What is evil, anyway?

[BlackPaladin]

Hahaha, why is that? ;P
Oh Wolfie, your too late again

*Look at the clock, whoops, now I'm late for my party*

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

I'm always late to the fuckin' party!

Fuck-fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck

You were here in Fuckin' Spirit Baby!!!

Fuckin' A!!

Fuck Yeah!!!

Right the Fuck On!!!



And last but not least...

You're Fuckin' Beautiful!



Todays use of the word Fuck has been brought to you by;

Wolf Moon;

Improving the Gene Pool Quality, One Extra Crispy N00b At A Time!!!

[BlackPaladin]

Wow what the fuck, ain't fuck shizzle nizzle bizzle dizzle ;P

Love you Wolfie

Fuck "or anyting to do with it" ©, ®, ™, 2006 by WolfMoon

[WolfMoon]

Yes!

I own a fucking WORD!!

Now you'll all have to pay for it's use.

*wicked grin*

[BlackPaladin]

Hehehe how much?

*Fuck Fuck Fuck the Duck ;P*

[WolfMoon]

Public Whipping!

[Beowulf]

Wolfie fuckin` rocks !!!


I wonder what Wolfie will charge, and does she accept flamed Noobs or posers as alternative payment ?.

[BlackPaladin]

Hehehe no doubt

[TarrieB's Evil Twin.]

Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars

Wot!?



To Tarrie B's Evil Anal Wart..

A chimpanzee could look at those two profiles and tell that they were written by the same person. So in addition to being an unfeeling bitter twat, you are also a REALLY bad liar.


I think E_E hit the general consensus right on the money..

Even your idol, Mary Kate Olsen agrees;




[/i]*

Oh My God.
Just imagine for a second that you're wrong.
Are you doing that?
Now can you see how funny this is for me!
I really love the chimpanzee and liar part.
Oh, the irony is absolutely glorious! *contented smile*

[edible_eye]

is it just me, or is that olsen twin hot all strung out like a cheap crack whore?

[Draconysius]

Evil is a completely personal ideal. Everyone has their own opinion of what good and evil are, but no one is really right. However, no one is exactly wrong, either.

[Evil Elf]

You're all dickheads.
Die.
And stop being horrible to Tairrie B coz I love her to bits and she rocks!

[maggot]

God, just close the damn thread.
The message would have been stronger if it was closed right after it was mad, anyways.

Huh, I'm passive-agressive. I just learned that!

[maggot]

Touchy, touchy.
You send some really mixed messages. I just don't know what to make of it all sometimes.

[edible_eye]

here's what to make of it -

1.) pay attention to your spelling. edit your statements before you hit the 'post quick reply' button.

2.) mind your business when it comes to whether or not threads stay open.

3.) and to evil elf - no one cares who you like or dislike.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Evil Elf, you cannot insult us and tell us not to insult your friend.
Guess who made the first offense?
Imagine your best friend is depressed and wants to talk to you that, let's say, her parent's are getting a divorce.
Would you like for a random person to enter the conversation and tell her: "guess what. No one cares" ?

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by TarrieB's Evil Twin.

Oh My God.

Just imagine for a second that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by TarrieB's Evil Twin.

That post was one of the whiniest I've seen.

I mean, I don't really think the 100's of people on this website care that you spent seven hours in the emergancy room.

Judging from the response to the Ignorant & Uniformed 'observation' you made above..

I'd say YOU were the one who was 'wrong'.

Not to mention you're also exceedingly Boring..

Oh, Britney Spears called for you.

She wants her "How to be a Dumb Cunt in Six Easy Steps" book back.

[edible_eye]

evil is knowing santarea is out there, somewhere, while simultaneously knowing i can't reach out and touch her soft flesh.

[Sanctus Dei]

(Wasn't this over like a decade ago??)

Originally Posted by TarrieB's Evil Twin.

Oh My God.
Just imagine for a second that you're wrong.
Are you doing that?
Now can you see how funny this is for me!
I really love the chimpanzee and liar part.
Oh, the irony is absolutely glorious! *contented smile*

Oh.. there, there gloom cookie...no need to be so brazen, if you brush regularly after sucking the dick of your own ego... I promise your cock breath won't smell nearly so much of excrement as your bullshit comments.

