The question may seem simple, but truly, what is evil?
The definition is as follows:
Lacking in good qualities.
But if one is lacking in good and bad qualities, are they still evil?
I expect serious and intelligent responses.
I have some help for you.Drive into the woods. Make sure it is late at night so nobody can see you. Dig a 6Lx3Wx6D hole in the ground.Climb inside, pull as much dirt ontop of yourself as possible. Breathe in as much dirt as you can.Never post here again.
I believe 'evil' isn't simply the lack of good; it's the presence and effects of malicious intent. Not only that, either - one could have good intent and yet be evil. I believe it is ones' own responsibility to decide whether something is bad before their action. For instance, even if Hitler truly believed that killing all the Jews was the right thing, he's still at fault, because he should be able to figure out what is right and wrong on his own. Obviously, there may be specific exceptions to this rule, such as if he was brought up by his parents to believe that, but for the most part, that is what I believe.
I have some help for you.Drive into the woods. Make sure it is late at night so nobody can see you. Dig a 6Lx3Wx6D hole in the ground.Climb inside, pull as much dirt ontop of yourself as possible. Breathe in as much dirt as you can.Never post here again.
To be honest, I don't really care for the word. It has a lot of metaphysical baggage associated with it.
But, if you just want to use it as a descriptive term in an ethical context, it would describe intentional actions of a conscious being with consequences that are mostly or all severely detrimental to the well being of other conscious creatures and which, if it has any, benefits only the actor or those he favors. It only counts if the person doing the act is or ought to be aware of its harmful nature.
There's probably more nuance to it than that but that's all I feel like writing at the moment.
You all have very good points, but what do we do to make an object evil or lesser? What qualities do we imply?
I once read in a book:
To make an entity your enemy, one must first view it as incapable of governing itself. Then, one must view it as irrational, finally, one must take away its masculinity, because that is what humanity is associated with.
I have some help for you.Drive into the woods. Make sure it is late at night so nobody can see you. Dig a 6Lx3Wx6D hole in the ground.Climb inside, pull as much dirt ontop of yourself as possible. Breathe in as much dirt as you can.Never post here again.
I don't know, I could try to summarize my point based on this video but I rather just post it instead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
::Quote from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
'Evil' is a subjective part of ethics in which the person is defined as following a lack of 'good' traits. For example, murdering another would not be following the victim's point of view as right -- since he or she is seen as the one being controlled, or the murderer having the ability to take one's life away. Homicide, in a criminal's point of view, is usually the right way to handle the objection, while in other's view it is horribly wrong.
The term evil cannot be applied to any man on this Earth, since the views are split and there will always be subjective and objective people; let it be the victims of the wrongdoing; the people who have similar feelings; or the person committing the deed him/herself. No man is perfect, nor in any terms good, either. All that matters is that if we think it is good or not. Do not heed other's views, rather create your own from a rational stance.
The definition is as follows:
Lacking in good qualities.
But if one is lacking in good and bad qualities, are they still evil?
I expect serious and intelligent responses.
I thought I said intelligent responses.
Evil = The day you made this post
But, if you just want to use it as a descriptive term in an ethical context, it would describe intentional actions of a conscious being with consequences that are mostly or all severely detrimental to the well being of other conscious creatures and which, if it has any, benefits only the actor or those he favors. It only counts if the person doing the act is or ought to be aware of its harmful nature.
There's probably more nuance to it than that but that's all I feel like writing at the moment.
I once read in a book:
To make an entity your enemy, one must first view it as incapable of governing itself. Then, one must view it as irrational, finally, one must take away its masculinity, because that is what humanity is associated with.
I don't know, I could try to summarize my point based on this video but I rather just post it instead.
::Quote from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
Yes another video answer...
The term evil cannot be applied to any man on this Earth, since the views are split and there will always be subjective and objective people; let it be the victims of the wrongdoing; the people who have similar feelings; or the person committing the deed him/herself. No man is perfect, nor in any terms good, either. All that matters is that if we think it is good or not. Do not heed other's views, rather create your own from a rational stance.
/thread
Oh, don't be like that. Your a nice guy, don't try to make yourself sound like a big bad tough guy.