The nature of evil.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

Not at all. However, my point was that this lack of empathy is why people commit evil crimes and as it so happens people that suffer from this illness are concidered dangerous. The reason they are dangerous is because they have a tendancy to physicly attack people and even kill them because of the fact they can't feel any empathy towards them.

look it all comes down to the brain. the brain could either malfunction, or people could have unnormal thoughtpatterns, caused by whatever trauma, or "not normal" childhood.

still i don't see a clear point in any of your posts, what are you talking about? okay, empathy... empathy being the cause of all evil.. if you talk in these terms, you cant discuss it. empathy and evil are opinions.

Sorry they aren't, evil is a description. and Empathy is a human emotion. not an opinion.

evil could be a description... a description of an OPNINION. evil is not a fact.

[Guest]

I beleive it is. I think it would be very simple for me to commit an act against you and for you to concider it evil. Just because I can't clearly define it doesn't mean someone else hasn't.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

[/b]I beleive it is. I think it would be very simple for me to commit an act against you and for you to concider it evil. Just because I can't clearly define it doesn't mean someone else hasn't.

that's the key

man im tryin to emphasize CONCIDER but its not working.

[Ryoki]

morals change drastically over time.

That's evolution, what are you laughing at?

It's not one line evolution, there's as many ideas about good and evil out there as there are people. Or at least civilisations, because your ideas and mine may actually not be as far apart as our ideas and those of someone from the Pwa Molo Molo tribe in Papua New Guinea.

[Guest]

Well depending on what pwa molo molo's tribe in New guinea see's as being evil then that would be evil. If chopping the head off someone for somekind of religious tradition is acceptable in that society and that the person who's head is being chopped off is also in agreement with the act then no, it would not be an evil act. The person who chops that persons head off is empathetic to the other, just as the one losing his head wants it to be done. It again falls under the same scenario as a mercy killing in which case empathy has nothing to do with it. HOWEVER, neither side beleives the other is commiting something evil at the time of the deed.

That is different than someone killing you against your will in which case the one doing the killing is not emphatic towards the one being killed.

[Guest]

That's however is a good example of how religion can brainwash the human mind into commiting an act against another that isn't really desirable.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

yeah. kracus, i think you are just trying to say something and inadvertedly you turn it into a discussion, which it isn't.. cuz you're not really discussiing. i dont really see a point in this all

[Guest]

Probably because you don't understand what I'm saying.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

Probably because you don't understand what I'm saying.

no i do... there just isn't any point to your post. what are ya trying to say with this empathy shit? all you say is just some mind garble, and you don't have a clear statement or anything.

[Guest]

What don't you understand?

Empathy, the feeling one has for other peoples feelings IE: if someone is sad you feel sad for them.

The lack of Empathy is the nature of evil.

The nature of something is like burning, is in the nature of fire or helping is in the nature of good. A lack of empathy is THE nature of evil.

[tnf]

If I steal from someone it is because I don't care what they will feel afterwards. Perhaps I'll feel a bit guilty later on, things change, but at the time when I took it I certainly did not feel that way.

That's bullocks. That would make a teenager (insert petty, little crime like shoplifting, burglary, etc) evil. What he does may be a bad thing, but I doubt his soul will be lost forever.

I never said that....(the words in the quote)

[Guest]

Me neither... ???

[Guest]

I said what you're quoting though, but I didn't say what's quoted as what I said... if that makes sense.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

hehe okay, i got that, i guess what i was trying to say that this discussion is pointless. since evilness is an opinion. allright, you can continue your discussion now

[Tormentius]

Well it depends on the situation. A Masochist that sodomizes a victim that does not wish to be sodomized does not emphasize with his victim. He does it to fulfill somekind of desire ignoring those of his victims. Therfore the masochist is devoid of empathy for his victim.

Interesting picture . Just an FYI, a masochist is someone who likes to receive pain. You're thinking of sadist, but your example more closely resembles the headspace of a sociopath.

yeah. kracus, i think you are just trying to say something and inadvertedly you turn it into a discussion, which it isn't.. cuz you're not really discussiing. i dont really see a point in this all

Thats pretty usual for a Kracus "thought" thread. They're usually just opinionated rants masked as discussion.

[^misantropia^]

I never said that....(the words in the quote)

I might've misread/misunderstood your post. Clarify if you care to.

[tnf]

And, yes...you keep saying 'evil.' By what standard is killing everyone evil? What is the basis for good? This is why I asked, at the beginning, what makes one morality better than another? What is the 'golden rule' by which we measure all other moralities? And if empathy is the defining characteristic of a morality that is 'good' - why is this so?

I'm trying to make sense of all your comments (I was out for lunch ) but I'll start with this one.

You're correct on the fact that one morality might not be any better than another but any action inherently viewed as evil is what I'm talking about. You can argue the semantics of what is concidered an evil act all you want but at core you as well as anyone else civilized enough can usualy detect it just at face value. To kill someone in cold blood. To steal something of value to someone. To hurt someone, whether physicaly or emotionaly without provocation.

