the nature of evil...

[Mike70]

i was wondering what you guy's take on evil is. what is it? how do people slip toward it?

personally, i view evil as a corruption in a person that takes root and grows over time. i consider it to manifest itself in people who:

a. are intensely self-centered and self aggrandizing.
b. who have no concept of the basic idea of right and wrong.
c. have zero empathy for others.

show me someone with these three character traits and i'll show you someone evil.

i also don't really think that anyone starts out evil. not even hitler, stalin or mao - three of the biggest pieces of trash to walk the earth. they started out just like everybody else, as smiling babies that had no knowledge of anything. something (s) had to happen to them and others like them during the course of their lives that corrupted them to the point where they were able to do the things they did.

well, that's my take.


oh and by the way, since we've had so much trouble with thread trolls here the last few days, i am going to ask as the thread author that we keep this discussion to your ideas on the nature of evil. what it is and how people get that way. any posts that try to turn this thread into a discussion of anything else, i will ask to be removed.

[Danny]

whilst not dead one, yodas line in star wars wasn't bad, yknow the whole "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering"

throw in greed and circumstance and psychological trauma and your about there.

[Chic Freak]

i consider it to manifest itself in people who:

a. are intensely self-centered and self aggrandizing.
b. who have no concept of the basic idea of right and wrong.
c. have zero empathy for others.

show me someone with these three character traits and i'll show you someone evil.

My beliefs:

a. = asshole, but not necessarily evil.

b. = can naturally lead to acts that other people would say are evil, but if you are incapable of identifying moral and immoral choices, can you still be classed as an evil person?

I'm not arguiing one way or the other yet, but it's an interesting point. If you don't know that what you're doing is wrong, say because you have some kind of brain damage (e.g. psycho/sociopaths), does that mean you can't be held responsible? It's what the insanity plea hinges on, after all.

c. = I think most moral evil stems from treating people as objects, or less than human. Once you're there, it's a short and quick slippery slope to evil.


i also don't really think that anyone starts out evil.

I believe that while no-one emerges from the womb thinking "I can't wait till I grow up so I can get cannibalisin'", some people are born with a predisposition towards evil, sort of like some people are born with certain talents or weaknesses that can be nurtured or suppressed in the right environment.


"fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering"

throw in greed and circumstance and psychological trauma and your about there.

That sounds pretty reasonable actually.

But it now seems like we're looking at more of an explanation for evil, rather than a definition of what it is. How would you define moral evil within a human being (as opposed to say, a volcano erupting and killing people is a kind of evil but you can hardly blame the volcano).

I keep trying to write a definition then picking holes in it and deleting it again. Lol.

[Trencher]

I belive evil stems from humans instinct to control their surroundings and feel safe but its taken to the next level when a person know that what he does dont really do anything usefull and is only to make him feel better.
The desire to feel powerfull and in controll is the name of the game. Greed, sadism, rape, authotitarian-ism (spelling?), incest, pedophilia and necrophilia all stem from normal human instincts but the person chooses to pervert those instincts just to get emotional gratification.

[Khardis]

I think evil is a cute term we use to wrap up something uncomfortable in a nice package. Evil is a point of view ultimately. Hitler didn't think he was evil he thought he was doing good work for his people and he was their savior. The Jews died in a holocaust because he and his cronies believed they were evil and that the Nazis were doing the right thing by ridding the world of them.

What we don't like to accept is that many massacres and murders happen due to good intentions. So we call what Terrorists and Nazis and such do evil.

the only REAL evil left is rapidly being labeled mental disorder. They have an interesting discussion about this in the Exorcist novel.

[sandrock74]

I think that "true" evil is something that lies in your very soul. A totally corrupted individual. I don't think they are turned evil, they are just born that way.

[Skippy911sc]

I think evil is a cute term we use to wrap up something uncomfortable in a nice package. Evil is a point of view ultimately. Hitler didn't think he was evil he thought he was doing good work for his people and he was their savior. The Jews died in a holocaust because he and his cronies believed they were evil and that the Nazis were doing the right thing by ridding the world of them.

What we don't like to accept is that many massacres and murders happen due to good intentions. So we call what Terrorists and Nazis and such do evil.

the only REAL evil left is rapidly being labeled mental disorder. They have an interesting discussion about this in the Exorcist novel.

Perfect...there are different viewpoints to each side. Evil to some is good to others. Terrorists to some, freedom fighters to others. This about the Revolutionary War in the USA. The Brits thought of us as evil ( I think, as I am not a Brit) and the Americans thought the Brits were evil. Who was right? The winners are always correct, they are the ones who write the history. If Hitler had managed to destroy all the Jews from Europe and won WWII then his followers would have written history in a different way. I always (sometimes :) ) try to look at things through the eyes of my adversary, then decide how I am more right then them. :hyper:

[Mike70]

some of you are missing the point here. the kind of evil i am referring to isn't relative nor is it in the eye of the beholder. i am speaking of acts that are flat wrong no matter how you slice them. it matters not whether you think what you are doing is evil or not. some actions are simply indefensible.

for instance:

if you herd people who are guilty of nothing more than being part of an ethnic group into chambers then gas them to death, that is an evil action. period. there is nothing about it that is relative. it is indefensible.

lining people up on the edge of a pit and shooting them in the head is likewise an evil action by its very nature.

it absolutely doesn't matter what your motivations are or how you see the action.

many serial killers believe they are doing the world a favor by killing the people that they do. this is yet another instance where their view of what they are doing simply doesn't matter. what they have done is wrong in every way, shape, and form. there is no defense to it.

i am so fu*king sick of all forms of cultural relativism.

[Tricky]

I think the true evil people are those murderers, rapists & sadists who know what they are doing is wrong,but they do it anyway. Everybody has the capacity for evil & everybody has bad thoughts that they dont want, but most people have something called impulse control which regulates behaviour.

[Mike70]

I think the true evil people are those murderers, rapists & sadists who know what they are doing is wrong,but they do it anyway.

exactly.

people who should know it is wrong but have convinced themselves that what they are doing is somehow contributing to some great cause. at some level they ought to know that it is wrong but they either don't care or have somehow convinced themselves what they are doing is for the (in the words of every mad scientist) "for the good of mankind." still evil and there is still isn't anything relative about it.

[Khardis]

some of you are missing the point here. the kind of evil i am referring to isn't relative nor is it in the eye of the beholder. i am speaking of acts that are flat wrong no matter how you slice them. it matters not whether you think what you are doing is evil or not. some actions are simply indefensible.

for instance:

if you herd people who are guilty of nothing more than being part of an ethnic group into chambers then gas them to death, that is an evil action. period. there is nothing about it that is relative. it is indefensible.

lining people up on the edge of a pit and shooting them in the head is likewise an evil action by its very nature.

it absolutely doesn't matter what your motivations are or how you see the action.

many serial killers believe they are doing the world a favor by killing the people that they do. this is yet another instance where their view of what they are doing simply doesn't matter. what they have done is wrong in every way, shape, and form. there is no defense to it.

i am so fu*king sick of all forms of cultural relativism.

That i evil to YOU, but what if you believed the people weren't innocent? What if you believed they were all thieving criminals who have been sucking your people dry? Thats how the Nazis saw the jews. Not as innocents.


exactly.

people who should know it is wrong but have convinced themselves that what they are doing is somehow contributing to some great cause. at some level they ought to know that it is wrong but they either don't care or have somehow convinced themselves what they are doing is for the (in the words of every mad scientist) "for the good of mankind." still evil and there is still isn't anything relative about it.

Yes there is, your entire notion of good and innocent is a matter of opinion. You cannot say something is goof factually, its not possible. Good and Bad are not fact based they are feeling based.

[Mike70]

That i evil to YOU, but what if you believed the people weren't innocent? What if you believed they were all thieving criminals who have been sucking your people dry? Thats how the Nazis saw the jews. Not as innocents.



