|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:22 pm
The bigger question is, who defines what is evil and what isn't? Obviously, we all agree that raping children is evil, because that's what society has engineered us to think. But try thinking of it this way, what's truly evil, the person or the deed? Child molesters often are disturbed psychologically, often being the victims of sexual abuse when they were younger; does this mean they are inherently evil?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:03 pm
Vash Belmont King Robert Silvermyst Ok. Raping Children. There's your example to you,and even to me,but to the person doing the act,it may not be, That's true, but in my opinion, it's a fact whether someone else believes it or not. That's just my opinion, that even if someone doesn't think something is wrong, it still is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:05 pm
dboyzero The bigger question is, who defines what is evil and what isn't? Obviously, we all agree that raping children is evil, because that's what society has engineered us to think. But try thinking of it this way, what's truly evil, the person or the deed? Child molesters often are disturbed psychologically, often being the victims of sexual abuse when they were younger; does this mean they are inherently evil? Evil was done to them, so they do it to someone else in return, but who knows if that mean the person them self (their soul) is truly evil. I think for sure that there are evil people out there, but I don't think that every single person who does a bad thing is evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:32 pm
Well, what are your thoughts on whether that makes someone evil or not? Your post assumes that there is an inherent soul within someone that can be clearly designated as either "good" or "evil," is this correct? When is this determined, and who's fault is it if that person becomes either?
Furthermore, what do you define as "evil" exactly? You obviously have some idea on the matter, but what is this based on? It would seem to me that the winners of any conflict end up defining the losers and other groups affiliated with opposing ideologies as "evil." Two nations may call each other evil, but how can you tell which one is right and which one is lying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:40 pm
dboyzero Well, what are your thoughts on whether that makes someone evil or not? Your post assumes that there is an inherent soul within someone that can be clearly designated as either "good" or "evil," is this correct? When is this determined, and who's fault is it if that person becomes either? Furthermore, what do you define as "evil" exactly? You obviously have some idea on the matter, but what is this based on? It would seem to me that the winners of any conflict end up defining the losers and other groups affiliated with opposing ideologies as "evil." Two nations may call each other evil, but how can you tell which one is right and which one is lying? Those questions can't possibly be answered. For instance, I think people who enjoy doing wrong to others without remorse or compassion is evil. There's a difference between people like that and people who do bad things while still feeling guilty and having compassion. Take a murderer. I think it's safe to say murderers are without remorse, for whatever reason. You could ask, "Was that because something bad was done to them as a child?" Yes, but then that obviously means they learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, who learned it from their parents, and so on. Where does it stop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:14 pm
Exactly, so who can truly judge what is evil and what is not? Remember that although some people commit to action, and accept the consequences without remorse or compassion, they may not necessarily be evil. A man who murders someone, knowing that the victim fully intended to cause harm to himself and his family, must accept the consequences for his actions, ie, jail time. Is this person considered evil?
And what of those who do feel remorse and compassion for killing and doing what others consider "wrong," but go ahead with it anyway? Are they automatically off the hook for being evil? I doubt very much that soldiers of war enjoy their work, but continue to do so for a greater good or a cause that they believe in. They feel terribly for the people they've wronged, but I doubt that they'll stop for that reason alone.
Remember that when people make a conscious decision to do things, they are doing so because they feel it is the best action at that time. They may or may not enjoy it, but they definitely have their reasons. The world is not so black and white to have people who exist for the sole purpose of sowing misery and spilling blood, at least not commonly. Everyone has a motive, and everyone has a drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:11 pm
dboyzero Exactly, so who can truly judge what is evil and what is not? Remember that although some people commit to action, and accept the consequences without remorse or compassion, they may not necessarily be evil. A man who murders someone, knowing that the victim fully intended to cause harm to himself and his family, must accept the consequences for his actions, ie, jail time. Is this person considered evil? In my opinion, yes. dboyzero And what of those who do feel remorse and compassion for killing and doing what others consider "wrong," but go ahead with it anyway? Are they automatically off the hook for being evil? I doubt very much that soldiers of war enjoy their work, but continue to do so for a greater good or a cause that they believe in. They feel terribly for the people they've wronged, but I doubt that they'll stop for that reason alone. I don't consider fighting for peace evil. I think fighting and killing is wrong, but I think it can be done for a just cause. This doesn't fall into what I think is evil, however, I think the overall purpose/feeling of war is, indeed, evil. dboyzero Remember that when people make a conscious decision to do things, they are doing so because they feel it is the best action at that time. They may or may not enjoy it, but they definitely have their reasons. The world is not so black and white to have people who exist for the sole purpose of sowing misery and spilling blood, at least not commonly. Everyone has a motive, and everyone has a drive. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think there are plenty of people out there who know that what they are doing is wrong, and do it anyway, not because they feel it's the best course of action. Quite the contrary, I believe there are many shades of grey; all I'm saying is that I think evil exists. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:46 pm
But in what form does evil exist? As you said, there are many shades of grey, how can we be sure that there is an absolute?
