Good and Evil

[congressmn]

my neighbour's Dog is as evil as evil can be. He has bitten my mom once. really nasty bite.

I would still agree with animals having littel to do with feeelings, and the emotion of evil too strong for them to comprehend and muster.

But i tell you, that neighbour of mine, trains his dog, as if it was a war machine. You should look at his teeth. his paws, and claws. And the eyes, they are like two tiny volcanoes fuming with lava.

He barks the hell outta him evrytime he sees me.

In my opinion, I dont think you have to be evil to commit bad acts like this stupid dog. you can just as be cruel as any evil person if you have a BAD TRAINER!

[Lief Erikson]

Oh yes, I don't think any of us are coming from the position that any of us are in the start-out better than any others of us.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Free will is an illusion. But this whole discussion brings up the point that there are no real evil or good acts. Evil and good is defined by human perception only. If one man attacks another man with his bare hands, rips him to shreds and eats him I think we would all consider that the ultimate act of dispicable evil. However..... if a lion does that to an antelope well thats just nature.

The primary argument that has been accepted by many on this thread is that an individual's guilt depends upon their knowledge of what they've done. If that is the case, then humanity is definitely very, very high on the category for species on Earth as far as guiltiness goes, and animals are probably extremely low on the scale, if they're on it at all.

Alas, that's about as far as we've gotten so far, where we're all in agreement .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
So evil and good are a lens through which we humans percieve our world. And in this way we need opposite extremes as the frames to keep our world in perspective. In this way we cant have evil without good or vice versa.

If good and evil are a lens through which we humans percieve the world, then morals are entirely figments of human thought. If morals are a figment of human thought, then we have no reason to follow these morals besides that it's right to. For example, if I decided I wanted to murder someone. I could just say, "Well, I'm going to kill you."

He could say, "you can't do that, that's wrong."

I might say, "Why is it wrong?"

"Well," he might answer, "would you want me to kill you? It's just the same."

And I could answer, "I don't care whether you might kill me- it doesn't affect me at the moment. I'm the one holding the gun."

I've ignored my morals, then. Morals should be followed because it's right to follow them.

"Why is it right?"
"Because it makes everybody happier if we follow them."
"But why is making everybody happier right? It doesn't make me happier in the short term."
"Because it's best that everyone be happy."
"But if I'm just an animal and morals are things that we choose to have, why can't I just forego those when I want to?"
"Because it's wrong for others that you should do so."

You see, there is no real reason why we should follow these morals, because they go in a loop. Morals are right, because they make everyone happy and do everyone good. But if people are just creatures, they have no reason to care about other people's feelings.

Therefore we must ask yourselves, what is right? Why do we, and why should we follow it?

[Baby-K]

IMO we base our perceptions of good & evil on our own experience. What might be 'evil' in my eyes would be totally acceptable to others (or vice versa).

This leads me to question whether or not there is ABSOLUTE good and ABSOLUTE evil. Or are there varying degrees of the two based on circumstances surrounding the events (presuming of course that we are referring to deeds / events which would be the physical manifistation of the thoughts)? And in fact, are the thoughts not as bad as the actions themselves? Even if we can hide those from other people, surely we cannot hide them from our Gods? And do the gods not also take into account the purity of thought (seeing how thought necessarily leads to action (or the lack thereof) in the case of human beings, after all that is one of the things that seperates us from the animals - the ability to rationalise & decide which actions to take rather than depend on instinct)?

If in fact there are varying degrees of good & evil, or the classification of the two depends on individual recognition thereof, who's good & evil should we use as guidelines for the "after life" (if in fact that does exist)?

Man created beer
God created cannabis........who do you put your Faith in?

But beer is good! (see how relevant it is?) This is a classic example of good & evil running hand in hand - beer = good on its own & so is ganja (weed / MJ / marijuana / cannabis / spliff / majats / whatever you wanna call it), but together they're better

Sorry if I'm wrong here. This is just what I'm thinking.

You aren't wrong, what would be 'wrong' IMO is not giving your opinion at all.

So you believe that some people are born with evil tendancies and that some people are drawn towards them?......and that circumstances make those tendancies stronger?

And also, do only other people who have inherent evil tendencies get drawn to such people or are the good ones also reeled in?

And what would this excuse be Lief?..........just curious..

