Evil in the Eye of the Beholder?

Pay attention this time cause I aint gonna school you again.
Your choice would be to eat the man in order to stay alive and free the world of cancer. Right? Unless you know for sure (which you couldn’t), that you are going to complete such a task, you would have taken it upon yourself to kill that man, hence it would be murder. So your intention could only be to stay alive which is a selfish act (within the context), therefore evil.

Remember it was you idiotic so-called hypothesis which started the cycle.

Get your facts right.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=intent

Intent; 1 a : the act or fact of intending : PURPOSE; especially : the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act <admitted wounding him with intent> b : the state of mind with which an act is done : VOLITION
2 : a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : AIM

There is no inconsistency, it is all in your head.

Huh!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You are completely barking mate.
You posted;

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

Who are you talking about dude. Are you having a conversation with yourself?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Would you be able to prove that in a court of law, or to anybody in general.

Murder is not a good thing. Please write that down so you can remember in future.

You asked;
”Show me one way it's possible, especially agter saying that not even you can tell what your intentions are.”
I did better than that, I gave you a few, your opinions on whether they can be fruitful, are only opinions, nothing else.

With difficulty.

You said;
“Hey, you are the one saying the victim doesn't matter. Only the criminal's intentions matter.”

I’m sorry I don’t see a connection.

It wouldn’t dude.

[url]http://www.lawforkids.org/QA/other/other190.cfm[/url]
“The first definition of first degree murder is causing the death of another person with either the intent or knowledge that……………………..”

“Note that the elements are identical with those for 1st degree murder. The practical difference is the sentences are different.”
Fraid not dude, nice try though; [url]http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m054.htm[/url]

“manslaughter
n. the unlawful killing of another person without premeditation or so-called "malice aforethought"
Gee, your dumb; http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1209&bold=||||

In all of those cases the intention has to be known by the judge in order to take the correct measures, so your idiotic assertion that “We don't prosecute on intentions, only actions” is hopelessly flawed.

You’re probably right. I think by this time I was getting bored with your dull-witted piffle.

Please show where I said actions are irrelevant. Here is a start;
“"Actions or thoughts with an intention to harm oneself or another living being purely for selfish reasons. "[/i]

In your case stupidity won.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, I was pertaining intentions to humans with a certain amount of intelligence. My bad, if it doesn’t apply to you.

I didn’t say that, but you are saying it now.

Lets go with, conscience, and see what non-sense you bring up (as in vomit)

And what’s less surprising is that you are an idiot (in the context of this discussion). But nothing is fixed so I shall see if you can redeem yourself.

Then what do you think evil is?

Good Boy!

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PMT:

And you, sir, are trifling with a gendanken and Mephura. You should be smarter than that.


Wes, I'll get to you when time allows.

EDIT**

And dearest Jan. Read your post and hungry as I am, I think Mephurio's hungrier. That's not to say you won't be hearing from me and when there's time to get my hands on you.... I will. Always that.

"Pay attention this time cause I aint gonna school you again."
he he he....he...hee........he....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny...

So, Jan, show me one choice we can make that we can know, for sure, is goign to turn out the way we intend.
What you are saying is that intentions are irrelevant, due to lack of knowledge of the future. That makes all intentions irrelevant. You can't pick and choose. Either they are all irrelevant, or this lack of future knowledge doesn't matter.

I never said anything about a hypothesis. Slight difference between hypothesis and hypothetical situation.
The cycle was started by pointing out the inconsistancies in your thinking.

