Somewhere in the world those children would be considered heathens and death was the rightous end for them (regardless of whom carried out the act... 'God' works in mysterious ways). Maybe those children would have damaged the gene pool had they been allowed to reproduce and the Moors did the world a great service. Maybe those children kept the Moors from bombing entire buildings? IMO the Moors probably killed for pleasure and those children weren't adaptable enough to survive the onslaught. In the universe, matter / energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Only changed from one form to another. Life; however, can be destroyed and has a process to persist. That process weeds out the variants that cannot adapt. Both the Moors and the children played a role in that very necessary process. Outside your own subjective tolerance, where is the objective evil? That's correct, it just doesn't exist.
Prince_James, "So you suggest what precisely? That when met with evil, we ought to use all means we can to circumvent and overcome it?" Well...Yes. If we know perfectly what good and evil is. And since we don't, we should exercise caution, and fight what we know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY. But even then.. "That we should not feel restricted in our aims?" I said it somewhere, Means justify the Ends. "ends justify the means" sounds neat, but in reality every action is its own entity ("an entire thing, in and of itself, without requireing anything outside it"), every action has ITS OWN ENDS ("all the consequences of an action"). Hence every mean, or action, create an effect alone, which others merely stop or contribute to. You could say that achiving some goal is good enough that any side-effects can be ignored by the virtue of the achivement, BUT it could also be said that had the means been more perfect, the actions taken would have been BETTER. Hence a good action cannot be an action we could've done better; and vice versa, if we did our best, we couldn't have done it better. And if someone is telling us we should have done it better, we have failed; and we should do it better next time (once corrected, it can no longer be considered best, ne?) Uhhhmm to answer your question; no. We should be restricted in our actions, in order to not cause more "evil" in side-effects than we cure by taking "good" actions. But neither can we say we did good, if we ignored alternative ways of doing it. And if the bad guys keep coming back, then clearly we are doing something wrong. We should be able to cure them before they come at us. And following X-men 3 theme, maybe what we percieve as "evil" is not some kind of disease, but a new way of doing things. Obviously, they're doing something wrong, as well, since they haven't "won". So we learn what we can from them, while at the same time hang onto what we have. The parts that won't fit must go; the parts that can't go without crippling the ideology behind the force, fit. It is my personal belief, but it is based on personal experiences of success. (these are, of course, based on what I have said at my first post. So they might seem bit out of context. For example, I have refuted the concept of "good fighting evil, eternally". The best man wins, period. And if there is no victor, then neither is more right than the other.) In a word, we just have to find things we can do, while following BOTH ideals. And be creative about it. Othewise, we have not done our best. (and karma can't compensate enough) ALSO Tyler, the question below the topic was how to define it, so you haven't really said anything. Rantaak, if there is no universal will, why is there order in it? You're not gonna dispute the laws of physics? Novacane, funny but true. Still, we have to take action in the mean time, and we might as well start counting the odds (here, hey?), since no one has told me cheatingf was forbidden Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oniwit... I'd comment, but on a deep level, I can't find an argument..wait, society? What?
Ogmios: "Well...Yes. If we know perfectly what good and evil is. And since we don't, we should exercise caution, and fight what we know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY. But even then.." It is indeed wise to recognize that our perception of any event is not absolute. But yes. "I said it somewhere, Means justify the Ends. "ends justify the means" sounds neat, but in reality every action is its own entity ("an entire thing, in and of itself, without requireing anything outside it"), every action has ITS OWN ENDS ("all the consequences of an action"). Hence every mean, or action, create an effect alone, which others merely stop or contribute to. You could say that achiving some goal is good enough that any side-effects can be ignored by the virtue of the achivement, BUT it could also be said that had the means been more perfect, the actions taken would have been BETTER. Hence a good action cannot be an action we could've done better; and vice versa, if we did our best, we couldn't have done it better. And if someone is telling us we should have done it better, we have failed; and we should do it better next time (once corrected, it can no longer be considered best, ne?)" Assuredly. A good action cannot rightfully be said to be improved, whereas all actions which are lacking can indeed. Some much moreso than others. "Uhhhmm to answer your question; no. We should be restricted in our actions, in order to not cause more "evil" in side-effects than we cure by taking "good" actions. But neither can we say we did good, if we ignored alternative ways of doing it. And if the bad guys keep coming back, then clearly we are doing something wrong. We should be able to cure them before they come at us." So therefore you propose a flexibility of action that adapts itself upon the situation? "And following X-men 3 theme, maybe what we percieve as "evil" is not some kind of disease, but a new way of doing things. Obviously, they're doing something wrong, as well, since they haven't "won". So we learn what we can from them, while at the same time hang onto what we have. The parts that won't fit must go; the parts that can't go without crippling the ideology behind the force, fit. It is my personal belief, but it is based on personal experiences of success. " Meaning that even amongst evil people, we might find something in their actions or aims that are worth adopting, even if greatly adapted? "(these are, of course, based on what I have said at my first post. So they might seem bit out of context. For example, I have refuted the concept of "good fighting evil, eternally". The best man wins, period. And if there is no victor, then neither is more right than the other.)" So you admit only to victory as the source of determination of which cause is right and which is wrong? Or even good and evil? In essence: Might is the ultimate justification of right? Nicholas1M7: "I'm on sciforums. Look at who I'm talking to boss. How does "gangsta" fit into this? " True, true. "Hindley... Brady. " I guess my conjecture was wrong. Jonny5: You speak of natural evil in your post. That is to say, earthquakes, ravaging fires, et cetera, et cetera. What you fail to distinguish is that in each of these cases of natural evil, the cause is blind. That is to say, it is committed by a system which simply acts according to its laws and we humans are the ones whom are in the way. Can such a system, which neither has consciousness nor any freedom to act outside its natural laws, be accorded morality? It is only if such weather phenomena were in control of a being - God or whatever - that we could claim them evil, and then only in the manner a murder's weapon is the instrument of his evil. In essence: Their destructiveness - or benefit - is completely outside the realm of morality. They are simply facts which must be accorded a status of inevitability until (or if) we have the capacity to control them. Moreover, I would ask you something: Though benefit may be taken by any action by one person or another, can not we speak of greater benefit? For just as you say the pallbearers and the cremators gain a new customer, we could say that were this man alive, a slew of other services would have benefited from his patronage. Similarly, a throng of other things could be said about what could be done when he was -alive-. Therefore, we must ask whether or not we can justify murdering him for the supposed benefit that can result from this, not to mention whether or not such limited benefit can be construed as a foundation for murdering that which is supremely unique (an individual life).