Yes there is, your entire notion of good and innocent is a matter of opinion. You cannot say something is goof factually, its not possible. Good and Bad are not fact based they are feeling based.

gee, i had no idea that cold blooded murder was a matter of opinion. good to know that herding people into camps then slaughtering them could be defended relativistically.

there are absolute values of good and evil in this world, the main two being that murdering someone in cold blood and raping someone are wrong always. it doesn't matter what the perpetrator of the action thinks about it. he/they can rationalize it in any way they want to, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

[clanglee]

some of you are missing the point here. the kind of evil i am referring to isn't relative nor is it in the eye of the beholder. i am speaking of acts that are flat wrong no matter how you slice them. it matters not whether you think what you are doing is evil or not. some actions are simply indefensible.

for instance:

if you herd people who are guilty of nothing more than being part of an ethnic group into chambers then gas them to death, that is an evil action. period. there is nothing about it that is relative. it is indefensible.

lining people up on the edge of a pit and shooting them in the head is likewise an evil action by its very nature.

it absolutely doesn't matter what your motivations are or how you see the action.

many serial killers believe they are doing the world a favor by killing the people that they do. this is yet another instance where their view of what they are doing simply doesn't matter. what they have done is wrong in every way, shape, and form. there is no defense to it.

i am so fu*king sick of all forms of cultural relativism.

I understand what you are trying to ask man, but Evil IS relative. The breaking of any social more or expecially a taboo is often thought of as evil. But as social mores and taboos are based on particular cultures. . often the lines will blur when compared to another cultures ideals. I agree that your two examples are Evil, but the people that commit these crimes do not. And as they have their own set of Taboos in their own culture. . who's right? The Holocaust was, to me, the epitome of evil. However, Hitler and his people, the majority party of the country saw it as a neccessity. So was that evil or mass hysteria, craziness, which is a whole other sort of evil. To me, the real and true evil lies on those people who knew that was they were doing was very wrong, and yet did nothing to stop it.

[Mike70]

you guys are missing the point entirely. some actions like murder or rape are not relative, cultures aside.


this is a gigantic waste of time and finger energy, we can go round and round like this forever. i see absolutely no reason for this thread to continue.

[clanglee]

there are absolute values of good and evil in this world, the main two being that murdering someone in cold blood and raping someone are wrong always. it doesn't matter what the perpetrator of the action thinks about it. he/they can rationalize it in any way they want to, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

But by that rationalization, any War is evil for any reason whatsoever. While I agree with that (war IS wrong), I know that most of humanity believes war to be a sometimes. . well. . neccissary evil. If it's neccissary. . it's not really evil at all. It is supported by the people, therefore it breaks no taboos and is not considered evil.

[Yojimbo]

Awesome thread, Scipio, one fantastic read!

[Mike70]

Awesome thread, Scipio, one fantastic read!

well it is about to go the way of the dodo. so get your posts in now. i have just realized what a wheel spinner this particular issue is.

this is almost akin to a religion thread, we can bitch and argue about it for 10 pages and nothing would come of it.

[Yojimbo]

I believe that while no-one emerges from the womb thinking "I can't wait till I grow up so I can get cannibalisin'", some people are born with a predisposition towards evil, sort of like some people are born with certain talents or weaknesses that can be nurtured or suppressed in the right environment.



Agreed!

[Trencher]

I hope this thread dont get closed as I think it is interesting to see what people think of the issue.

[clanglee]

you guys are missing the point entirely. some actions like murder or rape are not relative, cultures aside.


this is a gigantic waste of time and finger energy, we can go round and round like this forever. i see absolutely no reason for this thread to continue.

But in some cultures, Rape is perfectly ok, as long as certain strictures are maintained. Same with murder. . it's called war or battle.

[Yojimbo]

well it is about to go the way of the dodo. so get your posts in now. i have just realized what a wheel spinner this particular issue is.

Yeah, doing my best to compose my thoughts on this issue into something worth contributing, but I fear that if I do not do it soon I am going to miss my window of opportunity.

Though I have always been impressed by the caliber of the posts here at HPOTD, I know that arguments of opinions can inflame passions and result in a lot of sniping and posturing. It is sad when it breaks down during interesting discussions since I think that many of you have very interesting things to say.

[Andy]

Closed at the thread authors request.

[Kaos]

Re-opened per author's request as well as others. Keep it civil guys.

[Mike70]

OK folks i have been asked to let this back out into the sun.

so here you go.

[clanglee]

:D

Thanks Scip. I really liked this thread. If it turns into a flame war. . I'll be the first to support its closing. :cool:

My main thing is that, yes, I have certain things that I personally consider to be evil, but I can also stand back and see that it is a subjective concept that is seen differently through the eyes of the beholder. The nature of evil is one of my favorite socialogical and philosophical concepts.

[Khardis]

you guys are missing the point entirely. some actions like murder or rape are not relative, cultures aside.


this is a gigantic waste of time and finger energy, we can go round and round like this forever. i see absolutely no reason for this thread to continue.

So because you dont want to accept the fact that evil IS subjective and moral codes ARE relevant to who holds them you think the thread shouldn't continue? Why how evil of you.:evil:

[Yojimbo]

:D

Thanks Scip. I really liked this thread. If it turns into a flame war. . I'll be the first to support its closing. :cool:

My main thing is that, yes, I have certain things that I personally consider to be evil, but I can also stand back and see that it is a subjective concept that is seen differently through the eyes of the beholder. The nature of evil is one of my favorite socialogical and philosophical concepts.

Scipio does raise an interesting point about things that are percieved as universally evil. Not being up on sociology and human studies, I am wondering if there are things that are cross culturally consistently considered as evil.

For instance, one would think that there would be a cross cultural taboo about eating human flesh, but then there are some societies where this is an acceptable ritual. Same thing with incest, murder, rape. One would think that there should be some concept that is universally considered as evil, but for the life of me everytime I think about something that I think would fit that description, I remember hearing about some society or culture where it is considered to be acceptable practice. So help me out folks, there must be something that is universally viewed as evil. If we cannot find at least one, then maybe the whole concept of evil is indeed a subjective one.

[Mike70]

So because you dont want to accept the fact that evil IS subjective and moral codes ARE relevant to who holds them you think the thread shouldn't continue? Why how evil of you.:evil:

no not really. sorry if i don't think murdering another person who isn't trying to kill you is subjective. it is wrong. period. regardless of cultural outlook.

this might be considered my "opinion" but in my mind it is an absolute.


this is giving me a headache. you simply don't understand and based on many of your other comments on here, you never will.

why are you so incapable of respecting the ideas/opinions of others? what is this burning need you have to prove everyone wrong?


does anyone else want to share their own thoughts on evil or are we just going to go round and round in a big circle jerk until the inevitable crash?

[clanglee]

As long as we don't get personal. (looks at Khardis:shifty::D) we should be fine.


sorry if i don't think murdering another person who isn't trying to kill you is subjective. it is wrong. period. regardless of cultural outlook.

this might be considered my "opinion" but in my mind it is an absolute.


?

I agree. To you and I both, And hopefully everyone on this thread, Murder is wrong. But murder can also be circumstantial. There may be a reason for one man to attack and kill someone that would be perfectly acceptable to his fellow people. The Yanamamo for example are prone to horrible violence against each other for very little reason at all. This is accepted among the tribe as usual and it even helps keep other crimes down to a minimum for fear of deadly reprisal. It's a touchy grey place. The concept of evil that we first worlders accept is a largely civilized and modern one. . that doesn't brook much interpertation.

[Khardis]

no not really. sorry if i don't think murdering another person who isn't trying to kill you is subjective. it is wrong. period. regardless of cultural outlook.

this might be considered my "opinion" but in my mind it is an absolute.


this is giving me a headache. you simply don't understand and based on many of your other comments on here, you never will.

why are you so incapable of respecting the ideas/opinions of others? what is this burning need you have to prove everyone wrong?


does anyone else want to share their own thoughts on evil or are we just going to go round and round in a big circle jerk until the inevitable crash?


