The definition of evil

Clay_Allison · **Posted:** Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:24 pm

Rae wrote:

Ok, main thing I feel like addressing: "Do unto others as ye would hav done unto you."

Is this good? Is it evil? Or is it just a decent common sense that being trying to survive would do. Also, what of the inverse: Do unto others as they do unto you? We aren't a nice society, and as such, we tend to be really mean. If we would not want harm inflicted unto us, then we go into the "Turn the Other Cheek"mentality, which I personally see as an evil. To quote a famous speach: "If you prick us, do we not bleed, if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"
The idea Clay presented isn't a matter of good or evil but of "rights," which I see as a governing common sense that is superficial and based soley on everyone else's fear of losing them. Why do we not murder? For fear of losing our own life, not because it's "wrong" or "evil." I am sure most teenagers have found that one person that irked them to the point of seething, if not passing, hatred and, if they did not fear the repercussions of the act, they would have sought to hurt said person. Thus, are we all inherently evil because we have had urges to do evil that were only held in check by the desire to maintain our rights? By some fundemental viewpoints, yes. In truth, no. The reason the rules are in place is to serve as a warning and a safeguard because it is natural to want to go against them. Why were they set? To preserve the "rights" if the ones that had the power to put them in place. Does this make them absolute and objective? No.
Why did Stalin kill all those people? Because he knew he could get away with it. He wasn't evil, he was above the rights of others due to his circumstances. Stalin certainly wasn't a person I'd want to meet, but in his own eyes, he was doing "good." He was preserving his own life as best he knew how. Sadly, he was clinically paranoid and went overboard.
So, the next thing I might as well say before someone calls me on it: No, I don't think humans have inherent rights or are equal. We may be born equal, but through our actions and even nature, that equality is quickly lost. I like to think myself has far above a mentally incapible killer. Nature lowered said person's standing in society by not making him physically and mentally my equal, chance might have born said person into a different socio-economic class, and the actions the person took removed any rights that person still shared with me. After all, if rights wear inherent, then a madman with a gun couldn't take them from you, could he?

I'll shut up for now, seeing as I'm left a long ramble across several subjects above. I am curious to see how many people will read this.

-Rae, the philosophical Network Whore

Often insightful, often rambling, Rae.

That's ok, though, people describe me the same way. I suppose then that part of the reason that murder doesn't bother me is because I am not afraid of getting killed. I have been nursing a viking death wish for a while now, so I am callous to killing in Iraq or elsewhere. After all, they got to die by the sword, what more could they want?

Unum Plurum · **Posted:** Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:17 pm

Hadn't really thought about the religious aspect. Although, because religion has some deep flaws I don't think anyone here would defend, you can't really feel justified in killing someone just because they've deluded themselves into thinking it'll be even better in heaven. Also, just because you have a death wish doesn't mean you can just kill anyone else. That would totally go against any serious principles, unless you believe yourself to be all-knowing.

Rae · **Posted:** Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:47 pm

Unum, the point I'm making is that not everyone sees "common sense" and "seriousness" like you do. If a person has the "serious" feeling that they have no inherent right to live, then they could feel that everyone else is the same and, in their mind, be completely justified in killing anyone that they saw on a whim. Hell, I'll pretty well guarntee my definition of good and evil is very much different than anyone elses, but that doesn't make any of them right or wrong.
[/rant]

-Rae the tired and pissed network bitch

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:19 am

Exactly what "deep flaws" does religion have?

Again, for scientific things read fractual geometry and look up "The Presence of the Past." Both of them really stomp on the "There's no way to explain God scientifically" arguement. The "cannot empirically SEE God" is a fallicy, since plenty of scientific theory today is based completely on things we have no empirical evidence to support, (string theory...Icy can throw up one or two more, I'm sure, since he's farther along in his studies than I am) and nobody is bashing THOSE because of 'lack of empirical evidence.'

All other things were flaws in people, not the religion. I doubt you can claim that, sans religion, nobody would want to kill, murder, or rule over others in a horrible way. Religion was just a tool they used, not the other way around.

What was it a friend said? "All people arguing against God and religion as good concepts have their philosophy back in the 18th century, and their physics back in the 19th century."

-MiB

Unum Plurum · **Posted:** Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:29 pm

But you haven't defended why the idea of God is beneficial either, or why, precisely, it does exist because it could exist. String theory is not used as an excuse for, say, mass genocide or war.

