Good and Evil, the illusion

[Dagda]

I'm of the belife that good and evil are 'children of an idle brain'. I think an act is determined by the intent behind the act and as no-one goes out to do an evil deed because it is evil then no act can be evil.
By this I conclude that there are only selfish and selfless acts and good and evil are products of philosophers despret for a cuase. If you disagree, give me one example of an act of evil.

[wyoguy]

Don't worry... the effects of crack are only temporary. Do you think I don't have evil thoughts running through my brain even as I type this? Do you want to go on record as saying you've never had an evil thought and acted upon it?

Please.....

You are the example.

[Morality Games]

Ressentiment is a possible contributory cause for the development of the concept of evil.

Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be "blamed" for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external "evil". This issuing of "blame" leads one to desire revenge, or at least believe in the possibility of revenge; this lust for revenge may take many forms, as in the Christian conception of the Last Judgment, or the socialist conception of revolution. In each case, a sense of powerlessness creates the illusion of an enemy; one suddenly conceives oneself to be oppressed rather than merely weak, a phenomenon that spawns externally-directed bitterness (lust for a perceived "revenge"). Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker a man is, the less his capability for adiaphoria, i.e. to suppress reaction. And on the contrary, the more a man is active, strong-willed and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to him, and his reactions (like imagining he is actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed man (a "wild beast"), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of his intellect.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It is certainly possible to do evil on purpose, but evil is defined by action, not intent. Killing 6 million jews is an evil action, no matter how well you intentioned the perfecting of a master race.

[Tycoon]

It is certainly possible to do evil on purpose, but evil is defined by action, not intent. Killing 6 million jews is an evil action, no matter how well you intentioned the perfecting of a master race.

But in Hitler's mind it was good, which is why good and evil are just different perceptions.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Will anyone argue that killing 6 million people is not an inherently evil action? I don't give a crap what was going on in a sick man's mind, and even he might agree that killing 6 million people was a regrettable necessity, I don't think he thought the act of killing was good in itself..

[Darebirth]

Not a lot of people who have been chronicled in history as evil have performed their actions simply for the sake of being evil. To quote a famous person who's name illudes me at the moment, "Villains are the heroes of their own stories." Let us use Hitler for a moment.

It is a fairly well-known fact that the Jews in Germany before the Holocaust were very rich and owned most of Germany's production economy at the time. This was not helping the economy, especially since the entire world was already in a depression. At least a partial element of Hitler's overall plans of eliminating the Jews was to help the economy of Germany. His plans were, in all honesty, to help Germany at any cost because he beleived that it was the greatest country in the world.

To quote a famous person who's name I do recall, Machiavelli, in his Renaissance book, "The Prince", he says that "The end justifies the means." What he means by this is that political campaigns should only be judged by their overall result, not by the means by which it is accomplished. Once again, in all honesty, Hitler's "end", so to speak, was very beneficial for Germany. He had hoped to restore Germany to the superpower it had been before and during World War I. However, the "means" by which he set out to accomplish this, (i.e. the holocaust) are appalingly evil.

Hitler could be argued as evil depending on who's perspective you push the arguement from: Hitler's perspective or a historian's perspective.

[Tycoon]

Will anyone argue that killing 6 million people is not an inherently evil action? I don't give a crap what was going on in a sick man's mind, and even he might agree that killing 6 million people was a regrettable necessity, I don't think he thought the act of killing was good in itself..

Hitler would have. Regardless of whether or not he was in his right mind, to him it was a good action, not an evil one. Therefore good and evil are only matters of perspective. I suggest that Hitler is a bad example, considering the Holocaust was such a morally terrible act. There are definately smaller examples that can be analyzed.

Abortion, for example.

And if that isn't your cup of tea, I recall a story where a woman found out she was a carrier for a sex-linked disease. Her two children, who I believe were in their twenties to thirties made her promise that she would shoot them if they ever showed symptoms of the disease, which would have led to a slow and painful death. They both showed symptoms, and she carried out her promise.

[Dagda]

Don't worry... the effects of crack are only temporary. Do you think I don't have evil thoughts running through my brain even as I type this? Do you want to go on record as saying you've never had an evil thought and acted upon it?

I have had selfish thoughts but please, give me an example of an evil one.

Will anyone argue that killing 6 million people is not an inherently evil action? I don't give a crap what was going on in a sick man's mind, and even he might agree that killing 6 million people was a regrettable necessity, I don't think he thought the act of killing was good in itself..

I whould argue that it was a selfish act, not an evil one. Hitler acted selfishly by putting the needs of the German people before that of other races. The Holocuast provided him, politicaly, with a scapegoat that allowed him to maintain power which benifited himself and his party as well as Germany. He put the needs of a few over the many and slughtered millions to give benifits to whom he concidered the master race. So, no it wasn't evil it was mearly a terribly selfish and brutal act with selfish intent.