My first example, if you didn't catch it, was about self-defense. If a man threatens myself or my family, and I am forced to kill him, then I will do so, fighting for peace, as you put it.
The overall purpose and feeling of war is always peace. As counterintuitive as it may seem, the point of fighting is to win and stop the fighting. Now, the war may start for a variety of reasons, but generally it is to obtain a higher level or order, especially in the cases of military conquest.
Do explain what sort of people do wrong while knowing that there is a better course of action. I was referring to those that premeditate their actions, not those who act in the heat of the moment. What sort of reasoning would a person have to have to commit an action they feel is wrong, and knowing there's another way? Is this not illogical to any person who premeditates their actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:52 am
Without chaos, there is no order. These two simply balance out each other. Without one, the world would fall apart quickly. They need each other in order to survive. It's almost like a parasite and a host. If the host dies, the parasite takes over and eventually dies. There are many kinds of balances in the world that revolve around each other. As I've noticed, there is a reoccuring pattern of circles. Without something to complete the circle, it ceases to exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:50 am
Sayer of the Truth Vash Belmont King Robert Silvermyst Ok. Raping Children. There's your example to you,and even to me,but to the person doing the act,it may not be, That's true, but in my opinion, it's a fact whether someone else believes it or not. That's just my opinion, that even if someone doesn't think something is wrong, it still is. Ah, I missed this my first time around. Okay, so to YOU, it's a fact that it's evil, but we're talking about the world as a whole. In terms of the bigger picture, can it be called evil without taking your own opinions into the mix? A more important fact may be to what extent are personal opinions valid when discussing good and evil. You call it evil, while the perpetrator does not; who's to say who's right and who's wrong? We can rely on the majority judgment, but does this make them "right" in the absolutist sense? History often shows us where the majority has been wrong, and dire consequences have followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:55 pm
dboyzero Sayer of the Truth Vash Belmont King Robert Silvermyst Ok. Raping Children. There's your example to you,and even to me,but to the person doing the act,it may not be, That's true, but in my opinion, it's a fact whether someone else believes it or not. That's just my opinion, that even if someone doesn't think something is wrong, it still is. Ah, I missed this my first time around. Okay, so to YOU, it's a fact that it's evil, but we're talking about the world as a whole. In terms of the bigger picture, can it be called evil without taking your own opinions into the mix? A more important fact may be to what extent are personal opinions valid when discussing good and evil. You call it evil, while the perpetrator does not; who's to say who's right and who's wrong? We can rely on the majority judgment, but does this make them "right" in the absolutist sense? History often shows us where the majority has been wrong, and dire consequences have followed. That what's evil? Well, if you believe in God, He's the ultimate judge, even though human beings judge each other all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:54 pm
Isn't that what we're discussing? wink
If you're looking for my opinion, then it's quite simple: I don't believe that evil exists except for in the mind of society and human beings who choose to believe in it. Everyone has their own reasons for their actions, even if they don't fully understand it for themselves. The better we get at understanding the true motives behind actions, the better we can help society as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:32 am
Konotanumara Without chaos, there is no order. These two simply balance out each other. Without one, the world would fall apart quickly. They need each other in order to survive. It's almost like a parasite and a host. If the host dies, the parasite takes over and eventually dies. There are many kinds of balances in the world that revolve around each other. As I've noticed, there is a reoccuring pattern of circles. Without something to complete the circle, it ceases to exist. but if neither good or evil did not exist,then it whould also be balanced,with no weight on either side of the scale,it does not tip one way or the other,what you were told,and what you think,I can not change,I'm just trying to get my point across that I don't think there is 'evil' in the world,we are all free spireted,if there is evil,then the one thing that ius truely evil is living to kill or cuase pain,and in my opinion,thhat is not evil,mabye something bad,but just diffrent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:20 pm
dboyzero Isn't that what we're discussing? wink If you're looking for my opinion, then it's quite simple: I don't believe that evil exists except for in the mind of society and human beings who choose to believe in it. Everyone has their own reasons for their actions, even if they don't fully understand it for themselves. The better we get at understanding the true motives behind actions, the better we can help society as a whole. So what you're saying is, without humanity, good and evil wouldn't exist? If that's what you're saying, I'll buy that. You don't see animals fighting wars or killing each other out of malice. But I believe God is real, and I believe the Devil is real, therefore I believe evil is too, maybe even if there were no humans on earth. And if I misunderstood you, well, then...*shrugs* =S
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:02 am
Bad things happen to good people because without the bad, they wouldn't know what the good is. So, in parallel with that evil must exist so that good people know what good is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|