Mainly, though, I think religion generates a certain degree of its own "deep flaws". Just because "people would find an excuse for their actions anyway" doesn't mean that something which people think can excuse immoral actions is okay.

Also, think about religion's position as a limiting factor in social, political, and scientific development. The Scientific Revolution was produced in spite of Christianity; Protestantism lessened the effect of religion on everyday life, leading directly to the incredible advancement that was, say, the Enlightenment, over the religion-dominated Middle Ages.

Finally, I have a question. Does "The Presence of the Past" actually prove God's existence as much as, say, string theory has been proven, or does it just prove that it could be proven? There's always this basic assumption that atheists have the burden of proof; instead, I say, you prove to me that God does, in fact, exist, and I'll start going to a church of the denomination of His choice. Actually, I have another question. Are you defending religion on the basis of its societal benefits, or on the basis of its truth?

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:17 am

Quote:

But you haven't defended why the idea of God is beneficial either, or why, precisely, it does exist because it could exist. String theory is not used as an excuse for, say, mass genocide or war.

So now the arguement isn't weather God exists, but weather YOU feel god is beneficial?

All of your points are ill-researched. Instead of giving you a history lesson, I'll leave it up to you to find the information yourself. Since, to be frank, I doubt seriously that any facts I present will sway you from your dislike of religion. In addition, I wasn't talking about perticular organized religions (which are also political entities, ESPECIALLY in the middle ages- taking something that was at many levels more political than religious as a proper representation of how religion "works" is silly in the extreme.)

Oh, and as to your last point: the answer is "yes."

I'll say this, though: You can dismiss religions, even organized religion (as I do) but you cannot dismiss religion itself as bad. Its too wide a category, akin to dismissing an entire race of people as bad. All your "examples" are of organized religion- which I do not advocate at all. Religiousness is different from any perticular religion, understand?

I can see the possibility of a misunderstanding, where you confused the word "religion" to mean "certain organized religions who's origins are in europe and who's name starts with 'C' and ends in 'atholicism.'" I ask that, whatever beef you have with that religion, please leave it at the door when I am talking about religiousness, as I do not argue that organized religion has done plenty of harm, and I do not advocate it myself.

Look, I have no idea what the hell happened to make you hate religion so much. I'll leave you to discover whatever truth you'd like to yourself- when you're ready to get over 'organized religion' and move on to 'religiousness' then maybe we can have a discussion.

And btw, your arguement is a nice one for forcing the extinction of Islam. Funny, ne?

-MiB

IcyMonkey · **Posted:** Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:55 pm

It's not a matter of whether some religious people are nice. It isn't even a matter of whether religion is "right" or "wrong". The question is whether society would be better off without religion.

The Man In Black · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2003 6:53 am

It would be a complex arguement. How do you weigh the various goods and evils various organized religions have done throughout our existance?

'sa moot point, because you can't quantify it. In the end it comes down to your own personal prejudices.

-MiB

revolutio · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2003 6:04 pm

Most people have heard the old question: If you had a chance to go back and kill Adolf Hitler as a child or prevent him from being born, would you do it?

For most people that is an easy answer. However I would say no. Yes he was responsible for millions of deaths. Yes he laid waste to several countries. Though by that respect it would probably be "good" to kill him, it is also a gamble.

Had World War 2 never occured many technological and industrial leaps would not have been made. Nuclear power might have been many more years in the making. Nuclear weapons would not have arose, though this seems good, it was nuclear weapons that prevented the Cold War from turning hot.

The United States would still have the 23rd largest military on Earth. We might not have pulled out of our depression either.

What that has to do with religion is this: throughout history virtually everything has been affected by or been done in the name of religion. Were religion not an influencing factor it would have untold reprocussions on the world.

Mendel would never have become a monk and would not have studied plants. Michelangelo might never have become widely known. Kings might have never been able to convince peasants that they needed a leader since they would not be able to claim divine right. Much Indian architecture would never have been built. The pyramids would not exist.

So in the end, even if the net effect might be "good" there are too many variables and too many possibilities for me to recommend making that roll of dice.

P51mus · **Posted:** Fri May 02, 2003 1:12 pm

....I don't quite know if nuclear weapons prevented the cold war from becoming "hot", in fact their presence probably escalated the whole thing.

Simple concept- hostility breeds hostility, and remember that a good portion of the cold war was nuclear weapons being built up....
This is a different topic than the current one though.

ZOMBIE FORUMS

The definition of evil

Who is online