Amiably noted. The association I made between natural acts and “evil” was a mere attempt to genuinely understand “evil” by simply suggesting that the epitomes of natural acts, however acute, correlate with humanistic conduct. In no way was I inferring that Nature could follow the same moral principles festooned by individual life with a constitution of mental cognizance. I might have believed you to think me a deuteragonist, if I was not aware of how ineffective I seemingly applied this gauche assertion. Natural acts are defined and in accordance within the laws of the universe, on the slightest subatomic level, akin to everything else. The cause(s) of a, or of natural acts, is/are blind. A lightning bolt is not aware or conscious of where or why it struck, it is not an individual life, it is energy made up of individual particles. The concussions of the act and the subsequent reactions are not in accordance with morality, they are following the inflexible randomness of a flexed natural reaction to components girding the stimulus of environment. Using your words, “the cause is blind.” One might state that we are all products of a milieu innate with Nature. Would not then our ritualistic behaviorisms be in some way incubated in Nature? The laws governing the systematic impulses of natural acts are the elicitations that reveal human life, and perhaps, informally, causes of human behavior. The regulations defining morality are synthetic since we, as humans, have the freedom to act outside of the determined margins established in accordance with the guidelines we are appropriating for our behavior. We resist what is deemed “evil,” and encourage what is deemed “good,” accordingly the process of which we judge individuals and the vindications of their expressed demeanor. In reversal, one could argue, if “God or whatever,” was in control of the demeanor of weather phenomena, we could claim such events as “evil,” and attribute the method of the murderous utensil to the adage “I’ll give you something to cry about.” I shall try a somewhat different approach. The laws of Nature, of the universe, of anything, are encrusted in the echelons of a metrical gridiron. The laws themselves are materials making up that which they govern. For instance, the Earth is made up of three focal layers, the crust, mantle, and core. Regarding this logic, in terms of the cause of/for “evil” in/of Human beings, I have incorporated this ambiguous theory. The crust, is the act of evil as determined by the transparent results perceived by the moral implications for such and such an act. The mantle, is the conscious impetus and pledged decision to facilitate the act of “evil” in reality. Finally, the core, is the actual cause of “evil.” In summation, utilizing this ambiguous theory, I shall define acts of “evil” as physical and or psychological injury to human beings ensuing in anguish and/or death. The implications of morality regarding the acts of “evil” are programmed and advocated so that human beings can and may accommodate themselves to indulge in all aspects of realty. The cause of “evil” is a paradox in the form of morality. If the composition of a humanely umbilici is destroyed, certainly the quantification of produce that life might have bared and sowed is tragically insoluble. For the loss of life institutes no collateral in return for the spoils inundated in the collective moral fiber. The agitator of “good,” in all likelihood, would not show an inch of concern for the consequence of murder. More likely, culprits of “evil” might emit particular flippancies, stemming from their mental terra firma. The justification for “evil” is implemented by individuals ethically sound, more or less. A slaughterer might justify the “evil,” but the cause would always be vaporous to anyone in pursuit. Is “evil” or the cause of it communal, or is it reserved in its concealed state, to the seemingly random hosts imposing “evil” actions?
you can't know the inside of people. you can't know how he felt in reality, and how his life really was. you only see the outside. being an honored soldier wouldn't make me any happier, "nothing" would. i'll become like hitler, because ptahhotep said so.
Prince_James, "So you admit only to victory as the source of determination of which cause is right and which is wrong? Or even good and evil? In essence: Might is the ultimate justification of right?" Oh, umm.. It sounded better when I said it. It's just not justified to say we use other as tools; although we do. But we do it while also caring for them, and act in the intrest of common good (or "the team"). And saying "might makes right, fight fight fight!" is kinda already on the wrong side of the edge, kinda, since it can be taken in a wrong way. And even while we use others, we don't do it by code "use others as tools", but rather "do good any way you can", from which we derive the use of others. But by saying this, I already seem worse than I am. Also, I see a problem. I often think in "good vs. evil"-fight-on, and talk the same way, which explains the whole "means-to-an-end" questioning. But what I'm saying is that all means are free, when doing ANYTHING. Fight evil, yes. Get a beer, still yes. "Ends" is a silly definition. Since ends don't justify anything, only thing that matters are the means. (if you define evil as "strives for suffering", you get Hitler, who might have done it all in good faith, and then wouldn't be evil. Everyone tries to be good = they just fail = Evil is in the means) Umm so might makes right, sure. But to use my favorite example, Rome was freaking mighty, so it was kinda righty too. But it fell, eventually. So It's might was flawed. And so was their reasoning. As I said somewhere, evil is more often shortsightedness than intention. Right action, by my definition, cannot backfire or come back to haunt you; everything that does, is evil; but since we cannot do better than our best, mistakes are okay. I can't remember where I heard this (on some movie..?): "It's not wrong to make mistakes; but it's repeating them that gets me". Hence, action is not good, if it isn't perfect, and it's not evil if you had no way of knowing better. But ignorance (ignoring stuff because it's not "true") is no excuse in the courts of man, nor at the higher places. (So I consider knowledge the ultimate virtue.) "So therefore you propose a flexibility of action that adapts itself upon the situation?" Well, NO. Actually yes, but I disagree with the way you say it. I'm saying ALL MEANS ARE ALWAYS FREE. No action (charity, kindness) is right, always and in every situation. And no action (hate, violence) is wrong in every situation. Which makes me kinda go "means to an end" again. hmm.. (see, if I say now that "it's what your trying to achive", means-to-an-end follows) That is to say, means JUSTIFY the ends. Wrong means (the kind that backfires) spoil your End. But ANY means that do not backfire are okay. Or more like: what you achive is more important than how you do it. Or why you did it (what you TRIED to achive). (more later, sleep overtakes)