Oh Scip, i fully understand that in your mind it is an absolute. That doesn't make it a fact though. It IS subjective, murder to you might be manslaughter to another and might be good to even another. I understand that to YOU its evil, ok, to me too killing someone who isn't trying to harm you is wrong, but that doesn't mean our subjective position on said killing is set in stone fact. It just isn't. Can you even admit that?

[Mike70]

Oh Scip, i fully understand that in your mind it is an absolute. That doesn't make it a fact though. It IS subjective, murder to you might be manslaughter to another and might be good to even another. I understand that to YOU its evil, ok, to me too killing someone who isn't trying to harm you is wrong, but that doesn't mean our subjective position on said killing is set in stone fact. It just isn't. Can you even admit that?

first off we don't need the caps. english is my first language. you still haven't answered my question:

why are you incapable of respecting the thoughts of others without engaging in keyboard warriorhood in an effort to prove everyone but you wrong? guess it must be that alpha male thing...

[Khardis]

. The concept of evil that we first worlders accept is a largely civilized and modern one. . that doesn't brook much interpertation.

Excellent point, which ties perfectly into what I was trying to say in the now defunct (sadly) post apoc. government thread before it was wrongly closed down. Our morals are set up on the prop of modern comfort, take that away and people revert to their true natures, which is much more bestial and violent. The Joker had it right when he was talking to harvey Dent in Dark Knight, people are only as good as society etc allows them to be. Take away that civility of civilization and introduce a little anarchy and people stop playing nice and start playing mean.

The fact that people can deny this and hide behind what I consider a cowardly mode of thinking that things are black and white evil and good drives me insane.


first off we don't need the caps. english is my first language. you still haven't answered my question:

why are you incapable of respecting the thoughts of others without engaging in keyboard warriorhood in an effort to prove everyone but you wrong? guess it must be that alpha male thing...

Your question is off topic and irrelevant. and I WILL cap words i put emphasis on wether you think you need it or not because it is the way I type wether or not you think I need to. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but I have been typing that way since long before joining this forum.

[SRP76]

I don't believe there is any such thing as "good" or "evil". Each person decides what is acceptable for himself, based on outside influence.

Everyone turns to a certain authority to tell them what's "evil", whether it be religion, the laws of the land, and right down to the most basic "my mommy told me". We come out of the womb knowing nothing for ourselves; everything comes from someone else. Each person's view of what's "evil" comes from the influences he or she has had during life.

[Mike70]

Your question is off topic and irrelevant. and I WILL cap words i put emphasis on wether you think you need it or not because it is the way I type wether or not you think I need to. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but I have been typing that way since long before joining this forum.

well first off, as the thread author i can decide what is relevant or not in a thread that i've created. it isn't off topic.

secondly, i'll share a bit of my background, things i usually wouldn't share in a public forum to help you better understand where i am coming from.

when i was a young man, i spent 6 months in somalia. i watched people who were starving to death because thugs were stealing their relief food at gun point and killing aid workers. i have seen people blown in small bits and people shot and killed right in front of me. i know what it is like to point a gun at another human being and pull the trigger and to be honest it is the most horrible thing ever. the things i saw and did there 15-16 years ago haunt me and probably will haunt me forever. they probably should. i take that to mean that i still am a real person, capable of feeling empathy for others and capable of knowing that such actions come with a horrible price for both sides.

what i took from that experience is a deep repugnance for violence and killing.

that is sort of life exp. i am coming from.

[Khardis]

well first off, as the thread author i can decide what is relevant or not in a thread that i've created. it isn't off topic.

secondly, i'll share a bit of my background, things i usually wouldn't share in a public forum to help you better understand where i am coming from.

when i was a young man, i spent 6 months in somalia. i watched people who were starving to death because thugs were stealing their relief food at gun point and killing aid workers. i have seen people blown in small bits and people shot and killed right in front of me. i know what it is like to point a gun at another human being and pull the trigger and to be honest it is the most horrible thing ever. the things i saw and did there 15-16 years ago haunt me and probably will haunt me forever. they probably should. i take that to mean that i still am a real person, capable of feeling empathy for others and capable of knowing that such actions come with a horrible price for both sides.

what i took from that experience is a deep repugnance for violence and killing.

that is sort of life exp. i am coming from.

The subject at hand is the nature of evil, your question IS irrelevant. Just because you started the thread doesn't give you any meaningful power over it.

As for what you said, I also have seen people shredded and destroyed. I grew up in gangland and watched people be shot a number of times, I have been held at gun and knife point and once with a used syringe filed with blood. My experience has taught me that people do what they want to do based on their own personal ethos. I have seen people rob people and think it was a GOOD thing because they were getting even with the rich because the rich were screwing over them, the poor. Of course the person was simply a drug addict. That doesn't change the fact that they were doing what we consider wrong, but they considered right.

Your story is interesting and saddening, however that may be though it doesnt change the fact that good and evil are just points of view.

Oh and a childhood spent in a place where murder and rape were as common as little league games where most of you grew up has taught me this:

People are messed up and they will kill in a heartbeat if they are pushed to it, as such I should be the one pulling the trigger 1st instead of groveling for mercy. I took my beatings and mutilations, some of them were not my fault, some of them were. the one thing I do know though is that no one will victimize me and I will not go down without taking someone with me. Bank on it. If thats evil to you, then so be it. I call it life.

[Bub666]

i was wondering what you guy's take on evil is. what is it? how do people slip toward it?

personally, i view evil as a corruption in a person that takes root and grows over time. i consider it to manifest itself in people who:

a. are intensely self-centered and self aggrandizing.
b. who have no concept of the basic idea of right and wrong.
c. have zero empathy for others.

show me someone with these three character traits and i'll show you someone evil.

i also don't really think that anyone starts out evil. not even hitler, stalin or mao - three of the biggest pieces of trash to walk the earth. they started out just like everybody else, as smiling babies that had no knowledge of anything. something (s) had to happen to them and others like them during the course of their lives that corrupted them to the point where they were able to do the things they did.

well, that's my take.


oh and by the way, since we've had so much trouble with thread trolls here the last few days, i am going to ask as the thread author that we keep this discussion to your ideas on the nature of evil. what it is and how people get that way. any posts that try to turn this thread into a discussion of anything else, i will ask to be removed.

:evil::evil::evil:

[clanglee]

Ok. . dammit. . it got personal. This is a great thread with a great topic, why does this kind of thread always have to go this way. Just say what you believe, aregue your point and counter point. Why is this so hard? Why can't we have a dialogue instead of flat out arguement? eh? please. . .

In essence, Khardis and I agree on the nature of evil. . but NOT the method of dialogue apparently. Scip, that's a heavy situation you were in man. I feel for you, and I couln't imagine going through that myself. But yes, having the presence of mind to feel remorse and sadness over that situation does indeed mean you have retained your humanity.

Humanity. . .there is another concept of the modern mind that is actually closely linked to ones view on the nature of evil. I believe that the cultures of a more philisophical bent, that have more self awareness as it were, have a more clearly defined(and more clearly enforced) sense of what is evil. The more "primative" cultures often share many basic ideals as most humans, but they often have traditions and rights that would be considered ghastly and quite evil to many "civilized" people. Humanity, while I would love to believe is a set and unchangable concept, is unfortunately as subjective as the nature of evil.

And around and around we go. There is no answer to some things. Unfortunately. . .it's the important questions that have no good answer.

[SymphonicX]

I don't believe there is any such thing as "good" or "evil". Each person decides what is acceptable for himself, based on outside influence.

Everyone turns to a certain authority to tell them what's "evil", whether it be religion, the laws of the land, and right down to the most basic "my mommy told me". We come out of the womb knowing nothing for ourselves; everything comes from someone else. Each person's view of what's "evil" comes from the influences he or she has had during life.

