Quake3World

Kracus wrote: But that wasn't my original point. My original point was that a lack of empathy is the basis of all that is evil. Every evil act that is ever commited is because that person is not empathetic to the others feelings. Murder in self defense is not a crime for example.

I would still disagree...

People have done horrible things, even feeling remorse while doing them, and still gone through with it because they felt the cause (albeit an evil one) was greater than their own individual empathy.

MrSparkle wrote:Everyone is evil and people enjoy watching others suffer. (IE. Someone gets a flat tire on the highway, everyone rubber necks to see that sucker change his tire, and they get a kick out of it)

I don't. Your lack of empathy towards that person makes you feel that way.

tnf wrote:

Kracus wrote: But that wasn't my original point. My original point was that a lack of empathy is the basis of all that is evil. Every evil act that is ever commited is because that person is not empathetic to the others feelings. Murder in self defense is not a crime for example.

I would still disagree...

People have done horrible things, even feeling remorse while doing them, and still gone through with it because they felt the cause (albeit an evil one) was greater than their own individual empathy.

Ah yes but you just said the magic word, their OWN INDIVIDUAL empathy. Just like the germans slaughtered millions of jews, they did so because of the lack of empathy of a few individuals that ruled them and brainwashed them into thinking jews weren't really human, they were an inferior race. It all comes down to a lack of empathy towards the jews.

Kracus wrote:

MrSparkle wrote:Everyone is evil and people enjoy watching others suffer. (IE. Someone gets a flat tire on the highway, everyone rubber necks to see that sucker change his tire, and they get a kick out of it)

I don't. Your lack of empathy towards that person makes you feel that way.

NO! SHUT UP YOUR WRONG!

ugh, you can't just throw simple terms around. if you're talking about "evil" you're not talking scientifically

I would say it came down to viewing the Jews as 'less human' - a belief that had roots in things like eugenics. The lack of empathy would have been a result of that viewpoint.

Dehumanization then? A butcher might have a weak spot for Bertha 334 but he'll skin her nevertheless. He's not likely to do so with his wife.

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?

tnf wrote: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?

Confucious says you confuse me.

tnf wrote: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?

you got it

^misantropia^ wrote:Dehumanization then? A butcher might have a weak spot for Bertha 334 but he'll skin her nevertheless. He's not likely to do so with his wife.

Obviously. Seeing a race of people as inherently inferior (dehumanizing them) has happened before...there have even been people who tried to make a scientific basis for such a belief. That being the case, human empathy won't be attached to emotions felt towards them....

I am in the middle of playing Splinter Cell right now, though, so my comments are not well thought out at the moment.

Jules wrote a paper on this topic awhile back I believe...I think he sent me a copy of it.

MrSparkle wrote:

tnf wrote: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?

Confucious says you confuse me.

If we are going to classify one belief system, or system of morals, as being 'good' and another one 'evil' we need to have a basis for this comparison. What is it about 'good' that makes it so, and what is it about 'evil' that makes it so. Again, what is the standard 'set of morals' by which others are judged as being good or evil.

tnf wrote:

MrSparkle wrote:

tnf wrote: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?

Confucious says you confuse me.

If we are going to classify one belief system, or system of morals, as being 'good' and another one 'evil' we need to have a basis for this comparison. What is it about 'good' that makes it so, and what is it about 'evil' that makes it so. Again, what is the standard 'set of morals' by which others are judged as being good or evil.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Post a link or an excerpt if you want to, tnf.

^misantropia^ wrote:Post a link or an excerpt if you want to, tnf.

I don't know that Lewis's book is online, but he's written about that topic in a number of works...including the title I mentioned, and another one "The Problem of Pain."

As for the others, I'd have to dig back through my old philosphy textbooks from college...which was quite awhile ago. I get frustrated at the fact that I have all these bits of knowledge scattered around my brain from those classes but have forgotten the details like who wrote/said what and what book, etc., it was from.

But that was before the internet was big also. Just do some googling for something like

"nature of evil" philosphers comments

or sommat

MrSparkle wrote:
Thanks for clearing that up.

It's like if we say that person X is good at basketball and person Y isn't. We need qualifications - X can shoot, dribble, pass, dunk, etc. Y cannot.

That is quite simplified, but it is kind of what I am getting at.
There are probably other philosophical approaches to this, though, that are far superior to mine...

Talkin of evil, I just saw an awesome documentary about torture on BBC.

They enterviewed a bunch of well known tortureres and their victim and at the end they didn't feel sorry because of their action they did back in the time, because there was a purpose to their tortures: to extract information.

They also said that everybody can become a torturer if giving power over someone else.

tnf wrote: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.

It's all acts done because of the fact someone doesn't emphasize with someone else. The fact a bible states you can't do these things is irrelevant. In both cases the perpertrator does not feel what his victim feels. It's not a matter of the perpertrator not feeling anything, it's about them understanding what their victim feels. Empathy.

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.

Kracus wrote:

tnf wrote: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.

It's all acts done because of the fact someone doesn't emphasize with someone else. The fact a bible states you can't do these things is irrelevant. In both cases the perpertrator does not feel what his victim feels. It's not a matter of the perpertrator not feeling anything, it's about them understanding what their victim feels. Empathy.

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.

the point is that it IS about the way you grew up, evil/good isn't something stored in genes.

Kracus wrote:

tnf wrote: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.

Of course it is. Perhaps there might be a genetic trait that triggers our brains not to have empathy towards other people, who knows.

Actualy, now that I think about it there's this mental illness some children are born with (obviously they grow up) and I forget it's name... robertson disease or roberts disease damn I forget right this minute.

Anyway, the person affected by this illness, and you might very well have known someone, doesn't view other people as people but rather as objects. It's like they hold no importance to anything. When you speak to someone who suffers from this you can kinda tell there's something wrong with them. It's subtle but you can tell not all the wheels are turning in there. I knew a kid who had it when I was in college. He was this friends brother. Loved videogames and seemed like a regular kid if a little bit slow (he was probably 17 years old) but you never wanted to piss him off or he'd kill you.

He had already tried to kill someone when he was younger, I beleive his sister (my friend) because of it and was diagnosed with this illness, took therapy. I'm pretty sure it's a genetic disease.

If I put you in a 4x4 solitude chamber for 10 years I think u'll loose empathy too.

Would you be evil afterwards and kill someone because you have lack of empathy, that I don't know.

Kracus wrote: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.

It's all acts done because of the fact someone doesn't emphasize with someone else. The fact a bible states you can't do these things is irrelevant. In both cases the perpertrator does not feel what his victim feels. It's not a matter of the perpertrator not feeling anything, it's about them understanding what their victim feels. Empathy.

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.

i'd be a bit wary of looking at it from a religious perspective too, but what you're describing sounds like belligerence rather than 'evil'. not a philosopher, and i try to avoid thinking about religion - but would've thought that to be being evil, you'd have to be aware of some morality that defined what you were doing as evil - otherwise you'd just be ignorant, like driving over someone's cat without ever knowing that you'd done it.

^misantropia^ wrote:

Kracus wrote:

tnf wrote: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.

who's talking about souls? :icon19: