First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Do you deny the existence of evil?
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15

nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:

The term" Evil" is applied by and interpreted by the user to discriminate against all that an entity represents without bothering with objective specifics.It's all encompassing.War has been termed "evil" ,but when sane people pursue war, by continuing to build for war, it's called sane.US society punishes individuals that practice horrendous violence on a personal level, then bestows medals on those that practice the same horrendous violence on a wholesale level.Reconciling and accepting these two "justices" is what erodes and destroys the fabric of a society.


Just because a term has been misused, doesn't mean that an underlying condition doesn't exist.

Much of the misuse comes from a misunderstanding of what evil entails.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/evil/evilhome.html


I disagree.People exist, evil does not..If a tree falls in a forest and no ones around.....


Did you have a chance at reading the link? Give the argument a chance.

People exist alongside with their lack. When there are people, their lack of consideration exists.


Actually I did . It's what is termed as a "first premise" piece.You're invited to accept their first premise thus accepting later concepts based on the one that you've already theoretically accepted.Think of it as an acceleration march of rationalization.Of course if you don't accept the "first premise" and in sequence then the whole structure fails.The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 7/18/15

pirththee wrote:

The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.


Well put - my views nearly exactly.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15

pirththee wrote:

Actually I did . It's what is termed as a "first premise" piece.You're invited to accept their first premise thus accepting later concepts based on the one that you've already theoretically accepted.Think of it as an acceleration march of rationalization.Of course if you don't accept the "first premise" and in sequence then the whole structure fails.The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.


What first premise? It only identified what something is seen as, not what something actually is, until pages later.

Edit: I saw your last sentence. Good grief... You are way off. This has to do with the practical realm.
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15

nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:

Actually I did . It's what is termed as a "first premise" piece.You're invited to accept their first premise thus accepting later concepts based on the one that you've already theoretically accepted.Think of it as an acceleration march of rationalization.Of course if you don't accept the "first premise" and in sequence then the whole structure fails.The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.


What first premise? It only identified what something is seen as, not what something actually is, until pages later.

Edit: I saw your last sentence. Good grief... You are way off. This has to do with the practical realm.


Then I disagree with you on what you consider is pragmatic.Sorry,had to edit the syntax of this post.
1018 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / San Angelo, Texas
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15
Ok

Without Evil, there can never be good.

Without villains, there can never be justice.

Without chaos, there can never be order.

Without the unwilling, there can never be free will.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15

pirththee wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:

Actually I did . It's what is termed as a "first premise" piece.You're invited to accept their first premise thus accepting later concepts based on the one that you've already theoretically accepted.Think of it as an acceleration march of rationalization.Of course if you don't accept the "first premise" and in sequence then the whole structure fails.The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.


What first premise? It only identified what something is seen as, not what something actually is, until pages later.

Edit: I saw your last sentence. Good grief... You are way off. This has to do with the practical realm.


Then I disagree with you on what you consider is pragmatic.Sorry,had to edit the syntax of this post.


You can disagree on what's pragmatic or actionable (let's take care of that one later), but again, what was this "first premise" that you talked about?

Edit: here's the link again so I'm not making you hunt back in the thread http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/evil/evilhome.html
Bavalt 
22029 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
I define evil as a choice that is more inconvenient for others than it is convenient for you, based on the information you have. Cutting someone off in traffic is not evil. Cutting someone off in traffic when they're trying to get to the hospital can be evil (as long as you don't something equally important at risk), but only if you know that they're in the middle of a medical crisis. Selfishness is an inherent part of human nature, and there's no reason we should be expected to try and discard it entirely (especially since it's basically harmless in most people), but if an intentional choice does more harm than good, I count it as an evil one.

I don't like to apply the word to anything larger than a single choice. I don't think there's such a thing as an evil person, or an evil organization, and I tend to believe that by and large, most decisions that result in negative outcomes are the result of ignorance (and I don't mean that pejoratively - just that people often do not have the information they need to make a better decision). Most commonly, "evil" actions result from people either misinterpreting or disagreeing with the valuation systems of others - they make choices that affect other people in a way that they themselves consider positive, but that the affected party considers negative due to their different priorities. This isn't evil, just misguided, and I'm not prepared to assert that we'd be better off if this didn't happen, because a person's priorities are a key part of who they are, and I wouldn't want for everyone to be similar enough that we could always predict what other people want. I would, however, like to see people wisen up about the fact that their values aren't everyone's values, and discuss decisions that will affect other people with those involved before making them.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 7/18/15

horikoshi wrote:
Without Evil, there can never be good.

is it not:
Without bad things, there can never be any good things? (or something else insted of evil?)
also

Without war, there can be no peace
Without peace, there can be no war

19921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / A town called "Ci...
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
Of course, not! I see evil from many parts of the world!!
Including the country that I love.
804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
No spiritual stuff when you ask about the existence of evil? Well, that narrows our options a bit... Oh well, it's not like my answer was going to be spiritual anyway. I just think you should leave it open for people to answer the question in whatever form they are able, so that you cover all angles, and can make a better decision.

