil exists. I do not. We have different premises, hense the debate/argument. So, no, it isn't true. Secondly, I am capable of arguing things I don't believe at all. Most people can if they put their mind to it. So no, belief doesn't play a part. Ever watch a high school debate? You area assigned a topic and sometimes a side. You don't need to believe in something to argue it effectively.

You inquired. I answered. Whether the inquirey leads to an argument is of no concern to me. Nothing I said in the response indicates I want to argue about it either as it would, apparently, be a waste of my time.

I've no patience for those who are oblivious reason. However, my last statement wasn't me "telling you what to do", so much as it was a simple warning. If you base your arguments on just belief and faith, then you will wind up looking like a fool. You aren't on the list of those that I actually care to do that to.
.....................................................................

Interesting start so far. I'm wrong for feeling what I do and having my own oppinion. I make note of that one.
Secondly, I wasn't arguing your story. Read the first thing I said in that post. "I am going to tell you what bothers me. " I said. That was as opposed to arguing against what you said because it wasn't stating a position really.

To explain, the answers wasn't directed specifically at you. It was my thougts, in general. You didn't bring up demons. I did as an example. It was this line:
""Evil" is not the deed, it is the spirit, attitude, thoughts, whichever you prefer, that causes the deeds. Evil is not the person, it is the "thing" that has gotten hold of that person."

That set me off. To me it reads like more of the evil is a force bullshit that so many people use as a cop out to not take responsibility for there own actions. Nothing "gets ahold of" me and makes me do 'evil'. I choose my own actions. While it may not have been you intention to imply this, that was my immediate thought.

As for what I meant when I said evil being external or seperate from man, I meant this: If you say something influences me, it can not be a part of me. How would i influence myself? Am I going to trick mysefl into doing somethign I don't want to do? If evil causes me to do things, then it is external. If it "gets ahold of me", then it isn't me. (How woudl I get ahold of myself? that doesn't make sense) Evil is being externalized and made to be something independant. If this was the casse, we could try to catch it and destroy it. It's not independant. It's just a matter of perception. Evil, as an independant thing, doesn't exist. It is a comparitive term, and nothing more.

You run the risk of changing someone's beliefs everytime you interact with people in any manner. That is the nature of intereaction. My judgement of stupidity or ignorance doesn't have anythign to do with sharing my beliefs. No one does. My judgement of people and their beliefs lie entirely on the merit of the person them selves and their beliefs as they are.

I wasn't presuming anythign about what you were thinking. Read the top of the damn post, then ask yourself the same question you just asked me. You didn't present an argument, so why do you think i am presenting a counter?

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and that a new day will come after this one. That isn't personal. Most people believe that. So, no, not all beliefs are personal. (And you question the thought I give???)
I'm not angry at all. If anything, I am a llittle annoyed that so many people have forgotten normal reading comprehension skills in which a point is carried from one paragraoh to the next in favor of the forum debate style in which paragraphs, apparently (as you aen't the only one who does this), act independantly.

I didn't start with personal feelings. I started with this:

"I'll tell you why this bothers me. Why it is that I will argue against anyone that supports this view of evil existing of and on its own."

And ended with this:

"This is why I will attack arguments of this nature."

notice how they act to contain an explanation? I say " I will explain why 'X' ", then I explain 'X', the I say " that is why 'X' ".
Opening statement, body/argument, closing statement.
Nice and simple.

Once again, not aimed at you specifically. It was a general statement. I could replace "you" with "one" and not change the meaning.

Ask, and ye shall recieve.

Once again, just to make sure this is clear, I wasn't talking directly to you. I said in the begining I would probably ramble and that I was stating an oppinion, not arguing. I took one peice and ran with it until I was speaking about generalities that may or may not fit you. I never once tried to state your intentions. I didn't twist your words. I gave my reasoning for not liking one small section of your post. From there, I attacked arguments based on personal beliefs.
YOU DID NOT PRESENT AN ARGUMENT.
so, I wasn't attacking you. Chill, fry.

Believe what you want. That is all good and well, and I have no problems with anyone believing anythign. You want to believe satan worshiping monkeys secretly rule the word through subliminal tv and radio signals, feel free. (Ok, so i might laugh at you over that one, but still your choice)

As for the book: If that guy claims he was walking around out side himself and saw a monster...well...I am not even going to go into that. I'll just take it as an allegory.

I find one thing funny about this though. You spend this much time over my comments on three sentences. You ignore the rest of the post in which I actually was talking to you, and responding to what you said. Why?

 

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

You would have to tell me why the latter is not evil for me to be convinced, otherwise the fact that you have taken it upon yourself to end this man's life, for your own selfish reason is, as far as i can see, murder, which is regarded as an evil act.