Basically exactly what I was going to say. I think the notion of "true evil" is something given to us from religion...I think the worst kind of person is mentally ill to the point of being dangerous to themselves or others, be this through a subtle narcissistic tendency or a full blown delusion of granduer - factors that are often assosciated with evil people. I think these tendencies are obviously a bi-product of our experiences as children and developing adults, and sometimes as fully blown adults...but I believe it's a learned way of being...every warped person gets warped from some outside factor or illness rather than arbitrarily choosing to be murderers or whatever...

[Trencher]

the one thing I do know though is that no one will victimize me and I will not go down without taking someone with me. Bank on it. If thats evil to you, then so be it.
I don't think anyone call that evil. But on the other hand "what is evil" is not an irelevant question because "it just different points of view" you can discuss different points of view.

I am glad this thread is still going though.
What do you think about the East and the west different views on the concept of evil? In the west evil and good are seen as oposing forces, while in the east good and evil are seen as an distortion in balance. I simplify but I think I lean towards the eastern.

[Khardis]

I don't think anyone call that evil. But on the other hand "what is evil" is not an irelevant question because "it just different points of view" you can discuss different points of view.

I am glad this thread is still going though.
What do you think about the East and the west different views on the concept of evil? In the west evil and good are seen as oposing forces, while in the east good and evil are seen as an distortion in balance. I simplify but I think I lean towards the eastern.

I think the east and west both have it wrong, evil isn't real in any meaningful relationship to reality. Not any more so than say Santa Clause or Ghosts.

[Trencher]

Why dont you belive in evil as a concept?
It is just a way to describe a set of ideas or thought patterns, it is not like anybody says that evil have some kind of independent existence like ghosts or santa claus would have if they were real.

[Khardis]

Why dont you belive in evil as a concept?
It is just a way to describe a set of ideas or thought patterns, it is not like anybody says that evil have some kind of independent existence like ghosts or santa claus would have if they were real.

Actually a number of people say and believe that. And I do believe in evil as a description-concept as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts you probably didn't read.

[Trencher]

And I do believe in evil as a description-concept as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts you probably didn't read.
My position is then that this discussion about what the concept entails is relevant.

[Khardis]

My position is then that this discussion about what the concept entails is relevant.

evil as a concept is irrelevant. Its a useful term like saying something is beautiful. What is beautiful to some isn't to others and may be downright ugly to others. You cannot say this conversation about evil as a concept is relevant because evil as a concept isn't real unless you are saying that liquid terms are no longer liquid and are black and white.

[Trencher]

evil as a concept is irrelevant. Its a useful term like saying something is beautiful. What is beautiful to some isn't to others and may be downright ugly to others.
I see you point but even but if peoples reasonig about what is beautifull or evil might differ it does not make it impossible that some of them are right acording to objective reality. Just dismissing the notion outright because it is hard to quantify does not serve any purpose. People dont need to agree with something for that thing to be right. :)

[clanglee]

I see you point but even but if peoples reasonig about what is beautifull or evil might differ it does not make it impossible that some of them are right acording to objective reality. Just dismissing the notion outright because it is hard to quantify does not serve any purpose. People dont need to agree with something for that thing to be right. :)

They are all right, or none of them are. I know what I believe is evil, but someone else may disagree with me. I know that someone I perceive as evil would indeed disagree with me on the nature of evil. It is subjective in nature, but solidified in belief.

[Khardis]

I see you point but even but if peoples reasonig about what is beautifull or evil might differ it does not make it impossible that some of them are right acording to objective reality. Just dismissing the notion outright because it is hard to quantify does not serve any purpose. People dont need to agree with something for that thing to be right. :)

you are assuming moral right is set in stone, it is not.

[strayrider]

i was wondering what you guy's take on evil is. what is it? how do people slip toward it?

personally, i view evil as a corruption in a person that takes root and grows over time. i consider it to manifest itself in people who:

a. are intensely self-centered and self aggrandizing.
b. who have no concept of the basic idea of right and wrong.
c. have zero empathy for others.

show me someone with these three character traits and i'll show you someone evil.

i also don't really think that anyone starts out evil. not even hitler, stalin or mao - three of the biggest pieces of trash to walk the earth. they started out just like everybody else, as smiling babies that had no knowledge of anything. something (s) had to happen to them and others like them during the course of their lives that corrupted them to the point where they were able to do the things they did.

well, that's my take.


oh and by the way, since we've had so much trouble with thread trolls here the last few days, i am going to ask as the thread author that we keep this discussion to your ideas on the nature of evil. what it is and how people get that way. any posts that try to turn this thread into a discussion of anything else, i will ask to be removed.

Dude, this is a toughie because, as others have stated: What is evil to you, might be good to someone else. It's all a matter of point of view, Ying/Yang, North vs South, East vs West, etc.



-stray-

[Trencher]

They are all right, or none of them are. I know what I believe is evil, but someone else may disagree with me. I know that someone I perceive as evil would indeed disagree with me on the nature of evil. It is subjective in nature, but solidified in belief.

What do you belive is evil then?


you are assuming moral right is set in stone, it is not.
I think we been over this..


Dude, this is a toughie because, as others have stated: What is evil to you, might be good to someone else. It's all a matter of point of view, Ying/Yang, North vs South, East vs West, etc.



-stray- Great another moral relavtist :rant: dont you guys understand that moral relavtism is absurd? Atleast Khardis does not belive in good and evil at ALL.

[clanglee]

Great another moral relavtist :rant: dont you guys understand that moral relavtism is absurd? Atleast Khardis does not belive in good and evil at ALL.

How exactly is it absurd? I believe what I believe, but I have the awareness to realize the belief is not truth. And that there is no absolute truth. It doesn't hinder or effect my beliefs to realize that others may not share them. Those who stick to absolutes are absurd to me.

But what do I believe is evil? True Evil? Those who have a moral compass, but choose to ignore it. Those who feel something is wrong and do nothing to stop it or stop themselves from participating in it. I think I mentioned this before.

[strayrider]

Great another moral relavtist :rant: dont you guys understand that moral relavtism is absurd? Atleast Khardis does not belive in good and evil at ALL.

Not a "Moral Relativist" at all. I do believe in good and evil, however, I'm not inclined to force my beliefs on others, thus I "danced" around the issue.

I suppose I should have simply answered Scip's question, "What is the nature of evil", directly.

The nature of evil is to intentionally harm another person for no other reason than to do harm.

:D

-stray-

[Dommm]

But in some cultures, Rape is perfectly ok, as long as certain strictures are maintained. Same with murder. . it's called war or battle.

I'm not sure that I understand this comment did you mean in a culture of war or battle or was the rape and murder 2 separate points. And if so which culture is rape okay??

Imposing personal views on another is a form of evil as it shows the belief that the person holds there view higher then anothers... rape and murder are a form of this one believes that s/he has the right to make you do as s/he pleases. this is how Hitler was wrong, and evil in his actions he believed that he had the right based on personal belief that Jews were not allowed there right to life.

Every person has the right in soceity to follow there own beliefs and structures within there own microcosm within that society as long as it does not interfere with the rights and beliefs of others... difficult but not unachievable... I believe.

[Dillinger]

There are different kinds of evil. The most common is the dull, mindless, moronic evil of a minion. A minion is the quintessential follower. For example, Hitler and the Nazi heirarchy gave the order to gas people. Mindless, moronic goons actually carried out the order. Sadistic cops, street gangs, jackboots, rioters, and all other sheeple who get sucked into group think, even at the expense of their individuality fall into this category.

Then you have the fanatical form of evil. The guy that bombs an abortion clinic because killing babies is evil. The guy that beheads an infidel because Allah commands it. This form of evil is particularly dangerous because A.) he doesn't see himself as evil, and B.) he has a cause, whether it's a mission from God or a political statement, he's a fundementalist to the core, and C.) he isn't afraid to die.

