Originally posted by hopscotchI was about to say that you just couldn't resist slipping that in there, could you, but then I realized the entire answer was fabricated just so you could slip it in there without seeming too obvious about it.
Concepts like good and evil are impossible to apply to reality in a truly objective way. They operate best in works of fiction like Harry Potter or the Bible. You can only make subjective assumptions based on whether you believe in free will or determinism or somewhere in between the two.
Not surprised that someone with that attitude doesn't believe in good and evil. Those concepts are just too inconvenient for some people.
Originally posted by SuzianneIf you understood my post you would realise that you have no grounds to call it fabricated, but clearly you do not and once again I have to witness you tripping over hurdles comprised of that which you are ignorant. Furthermore, it is not your place to tell me what I believe in and twist my words like a little snake. I never mentioned that I didn't believe in good and evil. What I wrote is clearly there for you to read again - if you struggled the first time.
I was about to say that you just couldn't resist slipping that in there, could you, but then I realized the entire answer was fabricated just so you could slip it in there without seeming too obvious about it.
Not surprised that someone with that attitude doesn't believe in good and evil. Those concepts are just too inconvenient for some people.
Good day, sir.
I don't believe in the reification of good and evil, only in the notion that one can commit an abhorrent/amoral act, or a kind/moral act.
If I did believe in them, I'd say that the intention (mens rea) was the source of the evil, and that the action (actus rea) was merely the process by which it was carried out. In this way Hitler's intention was to kill millions of people, irrespective of his personal act in the matter, whilst the other man's desire was probably not only driven partially by grief/anger/passion of the moment, but also affected only one person. So, if I believed in the concept of good and evil, I'd say Hitler was more evil than the bloke who killed his girlfriend.
Originally posted by Very RustyNo it shouldn't.
Most certainly all EVIL people should be treated equally.
Your question should have been what should that treatment be?
You pronounce below your avatar: "treat everyone equal", and yet you post in this thread "Some people are just pure EVIL! FACT!"
Explain please.
Originally posted by hopscotchOriginally posted by hopscotch
Concepts like good and evil are impossible to apply to reality in a truly objective way. They operate best in works of fiction like Harry Potter or the Bible. You can only make subjective assumptions based on whether you believe in free will or determinism or somewhere in between the two.
Concepts like good and evil are impossible to apply to reality in a truly objective way.
I am sure the prisons are full of people with the same view.
Originally posted by hopscotch
They operate best in works of fiction like Harry Potter or the Bible.
In your remark, you are attacking Christianity and in particular, one believer. I am sure I could never prove to you that God exists, and you could never prove to me that He doesn't. Such remarks are best debated in other arenas.
Originally posted by hopscotch
You can only make subjective assumptions based on whether you believe in free will or determinism or somewhere in between the two.
This is your opinion based on what? Your statement is presumptuous.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI am sure the prisons are full of people with the same view.
Originally posted by hopscotch
[b]Concepts like good and evil are impossible to apply to reality in a truly objective way.
I am sure the prisons are full of people with the same view.
Originally posted by hopscotch
They operate best in works of fiction like Harry Potter or the Bible.
In your remark, you are attackin ...[text shortened]... in between the two.[/b]
This is your opinion based on what? Your statement is presumptuous.[/b]
Your statement is presumptuous. Have you interviewed convicts and done censuses on prisons to make you sure? Are you suggesting that prisons are full of evil people? Who decides what is evil?
In your remark, you are attacking Christianity and in particular, one believer. I am sure I could never prove to you that God exists, and you could never prove to me that He doesn't. Such remarks are best debated in other arenas.
Your statement is presumptuous. I am attacking nobody. I am commenting on Blackamp's post. Who am I attacking in particular? I wouldn't be able to prove to anyone that god doesn't exist because that would be trying to prove a negative statement. Asking someone to prove a negative statement is a very typically stupid thing that some people vainly like to think is a valid argument. If I, for a more realistic example, had to prove to you that there's no such thing as pandas who naturally have green fur, I would have to travel the entire universe and search under every rock to prove it. It's too much work for one lifetime. However, to prove that something does exist is far easier, all you have to do is provide some empirical evidence of it existing, so you can go ahead and prove that god exists much, much easier than to prove he doesn't. It shouldn't even take you that long. Can you prove it? Why are you talking about god anyway? That's so tangential that it's almost a non sequitur. Are you projecting your own agenda here?
This is your opinion based on what? Your statement is presumptuous.
Your statement is presumptuous. In deciding whether something is good or evil you can only make subjective assumptions, as I've already written. You cannot know, for a fact, that something is good or evil. You'll never have all of the facts about a particular incident, and even then your judgement on what is good and what is evil is based on to what extent you believe in free will, hence it is subjective, and not objective, and ultimately presumptuous.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by avalanchethecati reckon, they were in a restaurant and she said she didnt want chip/fries. but when his plate of chips came she started eating them...aaarrrrhggggggg wheres my axe!!!!!
Just as a matter of interest, what do you imagine his girlfriend did to deserve that?
Originally posted by Very RustySo you would give the same punishment to a man that kicked a dog for fun as you would a man that killed 20 children?
Most certainly all EVIL people should be treated equally.
Your question should have been what should that treatment be?
Originally posted by SuzianneOn the contrary, "good" and "evil" are concepts that are often used because actually working out the root cause is too inconvenient for some people.
I was about to say that you just couldn't resist slipping that in there, could you, but then I realized the entire answer was fabricated just so you could slip it in there without seeming too obvious about it.
Not surprised that someone with that attitude doesn't believe in good and evil. Those concepts are just too inconvenient for some people.
Originally posted by StarrmanHum? Why be verbose, and not further my comment, for the kids reading? 😀
I don't believe in the reification of good and evil, only in the notion that one can commit an abhorrent/amoral act, or a kind/moral act.
If I did believe in them, I'd say that the intention (mens rea) was the source of the evil, and that the action (actus rea) was merely the process by which it was carried out. In this way Hitler's intention was to kil ...[text shortened]... pt of good and evil, I'd say Hitler was more evil than the bloke who killed his girlfriend.
Good and evil were created by man and to man only they apply. You don't speak of an evil dog, they don't exist for they are not rational. In the same way you can't say a lion eating a gazelle is evil - even though harm is being done to another animal. This is pretty obvious. On the other hand, some animals do overkill their pray, killing way too many than necessary for their fulfilment. Is this evil?
I don't think it is for lions have no rational thought - they don't know it is evil and harmful and so they don't have the INTENT to be evil. But then if you translate this to the human species - is someone who kills without consciousness evil? And should they be punished for it?
Its the consequence/will paradox (I'm sure it has a proper name, but I don't know it). Is willing to do harm evil? Or is inflicting harm without will evil? Both of course, is evil, but what of the former two options.
I have no answer. Perhaps I agree with hop, there is no definition of evil, there is only will, action and reaction. Putting the things in two categories without addressing the complexity if the human mind is very faulty.