Now let's look up the word in question. (I'll bold the relevant portions)
Main Entry: in·ten·tion
Pronunciation: in-'ten(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a determination to act in a certain way : RESOLVE
2 : IMPORT, SIGNIFICANCE
3 a : what one intends to do or bring about b : the object for which a prayer, mass, or pious act is offered
4 : a process or manner of healing of incised wounds
5 : CONCEPT; especially : a concept considered as the product of attention directed to an object of knowledge
6 plural : purpose with respect to marriage
synonyms INTENTION, INTENT, PURPOSE, DESIGN, AIM, END, OBJECT, OBJECTIVE, GOAL mean what one intends to accomplish or attain. INTENTION implies little more than what one has in mind to do or bring about <announced his intention to marry>. INTENT suggests clearer formulation or greater deliberateness <the clear intent of the statute>. PURPOSE suggests a more settled determination <being successful was her purpose in life>. DESIGN implies a more carefully calculated plan <the order of events came by accident, not design>. AIM adds to these implications of effort directed toward attaining or accomplishing <her aim was to raise film to an art form>. END stresses the intended effect of action often in distinction or contrast to the action or means as such <willing to use any means to achieve his end>. OBJECT may equal END but more often applies to a more individually determined wish or need <his constant object was the achievement of pleasure>. OBJECTIVE implies something tangible and immediately attainable <their objective is to seize the oil fields>. GOAL suggests something attained only by prolonged effort and hardship <worked years to reach her goals>.

Of course, this refers us to intends:

Main Entry: in·tend
Pronunciation: in-'tend
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English entenden, intenden, from Middle French entendre to purpose, from Latin intendere to stretch out, direct, aim at, from in- + tendere to stretch -- more at THIN
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to direct the mind on
2 archaic : to proceed on (a course)
3 a : SIGNIFY, MEAN b : to refer to
4 a : to have in mind as a purpose or goal : PLAN b : to design for a specified use or future
intransitive senses, archaic : SET OUT, START
- in·tend·er noun

See, I hate posting definitions like this, but you just seem to avoid the relevant ones. Hell, even the one you posted for intent leads to the same place. An aim, a goal, and plan or purpose.
Unless you have figured out some way of seting goals for the past, there is only one time to set them for. That would be the future. If I intend to kill someone, that doesn't mean it instantly happens. It means I plan to kill them in the future.

Yup. Mine and everyone else's it would seem. That is the problem. We can all see it. You seem to be blind to it.

Nope. I am just not directly quoting you. If I was, there would be quotation marks, or a quote tag. Didn't realize you would have such trouble following where your own statements lead.

Actually, courts tend to vary on how they rule on these situations. There are a few precedents already out there for these types of cases.

It's not always a bad thing either. Self defense?
Wait.
I forgot, murder is bad.
Killing a homicidal maniac for the selfish reason of wanting to protect innocents is an evil act.
I guess it would be better just to let him go on his way and kill whomever he likes.

Yes. I asked for ways of determining intent. Not ways that might, on a good day, give us probable estimation of what those intentions might have been. BIG difference.

Yeah, you seem pretty blind to the obvious.
If one's intentions are good, then by your definition, the actions that result are good. This is reguardless of how the people you affect with those actions feel.
If I give a primative society guns with the intention of helping them hunt food better, and alot of murders result instead, they might feel my actions where bad, reguardless of my intentions.

My way has intentions and end results. Your way has pieces and a whole. You show me how your's equates better to the situations at hand, and I will concede.

First degree murder requires pre-mediation.

In a second degree murder charge, the prosecution is not charged with the obligation to prove that the person thought out the killing beforehand.

manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice.

http://www.aggressivecriminaldefense.com/homicide.html

I'm dumb? What does premeditation mean Jan?
I was under the impression it meant planning in advance.

Except for one small detail. There version of intent is the same as mine. A plan for future action.
Yet, you claim intentions are invalidated by lack of future knowledge.
You are just digging the hole deeper and deeper Jan.


You’re probably right. I think by this time I was getting bored with your dull-witted piffle.
(try something besides law for kids next time)

Exactly.
If I commit action 'X' with good intentions, it's a good action.
If I commit action 'X' with bad intentions, it's a bad action.
The action isn't what is important in this argument, it's intentions. (though you reverse this position numerous times)

No. You are far from winning.

That ammount must be a small one. In which case, there is no need to appologise. I'm quite content with it not applying to me.

This is the closest you have come to having a valid argument so far.
You are right.
You didn't say those exact words.
They just sum up what you've been preaching.

Conscience won't get you any further. A conscience is based off of the agents particular moral code. Morals aren't universal. Not everyone has the same definitions of good and evil. (see the eskimo example. BTW, it's from Rachels, not that you probably have any clue what that is.)