Finally, you have the pinnacle of evil, the methodical, deliberate, deceitful kind of evil. Most politicians, celebrities, cults of personality, bankers, lawyers, corporate CEOs fall into this category. These people are wealthy, intelligent, deceitful and have endless resources. Most of the time, this type of evil commands and facilitates the lesser forms of evil. To this type of evil, people are expendable and the end will always justify the means. These assholes are cold, calculating and are usually the ones that manipulate the goons into throwing dissidents into gas chambers.

Basically, anyone that displays vampiric or predatory behavior is evil in my book.

1.) Don't abuse power and authority
2.) Don't suck off the system or the weak
3.) Don't bully people. If you absolutely have to start some ****, make sure it's a challenge and a fair fight. If you don't do that, then not only are you evil, but you're a pussy.

[clanglee]

I'm not sure that I understand this comment did you mean in a culture of war or battle or was the rape and murder 2 separate points. And if so which culture is rape okay??

.

Two seperate points kinda. Murder in the name of war is culturally accepted throughout the world. Rape and pillage are often by products of this as well. There are tribes of people in South America and Africa that raid neighboring tribes and steal women. This form of rape(what else can you call it?) serves a useful function by allowing the spread of genetic material instead of genetic stagnation within the same tribe.

[Trencher]

How exactly is it absurd? I believe what I believe, but I have the awareness to realize the belief is not truth. And that there is no absolute truth. It doesn't hinder or effect my beliefs to realize that others may not share them. Those who stick to absolutes are absurd to me.

Moral relavtism is absurd because it see all moral systems as equals.


Not a "Moral Relativist" at all. I do believe in good and evil, however, I'm not inclined to force my beliefs on others, thus I "danced" around the issue.
Okay sorry I called you a moral relativist.

[clanglee]

Moral relavtism is absurd because it see all moral systems as equals.
.

Oh I see. So your moral point of view is better that everyone elses? Yeah. . not many wars have started that way. :rolleyes:

[Trencher]

Oh I see. So your moral point of view is better that everyone elses? Or its worse.... Or better than some and worse than others. What I am saying is that there is an objective thruth about what is wrong and what is right. Since humans are stupid and selfish we dont see it as clearly as we should but it does not mean that its not out there.

[strayrider]

Or its worse.... Or better than some and worse than others. What I am saying is that there is an objective thruth about what is wrong and what is right. Since humans are stupid and selfish we dont see it as clearly as we should but it does not mean that its not out there.

Explain the objective truth. Not from your point of view.

-stray-


Okay sorry I called you a moral relativist.

S'okay, dude, no offense was taken.


this is how Hitler was wrong, and evil in his actions he believed that he had the right based on personal belief that Jews were not allowed there right to life.

Hitler believed that Jews were a corrupting influence in German society. He was not completely wrong in this belief based on "point of view". He did not harm the Jews for no other reason than to cause harm to them. He had reasons, wrong reasons, but still reasons. This is a gray area.

The nature of evil is black and white.

[Trencher]

Explain the objective truth. Not from your point of view.
Do you want me to explain the concept?

[Dommm]

Two seperate points kinda. Murder in the name of war is culturally accepted throughout the world. Rape and pillage are often by products of this as well. There are tribes of people in South America and Africa that raid neighboring tribes and steal women. This form of rape(what else can you call it?) serves a useful function by allowing the spread of genetic material instead of genetic stagnation within the same tribe.

In the rules of engagement (If there is really such a thing) it would immoral to harm a person that poses neither a direct or stratigical threat to you. But I think that is mearly my opionon and in a perfect world we would not need to go to war but sit round a table and talk. Never knew that you could steal women from neighbouring tribes to spread you genetics in africa... I suppose its rape if the women believe that they do not want to be there... I would argue ask the women that are subjected to this then make the judgment. Here I am talking from the perspective of no knowlege of these condition in Africa.




1.) Don't abuse power and authority
2.) Don't suck off the system or the weak
3.) Don't bully people. If you absolutely have to start some ****, make sure it's a challenge and a fair fight. If you don't do that, then not only are you evil, but you're a pussy.

Basically agree with these points.




Hitler believed that Jews were a corrupting influence in German society. He was not completely wrong in this belief based on "point of view". He did not harm the Jews for no other reason than to cause harm to them. He had reasons, wrong reasons, but still reasons. This is a gray area.

The nature of evil is black and white.


But that is exactly the point I am making, Hitler believed that the Jews where doing wrong, which is fair enough I might believe that my next door neighbour is occasionally stealing electricity from me. This is my right to believe and act upon. But the evil part comes in when he decided that he had the right to remove anothers right to free choice and life.

[DubiousComforts]

People are messed up and they will kill in a heartbeat if they are pushed to it, as such I should be the one pulling the trigger 1st instead of groveling for mercy.
I can see where you're coming from, but really... why must every thread degenerate to "I'm going to have a bigger gun than the next guy and shoot first"?

It's called an inferiority complex. Ted Nugent has a chronic case of it.


Aren't you being evil in imposing your personal views on Hitler by calling his personal belief evil?
Hitler was allowed the right to his personal beliefs until he forced them on others, at which point it becomes everyone else's business. If he hated Jews so much, he could have moved to a different country. The fact is, Hitler didn't like much of anyone. (See inferiority complex.)

[Publius]

I'm not sure that I understand this comment did you mean in a culture of war or battle or was the rape and murder 2 separate points. And if so which culture is rape okay??

In this culture, until not that long ago. For a long time, in the Anglo-American legal tradition, there was no such thing as spousal rape. That is, nothing a husband did to his wife could be considered "rape." That is still true in other parts of the world.


Imposing personal views on another is a form of evil as it shows the belief that the person holds there view higher then anothers... rape and murder are a form of this one believes that s/he has the right to make you do as s/he pleases. this is how Hitler was wrong, and evil in his actions he believed that he had the right based on personal belief that Jews were not allowed there right to life.

Aren't you being evil in imposing your personal views on Hitler by calling his personal belief evil?


Hitler was allowed the right to his personal beliefs until he forced them on others, at which point it becomes everyone else's business. If he hated Jews so much, he could have moved to a different country. The fact is, Hitler didn't like much of anyone.

The point is, if there's no absolute truth or morality, where do you get the principle that you can't force your personal beliefs on others? Part of his personal beliefs was that they should be forced on others, so how can you say that's wrong without some basis for concluding that your personal beliefs (that no one should force their beliefs on others) are better than his?

[Dommm]

In this culture, until not that long ago. For a long time, in the Anglo-American legal tradition, there was no such thing as spousal rape. That is, nothing a husband did to his wife could be considered "rape." That is still true in other parts of the world.?

But there is still somthing that essentially makes this act wrong whatever soceity you are from, so culturally it may not be deemed as wrong but taught as wrong, dont know if I am being clear on the point I am making here.



Aren't you being evil in imposing your personal views on Hitler by calling his personal belief evil??

Thats the thing I am not saying his personal beliefs are wrong, I am saying it is wrong to take someones life based on these. Using the previous example, if my neighbour is stealing electricity I could confront him in many ways or a combination of ways for example personnaly, legally, etc... But if I choose to kill him I have made a wrongful choice as here I have the option not to and to approach this from a different angle. Therefore at the point I decide to kill him/her is the point I hold the belief that my views are of the highest order and that I can take away the other parties personal choice. Therefore I am not taking away Hitlers right to challange the Jews and there actions/beliefs and choices. But the fact that he feels he has the right to murder wholescale, begin the commencement of genocide and take away a whole culture, and therefore remove a part of the colourful tapastry of life that adds to the experiance and understanding of all. This takes away the right of not only one culture to be but also for all others to experiance and learn from. this is not just evil, but wholesale evil IMHO.

