'There Is No Such Thing as Absolute Evil'

[PatrickHenry]

... my imagination cannot sustain nor defend the presence of spirits as palpable beings;

I respect that...Would anyone respect my statement that I have experienced such?

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Would anyone respect my statement that I have experienced such?

Why not PatrickHenry, you are a man of honour, and we cannot experience the exact same as you.

Thus would you respect our inability to fully relate..

[PatrickHenry]

There are many unexplained events and situations.

If a person's logic encounters the unreasonable, what is he to do?

Just let it lie? Or expand his horizons?

[Morality Games]

'Evil' is an archaic concept. An emotionally immature way of thinking about some of the more frustrating behaviors prevalent in human relationships. Its not enough for some people that they are unfortunate in their dealings with others -- the people they are having difficulties with need to be cosmically condemned by some measure that is (feels) more permanent than their own judgment.

[Calam]

I had a long, deep, intense conversation with someone about this recently. After several weeks of posting, they insulted me and left the argument.

I am hesitant to join arguments of this nature every since...

[key wish]

I can see no reason why there could not be absolute evil.

Absolute is to be free from imperfection. I would consider an evil being imperfect but the being in question may not think as such.

So in this case absolute evil would be all evil with a complete absence of good. Any good found would be the imperfection keeping the evil one in question from being absolute.

Do evil people have to guard against accidently being good? Do they have to try and be evil as hard as they can or does it just come natural. Because it is an act of falling does it mean that evil pulls and an evil one does not have to struggle from being good. He just floats down to evil and when it does not care for anything but itself and the only thing that makes it happy is itself and what it can get for itself and no more good remains at all it has become absolute evil. Any good act it would want to do would only seem good but in reality be a means to an evil end. It would know this out right in its plans and plots.

Verges mentions hitler and his love for a pet. That struck me because I know someone who thinks all good people love animals. "Anyone who cares for animals that much must be good" I had heard her say. I would retort "What about Hitler, he loved his dog but killed millions by forced labor and starvation. Was he good?"

To my surprise her answer was "If he loved his dog he couldn't be all bad." So I left the discussion knowing monsters love pets to.

So now would I say Hitler was not absolute evil.

What if Hitler's dog only fulfilled a need Hitler had for some kind of love or affection. Some thing that loved him but he did not have to love back. He did not love the dog. He loved what the dog gave him. As I said any good absolute evil would do would only be a means to an evil end. Selfish is evil. What if he really didn't care about the dog at all and could replace the dog with any other dog at any time for his own self gratification.

Was Hitler absolute evil? I don't know. But I do know if there is evil and good there must be absolute evil.

That is where you will find absolute evil. An intelligently cognizant being that cared for nothing but itself and its own needs and powers and never sought to do anything for the benefit of anything else.

[Electric Hermit]

"Evil" is an empty term. Not only does it explain nothing, it is invariably used as a device to avoid uncomfortable explanations. By labelling a person as "evil", we set them apart from "us". We remove them from the realm of humanity so that we don't have to face the fact that they are not so very different from ourselves. That they are, in fact, connected to us inevitably and irrevocably by virtue of our shared humanity.

It relieves us of the responsibility to examine the thing being so labelled lest, unwrapping the thing, we discover our own reflection.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Evil is relative, but society certainly has developed certain categories that allow us to know what it considers to be evil.

[Dadoo]

I respect that...Would anyone respect my statement that I have experienced such?

I respect that. Having never touched that lodestone, I can't deny your experience, at all.

[key wish]

"Evil" is an empty term. Not only does it explain nothing, it is invariably used as a device to avoid uncomfortable explanations. By labelling a person as "evil", we set them apart from "us". We remove them from the realm of humanity so that we don't have to face the fact that they are not so very different from ourselves. That they are, in fact, connected to us inevitably and irrevocably by virtue of our shared humanity.

It relieves us of the responsibility to examine the thing being so labelled lest, unwrapping the thing, we discover our own reflection.

I will say that was very well written. I read it three times because it sounded so nice. I knew it didn't make any sense after the first read though. Still it sounds great.

The terms hot and cold may both be relevant to the enviroment one has just come out of but it does not mean the two terms explain nothing.

The term evil helps explain many things.

It explains the difference between someone who is only after their own desires and a person who , by nature, has to look at the impact he will have on others through his actions.

It explains the difference between a person who would lie for any reason of self gratification and a person who hates a lie even if he had done it before and again but coiled in regret every time he thinks of it.

It explains the difference between a person with a conscience who wonders if what he is doing is wrong (or evil) and the person who has bashed their conscience to death so it no longer can comunicate with him.

It explains the difference between a selfless act and a selfish one.

I have no idea what reflection you may have looked at but I know it is not one I have looked at. Good and evil exist. Many things you can not measure with a slide rule exist and the fact that you can not measure them with the cold accuracy of science (Or at least its supposed accuracy) is what makes you dislike the terms.

Do you really know what kind of world you will have when you get your way (I am making a supposition about you beliefs) and all things are made equal? No more evil or good.

There is absolute evil.

The term evil has not been rendered useless yet. When it has been it will be a very cold and dark world.

[Electric Hermit]

Do you really know what kind of world you will have when you get your way (I am making a supposition about you beliefs) and all things are made equal? No more evil or good..

I have no idea what this is about.

You appear to have run away with the idea that in deprecating the term "evil" I am denying the actuality of the acts commonly afforded this epithet. You are entirely mistaken in this. I maintain only that the word ahs no explanatory power. And, indeed, that it is very often used a device to evade explanation.

For example, when some particularly horrific crime is committed against a child the perpetrator will invariably be branded "evil", as if this was all that needed to be said on the matter. This also tends to signal that further enquiry into any aspect of the perpetrator's character, past life, possible motives etc. will be actively discouraged.

I dislike anything which seeks to inhibit the spirit of scientific enquiry.

[key wish]

I have no idea what this is about.

You appear to have run away with the idea that in deprecating the term "evil" I am denying the actuality of the acts commonly afforded this epithet. You are entirely mistaken in this. I maintain only that the word ahs no explanatory power. And, indeed, that it is very often used a device to evade explanation.

For example, when some particularly horrific crime is committed against a child the perpetrator will invariably be branded "evil", as if this was all that needed to be said on the matter. This also tends to signal that further enquiry into any aspect of the perpetrator's character, past life, possible motives etc. will be actively discouraged.

I dislike anything which seeks to inhibit the spirit of scientific enquiry.

Like I said it was a supposition of your beliefs. I will admit your belief (on the evil is a useless word) is more complicated than I first thought but you did not give me much to work with. If I understand what you are saying, to try and put it simply, the action people label is evil is a mechanical action of the person in question and is no different than a lion taking food from a weaker lion which is not evil because the lion is only doing a natural action dictated by his genetic makeup. Did I get that right.
I will assume I understand till you tell me other wise and continue.
Since you are not denying the actuality of the act (keeping with the child predator) then what would you call the act if not evil? Even if it boils down to science it would need a label.

In this case I would say the child predator was evil. The person in questioned prayed on the weak and (probably) innocent for his own self gratification. If we remove terms such as evil from our lexicon we would find, in a not to distant future, that right and wrong would be blurred to the point of non recognition. I don't see how you can see the "actuality of (an) act" and not have a right or wrong , good or evil label.

Or did I miss your point again.