Since you have yet to pose a self consistant argument, you really have no room to talk. Worry more about supporting your position and less about stroking you ego, and you might get somewhere.

A subjective concept.
Nothing more and nothing less.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A subjective concept?

Could you explain dear friend?

 

Concepts of good and evil, right and wrong are based upon moral codes. Not all societies (and definitely all people) don't share the same moral code. The differences can be something as small as what foods you shouldn't eat, to things as extreme as infancide, murder and theft.

Even in our society, there are differences of oppinion. Abbortion is a topic that divides alot of people. Some have strong view points. Some would go so far as to say that it is evil. That is a rather minor example and far to common to have a very poignant effect.
I don't like to lean on on eexample so much, but I've already used it and it is an easy one to explain.

I brought up the eskimos before. In their society, common custom is to leave female infants outside to die (generally when they are the first born). They see nothing horrible, evil, or wrong in doing so. The explanation behind this action is fairly simple.

Male children grow up to hunt and bring in food. Females don't hunt. Because of that, they put a strain on the eating situation. If the family already has a male child or two that can help with the hunting, then they might keep the female child alive because they can afford to.
It is also a common practice to share your wife or daughter with a traveler if they are staying with you. It's common curtesy, but it also accomplishes a very important function. Doing this keeps the gene pool more diverse, especially considering the comparitively low percentage of felmales.

Both these examples show actions that would be considered evil by some people yet, in their (eskimo) society, these things are either not evil or even wrong. They have different morals and thus different concepts of good and evil.

In whatever society we are raised in, there is a set of mores that we either accept or are ostracized.

Yet, even in our own society, with our own mores and morals, our ideas of good and evil are often conidtional.

Murder for example. In our society, murder is wrong except when we are defending ourselves, or our way of life. So what we are left with is that murder isn't evil if it is justifiable.
But who determines if it is justifiable?

What you might think are justifable circumstances may not be so to another. Some would say that taking another's life, reguardless of the circumstances, is an evil act. In their subjective opinion it might be. In mine, on the otherhand, if you were defending your family from someone, I would see nothing wrong with it.

There are many factors that influence what any of us view as good or evil. Societal mores, family values, religion, learned ideas, personal beliefs, past experiences; All of these things can affect what we think is right or wrong, good and evil.

Now, at face value, what I just said agrees with what Jan has been saying. That it is the intentions behind the actions that are really the determining factor. Don't forget those eskimos, though.

When that baby girl is left outside, they intend for her to die. They are intending to end her life. To them though, there isn't anything evil about that. It isn't done out of malice, or hate, or even anger. It's done because it made sense somewhere down the line, and now that is how things are done in their culture.

Are they evil because of this?
I don't think so. If I come to a decision like that I am saying that my moral beliefs are more important, more 'right', than theirs.

It's all subjective.
It's based on what you were raised to believe and what you choose to believe. Good and evil are little more than personal oppinion.

A subjective concept.

 

and if someone were to leave you out to die? would that be considered a bad thing? perhaps in order to prevent that particular state of affairs from coming about, would you consider making a judgement aimed at preserving your life and applying it to all? what would it be?

 

Spookz, you are talking in circles.
What the hell are you asking?

Concidered a bad thing by who? Me? Currently, no. I am quite capable of taking care of myself.
When I was an infant? Right now I can say I am thankful it didn't happen...at least most of the time. If i was an infant however, I can't see myself questioning the situation so calmly or thoroughly.

As for my judgements, they are biased towards me and mine. Why would I ever concider applying a judgement of one particular situation to all similar situations, reguardless of circumstances?
No, i perfer to judge things on a case by case basis.

what would what be?

 

just for kicks, justify the holocaust/genocide and the slavery. i guess you covered infanticide

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

if a flat earther is encountered, would you tell the guy he is wrong? or is his opinion as valid as the next?

*"what" would be your judgement

No, i perfer to judge things on a case by case basis.

that strikes me as particularly hilarious. perhaps some stats could be formulated from these cases and themes/patterns detected?

so ahh
a 100 people on death row. you gonna ask each one of em if they dont mind their fate?

perhaps you can project your instinct of self preservation (wild assumption) on to other humans? or do you prefer to ask each if they share the same instinct?

