I'm writing an essay on relativism in LOTR

[Blackheart]

Wait.. you were being amusing?

[Wulažg]

You can call me evil all you want, I don't mind, but when you start calling the innocently silly evil I have to defend them.

[Blackheart]

Name an example of an innocently silly individual.

[azalea]

Children.

[Blackheart]

Pure evil!

I know, I was a child once.

And I have spawned a few. Nothing but evil, without a socially developed conscience.

Don't turn your back on them for a second. Even if they are cute little buggers.

[Beleg Strongbow]

I would like to define evil as a lack of empathy. Any support?

[Wulažg]

At the very least lack of empathy is the cause for much of the evil around.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Beleg Strongbow
I would like to define evil as a lack of empathy. Any support?

Actually that is a very interesting working draft. It meshes nicely with the sociological and psychological concepts of sociopathy.

However, one could make a case for the idea that an entity would have even GREATER capability for harm if they did have empathy, by applying the information in contrary ways.

Which supports my position that women are more evil than men

[Wulažg]

How does one have greater capacity for evil with empathy? Are you talking about something on the order of sadism?

[Blackheart]

I'm talking about actions, as in evil requires action, as opposed to a state of being.

[Wulažg]

That's debatable. Evil can just be a state of being, especially with higher beings.

[Blackheart]

Oh? And how so?

They are evil because they are "defined" as being evil?

Existence is a state of being. In order for an entity to be evil because of a self refferential definition, then how can actions also be defined as evil?

Are there two kinds of evil? Actions don't actually have a state of being.

[Wulažg]

Let us not use "action", but "decision with will". Also people can to a degree sense the personality of someone, so even if they are nkot planning something evil pople can still be affected by their "evilness"

[Blackheart]

A decision with will??

Too problematic. A decision with will IS an action, so you are now saying that evil is limited to special type of actions...

[Wulažg]

So what EXACTLY is your definition of an "action" then? Let's get a level playing ground.

[Blackheart]

Hehe. Now your talking.

Lets try: Actions must have a verifiable empirical result, and wreak a change in the outside realm we commonly refer to as "reality".

Intentions, thoughts, existence, do not create a "change" and are problematic. Decisions with will are problematic also, unless you interpreat will to mean one takes action upon them. At which point then we're saying something else about the nature of evil.

Everything's problematic of course, if you want to go one step further and define what exactly I mean by change.

Do you? or shall we just hold at this level?

[Wulažg]

Let's keep on going. Descisions with will are merely thoughts that are genuinely meant. Higher beings I presume are able to at least a degree sense thoughts, therefore thoughts that are really meant count as "actions" as thoughts that are really meant number one mean that your unconcious thinks and reacts on it so your actions are minutely changed, and number two others can at least unconciously sense that you are thinking something and THEIR actions will be changed slightly.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Wulažg
Let's keep on going. Descisions with will are merely thoughts that are genuinely meant. Higher beings I presume are able to at least a degree sense thoughts, therefore thoughts that are really meant count as "actions" as thoughts that are really meant number one mean that your unconcious thinks and reacts on it so your actions are minutely changed, and number two others can at least unconciously sense that you are thinking something and THEIR actions will be changed slightly.

They may be genuinely meant, but the leap from sensing thoughts to classifying them as actions is going to take more than that.

People may think something mean at you, but if they don't say it, does it have the same level of impact? Does it mean they have the same level of investment?

No, I don't buy the whole "god judges you for your intentions" thing in this universe, much less in Arda.

Melkor could have Thought about weaving his own themes of control into the music the whole time, but it wouldn't have drawn a rebuke. He was probably thinking such thoughts before the music began. It was the action that drew the (percieved) rebuke.

[Ñólendil]

Blackheart is a difficult man to beat in a philosophical debate, I know. But if I may jump in here: I do not believe Melkor had been planning his discord before the Music began. Actually Time didn't exist yet so there is no "had", "been" or "before" (or "yet") to speak of, but you know what I mean. It was already after the Holy Ones had begun their great musics that Melkor journeyed through the pathless Void alone, seeking the Flame Imperishable and conceiving thoughts that were wholly other than the mind of Eru. It was from these thoughts that the Discord of Melkor arose.

This is an aside from the main matter of your odd debate about evil, but I thought I'd put in my piece.

[Wulažg]

I wasn't necessarily saying that thoughts have as much impact as actual actions but they do have empirical results and therefore can be also considered actions technically. Plus when you think about it what really matters is what a person means to do, especially if the others can sense the intentions. Someone being nice doesn't mean a THING if you know they don't mean it. That occurs a lot. People can on a rudimentary and unconcious level tell whether someone is lying or not, in words or actions. People acting out of character are classified as "odd" at the very least etc.