[Morality Games]

'Good' and 'evil' have their origins in emotions -- what makes me feel frustrated or scared for prolonged or reoccuring periods of time becomes 'evil' and what contributes postively toward my experience of life becomes 'good' -- everything after that is a rationalization. What a person finds 'good and evil' typically relates to the culture they were born into, as these psychologically condition them to accept a value set and to be amazed at "the wickedness of the neighbor."

[wyoguy]

Quote by: Dagda I have had selfish thoughts but please, give me an example of an evil one.

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." ~John 3:18-19~

"But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." ~James 3:14-17~

I propose that selfish thoughts are the seeds from which evil thoughts and deeds are made manifest.

"This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, “I have done no wickedness.” ~Proverbs 30:20~

Is it such a new thing to deny the presence of evil, born of selfish lusts?

“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" ~Jeremiah 17:9~

Who can know it indeed. That's where the rubber meets the road. Our sin nature revealed.

[Dagda]

These are not examples of evil thoughts and your argument only stands up if there is a clear example.

[wyoguy]

Example:

Bob didn't have the easiest of childhoods. He was the only child of a divorced mother and his mom was a man-basher and full of bitterness over the way Bob's father had left them both to fend for themselves. Bob was the ever-present target for a lot of the anger and hostility vented by his mother.

By the time Bob reached the age of 14, he had harbored an enormous load of resentment and anger towards women stemming from the demasculinating years with his mother. In his heart of hearts, he wanted nothing more than to empower himself so that he didn't feel so small and worthless. (Herein lies the seeds of selfishness)

Over the next few years, Bob floundered through a few encounters with females, always marked with hatred and verbal abuse. By the time he reached the age of 18, Bob had it firmly etched into his mind that the easiest way to feel manly and powerful was to cause pain and suffering upon women. (The seeds of selfishness have given rise to the evil intent)

Bob launched his career as a serial rapist before he had reached the age of 20. He would drift from town to town, keeping to himself and picking up dead-end temporary jobs. All the while he was seeking and stalking victims in an attempt to fill the bottomless void. (The evil intent has born fruit in the evil deed)

Bob is now in a maximum security correctional facility. Every week, he meets with a therapist who helps him to shift the responsibility of his actions off of himself and on to his mother, who's been dead for a couple of years now. (Secular Humanism + Therapist = bandaid over sucking chest wound)

In two years, Bob is up for parole and he will be further armed with the notion that it's just not his fault.

[Thanatos]

Barring certain pathologies of the brain you have an intrinsic understanding of what is and is not right. Most people just shove it under the rug because empathy can be an inconvenient thing to have. It makes you do all sorts of stupid stuff.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Hitler would have. Regardless of whether or not he was in his right mind, to him it was a good action, not an evil one. Therefore good and evil are only matters of perspective. I suggest that Hitler is a bad example, considering the Holocaust was such a morally terrible act. There are definately smaller examples that can be analyzed.

A good example is killing another person. If you come at me with a lead pipe, I grab it and hit you over the head, the act of killing you is still evil, no matter how much my life depended on it. I'll regret having to kill you for the rest of my life most likely, but I also realize that the evil action was necessary.

[another day]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It is certainly possible to do evil on purpose, but evil is defined by action, not intent. Killing 6 million jews is an evil action, no matter how well you intentioned the perfecting of a master race.

Yeah. There has never been a bad guy who didn't think he was doing a good thing. Hitler indeed thought his holocaust was the most noble pursuit. School shooters believe their actions are noble as they are "teaching people a lesson" about bullying or getting the world back for being so depraved and rotten.

Hitler would have. Regardless of whether or not he was in his right mind, to him it was a good action, not an evil one. Therefore good and evil are only matters of perspective. I suggest that Hitler is a bad example, considering the Holocaust was such a morally terrible act. There are definately smaller examples that can be analyzed.

This postmodernist, everything is subjective approach is old and tiresome. Just because two people have two perspectives, doesn't mean they are both valid or both wrong.

[Tycoon]

A good example is killing another person. If you come at me with a lead pipe, I grab it and hit you over the head, the act of killing you is still evil, no matter how much my life depended on it. I'll regret having to kill you for the rest of my life most likely, but I also realize that the evil action was necessary.

If that is the case, then I suggest that it is a matter of whether or not the ends justify the means.

[Dagda]

A good example is killing another person. If you come at me with a lead pipe, I grab it and hit you over the head, the act of killing you is still evil, no matter how much my life depended on it. I'll regret having to kill you for the rest of my life most likely, but I also realize that the evil action was necessary.