So why do we detect these things at face value? I'm kind of playing Socrates here...in the sense of just asking question after question, but WHY do we know those things are bad?

Just because "most people can recognize them as good" doesn't really answer the question.

[tnf]

I never said that....(the words in the quote)

I might've misread/misunderstood your post. Clarify if you care to.

You messed up when you were quoting. It was Kracus that said that, and my post was embedded in his post that you were quoting. When you were trying to get rid of the extra stuff, you didn't pay attention to the embedded quotes. That is what you misread.

[^misantropia^]

You messed up when you were quoting. It was Kracus that said that, and my post was embedded in his post that you were quoting.

My bad. Sorry.

[Guest]

And, yes...you keep saying 'evil.' By what standard is killing everyone evil? What is the basis for good? This is why I asked, at the beginning, what makes one morality better than another? What is the 'golden rule' by which we measure all other moralities? And if empathy is the defining characteristic of a morality that is 'good' - why is this so?

I'm trying to make sense of all your comments (I was out for lunch ) but I'll start with this one.

You're correct on the fact that one morality might not be any better than another but any action inherently viewed as evil is what I'm talking about. You can argue the semantics of what is concidered an evil act all you want but at core you as well as anyone else civilized enough can usualy detect it just at face value. To kill someone in cold blood. To steal something of value to someone. To hurt someone, whether physicaly or emotionaly without provocation.

So why do we detect these things at face value? I'm kind of playing Socrates here...in the sense of just asking question after question, but WHY do we know those things are bad?

Just because "most people can recognize them as good" doesn't really answer the question.

Well first off we have laws. Those should be clear enough. Second we have religion, which unfortunately, many people are taught from a young age. There really aren't many children that are raised atheist that I'm aware of really. But those morals are taught to children from a young age.

However, beyond all that is yourself. You know what you want and desire and to obtain what you want or desire by taking from others you understand is evil because just as you have a desire to have something you desire not to lose it. Should someone take it from you that would likely hurt you in an emotional sense.

You don't have to be taught this by religion or by law to understand because it is instinct. An animal that works to kill a prey does not want it to be stolen. Just like we do not want our possessions to be stolen, or our life to be taken. Unless we're brainwashed. It's standard human instinct really.

[^misantropia^]

Well first off we have laws.

- Tax evasion. Would that be considered irreversibly evil?

we have religion

- "You shall not commit adultery". Very common. Evil?

There really aren't many children that are raised atheist that I'm aware of really.

Might depend on geographical location. I'm an atheist (not to be confused with a humanist), so were my parents and so are a lot of my fellow Dutchmen.

But those morals are taught to children from a young age.

Yes, because they're sane statements in most if not all civilizations.

You don't have to be taught this by religion or by law to understand because it is instinct.

It isn't. Google for Piaget (especially the infamous stage 0).

EDIT: kracus, I'm not trying to dispute your every point, just trying to state evil is not a constant. If I were to kill the entire population of our planet, do you think the universe would even raise a brow?

Hope this all makes sense. I'm about 2 litres away from sobriety

[Guest]

Well first off we have laws.

- Tax evasion. Would that be considered irreversibly evil?

Yes, technicly you're not empathetic to the goverment's demand for your tax money. It's easy not to be empathetic to an organization but really if you don't you're really hurting the population as a whole rather than the goverment but it's still being unempathetic.

we have religion

- "You shall not commit adultery". Very common. Evil?[/quote]

I would say yes since you're aware doing so will emotionaly hurt your spouse or other half should that person find out which means again you don't care about how she feels. Perhaps you will once caught but at the time you didn't.

There really aren't many children that are raised atheist that I'm aware of really.

Might depend on geographical location. I'm an atheist (not to be confused with a humanist), so were my parents and so are a lot of my fellow Dutchmen.[/Quote]

I would say that's an acurate statement.

But those morals are taught to children from a young age.

Yes, because they're sane statements in most if not all civilizations.[/Quote]

That's debatable...

You don't have to be taught this by religion or by law to understand because it is instinct.

It isn't. Google for Piaget (especially the infamous stage 0).

EDIT: kracus, I'm not trying to dispute your every point, just trying to state evil is not a constant. If I were to kill the entire population of our planet, do you think the universe would even raise a brow?

Hope this all makes sense. I'm about 2 litres away from sobriety [/quote]

I understand and don't think I dislike the discussion. I'll argue my point as well and don't think I'm doing so in malice, I'm just discussing the topic.

As for your point no, the universe wouldn't really notice. But I would.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

na ah, you'd be dead, you wouldnt notice

[Guest]

I meant I'd notice the world blowing up. Hard to miss. I certainly wouldn't want it to happen however I will say this.

Given the choice between killing myself or the world by aliens I would choose to destroy the world. Does that make me inherently evil to commit such an act?

[losCHUNK]

3 pages

anything worth reading ?


really ?