Originally Posted by Evil Elf

You're all dickheads.
Die.
And stop being horrible to Tairrie B coz I love her to bits and she rocks!

Aww, isn't that cute... next trick ass lick, attempt to bury your head in the chocolate trail of that fucktarded rear-end your apparently kissing.

Originally Posted by maggot

Touchy, touchy.
You send some really mixed messages. I just don't know what to make of it all sometimes.

Well Maggs... Here's the deal, you've yet to earn attendance importance points... therefore your suggestions and opinions as to the maintenance of this board are of little interest to anyone, least of all the Mods.

Ever stop to think that perhaps if a problem exists there may be people already assigned to the care of the board taking care if the issue? Yes, n00bers..let's THINK before we post...ummmm ka?

[Cruel Intentions]

Evil is not being able to use the word Fuck!

[TarrieB's Evil Twin.]

Originally Posted by Empty_Purple_Stars

Oh, Britney Spears called for you.

She wants her "How to be a Dumb Cunt in Six Easy Steps" book back.

You know I was gonna say something to that but I thought screw it.
I don't like slagging people off, it's not who I am.
So you can continue to dazzle me with your wit and extensive vocabulary but I'm just going to wish you all the happiness and health in the world.
No bullshit.

[Metatron]

Xng's response to, "You're all dickheads. Die." -

"I'll die, eventually. And I'm not a dickhead... I don't even have a dick. I have a vagina."

Amazing! ...And you said vagina too.

[Metatron]

TarrieB's Evil Twin.
Do you love me?
Babygoth


Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Emerald Isle, among the leprecans.
Posts: 4

Lemme think a wee tad...I'll take NO for 400.

[Shi'ark]

Evil is making someone think your in love, when your just to frightened of being along.

[Sanctus Dei]

Evil is constant worry.

[edible_eye]

evil is live, backwards.

[WolfMoon]

Evil is sugar in the cooter!

[tekajo]

How can sweet cooter be evil? i fail to make the connection.

[Sanctus Dei]

Depends if you mean Cooter the body part... or the person?

[Ben Lahnger]

Okay, I came to this thread because Tenet and I were threadjacking the "Hot Topic" thread in "Fashion" talking about whether evil exists. And he pointed this thread out to me.

I have just completed reading all 7 pages. Not including the threadjacking and trollery, there's a lot of denial and redefining and dismissal going on.

Yes, I am resurrecting this tired old tramp, because I'm hot on the topic and never got to put my 2 cents worth in before. And because I think all the people who say things like "being alergic to chocolate" or "cold showers" are evil, need to pick up a thesaurus and look for better synonyms for the words "bad" or "awful" or "unpleasant".

I am an athiest, in the purest definition. I believe there is no afterlife or higher power. There is no consequence to our actions beyond what we experience in this world.

Man is different from most animals in that he/she has a rational mind. There is some evidence that some animals (some chimpanzees, dolphins, etc.) are aware of others in a way that approximates having a conscience, so I won't say man is unique from all animals.

But I will make this distinction. We can use our rational mind to interpret physical and emotional pain. And we can empathize.

I understand I feel pain when someone punches me. I know I don't like being punched. My rational mind tells me that other people would feel similar pain if I punched them. My rational mind tells me that they would not like me to punch them.

If I choose to punch them anyway, without any other justafiable impetus, that is evil.

That's my definition. It works for me. After reading 7 pages of this thread, I don't expect I'm going to sway anyone, and I don't expect anyone is likely to sway me. I just needed to lay this out.

[Sanctus Dei]

Wow.. that was straight forward and terribly true. Thanx Ben.

[Oubliette]

Evil is as evil does hmmmmmmmmmmm

[Snugglekeeg]

I find it interesting that people automatically assume that if something is bizarre, paranormal, or looks malevolent it is automatically evil. I guess most of us who are interested in the macabre see things differently, we see the world in shades of grey instead of black and white.