In both examples you are killing to save your skin. The fact that you have some idea that you can somehow save the world, is just an idea in your head.

Why would sacrificing oneself to save another be classed as evil? In the particular case you cited, it would be more foolish than evil.

Why would you have screwed the rest of the world. Everything would just go on as normal, your idea of saviour is nothing more than an idea and would only have value when it occurs in reality.

How would you be responsible for the death of millions. Every single living being is going to die.

That depends on his intentions.

Would either of the couple be alright with being left outside to die?
No?
But still they think it is alright for a helpless child to be put in that situation?
I'd say yes.

You really don't need to asking these questions, what you need to ask yourself is why would i do this.

My definition is a general one. Of course there are inumerable circumstances to take into consideration, that is why we have a judical system. My belief leads me to understand that that system is a reflection of a universal system which absolutely balanced correctly and is not partial to anything or anyone.

The intention is the cause of the action, whether the actor is aware or un-aware.

In a civilised world, rape is simply not acceptable.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Go figure.

I believe it is.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

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

So wanting to cure cancer is a selfish act? Hmm...
intersting.

Actually, it has nothign to do with the ideas in my head. It's called a hypothetical situation. The idea is you come up with a situation, accept the facts that are set down and then try to understand the results. It's the same as saying what would you do if you got a check in the mail for $100,000.oo today. It has nothing to do with real life and what is actually happening (so don't go and check the mail box).
In the example, the hypothetical situation, I do have the cure for cancer. Not think I do.
The only problem I see is that your definition breaks down under these type of situations.

Well, in this case, it was because I had the cure for cancer and didn't care about the rest of the world enough to want ot share it with them. We can also go with other reasons.
-I just did it for the fame. I didn't really care about the other person, my intention was just to get famous. (a selfish reason)
- I hate my life and want it over. Sarificing myself was just a easy way to do so and a good excuse. (selfish reasons)
In either case, we can say I had some disease and now I've condemed that man too.

So if I have the oppurtunity to save people and choose not to, and instead let them die, that is not an evil thing to do. Thanks, I'll remember that.
As for how it would the screw the rest of the world, see the bit above where I explain a hypothetical situation to you.

Hell. By that logic, why do we bother to try to save anyone anyway? What good are hospitals and doctors? We are all going to die anyway.

That is what ruins the your whole argument.

Take it up with the eskimos:

"Eskimo customs turned out to be very different from our own. . . . Infanticide, for example, was common. Knud Rasmussen, one of the most famous early explorers, reported that he met one woman who had borne twenty children but had killed ten of them at birth. Female babies, he found, were especially liable to be destroyed, as this was permitted simply at the parent’s discretion, with no social stigma attached to it. Old people also, when they became too feeble to contribute to the family, were left out in the snow to die.”

from: http://students.washington.edu/intemann/Humequest.html

Not every culture has the same basis of right and wrong, good and evil. These are creations of human society, and differ greatly accordingly. One thing none of them do is judge a person's intentions because it is imposible, and acts that society disagrees with, such as rape, can be justified.

I see a man in a river, drowning. I jump in and save him. Is this good or evil?
The man turns out to be very disturbed. Instead of simply drowning himself, he kills his family. Was my act of saving him evil now that my actions unwittingly led to their deaths?

A universal system?? You are joking right? There isn't any universal judicial system, and there sure as hell isn't any universal ethical code. Our judicial system (assuming you live in the US) is very partial to alot of things. Money for one. Lawers cost money. The better your lawer, the better your chances. Jury trials are decided by a group of people. Are you telling me people don't have oppinions on anything? If it was a universal system, laws wouldn't be overturned, and decision changed. The whole appeals system is in place in case one of the court gets it wrong.
If it is so flawless and impartial, so perfectly balanced, how could it get anything wrong, and why would it need to be changed so often??

So the actor can be unaware of his/her own intentions?
riiight...
So when I do things, there is a chance I don't really know why I did them, just why I think i did them. WHAT??
That makes no sense what so ever.

Cute. Can't answer the question, so you avoid it.
Whether or not rape is acceptable isn't the point of contention.
The point of contention is whether or not the act, as previously stated, would be evil or not. If his intentions where good, we would have to say that is was not an evil thing to do, according to your definitioin.
Most people, however, would say the act of raping someone is an evil act, reguardless of intentions.

biblical quotes and no sound argument..
go figure.
So are you telling me we have another bible thumper that can't think for themselves, or are you actually going to surprise me?

Yeah. I know. I asked you why you believe it.

This is akin to me stating that women are evil creatures from birth.
Why?
Because I believe it.

Not a very strong argument is it.