Jonny5: "Amiably noted. The association I made between natural acts and “evil” was a mere attempt to genuinely understand “evil” by simply suggesting that the epitomes of natural acts, however acute, correlate with humanistic conduct. In no way was I inferring that Nature could follow the same moral principles festooned by individual life with a constitution of mental cognizance. I might have believed you to think me a deuteragonist, if I was not aware of how ineffective I seemingly applied this gauche assertion. " Your true intent is now understood. My thanks for such elucidation. "One might state that we are all products of a milieu innate with Nature. Would not then our ritualistic behaviorisms be in some way incubated in Nature? The laws governing the systematic impulses of natural acts are the elicitations that reveal human life, and perhaps, informally, causes of human behavior. The regulations defining morality are synthetic since we, as humans, have the freedom to act outside of the determined margins established in accordance with the guidelines we are appropriating for our behavior. We resist what is deemed “evil,” and encourage what is deemed “good,” accordingly the process of which we judge individuals and the vindications of their expressed demeanor." A question I must pose to you regarding this: Are you asserting an analogue or a connection here betwixt the enticements of behaviour and the natural laws? That is to say, are you implying that the system is only similar to how the magnetic force shall manifest in the presence of a magnetic field and thus shall we find magnetic phenomena (metal sticking together, lightning storms) resulting from such? Or are you claiming that just as magnetic properties will produce the aforementioned phenomena, so too shall the impetus to acts elicit a reaction as certain as the resultant force manifestations? "I shall try a somewhat different approach. The laws of Nature, of the universe, of anything, are encrusted in the echelons of a metrical gridiron. The laws themselves are materials making up that which they govern. For instance, the Earth is made up of three focal layers, the crust, mantle, and core. Regarding this logic, in terms of the cause of/for “evil” in/of Human beings, I have incorporated this ambiguous theory. " So you postulate that the moral law permeates the different strata of conscious action and result in a manner analogous to how the natural forces reside and act within all levels of matter? "The crust, is the act of evil as determined by the transparent results perceived by the moral implications for such and such an act. The mantle, is the conscious impetus and pledged decision to facilitate the act of “evil” in reality. Finally, the core, is the actual cause of “evil.”" A degree of elaboration is required in regards to the core. When referencing it as the "actual cause of the 'evil'", are you here speaking of the action the evil is being wrought in response to? If not, then what of? "In summation, utilizing this ambiguous theory, I shall define acts of “evil” as physical and or psychological injury to human beings ensuing in anguish and/or death." This is generally a well-received presentation of morality, but one which it behooves us to ask whether or not is viable and proper. For consider that, though in general it is claimed that we oughtn't bring harm upon another, the notion of harm is held not to be itself evil, in that it is allowed as a means of insuring one's self-defense and other such things. Similarly, in moral instruction one may rightfully induce psychological harm in order to correct the behaviour of someone whom is acting improperly, that is, the employment of shame to assure conformity to morality, specifically amongst children. Would then it be enough to classify evil simply as harm resulting in anguish and/or death? It does not seem thus! "The implications of morality regarding the acts of “evil” are programmed and advocated so that human beings can and may accommodate themselves to indulge in all aspects of realty. The cause of “evil” is a paradox in the form of morality. " To "indulge in all aspects of reality" implies what? Similarly, in what way do you propose evil is a paradox resulting in morality? "If the composition of a humanely umbilici is destroyed, certainly the quantification of produce that life might have bared and sowed is tragically insoluble. For the loss of life institutes no collateral in return for the spoils inundated in the collective moral fiber. The agitator of “good,” in all likelihood, would not show an inch of concern for the consequence of murder. " So you thus proclaim that whether or not a life may have produced more alive then death is irrelevant, because those would be but potentials but the resultant increase in the benefit to the undertakers and other funery professionals would be actual? That consequently, the murderer would conceive of his actions then as good? "More likely, culprits of “evil” might emit particular flippancies, stemming from their mental terra firma. The justification for “evil” is implemented by individuals ethically sound, more or less. A slaughterer might justify the “evil,” but the cause would always be vaporous to anyone in pursuit. Is “evil” or the cause of it communal, or is it reserved in its concealed state, to the seemingly random hosts imposing “evil” actions?" And thus it would seem to be that we are lead back to the point that no man seeks evil for the sake of evil, only good under evils considered such by others. But even if this is said, it would seem that morality in order to be of any use and to extend beyond the descriptive to the normative, must not end simply at "all men always seek the best end", but also add strict rationalization and consideration of every moral action. That is to say, if we wish to truly seek the good, we must do so by applying the innate drive "of the best" to rational ends which truly facillitate an attainment of "the best", as opposed to an unskilled and ignorant understanding of such. I shall respond to the other posts later.