Drunkenness & absolute denial of the night before

I expect such as circumstances (i.e. if a girl leads a guy on, and is making out with him, getting him all fired up, toying with him, but won't actually "do it", he could easily get frustrated; while this would still be terrible, it wouldn't be as bad as a serial rapist, IMO; or like Absalom, when Amnon raped his sister Tamar, his murder of Amnon was partially justified, IMO)

That is the type of bullsh*t that women all over the world need to deal with everyday. Just because a girl does that DOES NOT GIVE A MAN THE RIGHT TO RAPE HER!!!!!

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem IR, that is your opinion, perhaps. I believe strongly that free-will is a truth. I also believe that Good and Evil are absolutes: BUT I believe that they do not apply to animals, or that they apply to animals in a different way. I. E. Those animals that just roam around killing for no reason whatsoever (not even territory, just drifters) would be "evil" animals, IMO. But I don't believe that animals have free will, so those which are evil cannot help it. But as I believe that Mankind is created separate from animals (which, naturally, as an agnostic, you do not believe), I believe that Man is separate from animals in such matters.

What type of animal does that? I've never seen a serial killer wolf/lion or whatever ('cept the man killer lions in The Ghost & The Darkness - those actually existed), but were they evil or were they driven to what man proclaims as evil deeds by the vey invasion of their territory by man (IMO man had placed himself there, killed off the food supply of these lions & thus placed themselves on the menu as a substitute)

my neighbour's Dog is as evil as evil can be. He has bitten my mom once. really nasty bite.

Bite back

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
like what cases? seems to me theres always a reason to kill in the wild. that is to say every kill has a reason. killing is a dangerous thing. Animals (unlike humans) dont just go out and do it for the heck of it because its too risky to their own survival. Maybe if they have like rabies or something but then thats still an explanation. They have become mentally imbalanced.

Chimpanzees rape and murder.

[Baby-K]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Chimpanzees rape and murder.

So do dolphins, but does it make them evil? Or does it simply mean that they are not capable of telling the difference between wrong & right? Or is it "instinctive" in their cases? (these animals also have sex for pleasure (like humans) & not merely as reproductive means, does this then imply a higher level of consciousness that seperates them from other animals too?)

[BeardofPants]

No, I don't think it makes them evil, because "evil" is a human construct. I was just asserting that animals DO kill beyond necessity.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Baby-K
That is the type of bullsh*t that women all over the world need to deal with everyday. Just because a girl does that DOES NOT GIVE A MAN THE RIGHT TO RAPE HER!!!!!



What type of animal does that? I've never seen a serial killer wolf/lion or whatever ('cept the man killer lions in The Ghost & The Darkness - those actually existed), but were they evil or were they driven to what man proclaims as evil deeds by the vey invasion of their territory by man (IMO man had placed himself there, killed off the food supply of these lions & thus placed themselves on the menu as a substitute)

I never said that it gives him the right; nothing gives the right. Personally, I believe that rape is a crime which ought to be punished by death. But what I'm saying that less evil tendency is required to act in such a condiition than a serial rapist. NOTHING gives someone the right to rape, murder, or steal. But certain circumstances make it less incomprehensible, make the evil tendencies required to do such an act less strong.

BTW, it sounds to me like you're saying there's nothing wrong with a woman doing this. Are you?

I don't remember specifics, except those. But I seem to remember a case of a grizzly, though that's all I remember as far as specifics goes.

[Baby-K]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I never said that it gives him the right; nothing gives the right. Personally, I believe that rape is a crime which ought to be punished by death. But what I'm saying that less evil tendency is required to act in such a condiition than a serial rapist. NOTHING gives someone the right to rape, murder, or steal. But certain circumstances make it less incomprehensible, make the evil tendencies required to do such an act less strong.

BTW, it sounds to me like you're saying there's nothing wrong with a woman doing this. Are you?

I don't remember specifics, except those. But I seem to remember a case of a grizzly, though that's all I remember as far as specifics goes.

