8
   

There has never been committed an evil act.

 
 
Cyracuz
 
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 09:39 am
I believe this firmly.

There has never, in the known and unknown hisory of mankind, been commited a single evil act.
Nor is there any person alive, today or at any time, who is actually evil.

What I mean is simply that the motivation is always positive. Regardless of the nature and quality of any act, all acts are good because all acts are taken in an attempt to make things better.

And that's the key. What is better? I bet that if we sat down and talked about it we could come up with something pretty good. But in the end, what's better and what's worse would be a matter of choice.
We chose our own idea of what is good, and of what is true.
There is no ultimate truth that we must uncover so that all people can unite in common faith. Truth is a matter of what you chose
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 2,062 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
George
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 09:50 am
I disagree.

I think we all have consciences and can tell right from wrong. There are times
we choose wrong for selfish reasons. Now you may argue that because of
this very selfishness we perceive the act to be good -- good for us. But I
would contend that we know that it is wrong and we choose to do it anyway.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 10:10 am
@Cyracuz,
I would guess that the word "evil" had its origins from religion, to explain what the devil is doing to counter God's good. Today, we use it to describe general badness. So, if you can accept that there is "badness" in the world, that which is not good for someone else, then we can just consider "evil" a red herring in the lexicon.

I believe the argument over the word "evil" sometimes gets its impetus when people want to point out that dictators can be "evil," yet are trying to do good for their country. This, in my opinion, is just playing with words.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 10:21 am
Hmm.... you know it is wrong and choose to do it anyway... I've had that notion myself a few times. But every time the choice to do it anyway is motivated by another good that you value higher than the one you first considered.
Good for self is no different from good for others in this context. They are both positive motivations


And I do believe that every dictator acts in goodness, since you bring them up. Even if its only goodness to themselves.
Anyway, if the term evil is void of meaning, wouldn't that have implications on the term good?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 10:44 am
@Cyracuz,
Read Mein Kampf and transpose it to the acts perped by the man. His was a view of extreme narcissism and not, as youd state, for the good of any group. His group was a testament to his "genius" in his mind. Does your world have any room for antisocial acts?


Anyway, "evil" as a concept, is conferred upon the act by others.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 11:14 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I believe this firmly.

There has never, in the known and unknown hisory of mankind, been commited a single evil act.
Nor is there any person alive, today or at any time, who is actually evil.

What I mean is simply that the motivation is always positive. Regardless of the nature and quality of any act, all acts are good because all acts are taken in an attempt to make things better.

And that's the key. What is better? I bet that if we sat down and talked about it we could come up with something pretty good. But in the end, what's better and what's worse would be a matter of choice.
We chose our own idea of what is good, and of what is true.
There is no ultimate truth that we must uncover so that all people can unite in common faith. Truth is a matter of what you chose

I think you're wrong. Take, for instance, a person who doesn't ever empathize with anyone else. Let's assume, further, that he enjoys suffering in others, and murders several people, including children, because he finds it amusing. It is perfectly reasonable to call such a person evil. The word evil characterizes certain attitudes and acts, which generally have in common placing one's own welfare tremendously above that of other people. There are people like that, and the word is as useful as any other adjective.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 11:27 am
You might prove on paper that evil acts are not committed. Makes no difference. The Pol Pots and Ed Geins of the world have to be eradicated.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 11:35 am
how about the santa guy that killed all those folks on christmas day

his beef was really with his ex wife in the end, had he simply killed her i could have said it was a tragedy perpetrated by a rage or even sorrow for a loss, but when you shoot people who have nothing to do with your rage, and then burn the house, killing more people, and leave a bomb in the vehicle probably intended to hurt more people you've tipped over into evil
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 10:15 pm
Yes, the Ed Geins and Pol Pots have got to go, i don't disagree.