c7ityi_: "you can't know the inside of people. you can't know how he felt in reality, and how his life really was. you only see the outside. being an honored soldier wouldn't make me any happier, "nothing" would. i'll become like hitler, because ptahhotep said so." Who is Ptahhotep? And ontop of that, I was taking his views mainly from his own words, that is to say, from "Mein Kampf" and the like. Ogmios: "It's just not justified to say we use other as tools; although we do. But we do it while also caring for them, and act in the intrest of common good (or "the team"). And saying "might makes right, fight fight fight!" is kinda already on the wrong side of the edge, kinda, since it can be taken in a wrong way. And even while we use others, we don't do it by code "use others as tools", but rather "do good any way you can", from which we derive the use of others. But by saying this, I already seem worse than I am." Well it depends greatly on what you mean by "use others as tools". There are many types of tools, as it were. Similarly, is "the good of all" a necessarily morally demanded goal? "Also, I see a problem. I often think in "good vs. evil"-fight-on, and talk the same way, which explains the whole "means-to-an-end" questioning. But what I'm saying is that all means are free, when doing ANYTHING. Fight evil, yes. Get a beer, still yes. "Ends" is a silly definition. Since ends don't justify anything, only thing that matters are the means. (if you define evil as "strives for suffering", you get Hitler, who might have done it all in good faith, and then wouldn't be evil. Everyone tries to be good = they just fail = Evil is in the means)" This would indeed go well with the conception that all strive for good, yet at the same time, are not all actions done for an end? For whilst you are correct that it is the action, and not necessarily the goal, which is considered evil, if it were not for the goal said actions would not take place. "Umm so might makes right, sure. But to use my favorite example, Rome was freaking mighty, so it was kinda righty too. But it fell, eventually. So It's might was flawed. And so was their reasoning. As I said somewhere, evil is more often shortsightedness than intention. Right action, by my definition, cannot backfire or come back to haunt you; everything that does, is evil; but since we cannot do better than our best, mistakes are okay." So then, anything which is succesful, is by definition, right? "I can't remember where I heard this (on some movie..?): "It's not wrong to make mistakes; but it's repeating them that gets me". Hence, action is not good, if it isn't perfect, and it's not evil if you had no way of knowing better. But ignorance (ignoring stuff because it's not "true") is no excuse in the courts of man, nor at the higher places. (So I consider knowledge the ultimate virtue.)" So you would proclaim that ignorance does not even excuse us? "Well, NO. Actually yes, but I disagree with the way you say it. I'm saying ALL MEANS ARE ALWAYS FREE. No action (charity, kindness) is right, always and in every situation. And no action (hate, violence) is wrong in every situation. Which makes me kinda go "means to an end" again. hmm.. (see, if I say now that "it's what your trying to achive", means-to-an-end follows) That is to say, means JUSTIFY the ends. Wrong means (the kind that backfires) spoil your End. But ANY means that do not backfire are okay. Or more like: what you achive is more important than how you do it. Or why you did it (what you TRIED to achive). (more later, sleep overtakes) " So then, you proclaim that it is in the skill of applying different responses to different situations to produce a good end that virtue is to be found? That is, if charity is -not- demanded, and in fact violence is, it wuld be folly to provide charity?
Evil is like..........Hmmmm? How about someone putting adhesive glue on all of the toilet seats in a public restroom in a busy airport. The memory of that so-called 'evil' experience should 'stick' with you for a long time.
Prince_James, I musta skipped some stuff... A good goal (or End), according to me, is Life. Not mere survival, and also not some or other sub-part of it (like power or money or even knowledge). By Life I mean personal success and survival, but also anything included to life (happiness, success, safety, friends..). This has the advantage of explaining why some are selfish and others are not. So this would be an old way of seeing good and evil. But in reality it is in people's personal gain to help others, so they help him back; working as a team benefits all. Also, if you are altruistic, you must understand how it is in others intrest for you to live, and must therefore preserve yourself. So, Evil is to seek the ultimate End (life) through actions which do not create it. Seeking money at the cost of friends, stacking safety at the cost success, friends at the cost of personal power (also, knowledge is power), etc, etc. And good would be to find how to achive these things without having to sacrifice youself at the process. And since Good is achiving good Life, true Evil people would be lifeless wankers not worth mentioning. SO the people I call Evil are not complitely Evil, but rather people quite successful, but losing direction rapidly. These are dangerous, because they have power but not the wisdom to keep it. They waste it, and it does not flow back into society, hence creating powerless society. The money goes in, but doesn't come out; and the people expecting the money to circulate are left poor. The poor either rebel, turn to crime or simply rob the society of their own power by being powerless. So, my concern are the not-quite-good people, since they CAN achive, but not survive, and like a disease, drain resources until it dies, or kills the host. I understand this must have caused a lot of confusion. Sorry. So, "This would indeed go well with the conception that all strive for good, yet at the same time, are not all actions done for an end? For whilst you are correct that it is the action, and not necessarily the goal, which is considered evil, if it were not for the goal said actions would not take place." Um, action is also it's goal. Since every action has consequence, each mean produces its own end. We do these actions for the end, so if our actions fail, it is because a)we mispercieved the ends of the mean (or the consequences of our actions) b)we mispercieved the ends we wanted to achive. Or, if we percieve that Life is always the goal we wanted to achive, only a) survives. (since all goals such as Money are only pursued in the thought that "if I have money, I can do anything" (or friends or wisdom or power)) Hence, if all people try to attain perfect life, they only fail when they do something stupid (make a mistake). Then onwards to the actual explanation of "might makes right". As I said, mostly I'm concerned about the good-enoughs, people good enough to have power, but too bitter or proud to advance further. They, incidentally, seem to be successful in the world. Then we have the good-buts, who are good and nice people but don't seem to make it, at times. You could say the good-enoughs fight for money and power, and the good-buts fight for friends and happiness. Both seek knowledge, but only to a degree. Since both have incomplete goals (only fractions of what makes Life), both fail to throughtly win the other. Of the two, the good-buts seem happier but poorer and somtimes vexed, while good-enoughs seem successful but unhappy with life. Still, both persist, and to me, this seems a clear sign that they are but two sides of the coin. (or at least two facets of a multifaceted gem; whatever). Of the two I call Evil the Good-enoughs, because they use too much energy to survive NOW, and often fail at later age. Good-buts (or Good) survive (barely) now, but never really fall down. Their progress is steadily rising. You might say the girls date the bad guys, but marry the good guys Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But even the good-buts fall eventually, for while wiser, they refuse to dabble with Evil, and either spiral into bitterness or madness trying to fight the inevitable (becoming something of a fanatic), "lose their fate" (giving further and further power away to the unwise) or start spouting some garbage about morale relativism to escape the fact that even they are wrong. And refusing to take control of others, they eventually hand it over to those, who want it, believing in Karma, or God or Fate or in the Good of Humanity. They, in a word, refuse to oppose the world, and are eventually destroyed WITH it ("The meek shall inherit the earth" didn't certainly help. Try to inherit a nuclear holocaust..). So we have to learn from the "evil" while not giving up what makes us us. I'd have to quote Platon to justify this, but what makes our ideals are not the dozens of things we THINK makes up "Good". And when we discover the true essence of both sides, we will understand how they fit (Aristotle). And, of course, we must. If Courage is risking all in order to do what we think is right, we must risk even our ideals in order to achive greater heights. Am I making sense now?
maybe evil is not evil... maybe it's just a bit misunderstood. you can't know a person by their words either. i might not even believe the words i say here, or it might not be me who is writing them or someone might point a gun at my head and tell me to write them or i might be controlled by my feelings which make me write this... ptahhotep was the son of god who lived in egypt a few thousand years ago. ptah means god, hotep means son. pharaoh means big house, the house of god, the temple of god.