Anyway, now to my answer. In order to have evil, good, justice, injustice, etc., you must have some absolute value system. When I say value system, I don't mean right or wrong; I mean, what has value of any kind, to what degree, and is it intrinsic or instrumental? Now, here's the problem: in order for value to be incontrovertible, it must be arbitrarily decided- in other words, unjustifiable. For example, you can say that human life has value. The question may be asked: why? At which point you must attempt to justify the value placed on human life. Maybe you answer: "because life in general has value." But then I will ask why again. And again, and again. At some point, you will be forced to arbitrarily tell me: "It just does." Now then, here's the catch. I'm a sociopath (Hypothetically, of course ), and I will provide my own arbitrary answer: "No, it doesn't."

Now, how can you decide who is right, when neither of us can provide any outside justification for our position? This is where the problem comes into focus. Ultimately, in order to decide a question of value, morality, or any similar problem, an outside, supreme authority must be cited. Unfortunately, this outside authority CANNOT be another human being, since we all share so many qualities, including fallibility, yet disagree with each other constantly. If the authority could be a human, it might as well be one of the people participating in the argument. But that wouldn't solve anything.

So then, here, in short, is my answer: in order to have an absolute definition of evil, religion must be involved. Without religion, then, no, there is no 'evil'. However, as a practical consideration, we must pretend that evil does exist, and ignore the fact that our definition of evil is unjustifiable. If we don't, then we might as well kill each other. But that thought terrifies me, and most other human beings. So that we don't have to live with that terror, we have to impose laws and justice on each other.

I hope this is written clearly. I'm a little tired, and even on a good day I don't always express myself clearly. Feel free to ask if I wrote something that doesn't seem to make sense.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15

foraslan wrote:

At some point, you will be forced to arbitrarily tell me: "It just does." Now then, here's the catch. I'm a sociopath (Hypothetically, of course ), and I will provide my own arbitrary answer: "No, it doesn't."

Now, how can you decide who is right, when neither of us can provide any outside justification for our position?


In the end, right or wrong would come in second place of what's practical.

It is impractical to deny the value of life in general, because if you do, others around you (assuming that you are living in close enough proximity to other people) would just as well deny yours as well.

One could see what that could lead to.

Other than practicality, there's the bare fact that it takes actual effort (deliberate actions) to be good, and little effort to be evil- It is easy to simply not care about what happens to others and "do as one pleases". The ACT of empathizing, takes effort and imagination; it is the deliberate act of imagination and contemplation FOR others which leads to empathy.
49109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/18/15

pirththee wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:

Actually I did . It's what is termed as a "first premise" piece.You're invited to accept their first premise thus accepting later concepts based on the one that you've already theoretically accepted.Think of it as an acceleration march of rationalization.Of course if you don't accept the "first premise" and in sequence then the whole structure fails.The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.


What first premise? It only identified what something is seen as, not what something actually is, until pages later.

Edit: I saw your last sentence. Good grief... You are way off. This has to do with the practical realm.


Then I disagree with you on what you consider is pragmatic.Sorry,had to edit the syntax of this post.


The damn deer just ate the tops off of all my beans again .The fawns are about Cocker Spaniel high and just love blooming beans.What's worse is they won't stand still enough for me to get a decent picture.Any who, Evil itself for me is not a concept but part of a belief system.I don't acknowledge it other than to respect others people's belief systems that adopt it.So the first premise is the word "evil" itself.If you don't accept evil as anything but a component of mysticism ,and you're not a mystic ,then it has no validity for you other than someone else's belief system.
804 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/18/15 , edited 7/18/15

nanikore2 wrote:


foraslan wrote:

At some point, you will be forced to arbitrarily tell me: "It just does." Now then, here's the catch. I'm a sociopath (Hypothetically, of course ), and I will provide my own arbitrary answer: "No, it doesn't."

