Evil is that which malevolently subtracts from or deters inherent goodness. Goodness is that which benefits the most number of people for the longest period of time. Evil is that which deliberately harms or imposes upon human harmony. These thematics are tautologically valid in a wide variety of examples.
Evil deeds are blind, cause we don't recognise ourselves as evil. Everyone can strive to do good things, even those that we perceive as evil. But everyone do not strive to do good things. Some people strive to do bad things, maybe because they are so disappointed with the system, or with themselves, or with God. Does this help them? Is it good in any way for them? Do they perceive it to be good for them? Do they know it is wrong? So they aren't striving to do good if they don't perceive what they do as good. That doesn't say that they don't have a different side to themselves that strives for good, or something within them that strives for good. When we are thinking bad things within us, then that is reflected through our words and actions, if we are thinking evil thoughts then that is manifested through our words and actions. It is irresponsible for a person to not handle his thoughts so they strive for good. Can we really expect someone to actually handle his thoughts that way? Of course, people aren't stupid, they have more resources than what is perceived. The satisfaction that can come with evil deeds are not good satisfaction, since the satisfaction is later turned into regret and depression, the regret is then temporarily stunned with the satisfaction one gets with further evil deeds. This may lead the "victim" to believe that it is the way his life works, that the normal state is regret and depression and the joy of his life becomes to do evil deeds. However the normal state should be rest (not as in sleep, but in a restful mood) and the joy of life should be to do good deeds. I said "victim" because that is what the evil man is, the one that does evil because of evil is a victim of his own evil. First of all as you say it all probably began with misunderstandings and misconceptions, but it is when the person start to do evil because it is evil and he finds pleasure in evil that the person becomes evil. It is evil because it influences other people to engage in evil deeds, and because it brings sorrow, death and injury to people who doesn't deserve it. By that I mean that the evil is so unnecessary (they doesn't deserve it) for those people that the evil is greater in the man who does it. By that comes a implication that some people deserve evil deeds? Not necessarily. They still don't deserve it. If the completion of an act is succesfull then by successfull we mean that we attain what we wanted with that act. Not allways do we want good things, and there is a evil desire that is...evil. Many things are evil not because of one act, but because the act is repeated allthough you understand it is evil. But it does imply a seeking for the perpetuation of evil. It does imply that, even if it wasn't so. Therefor people are mislead who look up to such a person. That it is tuff to do criminal things, or act in a way that makes people anxious. But it doesn't end with the good, "happiness" is often not a result of evil deeds. Pleasure may be, but it is evil pleasure, or if the pleasure isn't evil it will lead to regret and bad feelings which is not wanted and should make the person refrain from it the next time. But we haven't got control over that, we had no choice to begin with, then we should accept fate and hope that we don't get ill. Many times it is because of greed, or because of hate. Sometimes it could be of curiousity, possibly the curiousity of their own death, many people who have killed have described that they wanted to know what it was like to see another person die, etc., but curiousity should never have a hold on us so tight that it enables us to kill. If it does then we are still responsible, and curiousity doesn't blank our judgement, but we must actively choose to ignore it. In fact in the most evil deeds our conscience and judgement of the situation must be ignored so badly that we are almost blinded from the world. It is then for the cause of evil that we do evil. Because we have selected that cause and blinded ourselves from other options that could have saved us. You are correct in that assumption for all we know. Not allways. I'm sorry to say that evil is not allways done by accident. They do know what is good and what is evil, it is by that knowledge that they can become evil. Many are doing bad things because of popularity and because the group do it, some people are beginning to do a bad deed which they didn't even know was bad, and when they realise it is bad, they don't dare to turn back from it, since it would be to admit that they didn't know (that's when we should swallow our pride).