You have not proven why this action is not mearly selfish rather than evil. You could say that is evil, I could say that is selfish. Give me proof of evil in the intent or even the consepuence which can not be defined as selfish as well.

n two years, Bob is up for parole and he will be further armed with the notion that it's just not his fault.

Again, not evil mearly selfish. Bob killed those women out of a selfish desire to fill a void in his life.

Lets try an old Socrates aproach. Someone define evil and we will go from there.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Tycoon If that is the case, then I suggest that it is a matter of whether or not the ends justify the means.

The ends cannot make the means morally good. The good of the ends may justify the evil of the means, but the means are still evil.

[LaW]

BEforE I BEGIn, I am GoInG to say that I am only GEnEralIzInG thInGs.
I cannot, and wIll not, dEfInE EvEry possIBlE sItuatIon, sIncE EvEry sItuatIon has Its own slant.

thEsE ExamplE Is on thE assumptIon that EvIl and Good arE madE throuGh actIon's and EmotIon's




I thInk that Good and EvIl arE dEfInEd throuGh thE EmotIons that othEr pEoplE fEEl aBout thE actIons of othErs.

ExamplEs.

1. I kIllEd BoB's BEst frIEnd. BoB fEEls anGEr. BoB's anGEr turns mE Into an EvIl pErson In BoB's mInd.
2. I am nIcE to joE. joE Is happy. joE's happInEss turns mE Into a Good pErson In joE's mInd.





But thEn thErE arE tImEs whErE you arE forcEd to hurt somEonE.

ExamplE.

A Good ExamplE Is kIllInG anothEr pErson. If you comE at mE wIth a lEad pIpE, I GraB It and hIt you ovEr thE hEad, thE act of kIllInG you Is stIll EvIl, no mattEr how much my lIfE dEpEndEd on It. I'll rEGrEt havInG to kIll you for thE rEst of my lIfE most lIkEly, But I also rEalIzE that thE EvIl actIon was nEcEssary.

Is thIs consIdErEd EvIl? yEs...no...?



thE pErson who Is dEad cannot dEcIdE sIncE thEy arE dEad, so thE pEoplE around thEm can EIthEr undErstand thE posItIon thE dEfEndEr was, or not. thus, thIs

ExamplE can Go EIthEr way.

But lEts look at It In a smallEr scalE.

ExamplE.

I callEd you a namE. you arE sad. your sadnEss EvolvEs Into hatrEd. your hatrEd towards mE causEs you to vIEw mE as EvIl.

REssEntImEnt Is a rEassIGnmEnt of thE paIn that accompanIEs a sEnsE of onE's own InfErIorIty/faIlurE onto an ExtErnal scapEGoat. ThE EGo crEatEs thE IllusIon of an EnEmy, a causE that can BE "BlamEd" for onE's own InfErIorIty/faIlurE. Thus, onE was thwartEd not By a faIlurE In onEsElf, But rathEr By an ExtErnal "EvIl". ThIs IssuInG of "BlamE" lEads onE to dEsIrE rEvEnGE, or at lEast BElIEvE In thE possIBIlIty of rEvEnGE; thIs lust for rEvEnGE may takE many forms, as In thE ChrIstIan concEptIon of thE Last JudGmEnt, or thE socIalIst concEptIon of rEvolutIon. In Each casE, a sEnsE of powErlEssnEss crEatEs thE IllusIon of an EnEmy; onE suddEnly concEIvEs onEsElf to BE opprEssEd rathEr than mErEly wEak, a phEnomEnon that spawns ExtErnally-dIrEctEd BIttErnEss (lust for a pErcEIvEd "rEvEnGE"). REssEntImEnt comEs from rEactIvEnEss: thE wEakEr a man Is, thE lEss hIs capaBIlIty for adIaphorIa, I.E. to supprEss rEactIon. And on thE contrary, thE morE a man Is actIvE, stronG-wIllEd and dynamIc, thE lEss placE and tImE Is lEft for contEmplatInG all that Is donE to hIm, and hIs rEactIons (lIkE ImaGInInG hE Is actually BEttEr) BEcomE lEss compulsIvE. ThE rEactIon of a stronG-wIllEd man (a "wIld BEast"), whEn It happEns, Is IdEally a short actIon: It Is not a prolonGEd fIllInG of hIs IntEllEct.

I aGrEE.





I know that thErE arE dEfInItEly somE flaws to my post so I wIll just oBsErvE and dEpEndInG on thE flaw, my opInIon may or may not chanGE.
and aGaIn, I cannot dEscrIbE EvEry sInGlE sItuatIon. thIs Is just a GEnEralIzatIon.