[Publius]

Thats the thing I am not saying his personal beliefs are wrong, I am saying it is wrong to take someones life based on these.

Hitler disagreed that it is wrong to take someone's life based on his beliefs. He believed that his beliefs completely justified taking the lives of those he felt were not worthy of life.


But the fact that he feels he has the right to murder wholescale, begin the commencement of genocide and take away a whole culture, and therefore remove a part of the colourful tapastry of life that adds to the experiance and understanding of all. This takes away the right of not only one culture to be but also for all others to experiance and learn from. this is not just evil, but wholesale evil IMHO.

Where do you get the idea that a colourful tapestry of life is better than a universal Aryan order? I agree with you, but I believe in objective morality and truth so to me it makes sense. :)

[Trencher]

Aryan is an old tribe from India, hitler and his cronies only stole the term because they thought it sounded cool.

[Publius]

Aryan is an old tribe from India, hitler and his cronies only stole the term because they thought it sounded cool.

I know about the origin of the term. I was just using it in the sense that Hitler did.

[Danny]

It's called an inferiority complex. Ted Nugent has a chronic case of it.



heh, yeah, hell kill a buck and call it takeout

he's like if jesus lived, but became a crackhead

[Dillinger]

It's called an inferiority complex. Ted Nugent has a chronic case of it.



How dare you speak that way about Sweaty Teddy! Show some respect for the Motor City Madman!

[Kaos]

he's like if jesus lived, but became a crackhead

Um, no. That would be Lemmy.

[Neil]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/NaomiCampbell.jpg/477px-NaomiCampbell.jpg

...the nature of evil...

[capncnut]

Quite agree, Neil. She has more evil inside her than Lucifer himself.

Shame she has gone back to being a media 'dahling' again though. :dead:

[Danny]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/NaomiCampbell.jpg/477px-NaomiCampbell.jpg

...the nature of evil...

anyone else thinks that looks like a burndlefly type abomination caused by a teleporter accident involving uma thermans character from pulp fiction and lenny henry?

[capncnut]

anyone else thinks that looks like a burndlefly type abomination caused by a teleporter accident involving uma thermans character from pulp fiction and lenny henry?
LOL! :lol:

[Mike70]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/NaomiCampbell.jpg/477px-NaomiCampbell.jpg

...the nature of evil...

i told you guys there were absolutes in good and evil. here is living proof!:lol:

[Trencher]

Since this thread is derailed now and Publicus touched upon it, I will just say the point I was leading up to about moral relavtism beeing absurd, it is absurd because it assume that all moral systems are of equally right even those who do belive the opposite.

[strayrider]

Do you want me to explain the concept?

Only as it relates to the nature of evil.

On these forums Khardis is the closest to objective truth in its purest form. You may not like him, what he writes, his opinions, etc, but sometimes the truth is a hard pill, not easy to swallow.


But that is exactly the point I am making, Hitler believed that the Jews where doing wrong, which is fair enough I might believe that my next door neighbour is occasionally stealing electricity from me. This is my right to believe and act upon. But the evil part comes in when he decided that he had the right to remove anothers right to free choice and life.

Removing another's "right" to free choice and life is not, in itself, evil.


It's called an inferiority complex. Ted Nugent has a chronic case of it. Hitler was allowed the right to his personal beliefs until he forced them on others, at which point it becomes everyone else's business. If he hated Jews so much, he could have moved to a different country. The fact is, Hitler didn't like much of anyone. (See inferiority complex.)

Neither of these men suffer(ed) from "inferiority complexe(s)". Enough about Hitler. His acts can only be considered evil from "point of view."

And Ted? Well ... Ted ROCKS in every way, shape, and form. The wife and I love him. Ted is GOOD (from my "point of view", of course. :D)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/NaomiCampbell.jpg/477px-NaomiCampbell.jpg

...the nature of evil...

Being ugly does not make one evil.

So, what is the nature of evil?

:D

-stray-

[Trencher]

Only as it relates to the nature of evil.
The nature of the objectivly true evil blinds us to what the objective truth about what is moral in any given situation, however just like the concept of math existed long before any creature could add two and two togheter so is there an objective truth about good and evil. Only our own primitivism hinder us from seeing it.



On these forums Khardis is the closest to objective truth in its purest form. You may not like him, what he writes, his opinions, etc, but sometimes the truth is a hard pill, not easy to swallow.
Allthough what he writes is not untrue his writings here only represent a part of the truth to mistake it for the whole and pure thruth is a mistake because the instinct to do good to your fellow man and to create rather than to destroy do exists- I belive it exist for a reason, it can be supressed by negative sosiological experiences but it allways exist to some degree to deny it is to deny half of your soul.

[strayrider]

The nature of the objectivly true evil blinds us to what the objective truth about what is moral in any given situation, however just like the concept of math existed long before any creature could add two and two togheter so is there an objective truth about good and evil. Only our own primitivism hinder us from seeing it.



Although what he writes is not untrue his writings here only represent a part of the truth to mistake it for the whole and pure thruth is a mistake because the instinct to do good to your fellow man and to create rather than to destroy do exists- I belive it exist for a reason, it can be supressed by negative sosiological experiences but it allways exist to some degree to deny it is to deny half of your soul.

Yes! I believe we are getting somewhere with this discussion. I'll admit that I do not have all of the answers to this very deep subject. This is something that theologians have debated for centuries only to come up with something that fits their particular culture.

But, what is evil? Is it something that only exists in the hearts and minds of men? Or is it something that exists outside of that? If there were no men (or women, not trying to be sexist here), to be influenced by evil, would evil still exist?

-stray-

[Trencher]

But, what is evil? Is it something that only exists in the hearts and minds of men? Or is it something that exists outside of that? If there were no men (or women, not trying to be sexist here), to be influenced by evil, would evil still exist?


Personally I belive that its the absence of good. To deny reason in order to satiate your basest most primitive desires. Not the desires themselves mind you exept for those created as a perversion of a basic desire. So even though evil and good exist independently of men it only have relevance when humans are there.

[DubiousComforts]

Aren't you being evil in imposing your personal views on Hitler by calling his personal belief evil?
No, because Hitler's views were shown to be hypocritical. Anyone that lives by the belief that might makes right should then gladly accept when someone stronger comes along and kicks his ass, no?


he's like if jesus lived, but became a crackhead
Isn't Ted Nugent vehemently against dope usage?


Neither of these men suffer(ed) from "inferiority complexe(s)".

And Ted? Well ... Ted ROCKS in every way, shape, and form. The wife and I love him. Ted is GOOD (from my "point of view", of course.

That's nice, however, anyone that compulsorily steers every conversation towards "my gun is bigger than my imagined assailant's gun and I will shoot first" suffers an inferiority complex. "The truth is often bitter, left unsaid."

[Trencher]

No, because Hitler's views were shown to be hypocritical. Anyone that lives by the belief that might makes right should then gladly accept when someone stronger comes along and kicks his ass, no?
Ever seen Der Untergang?

[DubiousComforts]

Ever seen Der Untergang?
I only know of it; apparently it's a work of fiction based in a factual setting.

Perhaps evil is the prevalent state, and "good" is the absence of making excuses for it.

[Trencher]

It is not a work of fiction it is a dramatisation of the story told by the secretary, it gives some insight into Hitlers mindset. He killed himself out of spite but he did mention that the well disiplined eastern people deserved to win and that the Germans deserved to be wiped out. It is a good movie I have written a review on this other site http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_3065.html.

[Khardis]

Personally I belive that its the absence of good. To deny reason in order to satiate your basest most primitive desires. Not the desires themselves mind you exept for those created as a perversion of a basic desire. So even though evil and good exist independently of men it only have relevance when humans are there.

So you are saying fat people are evil, they deny reason and satiate their MOST BASIC primitive desire constantly.