The atrocity certainly manifests in the mind, much like the virus manifests in the processor. Yet, if the computer did not have a connection with which the virus could have the means to wreck its havoc, for instance, an internet connection, corrupted disc etc., the virus would have no playground with which to perform. Nature, the Earth, is our mainframe; we are the software of that central processing unit. Without that uplink we would not each have the capacity to apply the virus of “evil,” as we see fit. Human beings are not the only species fond of eating apples. If there was no apple, there would be no cause to devour it. Let us assume a domesticated animal such as a dog is trotting outside without a leash. If a squirrel or rabbit is in the vicinity, and the dog catches scent or sight, chances are that dog will chase the squirrel or rabbit until it scatters out of range. The dog, derived from wolves, foxes, jackals, and coyotes, inherently primes its instinctual hunter mechanisms. The dog does not “accidentally” act like a wolf, et cetera, it acts involuntary. That is to say it is programmed by the same assemblages of its ancestors. Even the most cultivated animals retain their indigenous prudence of the wild; this is simply one of the joys and wonders of nature. We all have charges of adrenaline, or epinephrine. The hormone initially was removed from the adrenal glands of animals by Jokichi Takamine in 1901 and later produced by Friedrich Stolz in 1904. In a manner of speaking, yes. Morality is the synthetic law made by the human consciousness, and made strictly for us, prohibiting any opposing act. Yet, certainly not discontinuing or ending all opposing acts. Yet it is certainly fundamental to ensure the continuation of humanistic endeavors. Nature has a genuine law governing all the involved components, ensuring the continuation of natural discourse. In a manner of speaking, yes. The adage, “It’s not going to happen overnight,” is a complete fallacy. Within any particular moment, which itself is eternally fleeting, the internal and external collimations, that like waves erode the shoreline of human consciousness, originate a behavioral trine. Objectively, the moral deductions of behavior can only be ostensibly found on a collective whole, due to the overtly cynical posture of conservation. Whereas, the same elicitation of the activities inveigled would interplay the reactions of the individual “holders and processors of morality,” precisely because their conduct is not in moral inquiry. Indubitably. Perhaps, a combination of the denial to consider there are entrenched spawned ions of “evil,” and the haughtiness adjacent to the envisaged conception of “good.” An “evil” act is a part of life. If nothing else, the act, like any other, polarizes change. What ever profit there is, if at all be aught, might not be in the structure of expenditures as required from the sense of the worth of “good” or from a positive vantage point. Perhaps so. Dependent on the instruction and the ramifications that would arise, one might argue that despite the best-intended notion of conscripting morality, there might always be some whom do not rejoice in such beliefs. Truth be told, they may be very similar to you and I, only in a putrid projection of reality, one which is malignant beyond recognition to the hazy eyes of those with a bit more fortune. As far as the compounded mesh intrinsic in all, one might not confect acts of seismic “evil” because of any knowledge that such compositions justify their actions. Perhaps their private validation resides in the realms of the pressurizing of humanity.
