The nature of evil.

[bikkeldesnikkel]

lol, so true

[Guest]

If you like philosphy maybe.

[Guest]

3 pages

anything worth reading ?


really ?

It's probably one of my more thought out threads

[^misantropia^]

3 pages

anything worth reading ?


really ?

Only when you're into philosophy/ethics. Happy BD BTW

[losCHUNK]

awww

cheers buddy

and ill read this when im stoned, whcih might be quite a while

[tnf]

3 pages

anything worth reading ?


really ?

It's probably one of my more thought out threads

Which still isn't saying a hell of a lot.

[Guest]

Bah I like my threads. Some make sense some don't but they do to me. If something makes sense in my mind I'll talk about it. Sometimes I realize when I'm wrong but other times even when I'm told I'm wrong I just won't admit it because the facts shown that I'm wrong don't convince me.

[^misantropia^]

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.

A few premises.

1) Breaking the law is evil.
2) Evil people should be dealt with most rigoroursly.

Which would mean that people who don't pay their taxes should receive the harshest punishment possible, right? You propose to fry 'em on Old Sparky?

we have religion

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

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.

Eh, well... okay. I have been adulterous at times. Still, I don't think I'm the most wicked person walking this earth (anyone who dares to beg the difference will have to back this up with cold facts).

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

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

That's debatable...

Is it? How many societies (have existed/do exist) that'd allow me to rape their grandmothers and slaughter their kids. There are some rules that shouldn't be broken if you don't want civilization to fall apart. Even I, an atheist, can see the intrinsic value in the Ten Commandments (most of them, anyway).

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.

Roger

[Guest]

Well I did state earlier, which you might have missed that for this discussion I would label any act that I concider evil, evil. That doesn't mean there aren't variations or degrees of evil. Like there's a difference between stealing from a cookie jar and killing your grandmother. Yet both could be construed as evil. Of course one is much more forgivable than the other.


As for the civilization thing I just misread what you posted. I do however think that basing a moral value on religion is bad because that leaves the person open to manipulation. It's not the moral that's important it's the religion. The religion says do this, so you do it. Luckily for us, at the moment, most things religious are kept in check by actual law's but once upon a time it wasn't. Religion was the law so if they told you to go kill your fellow countryment you did it. Wars ensued, crusades etc etc because people were told what to do in the name of religion. This is still true in many parts on earth, middle east would be a good example. The problem isn't that the morals that are taught aren't good it's that they are secondary to god, which they shouldn't be.

[[xeno]Julios]

I beleive the nature of evil is the lack of empathy. That is, every other feeling, greed, anger, vengeance is secondary to the lack of empathy towards other people.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.

The inability (or refusal) to put one's self in another person's mind renders things like the golden rule of reciprocity emotionally sterile.

too tired to write more right now.

btw i think you guys meant sadism not masochism.

[MKJ]

another kracus thread :icon14:

[diego]

another kracus thread :icon14:

[Ryoki]

I beleive the nature of evil is the lack of empathy. That is, every other feeling, greed, anger, vengeance is secondary to the lack of empathy towards other people.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.

The inability (or refusal) to put one's self in another person's mind renders things like the golden rule of reciprocity emotionally sterile.

I very much disagree. Someone who <i>can</i> put one's self in another persons mind and still commit heinous things is far more 'evil' than any sociopath. The rules of society aren't clear at all to people who feel no empathy, how can you call them evil?

I'd call them in need of help (wait, i think i already said that somewhere).

[Duhard]

lots of morons in here...maybe misguided

[[xeno]Julios]

I beleive the nature of evil is the lack of empathy. That is, every other feeling, greed, anger, vengeance is secondary to the lack of empathy towards other people.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.

The inability (or refusal) to put one's self in another person's mind renders things like the golden rule of reciprocity emotionally sterile.

I very much disagree. Someone who <i>can</i> put one's self in another persons mind and still commit heinous things is far more 'evil' than any sociopath. The rules of society aren't clear at all to people who feel no empathy, how can you call them evil?

I'd call them in need of help (wait, i think i already said that somewhere).

I never said it was a sufficient condition, but that it might well be a necessary one.

[[xeno]Julios]

and there is a difference between evil emerging out of conditions, and someone being "evil".

[Guest]

I beleive the nature of evil is the lack of empathy. That is, every other feeling, greed, anger, vengeance is secondary to the lack of empathy towards other people.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.

The inability (or refusal) to put one's self in another person's mind renders things like the golden rule of reciprocity emotionally sterile.

I very much disagree. Someone who <i>can</i> put one's self in another persons mind and still commit heinous things is far more 'evil' than any sociopath. The rules of society aren't clear at all to people who feel no empathy, how can you call them evil?

I'd call them in need of help (wait, i think i already said that somewhere).

I'm not saying that because a person lacks empathy that person is evil. I'm saying a lack of Empathy is in the nature of evil. Meaning people that commit inherently evil acts, to whatever degree, lack that empathy, it's a common trait among all evil acts, whether it be through individuals or a mob that lack of empathy is there.

It's possible for someone to commit an evil act without it's knowledge but then the person committing the act does not know and should therfore be innocent. Say a father stealing bread to feed his family. It's not a lack of empathy towards the person he is stealing from that causes him to steal it is his need to feed his family, would you concider this evil? I wouldn't.

[Guest]

Although perhaps at the moment of the crime he certainly didn't feel any empathy towards those he was stealing from perhaps he will later, but I would still not concider it evil, even if it may be against the law.