Ogmios: "I musta skipped some stuff... A good goal (or End), according to me, is Life. Not mere survival, and also not some or other sub-part of it (like power or money or even knowledge). By Life I mean personal success and survival, but also anything included to life (happiness, success, safety, friends..). This has the advantage of explaining why some are selfish and others are not. So this would be an old way of seeing good and evil. But in reality it is in people's personal gain to help others, so they help him back; working as a team benefits all. Also, if you are altruistic, you must understand how it is in others intrest for you to live, and must therefore preserve yourself." So life is to "live well"? But yes, I shall agree with of the self-benefit to be had from acting "altruistically" and how this is ultimately the good people aspire to. "So, Evil is to seek the ultimate End (life) through actions which do not create it. Seeking money at the cost of friends, stacking safety at the cost success, friends at the cost of personal power (also, knowledge is power), etc, etc. And good would be to find how to achive these things without having to sacrifice youself at the process." In essence, evil are the actions which are ill condusive to "the good life"? "And since Good is achiving good Life, true Evil people would be lifeless wankers not worth mentioning. SO the people I call Evil are not complitely Evil, but rather people quite successful, but losing direction rapidly. These are dangerous, because they have power but not the wisdom to keep it. They waste it, and it does not flow back into society, hence creating powerless society. The money goes in, but doesn't come out; and the people expecting the money to circulate are left poor. The poor either rebel, turn to crime or simply rob the society of their own power by being powerless. So, my concern are the not-quite-good people, since they CAN achive, but not survive, and like a disease, drain resources until it dies, or kills the host." So the mark of the evil man is degeneration? "Um, action is also it's goal. Since every action has consequence, each mean produces its own end. We do these actions for the end, so if our actions fail, it is because a)we mispercieved the ends of the mean (or the consequences of our actions) b)we mispercieved the ends we wanted to achive. Or, if we percieve that Life is always the goal we wanted to achive, only a) survives. (since all goals such as Money are only pursued in the thought that "if I have money, I can do anything" (or friends or wisdom or power))" Well I had meant "the intended end" as well as the "actual end". The distinguishing factor is that the intended end directly causes the action - despite wanting it or not -whereas the actual end is the results of the actions, whether in accords with the intended or not, and thus made by the actions. "Am I making sense now? " Yes. So basically, you see the world as composed, in the majority, of either those who have power but don't know how to use it properly, and those who may know how to use it properly, but have no power, yes? And that it is through both sides not realizing the fullness of both that they are incomplete. c7ityi_: "you can't know a person by their words either. i might not even believe the words i say here, or it might not be me who is writing them or someone might point a gun at my head and tell me to write them or i might be controlled by my feelings which make me write this..." There is no indication Hitler was lying. "ptahhotep was the son of god who lived in egypt a few thousand years ago." Crom's only sons are the dooms, not fortunes, which he unleashes on the world! Silly C7.
"Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse." -samcdkey I've been waiting to get to this, but I suppose I had to say what I have to found my points of views (or sound really hideous). I assume by Harm she means any type of hurt or pain (or maybe despair..), physical or mental. By remorse I suppose she means "without pity". My argument is essentially based against people, who simply refuse to accept some or other fact. Mostly people who refuse to accept some crucial fact like "using nukes is not a good thing" or "hurting others is bad". Especially against people who hurt others. It's rather classical example of sentencing a murderer to death; it cannot be put to use without breaking the law, or allowing some appointed person to break it. (One could use this to argue against death sentences, whatever) In a word, how do you change something without essentially destroying what it was? And since we're talking about living people, shaping their psyche can be painful at times. Should we then let them live in their delusions (we assume they have such things), since we cannot harm? Granted, if one looks enough, one finds a way, but during that time others are hurt as a consequence. In a word; Is it right to hurt others to avoid a greater pain, and if so, is "Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse." a sufficient definition of Evil? (you could argue the "remorse" point, but I certainly feel no pity in correcting others behavior where I KNOW they cannot be right. And wouldn't you in this case harm IN remorse?)
Harm Noun 1. Any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc. 2. The occurrence of a change for the worse. 3. The act of damaging something or someone. Remorse Noun 1. A feeling of deep regret If your act will in some way damage or change the person for the worse and you can do this without regret, I define this as evil. Change is not the same the same as destruction. Change should be for the better. Any person/society that believes that damage can lead to progress is on the road to the destruction of humanity as we know it. It is possible to help and educate without damaging. The only time hurting someone can be considered acceptable is when it is in defense of self. What is "greater pain"? Is it for self? for a community or people? Or a country? That is the argument used by a terrorist. Do you believe a terrorist is justified in targeting civilians to make a point about his "greater pain"? Every human being has... an attendant spirit.... If it does not always tell us what to do, it always cautions us what not to do. ~Lydia M. Child I think people who lack this spirit are evil.