*this ethical relativism shit is like a cancer in our education systems. i suggest taking the educators out and give em a dose of the philosophy they are pushing on our kids!

 

It isn't for me to justify the holocaust. I didn't do it.
Of course for them, it might go something along the lines of destroying an evil race, racial purity, they jews where the cause of the evils in society, etc.

As far as a flatlander is concerned, can you actually say that that is a question of morality?

If you are placing the question in the context of a primitive (by our standards) society in which the belief in a flat earth was part of his religous/moral beliefs, then I would say he is entitled to his oppinions.

cultural mores and ethics are can only be judged by the society they are encountered in.

That being the case, why don't we stick to ours.

Prove, objectively, that abortion is evil or not evil.
Twit.

 

easy
pain= bad
morality/ethics has a biological foundation. objective moral constructs stem from this root.

situational ethics is fine for superficial issues but there are some basic fundamentals rights that should to be respected by all. local variations of these rights are fine but hopefully not too widely divergent

It isn't for me to justify the holocaust. I didn't do it.

put that on a tshirt and wear it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As far as a flatlander is concerned, can you actually say that that is a question of morality?

yes. it is a basic starting point

cultural mores and ethics are can only be judged by the society they are encountered in.

oh dear me

That being the case, why don't we stick to ours.

there are merits and demerits to this statement. i doubt if you see the latter tho going from the earlier statement

twit

is there any need for this? if thread degenerates, it will be shut down

 

True enough. But the main varying point is who's pain I should be concerned with.
Your "basic fundamental rights" vary based on the societal mores.

You print it up and send it to me, and I will.

You show me how a fact that can be proven is a point of moral contention.

Dear you indeed.
If you judge another's society by your own's standards, you are being biased.

True enough. Yet I can't fail to nitice how, yet again, you ignore the challenge. Making a habit of this Spookz?
Either give some support to your dribble, or leave.

And??
This thread degenerated as soon as you entered and decided to run with the ethics shit instead of sticking to the topic.

It's in the title. SHouldn't be too hard for you.
"Is evil in the eye of the beholder?"
In other words, is evil subjective or objective.

If you have an opinion, why don't you state it and then back it up.

 

Answering GOOD/EVIL according to Wesmorris & Gendanken

WESMORRIS: Yes Sir! My goodness.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Okay, here goes: You were hitchhiking on comments made by Gendanken, who did most of the commentating. Following are excerpts from his comments, cut & pasted:
....................................................................
“Oscar Schindler hired thousands of Jews to work in his grimy factories, underpaid and underfed yet narrow definitions would say what he did was an evil. "Slavery"

In the 70's a plane goes down on the Alps and a handful of Argentanians are forced to cannabalize their dead friends. It was the human flesh that kept them alive and yet what they did constitutes evil, according to tightassed definitions.

Motivation is the precursor of evil, if its to have any definition at all. Prologation of a selfish intent is the closest thing I can think of as evil, so long as that intent is for useless means.
Edited by gendanken on 11-11-03 at 08:29 PM”
………………………………………………………………………
To tell you the truth, I was more or less joking. It seemed to me that you guys were more into giving your opponent(s) a bad time than delivering a convincing argument, and it was to the point that Jan, was really catching a lot of third person comments, (though I am not necessarily defending her points either). In any event, it is not unusual for guys to tease when they think another’s point is ridiculous. Right!

Anyway, it is not obvious that this was an incorrect assumption on my part! I apologize, and, because we are so far apart on this subject of “evil,” I will say no more at this time about the word or its definition. Perhaps on other subjects, we would find more common ground. Sorry you took offence, but you are right, I definitely should have been more specific. Peace. PMT

 

ditto

correction: "it is not obvious should read, "it is -now- obvious. Boy, I just can't get it right, can I?

 

GENDANKEN: AND YOU, SIR, DO NOT SOUND LIKE A MAN BEING SERIOUS. YOU ARE HAVING FUN WITH ALL THAT IDIOTIC NONSENSE, BECAUSE YOU "KNOW BETTER," RIGHT?