[angel011]

I agree. Still, even in the shades of grey there is evil. Willingly harming someone without good reason (such as defending yourself, os defending someone you care for), is evil.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Snugglekeeg

I find it interesting that people automatically assume that if something is bizarre, paranormal, or looks malevolent it is automatically evil. I guess most of us who are interested in the macabre see things differently, we see the world in shades of grey instead of black and white.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

I understand I feel pain when someone punches me. I know I don't like being punched. My rational mind tells me that other people would feel similar pain if I punched them. My rational mind tells me that they would not like me to punch them. If I choose to punch them anyway, without any other justafiable impetus, that is evil.

If that was in response to my post (3 posts before yours, if you read it), you'll note that I did not say anything about the bizarre, paranormal or malevolent, let alone unusual or weird. My definition purely hinges on human awareness and motiviation. There are no religious or specteral or gothic or supernatural connections at all. And it certainly IS black and white.

[Snugglekeeg]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

If that was in response to my post (3 posts before yours, if you read it), you'll note that I did not say anything about the bizarre, paranormal or malevolent, let alone unusual or weird. My definition purely hinges on human awareness and motiviation. There are no religious or specteral or gothic or supernatural connections at all. And it certainly IS black and white.

So basically everything boils down to personal opinion and beliefs, end of story. I probably shouldn't have lumped everyone into my post and just explained it as my opinion.

[Ben Lahnger]

Fair enough. And I should have said it WAS black and white ... for me.

But, clearly we can find as many opinions on this as there are members of Gnet. If I in any way implied disrespect for yours, that was not my intent. I kinda thought you were debating me.

[Niels]

There is no good, there is no evil, there is only perception...

[Ben Lahnger]

Neils, I completely disagree with you. If I punch you in the face (this is hypothetical, of course), wouldn't that be evil.

Or would I be correct in saying that if you have a problem with me punching you in the face, you just need to adjust your perception?

[Niels]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Neils, I completely disagree with you. If I punch you in the face (this is hypothetical, of course), wouldn't that be evil.

Or would I be correct in saying that if you have a problem with me punching you in the face, you just need to adjust your perception?

Well I would have a problem with it, but if I deserved the punch in YOUR perception, for example for blaming you for spelling my name incorrectly, it wouldn't be evil in YOUR eyes...

Of course I would slap you back, because in MY perception that wouldn't be evil...

[Ben Lahnger]

Okay, first ... Niels ... I apologize for spelling your name wrong. I really try hard to get that right, and this was a total screwup on my part. Mea culpa.

Second, the point I'm trying to make is that perception doesn't enter into it on this level (and please note the highlighted qualifier that was in my definition from the start):

If I choose to punch you, without any other justafiable impetus, that is evil ... because I know I would not like to get punched, that it would hurt me, and because I know you would not like to be punched as it would hurt you the same way. I would percieve it as evil and I would think that you would too.

[Sobeh]

Based on cultural and other factors, humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. This is morality. Humans also have a series of metaphysical assertions to determine what is good and what is bad. These assertions comprise ethics. It is important to note that good does not equal right, and bad does not equal wrong. Good and bad are usually considered qualities, whereas right and wrong are considered judgments. That is, ethics encompass metaphysical qualities that exist apart from the human sphere, whereas morals are local, culturally-bound judgments about actions.

'Wrong', used in the moral sense, is pretty much what people mean when they say the word 'evil'. To be objective, there are a great many seemingly 'bad' things that have no moral component, like tsunami deaths and such, but while these may be lamentable and horrible, they are not 'evil' because there was no personal will behind the act, and as such, not per se 'bad'. But, for our purposes, Wrong Action = Evil where a human is the actor.

There are two main streams of thought. One stream states that, since there is an overarching ethical Truth, one can critique the various iterations of morality that exist and have existed in the world, according to how closely they conform to this universal Truth. So for example, a Christian group that believed it had the perfect ethical Truth in its interpretation of God's word would then be in a position to make judgments about the morality of other groups and individuals.

On the other hand is the belief that there is an overarching ethical Truth, but its manifestation in the world is able to be different dependant on the culture it arises in. For example, in America, if I steal a bicycle and ride it down to the local river to get water for some friends of mine, my action would be deemed wrong because of the ethical principle that stealing is bad (leaving aside cases of severe physical need). This judgment would then lead to a fine, jail term, or some other punishment.