Okay, point clarified. I suppose I can agree that in clause 2. it would BE evil. I think the definition still needs some clarification, but hey, so what. By greater pain I meant that if someones actions are not corrected, he will cause pain to others. Or to himself, or anyone really. It's generalised do I can't really define it better. And regret, to me, seems a really bad word, since you regret actions you wouldn't have wanted to do. Which... actually makes sense. I argue that we just don't have time to do it right every time, not without causing more pain than we saved. But to regret that is actually good, since we would have done better, had we the chance. So you are, in fact, right. A person who does not regret an action he could have done better, has convinced himself that he did the right thing, which is really a delusion. As for terrorists.... Well, they could be doing something a lot better. But if they knew how, they would be doing it better. I would still argue that violence is a solution to every problem; Just the absolutely WORST solution to it. Their hatred comes from action we took, so they are justified (Just that our strikes at them also become justified. And you could say neither is right.). Fighting is better than taking it in, but fighting is worse than some other, unknown action they should be doing. As for the spirits, they sure weren't present when some traders decided to copy imperialism (buy resource, sell product, get 150% profit) and to cause pain on the arabs. So the arabs are more right, just not right enough. It's never as easy as you said. And I would rephrase that as "people who don't listen to their spirits are evil". If everyone has a spirit, how some wouldn't have them? And my spirit is more like the angry, nasty version of me, so...
to Jonny5 Most cordial Sir. I am speculating thusly. Any act within the paradigms of Nature or humanistic behavior, be it considered ordinary or eccentric, is caused by the ignition of reactants in the crux of the fused amalgam enticed by the action. Humans are made up of the same biological rudiments manifesting from the earth. We, as individual selves, are pin-pointed with stupefying precision; we are compressed within our own practical bodies. Yes, a sort of quid pro quo correlation of essence betwixt. If all the required paraphernalia are collected and prepared, the labor shall begin. If one is convinced, out of reason from self- preservation, or political interests, or doohickey, (whatever the case), to commit atrocities, and atrocities invariance have already been incanted before, the cause is sustained in the network of all that exists. Similarly to how Nature imposes its perpetual sequences. No limitations; the cause of an act and the implications of the act it self, need not be regulated in terms of magnetisms. If one injects heroin into the vain, surely that person’s actions will be a reaction to the chemical compound and its alteration of the psychological state. Certainly, our conscious and unconscious enticements for thought, and/or action are often times, yet not always, stranded from our individual mental stratospheres. They are crudely sketched against patterns representing already duplicated carbon behaviors of past eras. The only divergence is the adjustments of archaic conduct in order to promote the progressive state of civilization and the awareness of corollary in explicit behaviors. Nature is not self-serving other than to sustain its unadulterated continuums. We are self-preserving, because we are conscious, because we feel remorse, we feel grief, love, hatred, and so forth onward into the sentiments labyrinth. Not exactly, Sir. Moral law is more or less, the programming of a colander for mentality, to ensure that we acquaint ourselves with distinguished perspectives of our potential augmented behavior. Nature need not be concerned with its potential, for its engineering is evident of its melodiously perpetuated causes. Nature is no way dependent upon us, it is self-sustaining, yet we are entirely dependent on nature. At the most fundamental level, the only substantial comparison with the laws of Nature and the laws of morality is that natural laws are expansive, and any non-human organism or natural event, need not enumerate behavior, for it is predetermined by the natural laws themselves. The laws of nature are not in dispute; they need not be enforced or retracted. The laws of morality are ridden with equations of the conscious, leaving the cause of the essence of “evil” obscured within the parameters of the act. No, the tangible act itself would be the crust (The crossover from intent to distribution), which is wrought by the mantel (conscious impetus for “evil”). The core (cause of evil) represents the fermentation of all the properties that comprise “evil.” It is soldered in the very essence of our being. In other words the essence of “evil” is rooted in all of us. We all have this firing pin. The serious concern is the viable means with which to make the cartridges of “evil” discharge. No Sir, tis not a mere matter of attraction and repulsion. Tofu, which is protein augmented, generally mimics the taste of any food it is mixed with. It is extracted from soybeans. Our behaviors are extracted from our mental enticements and projected on ourselves, others, and nature. Our behaviors, in various ways, mimic, and deduct from, every single other identifiable behavior. Whether we, or anyone else, or nature, is enriched or otherwise affected by these actions, is dependent on the proprietors of how moral law is interpreted, or espoused, and by whom dispraises thusly, or is loyal to the code, and finally by how nature acclimatizes to our actions. I classified the action(s) of “evil” as harm resulting in physiological or physical anguish and/or death, not the essence or cause, and rightly sowed. To indulge in the potentiality of intellectual progression, to pamper ourselves with the fruits of our labor, to bask in the summer sun without being viscously persecuted by another, to take the lead when all else fails, to protect ourselves and loved ones with the utmost brutality if and when threatened, to submit, conform, distort, or isolate the awareness that we all have: Not all peoples are born into equality (in the broadest sense of the term.) To continue with such examples would be to sanction a tangent from legitimacy in accords with my argument thus far. To do anything, anything at all, we can imagine and/or develop the capital to ratify. Sir, you have mistaken my suggestion. The cause of “evil” is a paradox in the form of morality because moral code masks the cause of “evil” with the pretentious belief and enforcement of “good” and it's clauses. Pardon me Sire naysayer. In plain terms, the loss of life is enormous, and the potential of that life will never be known or appreciated by anyone. Tis infinitely relevant. The remunerations are trivial. The only real “good” becoming of one dignified whom be slain occurring from an “evil” action, is the possibility that the beloved one’s followers (tribe, friends, family), might develop a profound inspiration to instill change for the betterment and the “good” of, and for, themselves and all peoples. If one was not slain, it would be the same influx of mystery, surrounding that individual’s potential in life if one had been. The murderer would be free from classifying the act as anything but mandate. If the culprit was honestly remorseful, than tentatively no, the murderer recognizes the action as “evil.” This also might be within the confines of what is determined to be necessary “evil.” If you tell a child, or someone who is maturely self-aware, not to do something, and give them a library of reasons why no such act should be committed; chances are that person might find morality to be the equivalent of a foreign language. They might not have the currency to procure the same toys as you, or the capacity of intelligence you sustain, or the quantum leap of love that you experience. Morality is coalescing for the disciplinarian. In a classroom, most students conform, yet there is always one who is exceptionally talented at disrupting the flow of learning for others. Utopia thus won’t ever be achieved. On a grand scale, the people that commit to “evil” are disproportionate to those convicts of “evil” being disciplined by morality. I’ve speculated too much, not enough, and too little. One might attempt to empathize with those crucified by and for “evil.” Perhaps then, a resolution would suffice, a universal maxim touching as many people as may be reached. It would seem that denunciations are oxygen that feeds the flames of the fires of life. Tis an enigma indeed, one that allomorphs me into a wee intellectual tetchier.