(back again) Prince_James: "So life is to "live well"?" Yeah. Basically. "In essence, evil are the actions which are ill condusive to "the good life"?" In general, yes. "So the mark of the evil man is degeneration?" Umm.. The "common evil" of no virtue, yes. With the more "true evil", or close-enoughs.. Well, maybe. But we don't really see it from our own "sins". People could be trying their best and going as far as possible but not "Degenerate" before he makes the last, big mistake. It's not a very good mean of identification (Which I suppose a mark is?), since it's not readily available. Rather I would see Ignorance as a mark of those (and faith or trust in an ulterior force that take care of everything in good-buts.), as they say "something is not important" or "I don't have to know that" or whatever. And on the bottom of it all I'd see dishonesty, or believing in something false against evidence to the contrary. This definition of course makes it too easy to fail. You can't go around doubting everything while you can't take a step without stepping astray. Hence the ability to see clearly what contradicts and what does not (or what is true and what is not) would rise to a paramount virtue (as other virtues are inevitably dependant on it (caution, pride, courage, passion, wisdom etc etc etc). As personal experience I've seen that it's the ability to say "it's possible" as a clear sign. Also inability to change or learn. And, naturally, failing to act on what you know. Classic "Atheneite"/"Thorite" problem. Either one speculates too much and ends up wise, old and never achives anything, or stumbles through life, fumbling but maybe achiveing something good (The original meaning of faith, and/or prayer "Do what you can, then pray it's enough"). (even more) "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." Well.....no, or yes. That is to say these factions certainly exist, but there are a lot of other people, and lot of other virtuous-conflicts. This is just the root of the classical good-vs.-evil -conflict, the "neverending fight". There are, for example, the Law-vs-Chaos, or order-vs-freedom -conflicts, or the previously mentioned atheneite-thorite. And dozens of others. Just that this model applies to the topic at hand. But yes. And I know I'm just jumping into a fight blindly but Cyperium, "Some people strive to do bad things, maybe because they are so disappointed with the system, or with themselves, or with God. Does this help them? Is it good in any way for them? Do they perceive it to be good for them? Do they know it is wrong?" Just like a drunkard punches someone to teach a lesson ("That outta teach 'im not to mess with the man!"), so too a criminal who tries to break law or harm someone seeks to "wake up" the system (or God!) to it's inherent flaws. And they had it coming. They don't come up with any reasonable method of fixing the problem, so they just break it and hope it's rebuilt better. And improving his society inherently helps him. And by helping the system he gains it's approval!..Not, but he HAS to try. Otherwise no one would do anything about it (since we already divined his reasoning to be stemmed with disappointment..)
The "system" do come up with good ways to deal with problems, it has had thousands of years to do so, but criminals seeks to destroy it because they think it is faulty because of their inability to understand how it works and why the rules are there. Also, the "system" works only for the greater good, and not for the individual, so some people the system doesn't cover, these people can be frustrated at the system in so much that they commit crimes. But generally, the reason isn't enough to commit a crime. Some also don't realise that the fault is with themselves not the system, and that there are ways to go in any system to achieve help for themselves (even if that means to zombie through the system to find the answer within them, taking virtue in the act of doing so for the sake of his own honesty and naturality and the dissapointment of the system). Cause we really have to follow the law. However in some cases laws can be broken when they contradict the law in their heart. There are other ways of achieving change than to destroy or commit crimes, and the system isn't helped by it cause the cost of fear is greater, so the system will just close itself in taking away more of our freedom with even more laws (or create more complex ways of doing the same thing as to assure security). In the end we live in a world where we don't trust eachother, do we want that? The common phrase "then we would be afraid to go out at night" is a reality and is a warning of our ways of dealing with things. If there are something wrong in the system, then create a debate. Go to the media, influence the politicians (cause most of them actually do want to create a way to make everybody happy).