AND "DON'T MESS WITH YOU!" RIGHT! pmt

 

RE

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

osting of 11/10/03, MEPHURA

MEPHURA:

I SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF TIME ANSWERING THE ABOVE REFERENCED POSTING, AND LOST THE WHOLE THING, THUS THE DELAY IN ANSWERING. CANNOT RECALL WHAT I SAID, BUT I WILL GIVE IT MY BEST SHOT!

First, you said in one of your postings that your beliefs "are logical and reasonable." Everyone thinks their beliefs are logical and reasonable, especially if they have recently graduated from college.

You asked me if I ever watched a high school debate? Please! I used to be willing to debate almost any issue, but eventually found that, unless I was doing it for fun, it was not of much use to me.

The next statement to which I will respond was this: "If you base your arguments on just belief and faith, then you will wind up looking like a fool." THEN YOU SAID, "You aren't on the list of those that I actually care to do that to." Now, how can I be offended when you add that last sentence. It is commendable that you are trying to warn me about looking like a fool. I will take that as a genuine concern.

You said, in answer to my saying that "you are wrong," the following: "Interesting start so far. I'm wrong for feeling what I do and having my own opinion. I made note of that one." That was not what I meant. Of course, you have your opinions.

This: I do not believe that evil barges into our lives and grabs us, if that is what you think. I am not even sure if I can get my thoughts on this across to you, when you are already loaded for bear. It seems that emphatic opposition is something you enjoy far more than I do. Whereas disagreements can be enlightening, strife in conversation is almost never enlightening. Yet, I am not even sure that is the whole problem. Perhaps, not knowing you, I am not approaching this is the best way for you to get my meaning, and I apologize if this is why. I would like so much to at least get across to you how I think about what we call evil. Then! Then if you disagree, at least you would be disagreeing with my take on the matter, and not be disagreeing with something I am not saying, but rather on something (that you seem to believe) I am implying. Does this make sense?

As for evil being external, you had much to say about this, but I truly believe that it can be internalized. Yet, I also believe that it is not in all people, but that we all have the fallibility to entertain evil with the attitude that we are above it. The sad truth is, we are not above it (being a possibility); we can get ourselves up to our eyes in it, and be blinded by it.

I have heard some of the most ridiculous "rationale" from some of the most disturbed people, to explain their involvement in what I call evil, and it hurts my heart to see it, because I look at little babies and sometimes wonder what life will be for them, and I look at old men on the street and try to picture them as little babies in their mother's arms. That is big time emotional thinking, because knowing these possibilities and bringing them to mind is tough to take.

You said, and rightly so: "You run the risk of changing someone's beliefs everytime you interact with people in any manner." This is true, and all the more reason why it is not necessary to TRY to change people. And, I believe that is exactly what I said. I do not -try- to change people's beliefs.

You are right about the sun too. Most people would say that it will rise tomorrow, but in truth most of us know that this rising of the sun is an illusion, just like many of the things we pretend to believe. It is easier than correcting it, (even for me).

I had said: "you commenced with "personal feelings" and wound up with "personal beliefs." Then you said that you had not started with personal feelings, and so forth. The reason I had "personal feeling" and "personal beliefs" in quotes --was because I was quoting them from you previous statements. If I quoted them incorrectly, I will apologize, I just do not have time to go back and find them again right now, and it is not that important to me anyway. If this point makes you uncomfortable, forget it. It is not my aim to give you a bad time.

As to your last comment, if you will tell me what you find in your message(s) that I am ignoring, point them out. It is quite possible, because we are both prolific writers, and I find it difficult to get my quotes sometimes, because I was cut off twice. (It could be my blunder???)

So, until next time, take care. PMT

 

meph

This thread degenerated as soon as you entered and decided to run with the ethics shit instead of sticking to the topic.

listen up, you miserable little punk
you brought it up (subjectivity). did you or did you not? ethics is related to the topic. tell me why the concept of evil has nothing to do with ethics? how do you define it? do not think you can dictate my responses.

twit?
you stinkin piece of loser garbage! i shit on your insanity. you have no comprehension of either your half assed assertions or the responses to them. bogus little whiner! i piss and shit on you!

