Love
Deity
What about the women? Are they neutral?
What is evil?
- Thread starter PlutonianEmpire
- Start date
What about the women? Are they neutral?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
You've got it backwards!
People can't be evil - but their actions can be. I can bake a lasagna (not evil), bake a poisoned lasagna (potentially evil), feed a poisoned lasagna to my dog (evil), feed a poisoned lasagna to a group of young children (uberevil)
I say being good is trying to make the world a better place, and being evil is trying to hurt other people without some good justification. That said, it's almost always a very subjective matter
Gabryel Karolin
Gammelgädda
Causing another person pain, emotional or physical, for no other reason than your own satisfaction and enjoyment. Thats the essence of evil, imo.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
No, silly. Taking a bullet for someone doesn't imply it is something good; both the "self" and the "many" are somewhat vague.
The self hences to any self. That means if Person One from Example Town cut down on his money to grant you and other people in Example Town that money; that is a good action since it serves more people.
Another situation in Example Town rises; the Majority of Example Town wants to get more wages. So they mutually vote for Person One to pay higher taxes so that the many will be pleased; this is a good action from an objective view, since each subjective mind will consider this nice and dandy. That is, if they like it themselves.
The example is a bit extreme, but I'm showing the concept of "good" in the extreme. Also, the example doesn't work in the real world normally; see below.If you took a bullet for Hitler, you wouldn't serve the many. The reason simply is that the most of the world thinks of Hitler as a terrible, evil mastermind. That means, that even if Hitler is considered good and benefitable between his people, the rest of the world thinks his inhuman acts are inhuman, and evil; that means, the many isn't benefited from him. Taking a bullet would for him would be a "selfish" deed in these terms, and therefore evil, since you serve a minority/your own interests/the self at the cost of the many.
The situation in Example Town therefore deproven by myself somehow.
The situation with Person One mentioned earlier isn't acceptable. Most people outside Example Town don't think so. In Example Nation, the Majority of Example Nation dislike this very act since they feel threatened on the level of their personal property, as well as feeling sorry for the guy.
The "self" isn't yourself only. It practically translates into "minority", which just still didn't sound right. Those are my definitions of good and evil; and, as you might note, both are needed to have a balance in fairness; call it yin and yang if you need it, or self and community - but in the end, it needs to be balanced in order to work out.
That's my view of good and evil.
Random: And somewhere, somehow, I just again realized how democracy works in regards to social security; that is, the safeguarding of the few through voting. I used to be quite skeptical about that.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, I said acts or actors. So all of those would fall under my term.
Note that you said events earlier, not actions. Earthquakes are events. We do not talk about Earthquakes being good or evil, because they do not have a causal connection to a conscious actor.
I think evilness can be applied to actors, but in a complicated manner. Most people are some admicture of good and evil adn that can change through time. But I think we can safely say that most serial killers truly are evil (mostly).
Someone like Albert Fish certainly qualifies as evil, though many others would be considered mentally ill rather than evil. The Nazi-UFO vampire guy, for instance, whose name escapes me.
Anonilate
Chieftain
Richard Chase
What if the majority of the world supported an evil act? Suppose everyone in the world died outside of say.... Afghanistan and the US. And terrorists attacked the US, now suppose they reside in Afghanistan, and to eliminate all the terrorists for every one terrorist that died 3 civilians died. Wouldn't this be "good" because it furthers the majority? But what about the civilians that didn't ask for it or were connected? All in all, utilitarianism is flawed.
Also, Democracy is evil. Hoorah Socialism.
Anonymoose
KING OF MEESE
It seems to me that Evil is the word 'live' spelled backward. Make of that what you will, but it's obviously a government conspiracy. Also, pope spelled backwards is 'epop.' Epop, pop tarts.... I think we all know where this is headed.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
It's fun that you call whatever that is an "evil act". I'll get to that later.
I'm not enlightened enough about the support of terrorism in Afghanistan to use that example, but we can say that if everyone outside Nazi Germany died, it wouldn't be a bad act to kill jews, because that's what the majority consider 'good'.
The thing is, I'm looking at a subjective view with an objective analysis model. What to you is good and evil is always subjective; but that's a point of view rather than a greater truth.
Myself, I believe there is a greater truth, or greater ethical goodness somehow, but I also believe that humans are incapable of grasping it, since, well, it's a greater thing. We're subjective at heart, the greater ethical goodness determined by western society today that, to be blunt, you probably value; those ethics are codes created by ourselves. Breaking those codes of conduct would be an evil act, since it's against the interest of the majority. It's that simple.
If all humanity's interest is to have me killed, I'm evil for staying alive, even if I save the lives of babies. Everybody else has interest in having me dead; they think it's a good act to have me dead.
The reason why that thought might confuse you is that the ethics of the majority today completely contradict the example. But ethics aren't given by the greater truth; they're what we have chosen ourselves. They're subjective at heart.
Nice one
Anonilate
Chieftain
It's fun that you call whatever that is an "evil act". I'll get to that later.
I'm not enlightened enough about the support of terrorism in Afghanistan to use that example, but we can say that if everyone outside Nazi Germany died, it wouldn't be a bad act to kill jews, because that's what the majority consider 'good'.
The thing is, I'm looking at a subjective view with an objective analysis model. What to you is good and evil is always subjective; but that's a point of view rather than a greater truth.
Myself, I believe there is a greater truth, or greater ethical goodness somehow, but I also believe that humans are incapable of grasping it, since, well, it's a greater thing. We're subjective at heart, the greater ethical goodness determined by western society today that, to be blunt, you probably value; those ethics are codes created by ourselves. Breaking those codes of conduct would be an evil act, since it's against the interest of the majority. It's that simple.
If all humanity's interest is to have me killed, I'm evil for staying alive, even if I save the lives of babies. Everybody else has interest in having me dead; they think it's a good act to have me dead.
The reason why that thought might confuse you is that the ethics of the majority today completely contradict the example. But ethics aren't given by the greater truth; they're what we have chosen ourselves. They're subjective at heart.
Nice one
I think there is a greater good. But it's not found in wars. That's all. That's why I bring it up and call it an evil act.
Socialism is awesome, agree? :3
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Disagree.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Obama is the goddamn debil.
Anonilate
Chieftain
Lex Luthor: WRONG
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Virote: I am correct.
Anonilate
Chieftain
Nah. You're just fascist
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
A concept often used to short-circuit debate in the belief that the majority of people will find the topic to be disagreeable when associated with evil.
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
You'll be hearing from my lawyers on Friday for that slander.
You're supposed to call them reactionary capitalist fascist pig-dogs.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Sorry to poke you again, but I still think you're wrong. Wars are conflict of interests; and the fun thing is, in wars it's always "good vs. evil".