Cyperium, Of course. But he still THINKS he's doing some good. Sure, he'll feel guilty for not doing the better thing, and because others tell him to stop doing it, but he still thinks it's right. And as long as this is not acknowledged criminal activity cannot be stopped. Crime cannot be stopped, it can only be undermined or directed towards more creative goals. But also a criminal has lost faith that the society can improve. He might be impatient or be expecting too fast changes, or looking at wrong places, but nonetheless he believes the society has no use for him. OR he believes the society CANNOT be changed without a bloody rebellion. This is mostly the caused by ignorance. Hence a criminal either rebels, in order to induce a change (not to cause it), or abandons the society, becoming an outlaw (outside society), and fights against it like a foreign enemy. A foreign dominant enemy, sure, by hiding and avoiding, surrendering when caught and so on, but fighting still. Oh and, "Cause we really have to follow the law." Law ain't the justice. We follow the laws only for as long as they are more beneficial than harmful. It's necessary to "upkeep order", or faith in the system. Personally I follow them only by necessity. "In the end we live in a world where we don't trust eachother, do we want that?" CAN you trust anyone now? Does pretending you can change anything? To me, trust means believing what others say, and this ultimately leads into herd-like thinking, where facts are assumed by habit. All trust is one trust, and it can harm, sure as hell. The Nazi-germans surely trusted their government! As did Soviet Unions citizens. Their media told them pretty lies, but in order to trust, they had to accept the society would not lie to it. There was no way of knowing, for certain, what was going on. I don't trust anyone. But that doesn't mean I don't believe others (so to speak..). I just accept everything by "if you say so", and check for misinformation. I just assume the best of everyone, and kick their ass if it wasn't true. Oh, and freedom! "and the system isn't helped by it cause the cost of fear is greater, so the system will just close itself in taking away more of our freedom with even more laws (or create more complex ways of doing the same thing as to assure security)." Sure, if the government takes care of everything. But take my freedom and I'll just rebel; I'd rather protect myself! Easy and simple way of fixing that problem! And, I don't have the time to start being a friggin' politician, making tea parties and talking in worried overtures. Neither has anyone else! The criminals aren't supposed to be solving the problems, so if they lose faith, they wont! They'll just tell some agency whose job it is to do it properly or I'll kick ya! It's not right, but crime isn't the source of anything. It's just a sad side-effect.
He thinks it is right. He by argument then does it BECAUSE it is right? If he then found out that it WASN'T right, wouldn't he then be willing to do what IS right instead? By that argument, should we assume that criminals won't be criminals anymore if properly educated? Perhaps. I at least see no reason to refute it as I have no examples of the contrary. However I have seen examples (and it is a known problem) where education is abandoned because of criminality which is then becomming a bad circle where criminality won't be undermined cause the education to allow it to be so is dropped. Criminality often this way take away education, as education would take away criminality. Education isn't the whole answer though, one can be properly educated and still commit crimes. In fact some of the most horrific crimes has been made by very intelligent people. I agree. Ignorance, which is self-sustained, cause often THEY don't want to change. Cause when it comes down to it, for those criminals that this may apply to, it is about what they WANT to do, what they think is fun, or whatever romanticised feelings they may have towards the crimes. Extremists that try to change the system by crimes have had some success. It is the duty of politicians to ensure that committing crimes shouldn't lead to a success in changing the system, but instead doing things that are right should lead to a success in changing the system. Sorry to say we have no rewards for good deeds in society, instead we have only punishment for bad deeds. No wonder why people become frustrated when trying to change. Also the change takes TOOOOOOO long... This is as I understand it necessary to ensure order in the system, otherwise it would be too easily changed, and chaotic. To complete a change in the system it has to go through alot of passways. But to commit crimes because of that is still wrong (though can be understandable because they don't know of or have patience in a better way), there is a reason why the change has to go through so many passways, and it is that the change shouldn't conflict with the other parts of the system, we don't want a screw loose where the original fitted better (and it would be rather embarrassing to admit in such high places that they made a mistake concerning a vital part (which is furthermore why vital parts are so seldomly changed even though it may be necessary in some cases (for one democracy should be changed, not entirely, but to an extent that is more reflective of ones oppinions, so that we have a better chance of actually give our vote to someone ( or a party ) that actually fit our view of how things should be accomplished))). Though