Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:46 am
lol, so true
It's probably one of my more thought out threadslosCHUNK wrote:3 pages
anything worth reading ?
really ?
Only when you're into philosophy/ethics. Happy BD BTWlosCHUNK wrote:3 pages
anything worth reading ?
really ?
Which still isn't saying a hell of a lot.Kracus wrote:It's probably one of my more thought out threadslosCHUNK wrote:3 pages
anything worth reading ?
really ?
A few premises.Kracus wrote:Kracus wrote:Well first off we have laws.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.^misantropia^ wrote:
- Tax evasion. Would that be considered irreversibly evil?
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).Kracus wrote:we have religionI 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.^misantropia^ wrote:
- "You shall not commit adultery". Very common. Evil?
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).Kracus wrote:Kracus wrote:But those morals are taught to children from a young age.That's debatable...^misantropia^ wrote:
Yes, because they're sane statements in most if not all civilizations.
RogerKracus wrote: 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.
Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.Kracus wrote: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.
MKJ wrote:another kracus thread :icon14:
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?[xeno]Julios wrote:Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.Kracus wrote: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.
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 never said it was a sufficient condition, but that it might well be a necessary one.Ryoki wrote: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?[xeno]Julios wrote:Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.Kracus wrote: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.
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'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.Ryoki wrote: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?[xeno]Julios wrote:Haven't read the whole thread yet, but there is a lot of wisdom in this idea.Kracus wrote: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.
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'd call them in need of help (wait, i think i already said that somewhere).