Benefit can be evil, if the benefit is of evil nature. As he commits a crime to enable him to commit another one. Not when the benefit doesn't become real but the acts instead leads to the same problem again. In a way fooling the reward system. But then evil is done so that evil can be done (evil leads to evil, and in the case I talked about it is done with intention). I don't understand. Bad thing, yes, but not evil (not evil by you). No, but if someone seeks illness for you, then that would be considered evil (poisoning for example). Sickness isn't evil, it is bad, but sickness is only evil if the sickness itself make you sick with intent. If someone gives rise to your sickness then that person can be considered evil (not allways though, sometimes illness can be used as vaccin and such, so it has much to do with intent and effect). What if everything evil could be explained by ignorance... If a person misunderstands something, and tries to do good things, then that isn't really evil, not to my understanding at least, could even be described as a accident, that person may need help to sort out the misunderstandings or bad behaviours (that's why we send some people to mental institutions that have committed a crime). Also, bullies can be felt to be evil, but they are probably trying to help the victim, it's a 'blind leading a blind' situation. That doesn't account for all bullies nesessarily.
Jonny5: "Most cordial Sir. I am speculating thusly. Any act within the paradigms of Nature or humanistic behavior, be it considered ordinary or eccentric, is caused by the ignition of reactants in the crux of the fused amalgam enticed by the action. Humans are made up of the same biological rudiments manifesting from the earth. We, as individual selves, are pin-pointed with stupefying precision; we are compressed within our own practical bodies. Yes, a sort of quid pro quo correlation of essence betwixt. If all the required paraphernalia are collected and prepared, the labor shall begin. If one is convinced, out of reason from self- preservation, or political interests, or doohickey, (whatever the case), to commit atrocities, and atrocities invariance have already been incanted before, the cause is sustained in the network of all that exists. Similarly to how Nature imposes its perpetual sequences. No limitations; the cause of an act and the implications of the act it self, need not be regulated in terms of magnetisms. " So that is to say, it is fallacious to speak of atrocity manifesting in the minds of individuals, for its cause is necessarily demanded to be "within the network of all that exists" and thus is it an effect with no genesial quality to support it as anything but? Moreover, would you go as far as to claim that we can speak of the apple as having the necessary cause of one's subsequent devouring of it? "If one injects heroin into the vain, surely that person’s actions will be a reaction to the chemical compound and its alteration of the psychological state. Certainly, our conscious and unconscious enticements for thought, and/or action are often times, yet not always, stranded from our individual mental stratospheres. They are crudely sketched against patterns representing already duplicated carbon behaviors of past eras. The only divergence is the adjustments of archaic conduct in order to promote the progressive state of civilization and the awareness of corollary in explicit behaviors. Nature is not self-serving other than to sustain its unadulterated continuums. We are self-preserving, because we are conscious, because we feel remorse, we feel grief, love, hatred, and so forth onward into the sentiments labyrinth. " Do you imagine that this manifestation of past behaviour is a characteristic of all natural life, or just humanity? For it would seem to me that in the absence of a culture - a trait peculiar to humans alone - that such a return to prior states would be impossible in the truest extent, for whereas a bear might accidentally act like a bear a thousand years ago, human beings are mentally exposed to rememberances of such figures a thousand years ago and can, both consciously and subconsciously, adopt such patterns as their own. Or to put it otherwise, all causal-relations necessitate locality, and in the absence of a culture, past events are outside the bounds of locality and thus cannot be sufficiently connected to the present to be the cause which provokes the effect of behaviour-modelling. "Not exactly, Sir. Moral law is more or less, the programming of a colander for mentality, to ensure that we acquaint ourselves with distinguished perspectives of our potential augmented behavior. Nature need not be concerned with its potential, for its engineering is evident of its melodiously perpetuated causes. Nature is no way dependent upon us, it is self-sustaining, yet we are entirely dependent on nature. At the most fundamental level, the only substantial comparison with the laws of Nature and the laws of morality is that natural laws are expansive, and any non-human organism or natural event, need not enumerate behavior, for it is predetermined by the natural laws themselves. The laws of nature are not in dispute; they need not be enforced or retracted. The laws of morality are ridden with equations of the conscious, leaving the cause of the essence of “evil” obscured within the parameters of the act." Ah, so you postulate that the natural laws hold reign throughout our existence in contrast with the moral laws which are pidgeon-holed into framing only human behaviour, and in such distinction, we might realize that it is the natural which holds sway further? Perhaps then we might view morality as resultant from conscious judgement of the world and the necessitiates of social discourse that prohibit man from living in a state where he pays ethics no heed. "No, the tangible act itself would be the crust (The crossover from intent to distribution), which is wrought by the mantel (conscious impetus for “evil”). The core (cause of evil) represents the fermentation of all the properties that comprise “evil.” It is soldered in the very essence of our being. In other words the essence of “evil” is rooted in all of us. We all have this firing pin. The serious concern is the viable means with which to make the cartridges of “evil” discharge. " So the core then represents the capacity for humans to engage in evil with a mechanism of control so contrived as to produce the firing-sequence when met with the cause (or causes) which would provoke that individual to act in such a way? That is to say, the exterior cause becomes the finger pulling down on the trigger which is the internal-core of the strata analogy? "No Sir, tis not a mere matter of attraction and repulsion. Tofu, which is protein augmented, generally mimics the taste of any food it is mixed with. It is extracted from soybeans. Our behaviors are extracted from our mental enticements and projected on ourselves, others, and nature. Our behaviors, in various ways, mimic, and deduct from, every single other identifiable behavior. Whether we, or anyone else, or nature, is enriched or otherwise affected by these actions, is dependent on the proprietors of how moral law is interpreted, or espoused, and by whom dispraises thusly, or is loyal to the code, and finally by how nature acclimatizes to our actions. I classified the action(s) of “evil” as harm resulting in physiological or physical anguish and/or death, not the essence or cause, and rightly sowed." So then, you perceive the interplay and inter-impaction that people participate in both internally and externally, as formulating behaviour which is then triggered in response