Now, how can you decide who is right, when neither of us can provide any outside justification for our position?


In the end, right or wrong would come in second place of what's practical.

It is impractical to deny the value of life in general, because if you do, others around you (assuming that you are living in close enough proximity to other people) would just as well deny yours as well.

One could see what that could lead to.

Other than practicality, there's the bare fact that it takes actual effort (deliberate actions) to be good, and little effort to be evil- It is easy to simply not care about what happens to others and "do as one pleases". The ACT of empathizing, takes effort and imagination; it is the deliberate act of imagination and contemplation FOR others which leads to empathy.


The first part of your comment largely agrees with mine, in that I believe practical considerations beat out theory. The second part seems strange to me. I don't think that simply putting in more effort makes something better. For one thing, it comes back to what I said about arbitrary values. Secondly, I can think of situations where just going against our nature is less desirable than to "do as one pleases." For instance, starving oneself takes an enormous amount of willpower, but it is no more good, or less nearly evil, than to eat.

You did turn my mind toward another consideration, though. Following the practical line of thought, it would make sense to place certain elements of human instinct, emotion, and sentiment above all else in terms of value. Certain base elements of these are common to almost every member of the species, such as the will to live. From them, a practical structure of values and morals might, with care, be formed. However, it must be stressed that this is a practical method like I mentioned previously, and is ultimately still an arbitrary system.

That value could follow one of two main lines. First, a positive line, which is what we seem to be moving along for now. This line means that we join together and form civilizations where rights are mutually protected with the understanding that ours will be respected in return.
The other line is a negative one, in which power, or the ability to force your will on others, is the only thing worth having. In this case, power is a means to protect your own life and selfish interests. Notably, this could still lead to advanced societies, since people will inevitably band together for combined power to beat more capable individuals than themselves.
39015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tralfamadore
Offline
Posted 7/18/15
Posted 7/18/15

pirththee wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:

The term" Evil" is applied by and interpreted by the user to discriminate against all that an entity represents without bothering with objective specifics.It's all encompassing.War has been termed "evil" ,but when sane people pursue war, by continuing to build for war, it's called sane.US society punishes individuals that practice horrendous violence on a personal level, then bestows medals on those that practice the same horrendous violence on a wholesale level.Reconciling and accepting these two "justices" is what erodes and destroys the fabric of a society.


Just because a term has been misused, doesn't mean that an underlying condition doesn't exist.

Much of the misuse comes from a misunderstanding of what evil entails.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/evil/evilhome.html


I disagree.People exist, evil does not..If a tree falls in a forest and no ones around.....


Did you have a chance at reading the link? Give the argument a chance.

People exist alongside with their lack. When there are people, their lack of consideration exists.


Actually I did . It's what is termed as a "first premise" piece.You're invited to accept their first premise thus accepting later concepts based on the one that you've already theoretically accepted.Think of it as an acceleration march of rationalization.Of course if you don't accept the "first premise" and in sequence then the whole structure fails.The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.





Schmooples wrote:


pirththee wrote:

The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.


Well put - my views nearly exactly.





pirththee wrote:


pirththee wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


pirththee wrote:

Actually I did . It's what is termed as a "first premise" piece.You're invited to accept their first premise thus accepting later concepts based on the one that you've already theoretically accepted.Think of it as an acceleration march of rationalization.Of course if you don't accept the "first premise" and in sequence then the whole structure fails.The concept of evil for me is just garden variety mysticism and has no validity outside of that realm..If you believe in evil that's cool by me and I respect that.


What first premise? It only identified what something is seen as, not what something actually is, until pages later.

Edit: I saw your last sentence. Good grief... You are way off. This has to do with the practical realm.


Then I disagree with you on what you consider is pragmatic.Sorry,had to edit the syntax of this post.


The damn deer just ate the tops off of all my beans again .The fawns are about Cocker Spaniel high and just love blooming beans.What's worse is they won't stand still enough for me to get a decent picture.Any who, Evil itself for me is not a concept but part of a belief system.I don't acknowledge it other than to respect others people's belief systems that adopt it.So the first premise is the word "evil" itself.If you don't accept evil as anything but a component of mysticism ,and you're not a mystic ,then it has no validity for you other than someone else's belief system.


The people that tend to argue evil doesnt exist are often immoral individualists, satanists, pedophiles, cynical existential philosophers, its always a personal motivation behind it no matter the reason and hardly objective science-based.Sad but true.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.