[Bub666]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/NaomiCampbell.jpg/477px-NaomiCampbell.jpg

...the nature of evil...


:lol::lol::lol:

[strayrider]

Personally I belive that its the absence of good. To deny reason in order to satiate your basest most primitive desires. Not the desires themselves mind you exept for those created as a perversion of a basic desire. So even though evil and good exist independently of men it only have relevance when humans are there.

I agree.


That's nice, however, anyone that compulsorily steers every conversation towards "my gun is bigger than my imagined assailant's gun and I will shoot first" suffers an inferiority complex. "The truth is often bitter, left unsaid."

In your opinion, of course. Still, to suffer from an "inferiority complex" is not evil, even if said "complex" causes one to harm another.


So you are saying fat people are evil, they deny reason and satiate their MOST BASIC primitive desire constantly.

I'm convinced that people are not evil. They can be influenced by evil, and some might choose to follow evil willingly, but they are not evil. Evil is its own thing.

:D

-stray-

[Khardis]

I agree.



In your opinion, of course. Still, to suffer from an "inferiority complex" is not evil, even if said "complex" causes one to harm another.



I'm convinced that people are not evil. They can be influenced by evil, and some might choose to follow evil willingly, but they are not evil. Evil is its own thing.

:D

-stray-

So obesity is evil?

[Trencher]

So you are saying fat people are evil, they deny reason and satiate their MOST BASIC primitive desire constantly.
I dont see it as a very big evil but..
How much fat a body has also has to do with genetics but gluttony is evil, even if you can eat loads withouth gaining weight.
However you can argue that they are only evil to themselves.
Let me use an example: zombies rule the earth and your family is dependent on you to get them food. I would say if you took food from your family members withouth needing it and letting them starve just because you thought it tasted good then that would be evil, and if you let them starve to death just so you could stuff your face some more then that would be even more evil.

So fat is not necesarly evil but gluttony is.

[SRP76]

Santa Claus is evil. He's a glutton.

Better plug that chimney come December.

[Bub666]

Santa Claus is evil. He's a glutton.

Better plug that chimney come December.

:confused:

[Trencher]

Santa Claus is evil. He's a glutton.

No he just gains weight fast and he never steals food from others. ;)

[clanglee]

The nature of the objectivly true evil blinds us to what the objective truth about what is moral in any given situation, however just like the concept of math existed long before any creature could add two and two togheter so is there an objective truth about good and evil. Only our own primitivism hinder us from seeing it.



.

You can't confuse philosophical ideas with logical thought processes. This statement is just plain silly.

If one believes in an objective truth. .that is all fine and dandy. But if there is no objective good or evil, then you are expressing belief in God more or less. Essentailly that is what this argument patterns out to. Belief in a higher power, a good, and its opposite. An athiest would of course think the whole thing is basically bull****.

Trench. . this is not something that people with opposing views can agree on. . it's all opinion based. To me, evil is in the eye of the beholder. An observation based on ones morality only. To you, evil must be observed to be recognized, but its there already just sitting around and waiting to happen. To you. .good and evil are separate powerful entities, with control in some form over the nature of man.

And that's fine. . .it's a great belief you have there. But it is only that, a belief. And belief is not truth.

[Publius]

No, because Hitler's views were shown to be hypocritical. Anyone that lives by the belief that might makes right should then gladly accept when someone stronger comes along and kicks his ass, no?


So if Hitler was not hypocritical (i.e., if Trencher was right and Hitler accepted that the Germans deserved to lose if they were weaker than the Russians) then it would be wrong for others to attempt to impose their views on the Third Reich?

[Eyebiter]

'No Values Voters' Search For Most Evil CandidateQWdN4hA-rB0

[Trencher]

You can't confuse philosophical ideas with logical thought processes. This statement is just plain silly. Are you talking about your own statement or one of mine?




If one believes in an objective truth. .that is all fine and dandy. But if there is no objective good or evil, then you are expressing belief in God more or less. Essentailly that is what this argument patterns out to. Belief in a higher power, a good, and its opposite. An athiest would of course think the whole thing is basically bull****. Well logically a good person could not need a divine authority, so the existence of God is not relevant in this debate of the nature of good and evil.
Think of my concept objective truth about good and evil as a search for a perfect moral code.
The search for spiritual enlightenment is an actual search, its not enough just to acept all actions and systems of ethics as of equal moral value.


Trench. . this is not something that people with opposing views can agree on. . it's all opinion based. Do you feel that I dont respect your oppinion?


To me, evil is in the eye of the beholder. An observation based on ones morality only. Obivously I do not agree. But I would like to note that even if that was true I would still protest on the grounds that it makes for a very boring world.


To you, evil must be observed to be recognized, but its there already just sitting around and waiting to happen. In the same sense as numbers are "sitting there" and "waiting" to be added up.


To you. .good and evil are separate powerful entities, with control in some form over the nature of man. No. Infact if they did have power it would severly change the nature of good and evil itself.



And that's fine. . .it's a great belief you have there. But it is only that, a belief. And belief is not truth. Did you miss it when I said that I dont know what the truth is? I present the idea of an objective moral truth, trying make it look like I belive every word I write is the objective truth will only make you look bad not me.

[clanglee]

Are you talking about your own statement or one of mine?
.

Your statement obviously. Mathmatics is a logical process. Not a spiritual force. If you believe that numbers exist without the interpretation of the human mind then we are at an impasse and shall never agree on any of the basic philosophical principals.

I am sorry If I sounded insulting earlier, I really didn't mean to be. I do respect your opinion. I believe you are wrong, but that doen't stop me from respecting your beliefs.

[Trencher]

Your statement obviously. Mathmatics is a logical process. Not a spiritual force. I agree.


If you believe that numbers exist without the interpretation of the human mind then we are at an impasse and shall never agree on any of the basic philosophical principals. I belive they exist as a concept but are not relevant without the human mind.


I am sorry If I sounded insulting earlier, I really didn't mean to be. I do respect your opinion. I believe you are wrong, but that doen't stop me from respecting your beliefs.
No worries.

[Khardis]

I dont see it as a very big evil but..
How much fat a body has also has to do with genetics but gluttony is evil, even if you can eat loads withouth gaining weight.
However you can argue that they are only evil to themselves.
Let me use an example: zombies rule the earth and your family is dependent on you to get them food. I would say if you took food from your family members withouth needing it and letting them starve just because you thought it tasted good then that would be evil, and if you let them starve to death just so you could stuff your face some more then that would be even more evil.

So fat is not necesarly evil but gluttony is.

So when a kid is scarfing down his ice cream and then gets another ones even though he has had one already he is essentially being evil, likewise my dog who will eat until i take her food away wether or not she's ready to burst is also evil? So you're saying that since an animal will most likely eat something until they throw up from over eating that animals in general are evil beings right? I like where this is going, we can start hunting bear who gluttonously eat all fall long with a moral crusade against evil... awesome.

[Trencher]

So when a kid is scarfing down his ice cream and then gets another ones even though he has had one already he is essentially being evil, likewise my dog who will eat until i take her food away wether or not she's ready to burst is also evil? So you're saying that since an animal will most likely eat something until they throw up from over eating that animals in general are evil beings right? I like where this is going, we can start hunting bear who gluttonously eat all fall long with a moral crusade against evil... awesome. You are wrong. In my first post in this thread I said:

Greed, sadism, rape, authotitarian-ism (spelling?), incest, pedophilia and necrophilia all stem from normal human instincts but the person chooses to pervert those instincts just to get emotional gratification. Gluttony is a from of greed, and a young child or annimal does not have the intellectual capacity to discern between its personal emotional gratification and the natural hunger instinct.

[clanglee]

You are wrong. In my first post in this thread I said:
Gluttony is a from of greed, and a young child or annimal does not have the intellectual capacity to discern between its personal emotional gratification and the natural hunger instinct.