It's in the title. SHouldn't be too hard for you.
"Is evil in the eye of the beholder?"
In other words, is evil subjective or objective.

tell me how ethics is not involved?
fuck the topic. you will not divert my focus. it is on you and your idiotic bullshit.
as much as you wish i do your bidding, it will never happen cos you fag, are my bitch!
i gave you a chance to play nice. you refuse. expect hell, cunt!
the degeneration is on your ass!
If you have an opinion, why don't you state it and then back it up.

can you not read, you fucking retard? i am questioning your assertion that all is subjective. i state...read what i stated, i aint repeating myself for a fucking moron

 

Re: Answering GOOD/EVIL according to Wesmorris & Gendanken

/To tell you the truth, I was more or less joking.

Allright then sir.

/It seemed to me that you guys were more into giving your opponent(s) a bad time than delivering a convincing argument, and it was to the point that Jan, was really catching a lot of third person comments, (though I am not necessarily defending her points either).

Dig that, no sweat. I agreed with her opinion and thought her (both hers being Gendy) and thought them decent examples of potential hypocracies of moralists. Regarding Jan: There's a history you might not be privy to. Nuff said?

/In any event, it is not unusual for guys to tease when they think another’s point is ridiculous. Right!

I'm not sure what you mean here, hehe, there's such a mixed bag of actual argument and trash talking that I don't know to which you refer.

/Anyway, it is not obvious that this was an incorrect assumption on my part! I apologize, and, because we are so far apart on this subject of “evil,” I will say no more at this time about the word or its definition.

As you wish.

/Perhaps on other subjects, we would find more common ground.

There is always perhaps.

/Sorry you took offence

Nah, I wasn't offended at all, I just wanted to make it clear that your comment was so vague as that it could go a number of ways, and offence was down most of the paths.

/but you are right, I definitely should have been more specific. Peace.

Throw me a frickin bone?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At least a clue is helpful yes, at least until your personality is somewhat established - thereby facilitating communication to some extent.

 

meph

But the main varying point is who's pain I should be concerned with.

stupid little fuck. you parade your sociopathic tendencies as if it the norm. you will eventually rationalize yourself straight to the asylum. punk! i detect insanity

Your "basic fundamental rights" vary based on the societal mores.

do you understand that any society that denies life/liberty/blah will not meet with my approval on the grounds of some frikkin misplaced respect for their lifestyle?

do you understand how easily infanticide could be stopped with a bit of education and family planning? if one is in a position to influence a situation such as that, why the fuck not? is it because they are the outsiders and empathy is not possible? shit that would not be tolerated in one's society is suddenly ok elsewhere? quite the racist eh? i aint talking about buttfucking and crossdressing either

a fuck like you does not deserve to live. you are a waste of space.

You show me how a fact that can be proven is a point of moral contention.

you fucking useless shit
if killing you as a waste of space is gonna bother you, it will also bother a little chinese kid. it will bother anyone! that is a fucking fact. can you understand this??

When that baby girl is left outside, they intend for her to die. They are intending to end her life. To them though, there isn't anything evil about that. It isn't done out of malice, or hate, or even anger. It's done because it made sense somewhere down the line, and now that is how things are done in their culture.

Are they evil because of this?
I don't think so. If I come to a decision like that I am saying that my moral beliefs are more important, more 'right', than theirs.

you stupid shit. you are excusing horrific acts of violence because of some pathalogical notions of fairness? you are insane. hang yourself now
that is puke material. you are one of the most evil little fucks on this board.
consider me the enemy.

 

meph

Prove, objectively, that abortion is evil or not evil.

you stupid shit
this is a challenge i am supposed take on? polish it up! i do not accept loaded and ambiguous terms such as "evil". abortion? refine the concept, you jackass! you are wasting my fucking time. secondly, spell out the relevance of this. punk! you aint jacking shit!

 

wes

Throw me a frickin bone?

why dont you bend over, punk. i got a bone right here for you!