fighting in vain, since in the way he fights instead weakens the society. Society has a buffer (as has everything) and that buffer is taken from when fixing what the criminal destroyed. To the criminal it seems it magically repaired itself (even to the better), but in fact it draws on the buffer, and when that buffer is gone, there will be no more magic for the criminal, but what he has destroyed is kept that way. As for now the buffer is very large, as it is constantly buildt up from taxes etc. but the consequences of the principles which he is using can be, when applied to other areas, rather damaging, and can totally drain the buffer of smaller systems (smaller systems than society as a whole). By that I mean self-contained organisations that may not be covered by that buffer, but have a much smaller buffer and is then destroyed. There is also danger of applying this principle (of magical rebuilding) to persons (mock them and they will come back better - which is NOT allways the case) especially in the case of mocking and "if it doesn't kill you it strengthens you". Sure people also has a buffer, everything has, but that buffer do not work the same way as societies buffer. In that way, criminals may fail to understand that the principles they use, may very well lead to sadness in other areas than that which they were originally used for. Therefor societies duty is far more personal than is first understood when dealing with these persons. However as society in this case is pretty blind I doubt that it will (ever?) take that duty. Personally I follow them partly of necessity and partly because I find that following laws makes it easier to interact in society (without laws, where is the argument?). I CAN trust people, to me, trust is not only believing what others say. To me, trust is having faith in a persons ability to (input) you. It can be anything from defend to love. Also trust is trusting what people say of course, but that is a rather small part of trust. Trust in the context I had given, applied to the trust of people that they don't try to steal your money any chance they get. Trust that there are people out there who want you no harm. That is the kind of trust that criminals weaken. lol, sure, if you see trust that way I can understand you, I also look for misinformation. Though the trust you are talking about are...well perhaps not non-existant with humans but since no one knows the Truth with the big 'T' can you even trust yourself? Well as the Truth (as I believe) is within oneself, then perhaps we can only trust oneself (and how we relate to what others say of course). Sure, but it is that rebellion that we want to fix! (isn't it?) It is furthermore that rebellion that potentially lead to crimes. I can understand your point.
Evil is when you prey on the weak, I think thats what most people consider evil anyway. I think we can agree that torture is evil. I think we can also agree that killing women and children is evil. I think we most of us agree that killing innocent people is evil. If you want to know what evil is, it's an energy, it's the energy of destruction, without the logic to guide it.
(ugh the forums didnt tell me there was more posts!) "By that argument, should we assume that criminals won't be criminals anymore if properly educated? Perhaps. I at least see no reason to refute it as I have no examples of the contrary. However I have seen examples (and it is a known problem) where education is abandoned because of criminality which is then becomming a bad circle where criminality won't be undermined cause the education to allow it to be so is dropped." I claim that education that did not work was not proper education. And by education I mean absolutely everything man can and should learn. I've been told a thousand time about food and health and fat but I'm still overweight. The education simply failed to impose the idea. Raw knowledge alone is not enough, nor is just scientific study. The kind of knowledge they require can't be offered through other means than faith. Besides, they've lost faith in the system, and schools are part of the system! Of course they refuse to believe what they were taught. It's a very personal question, one that cannot be taught in a class with timetables and big plans. "I agree. Ignorance, which is self-sustained, cause often THEY don't want to change." Why I just ignore politics and instead try to teach the people. They'll change everything for the better when they know what it is (and that they'll have to do it THEMSELVES, no guy is gonna do it for them..) "Though fighting in vain, since in the way he fights instead weakens the society." Ah, but he does not consider himself as part of the society (anymore)! Hence the weakening of the society does not affect him in any way (you'll have to understand that the State or the Nation is not the same thing as a society, even though that is the attempt..). Or actually he has to gain from this. "To me, trust is having faith in a persons ability to (input) you." ("Define trust") To me it's a big, complex mess of trusts. I trust myself, so if my judgement tells me that that guy over there won't betray me, I'll trust myself! But the Moral Codes talk of how we should trust and love everyone, so I do just that! And keep an eye out.. However, there trusting someone, and trusting someones judgement. Someone might be nice, but still attempt something stupid. Trusting someones ability or courage (or lack of them..) when trusting them. Like someone might say "come over here", but I'd note he can't bring me down, so whatever. etc etc. Mostly I just trust I can get out of trouble and trust hence others to fail to trick me. And if they wont, all the better! "That is the kind of trust that criminals weaken." That's actually the kind of trust I'd like to kick out. Trust yourself, it's the only thing you can do. As you note, "since no one knows the Truth with the big 'T' can you even trust yourself? ", I don't! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I just figured that it would be counter-productive to assume I'M wrong, since I am most likely to care about myself. But since you can't REALLY even know about yourself, how can you know about others? The odds start sliding, and I'll take the most likely. But belief in others tends to lead into BLIND faith in others, just believeing in anything anyone else says because they look more confident, and THAT's counter-productive. "Sure, but it is that rebellion that we want to fix! (isn't it?)" Exactly where we differ. Don't fix rebellion, fix the causes of rebellion. Anyone who rebels has a good reason to, or at least you failed to convince them otherwise. And it is, hence, the fault of the leader. Although from a diffrent point of view, we do agree. In the sense that we don't want these people REBELLING, we want them to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Rebellion is, of course, the last course of action, but should only be engaged when it is blatantly obvious that democracy (in your given state) does not work. And in such an event it is more important to educate the people than to mindlessly revolt. Revolutions should only be entered with the backing of the people. Rebellion is then caused by faith with the system; that if you voice your concerns to the society, it will come to its senses. The same does not apply to those who define themselves as outlaws, obviously. "It is furthermore that rebellion that potentially lead to crimes." This is the interpersonal conflict right here. Who cares about potentials? Risks must be accepted as seeking too much safety ultimately kills the society into a sort of brainless Imperium, with a perfect enlightened Emperor at top and Loyal Followers at the bottom. I'd rather take anarchy!
I agree. Simply telling someone to quit what they are doing wrong won't help. Sometimes it helps, but then it is because the person in question got this AHA! feeling or insight or whatever and it changes his actions. However we can never predict when a teaching gives this sensation. I think that is how we work, we trust this sensation we get when we feel that something someone says is absolutely right, only then can we be changed through what someone say. However, I believe that any change in a person, must come from that person himself, in one way or another, either in that that he believes what is taught to him, and decides to change (even if that decision is made through feeling alone, perhaps through this sensation that we spoke about earlier). Those that try to manipulate someone into doing something that he doesn't believe in, may make him do it, but he can't make him believe in it (since that belief must come from oneself). That is also what I meant when I said that the outlaws must change themselves instead of changing society through irrational means. (sure, may be rational to them, I see that, but still something must tell them that what they do is criminal, cause outlaws just aren't that stupid, this inner-fact (if not completly self-justified) should, through simply the nagging fact alone, in time make that person take the right choice, so that he wants to change (if not change that particular matter, at least change what keeps him from changing "the particular matter", if it may be impatience or what it may be). I agree, indeed schools and education don't stop those that wish to rebell society, they teach things that can lead to jobs and thus people don't do crimes that they don't need to (if they have money from the job), but what, in schools, satisfies he who wants to rebell society? We can only hope that he gets friends that have a positive view on at least parts of society, so that (hopefully) he can admit that not everything is wrong with society, and that there is no need for rebellion. However those that wish to rebell, specially those that talk about the faults of society much, will find friends with similiar views and then we have a "mass-rebellion" where they feed eachother with the fallacies of society. Politics have been undermined by it's very definition, the best for politics is to redefine it, so that it means "to find ways to change things for the better, and keep things that are good allready", instead of "make people vote for me". Politics seems more like commercials than a real tool to change things. Yes, but does he then think that he can change it for the better anyway? It seems to me like he is only justifying his bad actions. Indeed anyone can justify just about anything, using just about anything as arguments. If only they could justify good things instead, sincerely I don't know how they work...maybe they simply don't trust that that what others perceive as right, really is right, and try to justify other ideas instead, allthough lacking the support of society and general people around them. However, that idea is flawed in that the ideas they try to justify are rather easily seen how they are bad. One cannot hide the smell of **** forever, sorry for the image. Again, sorry for