If it all comes down to intellectual capacity, the obviously ones view on evil is taught. This would mean that evil is subjective, because different people learn different things from their cultures. If we are talking about simple brain capacity, well If one grows to adulthood away from human interaction they still have the same brain capacity as any other human being. Do you believe that person would have the same viewpoints as a "civilized" human has on right and wrong? I think not. The viewpoint on evil is different to different people. What YOU see as evil, is not what someone else sees as evil. Since neither of you can be right or wrong, then it is subjective.

The only way evil can be percieved as objective is the enforce your own learned viewpoint on it. Even then, it is only objective to you, and that doesn't mean jack to someone else outside of your own group.


'No Values Voters' Search For Most Evil CandidateQWdN4hA-rB0

:lol::lol::lol::lol:


Since this thread is derailed now and Publicus touched upon it, I will just say the point I was leading up to about moral relavtism beeing absurd, it is absurd because it assume that all moral systems are of equally right even those who do belive the opposite.

And you know. . .I don't see this as absurd. All moral codes are of equal right. With my own personal moral code, I can believe someone else is wrong or evil and make judgements on them, but that doesn't mean that I am right either. It doesn't matter though. What matters is protecting myself and my people, and our way of life. Sure. .it would be great if we all believed in the same stuff. But we don't. And we all have to live with that. And on the whole, we do. ****, freedom of religion is one of the founding tenets of my country. Granted, the laws are enforcements of the country's popular moral codes, but you can believe whatever the hell you wanna believe. I can believe that killing babies with rusty spoons and raping alligators in the church balcony is just dandy. As long as I don't act on those desires. If I do, then the law, placed by the people to protect themselves, will clamp down on me faster than that gator would if I gave it a reach around.

[Trencher]

If it all comes down to intellectual capacity, the obviously ones view on evil is taught. Really now? So you are saying that a person is a blank slate then by the process of learning a system of morals is "coded" into him?
Consider this if you will: What if what we are taught is to (in a sense) remember an objective univiersal true moral system? Just like we are taught to remember that one plus one is two? (coming back to my argument that math exist weather anyone are around to utilize it or not.)
Or rather that we are taught to try to remember, and that all our conflicting beliefs and teachings are a result of our struggle to remember and understand the truth? By remembering I mean the process of understanding the validity of the moral code that is taught.
I don't expect you to agree I just want you to understand what I mean.


All moral codes are of equal right. Let me try to clarify why I find this statement absurd.
by saying that "all moral codes are of equal right" you are saying that the moral code "only my moral code is right" is just as right as your morale code of "all moral codes are of equal right" but that means that your "all moral codes are of equal right" morale code is wrong!
To me it sounds like you say 1 minus 1 is 1, it just does not make any sense.


With my own personal moral code, I can believe someone else is wrong or evil and make judgements on them, but that doesn't mean that I am right either. Then why judge?


It doesn't matter though. What matters is protecting myself and my people, and our way of life. What of moral codes who says that you should not protect yourself and your people and you should change your way of life, are they of equal moral worth?


Sure. .it would be great if we all believed in the same stuff.
I disagee it would be dull.


But we don't. And we all have to live with that. There are plenty of cultures who do not "live with that".


And on the whole, we do. ****, freedom of religion is one of the founding tenets of my country.
Freedom of religion is a moral code, in your eyes it is no better than the moral code of no freedom of religion. Personally I like freedom because nobody knows what the objective moral truth is so we cant just outright dismiss any point of view.

[clanglee]

Wow, we just won't agree on this. You come from the stand point that there is some absolute truth out there. There is no more evidence for this than for the evidence of God. A great thing to believe in, and while I don't discount the possibility, until it is proven, it is not a truth. Just because one viewpoint is right does not make the opposing viewpoint is wrong. It is ALL in the eye of the beholder, and therefore subjective.


Really now? So you are saying that a person is a blank slate then by the process of learning a system of morals is "coded" into him?
Consider this if you will: What if what we are taught is to (in a sense) remember an objective univiersal true moral system? Just like we are taught to remember that one plus one is two? (coming back to my argument that math exist weather anyone are around to utilize it or not.)
Or rather that we are taught to try to remember, and that all our conflicting beliefs and teachings are a result of our struggle to remember and understand the truth? By remembering I mean the process of understanding the validity of the moral code that is taught.
I don't expect you to agree I just want you to understand what I mean.
Once again you have completely confused philosphical ideals with logical concepts. Morals are not single natured, there are differing viewpoints on them. Mathmatics, not so. You sound like you believe that we have a moral genetic memory. I don't buy that.


Let me try to clarify why I find this statement absurd.
by saying that "all moral codes are of equal right" you are saying that the moral code "only my moral code is right" is just as right as your morale code of "all moral codes are of equal right" but that means that your "all moral codes are of equal right" morale code is wrong!
To me it sounds like you say 1 minus 1 is 1, it just does not make any sense.
but my stance that all moral codes are of equal right, is not itself a moral code. It is an observation about morals. I have my own moral beliefs, but I respect others rights to believe whatever they want. Why is this so hard to understand?

Then why judge?
What of moral codes who says that you should not protect yourself and your people and you should change your way of life, are they of equal moral worth?
what?

I disagee it would be dull.
true enough
There are plenty of cultures who do not "live with that".
also true enough

Freedom of religion is a moral code, in your eyes it is no better than the moral code of no freedom of religion. Personally I like freedom because nobody knows what the objective moral truth is so we cant just outright dismiss any point of view.
now THIS is a good point. But you see that since noone knows the "objective" moral truth, perhaps there is none?



:D:D:D

[Trencher]

Wow, we just won't agree on this. No it is two fundamentally different ways of observing the world around us. In practice however I think we are on pretty much the same page.


You come from the stand point that there is some absolute truth out there. There is no more evidence for this than for the evidence of God. A great thing to believe in, and while I don't discount the possibility, until it is proven, it is not a truth. Just because one viewpoint is right does not make the opposing viewpoint is wrong. It is ALL in the eye of the beholder, and therefore subjective. Evidence of a perfect moral code and evidence of God is proven in two different ways. God if he exist could prove that he exist himself, just by coming down here and appearing on Letterman. The perfect moral code just like any other concept must be discovered by humans.
Maybe one day there will come a Buddha or Jesus like figure and show the world a perfect moral code, it could happen.


Once again you have completely confused philosophical ideals with logical concepts. Morals are not single natured, there are differing viewpoints on them. Mathmatics, not so. You sound like you believe that we have a moral genetic memory. I don't buy that. Ok so you don't belive that we have a moral genetic memory, I do belive that because we inherit the ability to love and to evaluate. Also higher Mathematics are debated all the time but most importantly I think that applying logical thought to philosophical ideals is a good way for it not to slide into sofistism.



but my stance that all moral codes are of equal right, is not itself a moral code. It is an observation about morals. I have my own moral beliefs, but I respect others rights to believe whatever they want. Why is this so hard to understand?
Because it is an moral code you have taken a moral stance that says that all moral codes are of equal worth. If you truly belive that they are equal you must treat them equally.


what? You said that you wanted to protect people, so I asked on how you could acept moral codes that say that you should not protect people?




now THIS is a good point. But you see that since noone knows the "objective" moral truth, perhaps there is none?
Perhaps :) But I like to belive there is, as I said I acept your oppinion I am just trying to explain what I belive is the nature of evil.

I must add that you are a lot more tolerant than your avatar! :confused:

[clanglee]

Yeah, Rorsharch is not very tollerent of grey areas at all. :D

I think we shall have to agree to disagree. On a topic like this where people are coming from two COMPLETELY opposing frames of mind, there is no compromise. Good talk though Trencher. You would be great to get drunk with!! :D

[Trencher]

You would be great to get drunk with!! :D

:D:hyper:

[strayrider]

So obesity is evil?

Obesity is a physical condition. Can it be used for evil purposes?

:D

-stray-