 

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

I didn't say it is, but it most certainly could be.

It may be, if you had the opportunity. But in you hypothetical sitcom, you didn't have the opportunity because you were stranded on an island with an old man in a life or death situation.

I understand what a hypothetical situation is, but it tends to get silly when you start making unreasonable rules. The fact is, you dieing would not have an effect on the world. All that would happen is that the cure for cancer would not be discovered, much like in the real world, and people would die.

If you can save someone, that is a good thing, but if you can't then that's just the way it is. People die every minute, get used to it.

It doesn't at all. The fact is that it does depend on his intention.

I don't know whether it is impossible, but it sure aint easy.

Anything can be justified by anybody. If you know of anybody who has been raped, ask them if the act was justified.

What do you think?

What lead to their deaths was the man's actions.

U.S. or Universal?

You don't think that is possible?

How is it possible to rape another person with good intentions?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would have to agree.

Try and see the statement for what it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't recall mentioning it, perhaps you can point it out.

Basically because it makes sense.

It's not really.
But you are free to believe what you like, are you not?

I wasn't aware that expressing an opinion consituted an argument. That's a new one for me.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

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

Yes, and in that situation I would have to make the decision based on what information I have, not based on a future I can't know.
I know I hae the cure. I know his death means my life. I know my life means that there is a possibility of me being rescued.

Wait...
unreasonable rules in a hypothetical situation? And what 'rules' where they?
I love how you flip flop on shit when it's convenient.
Basically you just told me that I shouldn't bother trying to do somethign good because I don't knwo if I will accomplish it.

But then you say:

But how will I ever save anyone if I don't try?
I can't tell the future. Can you?

So killing an innocent man because you thought he was a serial killer and you were trying to save people is a good thing?
Let me shorten that one for you.
Killing an innocent man is a good thing??

Show me one way it's possible, especially agter saying that not even you can tell what your intentions are.

Hey, you are the one saying the victim doesn't matter. Only the criminal's intentions matter. That is what you are telling us. Make up your mind, Jan. Is it the action that decides it or the intentions behind it?

The funny thing is that you just agreed with me.

I would say it is a good thing, but your way it could be a bad thing.
I love how you are avoiding answering though.
Why is it?

Actions he could not have taken with out me performing mine.
You do realize that giving someone a murder weapon with knowledge of what it is going to be used for is a crime right?
We don't prosecute on intentions, only actions.

Well, last I checked there wasn't a universal judical system, I guess I would have to say U.S., but if you can show me this universal judical system, I would be more than interested.

When making a conscious decission, no.

Let me think for a second.
ok
A man and a woman go out, have some drinks, etc.
They go back to her place.
They start to screw, but then she decides that it isn't what she wants, and says 'no'.
The man, being slightly intoxicated himself, isn't thinking to clearly and comes to the conclusion that she really does want to continue but is afraid of what he might think of her later. (in short, yes wants it and no means yes)
So he continues doing what he is doing until the deed is done.
He was trying to please her because he thought that that was what she wanted. She allowed things to start didn't she? If she hadn't wanted it, why would she have allowed things to go so far?

However, what we have here is rape, plain and simple. Good intentions, bad actions.

So now you are disagreeing with yourself.
Wow. No wonder you are so confused.

Simple and not sound? Ok..
Some people like to be hurt. They get off on pain. Does that mean that those people should walk around hurting others??

I guess so, right Jan?

Let's see..
>Biblical quotes
>An argument that can only work with an omniscient observer
>Lack of a developed or thought out point
>Unable to actually support any conclusion with anything besides "It's what I believe."

You haven't actually said it, but you sure as hell sound like one.

Basically, it doesn't. But on the bright side, that works with 90% of what you've said so far. If you would care to demonstrate how evil running around by itself makes sense, I would love to hear it.

Actually, that is the exact form of your argument so far.
Sure you are free to believe what you want, but if you can't back it up, I wouldn't tout it to others like it is fact.

Well. let's see. You expressed an oppinion. I disagreed. You countered. I countered. Yeah...I would say that sounds like an argument/debate.

BTW- Nice how you just kinda forgot to reply to anythig that showed how out of touch you are with reality.

Your beliefs don't lead you to understand anything. Your faulty understanding leads you to your beliefs.

 

MEPHURA;

"An argument that can only work with an omniscient observer." ......this was one reason you gave Jan for disregarding biblical quotes as legit; or, at least this is what it read like to me.

I take issue with this faulty statement. There is much in the Bible that can be informative, emotionally helpful, or just good sense for living, without the necessity of one believing in anything. It is a book, written by men. Those who have no fear of religion grabbing them can find parts of it interesting and even encouraging.

Best wishes, PMT