In a culture that believed in the mutual sharing of all property, it is not possible for me to steal the bicycle per se, because it is held in common by all members of the group. I could take this bicycle at any time and ride down to the river for water. If, however, I were to use this bicycle for purely personal use and thus deprive other members of its benefit, people (in this example) would feel that I had stolen that bicycle. In these cases the moral judgments of the same action are different, yet both cultures have an understanding of the ethical principle of theft being bad.

It is important to differentiate this second case from ethical relativism, which states that in addition to there being multiple moralities, an overarching ethical Truth does not exist; in other words, for each of the iterations of morality that exist in the world there is a companion set of ethical truths. This position upholds that there can be no useful comparisons between various moralities.

That's it, in a nutshell.

[Ben Lahnger]

Sobeh, I appreciate the sophistication of your thinking, and love the fact that you give so many subjects such deep consideration. But just for a moment, consider the punch I described above.

Why can't this be simple black and white? Is there a scenario in your mind where that punch is anything but bad or wrong or evil? And please do not include people who expressly ask to be punched ... that's not included in the scenario I've defined either.

[Sobeh]

I did consider it - your scenario is contained within what I wrote, just not a judgment about it. Think: either hitting someone is bad all the time, or else it's bad or good depending on circumstances, or else its totally relative according to perceptions about the morality of hitting and/or being hit.

By qualifying the act by saying 'without any other justifiable impetus' you suggest that there are justifiable impeti (impetuses?) out there, so we know that you think the moral value of hitting someone else is contingent on the circumstances. By your own admission, then, there is no black and white, because the environment is a variable that must be considered.

Your next step is to create a circumstance within which any strike is wrong. You could just as well have suggested that hitting a newborn baby is always wrong. But of course, what if that newborn isn't breathing yet? A well-placed, medical strike on the rump might actually be in the best interests of the child.

Back to your example: you just wander up to me, say, and belt me one right in the kisser. For your example to make sense, we have to assume that it is at all possible for you to act with ZERO motivation, just completely randomly, no reasons at all, spontaneously. I suggest this is impossible. Prove otherwise.

=D

[Niels]

Sobeth, I thank thee... I couldn't have said it better...

[Godslayer Jillian]

I want an evil-tasting Twinkie

[Sanctus Dei]

Can I have half?

Sobeh,
I can see what Ben is saying, and frankly your dwelling far too much on the punch scenario then the idea behind it. When you do something to another you realize is inherently and morally wrong for no other reason then to be immoral is the completion of the act without remorse "evil"..?

I'd say yes... except I also can't discount a persons capability of moral/immoral perception. They may know it's wrong but their perception of how wrong and if it's enough to be "evil" is another story. So with the understanding that my entire post has wussed out to the choice of side on the matter, I kind of agree with you both.

[tenet_2012]

Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indian partition, no Israel/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern Ireland "troubles."

Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews - no Jews to persecute indeed, for, without religious taboos against marrying out, the Diaspora would long ago have merged into Europe.

Hitler invoked "My feelings as a Christian" to justify his anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated by religion. IRA gunmen didn't kill Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties. The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of "them" killed one of "us." "They" drove "our" great-grandfathers out of ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not religious; and vendettas stretch "unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

A child's 'own' religion

Quoting Exodus reminds me, incidentally, that humanists prefer Gandhi's version: "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today's most divisive label of group identity and hostility.

If a social engineer set out to devise a system for perpetuating our most vicious enmities, he could find no better formula than sectarian education. The main point of faith schools is that the children of 'our' tribe must be taught "their own" religion. Since the children of the other tribe are simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too predictable.

But what can it mean to speak of a child's "own" religion? Imagine a world in which it was normal to speak of a Keynesian child, a Hayekian child, or a Marxist child. Or imagine a proposal to pour government money into separate primary schools for Republican children and Democrat children. Everyone agrees that small children are too young to know whether they are Keynesian or monetarist, Democrat or Republican, too young to bear the burden of heavy parental labels. Why, then, is almost our entire society happy to privilege religion, and slap a label like Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, on a tiny child? Isn't that a form of mental child abuse?