to the stimuli which present in the moment? Furthermore, that the resultant conception of the act on a moral scale, is then to befound not in an objective whole, or even an averaging of such, but in the individual holders and processers of morality, namely, the individuals themselves? "To indulge in the potentiality of intellectual progression, to pamper ourselves with the fruits of our labor, to bask in the summer sun without being viscously persecuted by another, to take the lead when all else fails, to protect ourselves and loved ones with the utmost brutality if and when threatened, to submit, conform, distort, or isolate the awareness that we all have: Not all peoples are born into equality (in the broadest sense of the term.) To continue with such examples would be to sanction a tangent from legitimacy in accords with my argument thus far. " Then to secure the pleasures of life, in other words? "To do anything, anything at all, we can imagine and/or develop the capital to ratify. Sir, you have mistaken my suggestion. The cause of “evil” is a paradox in the form of morality because moral code masks the cause of “evil” with the pretentious belief and enforcement of “good” and it's clauses." In that it does not recognize the necessity of the aforementioned mechanism of triggering? Or do you propose it is more related to the fact that evil is considered more in light of its negative relation to good? In that evil is always thought of as a failing? "Pardon me Sire naysayer. In plain terms, the loss of life is enormous, and the potential of that life will never be known or appreciated by anyone. Tis infinitely relevant. The remunerations are trivial. The only real “good” becoming of one dignified whom be slain occurring from an “evil” action, is the possibility that the beloved one’s followers (tribe, friends, family), might develop a profound inspiration to instill change for the betterment and the “good” of, and for, themselves and all peoples. If one was not slain, it would be the same influx of mystery, surrounding that individual’s potential in life if one had been. The murderer would be free from classifying the act as anything but mandate. If the culprit was honestly remorseful, than tentatively no, the murderer recognizes the action as “evil.” This also might be within the confines of what is determined to be necessary “evil.” " I am afraid I do not grasp with surest strength at this point. We began with a notion of profiting from both good and evil, yet are we not conceding that the certainty of good's manifestation is contingent on the reaction of the participants? So that theoretically, one could claim that there are some acts of evil which produce no good profit whatsoever, owing to its solution beingcomposed either alone or in a mixture of apathy or ignorance? "If you tell a child, or someone who is maturely self-aware, not to do something, and give them a library of reasons why no such act should be committed; chances are that person might find morality to be the equivalent of a foreign language. They might not have the currency to procure the same toys as you, or the capacity of intelligence you sustain, or the quantum leap of love that you experience. Morality is coalescing for the disciplinarian. In a classroom, most students conform, yet there is always one who is exceptionally talented at disrupting the flow of learning for others. Utopia thus won’t ever be achieved. On a grand scale, the people that commit to “evil” are disproportionate to those convicts of “evil” being disciplined by morality. I’ve speculated too much, not enough, and too little. One might attempt to empathize with those crucified by and for “evil.” Perhaps then, a resolution would suffice, a universal maxim touching as many people as may be reached. It would seem that denunciations are oxygen that feeds the flames of the fires of life. Tis an enigma indeed, one that allomorphs me into a wee intellectual tetchier. " So you would proclaim that the constitution of certain individuals which invariably arise within all groups of a certain size, precludes the rationalization of morality on a scale which could impose itself on the masses of humanity? That though instruction may work for some, inevitably evil will result because they are those whom shall not tolerate instruction and who shall not be so formed as to have a limited set of "evil inducing triggerings"? I shall respond to the other messages in a few moments for the rest of you.
Cyperium: "Benefit can be evil, if the benefit is of evil nature. As he commits a crime to enable him to commit another one." Yet does he seek this out as a evil? No. He seeks it out for the good he thinks he is to find in it. It is only apart from his seeking and from a more elevated perspective, let us say, that we recognize the act's moral standing. "Not when the benefit doesn't become real but the acts instead leads to the same problem again. In a way fooling the reward system. " Does not one, upon completion of an act succesfully, attain to that which one has wanted? Even if the desire soon returns, or perhaps even almost simulteneously does so? "But then evil is done so that evil can be done (evil leads to evil, and in the case I talked about it is done with intention)." A man may set himself up to continue his actions, evil or good, but his perpetuation of action does not imply a seeking for the perpetuation of evil on his own part. That is, he isn't ever seeking the evil of the act, only the good of the act which necessitates its continuation indefinitely. "I don't understand." An action, even if evil in the light of moral evaluation, is not sought for that evil, is what I am saying. That is, it is not evil for the sake of evil, but evil for the sake of the aim one wishes to attain, which is generally "happiness", "pleasure", et cetera, et cetera. In fact, no action, either evil or good, is done for anything but the good ends. "Bad thing, yes, but not evil (not evil by you)." Yes, it is not a moral evil to be sick, but its badness is displayed in the fact that we never have chosen to take it, as it were. "No, but if someone seeks illness for you, then that would be considered evil (poisoning for example)." Indeed, but is it "to simply get that person sick"? Or to attain an end which one wants, even as banal as the satisfaction of curiousity? "Sickness isn't evil, it is bad, but sickness is only evil if the sickness itself make you sick with intent. If someone gives rise to your sickness then that person can be considered evil (not allways though, sometimes illness can be used as vaccin and such, so it has much to do with intent and effect)." In so much as it is not a moral agent, you are correct. No sickness can purposefully target you outside of a rational being controlling it. That being said, evil's primary characteristic is "bad", so that which is "bad" is perhaps only one step away from "evil". "What if everything evil could be explained by ignorance... If a person misunderstands something, and tries to do good things, then that isn't really evil, not to my understanding at least, could even be described as a accident, that person may need help to sort out the misunderstandings or bad behaviours (that's why we send some people to mental institutions that have committed a crime)." Indeed. We could very well say that all those who seek evil ends are doing it "by accident". That is, they always assume that the action which is evil is good. A cardinal misunderstanding. "Also, bullies can be felt to be evil, but they are probably trying to help the victim, it's a 'blind leading a blind' situation. That doesn't account for all bullies nesessarily. " Naturally.