But I feel no need to be righteous about it. I don't see those people as evil, merely seriously fkkd up. And the people who remove them from our lives, they are not good for doing it by any other measure that what I've chosen to believe in.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 11:01 pm
@Cyracuz,
Evil exists. To deny this fact is nothing more than to quibble about definitions and semantics. I think that what you're really saying, Cyracuz (and the second paragraph of your post suggests that I am reading your meaning correctly), is that no person ever commits an intentionally evil act. (Echoes of Socrates' "No man errs willingly" here.) Every act has a perfectly legitimate reason in the mind of the perpetrator. But it does not follow that this perfect reasoning will be in any sense apparent to anyone else on the planet. It is the majority which will judge whether or not an act is/was evil.

I will go along with you to this extent: the concept of evil is cultural, not universal. It is very hard to get one's mind around a meaningful concept of a 'universally accepted' (or 'acceptable') definition of evil when acts which are considered abominale by one segment of society, i.e. one culture, are accepted as not only acceptable, but even laudable by another culture.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Dec, 2008 11:51 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, the Ed Geins and Pol Pots have got to go, i don't disagree.

But I feel no need to be righteous about it. I don't see those people as evil, merely seriously fkkd up. And the people who remove them from our lives, they are not good for doing it by any other measure that what I've chosen to believe in.

There has to be a word to describe people who do great ill to others out of selfishness, and "evil" is as good a word as any.

Also, welcome back, MA.
0 Replies
 
sullyfish6
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2008 09:02 pm
History is written by those who survived. So we can sit here and look back at all those "evil" acts.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2008 09:30 pm
@sullyfish6,
sullyfish6 wrote:

History is written by those who survived. So we can sit here and look back at all those "evil" acts.

I'm not sure what your point is. Could you state it more clearly?
0 Replies
 
Josie Foles
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jan, 2009 10:28 pm
@Cyracuz,
I absolutely agree with the original post.

In today's society, selfishness is typically viewed as bad and selflessness as good, but I would argue that there are always two sides. The other person either thinks they are doing good for everyone or thinks everyone else is irrelevant. They are doing good for themselves. Every person's motivation is to find happiness. Is that evil?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jan, 2009 07:16 am
@Josie Foles,
Precicely. The motives are always good. So, logically, there is no true content to the word evil.
Good and evil are subjective categories that we use to create a sense of moral balance.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 01:10 am
@Josie Foles,
Josie Foles wrote:

I absolutely agree with the original post.

In today's society, selfishness is typically viewed as bad and selflessness as good, but I would argue that there are always two sides. The other person either thinks they are doing good for everyone or thinks everyone else is irrelevant. They are doing good for themselves. Every person's motivation is to find happiness. Is that evil?

If they don't care who they hurt to make themselves happy it is. This is elementary.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Feb, 2009 05:30 pm
@Brandon9000,
If you live in the US or Europe, Brandon, and you believe what you stated in the post above, then you are, by your own definition, evil.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 05:52 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Re: Brandon9000 (Post 3537459)
If you live in the US or Europe, Brandon, and you believe what you stated in the post above, then you are, by your own definition, evil.


Could you elaborate on that, Cyracuz? I don't think I understand what you're saying.
0 Replies
 
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2011 04:58 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I believe this firmly.

There has never, in the known and unknown hisory of mankind, been commited a single evil act.
Nor is there any person alive, today or at any time, who is actually evil.

What I mean is simply that the motivation is always positive. Regardless of the nature and quality of any act, all acts are good because all acts are taken in an attempt to make things better.

And that's the key. What is better? I bet that if we sat down and talked about it we could come up with something pretty good. But in the end, what's better and what's worse would be a matter of choice.
We chose our own idea of what is good, and of what is true.
There is no ultimate truth that we must uncover so that all people can unite in common faith. Truth is a matter of what you chose

i agree. evil is a matter of opinion, no matter how widespread that opinion is. also, by creating "evil", you are further defining good.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 05:19 am
I would think that this discussion hinges on how 'evil' is defined. In terms of doing 'good', there are plenty who do 'evil' in the name of good...and many who wholeheartedly believe they are doing good while doing 'evil'. It's the nature of the beast that we deceive ourselves. Any person who is truly 'good' is actually incapable of doing evil...but then, that would depend on how you define 'good'.

I would think that the old saying 'know thyself' is most at play here.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » There has never been committed an evil act.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/18/2019 at 07:59:09