Belief in one's God

I once made that point in a broadcast debate with a Roman Catholic spokeswoman. I've forgotten her name, but I think she was some kind of agony aunt, and a stalwart of religious radio talk shows. When I said that a primary school child was too young to know whether it was a Catholic child, she bristled: "Just come and talk to some of the children in our local Catholic school! I can assure you they know very well that they are Catholic children." I believe it. The Jesuit boast - "Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man" - is no less sinister for being familiar to the point of cliché.

But what if religion is true? Surely sectarian indoctrination wouldn't be child abuse if it saved the child's immortal soul? Despite the smug presumptuousness of that, I can almost sympathize, if you sincerely believe your religion is the absolute truth.

Let me, then, be ambitious if not presumptuous, and try to shake your belief.

Why do you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your head? Alas, the notorious Yorkshire Ripper's murders were ordered by the perceived voice of Jesus inside his head. The human brain is a consummate hallucinator, and hallucinations are a poor basis for real world beliefs.

Or perhaps you believe in God because life would be intolerable without him. That's an even weaker argument. Lots of things are intolerable, and it doesn't make them untrue. It may be intolerable that you are starving, but you can't eat a stone by believing - no matter how passionately and sincerely - that it is made of cheese.

By far the favorite reason for believing in God is the Argument from Improbability. Eyes and skeletons, hearts and nerve cells are too improbable to have come about by chance. Manmade machines are improbable too, and designed by engineers for a purpose. Surely any fool can see that eyes and kidneys, wings and blood corpuscles must also be designed for a purpose, by a master engineer. Well, maybe any fool can see it, but let's stop playing the fool, and grow up. It is 146 years since Charles Darwin gave us what is arguably the cleverest idea ever to occur to a human mind. He demonstrated a beautiful, working process whereby natural forces, by gradual degrees and with no deliberate purpose, forge an elegant illusion of design, to almost limitless levels of complexity.

I have written books on the subject and obviously can't repeat the whole argument in a short article. Let me give just two guidelines to understanding.

First, the commonest fallacy about natural selection is that it is a theory of chance. If it were, it is entirely obvious that it couldn't explain the illusion of design. But natural selection, properly understood, is the antithesis of chance. Second, it is often said that natural selection makes God unnecessary, but leaves his existence an open plausibility. I think we can do better than that. When you think it through, the argument from improbability, which traditionally is deployed in God's favor, turns out to be the strongest argument against him.

Science and reason

The beauty of Darwinian evolution is that it explains the very improbable, by gradual degrees. It starts from primeval simplicity (relatively easy to understand) and works up, by plausibly small steps, to complex entities whose genesis, by any nongradual process, would be too improbable for serious contemplation. Design is a real alternative, but only if the designer is himself the product of an escalatory process such as evolution by natural selection, either on this planet or elsewhere. There may be alien life forms so advanced that we would worship them as gods. But they too must ultimately be explained by gradual escalation. Gods that exist ab initio are ruled out by the Argument from Improbability, even more surely than are spontaneously erupting eyes or elbow joints.

Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads.

"You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."

Source

[Niels]

Is religion the root of all evil?

No, but we all know girls are the root of all evil...


First, we assume that all girls take time and money.

Girls = Time x Money

Furthermore, we take the statement, "Time is money", and we get:

Time = Money

Girls = Money x Money

Girls = Money^2

Moreover, the statement, "Money is the root of all evil" means that:

Evil = the square root of money

Girls = (Evil)^1/2 (Evil)^1/2

which reduces to...

Girls = Evil


Can't argue with math!

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by Sanctus Dei

Sobeh...frankly you're dwelling far too much on the punch scenario then the idea behind it...

I am afraid very much of black-and-white statements, which is what it started out as. Now, what has developed is a scenario of a punch that was done for immoral reasons, without remorse... that's a lot more situational information than was at first in place, which was exactly what I wanted clearly stated. Philosophical situations which take the form "What about a situation where..." take issues with very real effects, such as those characterized by evil, and basically essentializes them. Nothing is ever that simple in the real world.

I guess, in other words, I'm trying to say that, rather than use these kinds of debates to develop ethical principles that allow for judgments of situations like the scenario described, it is much better to open a discourse and determine the facts of the case. Discourse Ethics is my guide here. I never disagreed with Ben, in point of fact, I simply wanted the unspoken assumptions out in the open.