the image.... I think most people do this, it would be hard to get around otherwise Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, I do have a general trust of people I don't know though, at least I trust them in such a way that it can't harm me, if they would try something bad on me, then I think I would recognise it (and that would lead to instant mistrust)... Generally it's not favourable for a person that don't know you to do bad things to you, if the person is somewhat intelligent he wouldn't do anything bad. That's why I suppose that persons are friendly, since I limit myself too much if I remain too sceptical of people. I see what you are saying, and I agree that we shouldn't just trust whatever someone says, even if he looks more confident (there are ways to fake confidence anyway so), however, I have a hard time to be suspicious of ordinary people walking the street, ok, if it's in the night and I see a gang, then I would take necessary precautions Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I would really want to fix the causes of rebellion, the trouble is that the rebels often are impatient (hence the rebellion) and won't wait for the change to take effect. Society simply don't work in a way as to favour rebellion, it won't change the causes even if it see the threat, since rebellion won't wait for the change. Therefor society is (what do you call it), society loose faith in the rebell, and take the road it has allways taken (which often is through sloooow change). But do society really see that kind of rebellion for what it really is? Does it recognise it as a outcry, or does it simply reinforce the laws and close itself in? Sometimes in media, they recognise it as outcry, but still we don't see the necessary changes taking effect. They may even give examples of how society should be changed in order to satisfy them, but nothing happens. Maybe simply because they refuse to change because of them but would rather change as the natural flow (which is more secure anyway). Yes, and how to know that they are really loyal if the security is so high that it wouldn't even be possible to be otherwise. That would really undo trust, trust must allways be enabled through trusting, what if they take away our options to trust people? We would be prisoners in society.
There are two main definitions for evil from all that I have seen. The first holds that it is the lack of sympathy and compassion for one's kin and resulting cruel and callous behavior in the name of personal betterment. The second holds that the word evil should only apply to actual malice, the love of causing suffering for its own sake. I hold to the second definition only.
Interesting, but ...how does one measure "sympathy and compassion"? I've noticed that most people will say or claim that they are compassionate, while being seemingly perfectly content to allow hunger and disease and suffering within a couple of miles of them ....while they go out to fine dinners and dancing and movies, etc. So ...surely just saying that they're "sympathetic and compassionate" is not enough, right? So how do we measure it? And if we can't measure it, then we can't make a case for the lack thereof. Cruel and callous behavior? By whose definition and/or determination? The Iraqi "insurgents" seem to have a different ideal of it than I do, so.....whose right? What's "cruel and callous"? And who makes that determination? I kinda' like that one, but....? What if some benevolent leader hires that "evil man" to elicit information from a prisoner that will save millions of innocent lives? Under the definition, the torturer might be called "evil", but what he ultimately accomplishes is NOT evil. What about that ...or some other similar situation or action? Personally, I think "evil" is what I think it is ....regardless of whether you agree or not. I may not know how to define evil, but I know it when I see it! And I think that applies to each and every one of us. Baron Max
As to your points on symapthy and compassion, I have a couple things to add. The first is that no human can possibly be absolutely responsive to the feelings and welfare of every human they see. To feel the hunger of others as strongly or more strongly than your own would be a quick road to either madness or starvation. It would bleed you dry emotionally and physically as you forever sacrifice to an abyss that can never be filled. To simply survive, men grow a suit of armor around their emotions. This takes the form of a thousand little rationalizations and repressed thoughts. These mental constructs are unpleasant things to behold when confronted... but I am convinced that they are in large part necessary to our continued existence as a sapient species. The problem is that some people develop armor so thick that they would drive a knife into an old woman's belly for five dollars and change. As to malice and your thoughts on the torturer, my personal feelings are that intent above all else determines if the act of torture counts as evil upon a man's soul. If the torturer takes no pleasure in his deed and in fact feels suffering in response to the suffering his victim is recieving, then I do not see it as an evil act. If the torturer takes delight in causing harm in another human being on the other hand, I do classify it as evil. Personally, I follow the theory of moral-relativism. Every person their own moral code, each as valid as that carried by the next man. What I describe is just my own personal belief and nothing more.
Yeah, I understood that, and I have no problem with it. But it's still an interesting topic when discussed with some degree of intelligence (of which I have very damned little, I might add!). Even if what is ultimately accomplished is a "good thing"? I.e., the saving of millions of lives or somesuch bullshit like that? Think of it this way ....the leader of the nation is a nice guy, but he needs that info to protect his people. He can't torture the man himself because it's "evil" to him. So he hires the "evil" man to do it for him (and the leader doesn't watch!). the info thus gathered saves many lives. So .....is it still evil? Baron Max
I know that morality is relative, but I can't stand the idea of moral-relativism. The subjectivity of morality means, very simply, that what is good and bad depends on who you are. It does not, however, mean that there are no universal morals. Of course there are. Everyone (unless they have specifically denied it) can agree that certain things are immoral. Take murder, for instance. You hear the word and you immediately think of an evil act. However, what constitutes "murder" changes from person to person. Some would define it as killing another human being. Period. Others would say that a soldier in combat, for instance, is not commiting murder. Do you see where I am going with this?
Oh, it's more than that. Even worse, is the capacity to commit unspeakable acts of evil and believe you are doing good. The Nazi who believes he is purifying the race. As he forces women and children into the gas chambers. The Islamofascist who sceams god is great as he beheads some innocent civilian he has kidnapped or blows up a busload of children. True evil isn't just capable of doing harm, it takes joy in it.
Baron: I would say that, if he did it for the greater good even though he personally detested the act, the hypothetical president would not have done an evil act. It is debatable in my mind if it would actually qualify as a good act, but it would certainly be necessary. As for the torturer himself, I stand by my previous post. Jaster: Murder, in whatever way a group chooses to define it, is generally seen as evil across all the cultures of the world simply because we share a couple things in common. Our biology, our environment, and whatnot. People see such things as universal truths only because they have never really compared notes with any form of inhuman intelligence. We have never met aliens, we have never made a human-grade AI, and there are no other civilized races on this planet. Gorillas and chimps come real close, being able to use sign language and simple forms of writing, but aren't exactly the philosophical sort. Anyway, they are so close to us I am not even sure they would be enough of an outside party for the purpose of this experement. Since we don't have anything living on hand, lets streach a little and hit a halfway possible organism from scifi. The amorph: a generally shapeless creature that plays a major part of the webcomic Schlock Mercenary. I know, its cheap to delve into fiction... but it should be sufficient to make a point. The amorphs developed on a quite barren little world where they absorbed any free organic matter. Being basically unkillable by anything on the planet, having no vital organs to damage and being able to reform even if torn into dozens of pieces, they had to develop an interesting trick to wage war. One amorph would throw itself at another and attempt to assimilate it, basically making a blending of both their personalities with the memories of both. Murder for them was impossible and thus they never developed any sort of prohibition against it. The title character, behaving perfectly normally for his race, is a violent and guiltless being who actually has a habit of eating his enemies. Change the biology, change all the rules. Even cultural upbringing or circumstance or a single event growing up can make someone quite alien to your mode of thought. Heck, the Aztecs removed the skin from a foreign ambassador's daughter and had a dancing girl wear it as a robe while the meat became the main course of a feast. And the Aztecs thought it perfectly proper. And this is just with other humans... so imagine what it would be like with anything else.
In the case of the alien... well, if there is no knowledge of "murder" then of course there is no prohibition against it. It's like the Aztecs in your next example banning space shuttles... As to the Aztecs, I would contend that they did not consider such a treatment of another person to be "murder". The word "murder" implies an evil act. If you don't consider the killing of said person to be evil, then you don't think you've commited "murder". Simple enough, yea?
Murder is just a word. And, in the case of the amorphs, they have known about murder for ceveral hundred years once they entered the galactic stage. They just think its good clean fun to be enjoyed by the whole family. We reproduce fast so why would we miss a few dozen/hundred/thousand humans?