It depends how far you allow the situation to go. There is certainly nothing wrong with flirting & even a bit of kissing, but if she allows the situation to get a bit out of handl, then I don't necessarily think it's right. All things considered though, NO means NO and it's her right to say so whenever she feels that she no longer wants to engage in a sexual act with the guy. Also, failing to stop when requested makes you a rapist, that's all there is to it. Because if you argue that it was her fault for leading you on etc and thus you couldn't stop yourself basically puts men on the same level as animals (unable to reason & control their actions - being driven by base / primitive needs) and thus they should not be considered part of a normal, rational society.

Please note the use of the term you in no way means to implicate Gwaimer Windgem as a rapist or anything of the sort, it was used in a general sense, referring to the excuses often used by men.

Oh & GW - if it was not so that women had the right to say no when they no longer feel safe, the problem of date rape would never have been identified & no steps would have been taken to ensure that women can lay charges against guys like that (who commit date rape).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Don't "necessarily" think it's right? If she does that, then most likely she is toying with him, basically seeing how far she can push him, using him as a toy. Of course, not all of the time would this be the case, but more often than not.

Because if you argue that it was her fault for leading you on etc and thus you couldn't stop yourself basically puts men on the same level as animals

I completely agree with you. One can stop oneself. It's a matter of how hard it is. Saying that one cannot stop oneself is putting oneself on the level of animals, I completely agree. All I am saying, is that in such a circumstance, the terrible crime of rape is more understandable than for a serial rapist, or like in Time to Kill, less vileness is required for someone to commit it in such a circumstance. But they always have a choice.

Please note the use of the term you in no way means to implicate Gwaimer Windgem as a rapist or anything of the sort, it was used in a general sense, referring to the excuses often used by men.

Bloody good thing.

Oh & GW - if it was not so that women had the right to say no when they no longer feel safe, the problem of date rape would never have been identified & no steps would have been taken to ensure that women can lay charges against guys like that (who commit date rape).

I totally agree that they do. I've said several times that the circumstance does not make it right. The action is always just as wrong. The intent of the doer is less evil. But it is never justified.

[Baby-K]

I completely agree with you. One can stop oneself. It's a matter of how hard it is

I will ignore that innocent little play of words, since I'm pretty sure you didn't intend for it to come out the way it did

Don't "necessarily" think it's right?

Yup, I used that term, because though it might not be right, it certainly is no reason for rape.

All I am saying, is that in such a circumstance, the terrible crime of rape is more understandable than for a serial rapist, or like in Time to Kill, less vileness is required for someone to commit it in such a circumstance. But they always have a choice.

I still do not agree, but it might be because I'm a woman & things like rape is something I feel very passionate about (because it predominantly happens to women). IMO rape in any way, shape or form is wrong. Would you give a date rapist a lesser sentence that a serial rapist, because of the circumstances?

Do you realise that that is exactly the sentiment that has prevented women the world over from reporting rapes etc, because rape is the only crime in the world where the victim is put on trial rather than the perpetrator? Such ideas doesn't really help with the irradication of these crimes. Would you sentence a man who only raped one woman (after a few drinks together) to fewer years in jail than a guy who raped 3 women? If so, why - is the one's future more important than the other? If the woman is a thriving member of society & positively contributes to the country's economy etc. should her rapist be treated with respect and given a lighter sentence, just because she might have flirted a bit too much?

I totally agree that they do. I've said several times that the circumstance does not make it right. The action is always just as wrong. The intent of the doer is less evil. But it is never justified.

Brings me back to my question whether or not thoughts / intent is also considered evil or are the deeds alone considered such. Because if the thoughts are evil too, then according to your argument there must be lesser degrees of good & bad. And if human law could be structured to accommodate such notions, surely the laws of the gods can be too?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Is there such a thing as "justifiable evil" Can you commit evil intentionally to further a cause for a greater good?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Sorry, gotta run to work, can't reply, will try when get home.

[Rían]

I think GW brings up very good point, altho it is probably rather politically uncorrect - and yes, folks, he said, and I say, that rape is ALWAYS WRONG!!! - but the girls/women that lead a guy on are in the wrong, too, because it's selfishly using someone else for your own pleasure. There's a Bible verse about this idea somewhere, tho I can't recall it at the moment. And of course the 'positive' verse about this whole thing is:

Phillipians 2:3
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.

So it's wrong to 'lead a guy on' because it goes against the 'positive' instruction to regard others as more impt' than yourself and look out for others' interests. So maybe you ladies need to just dress a little more modestly (oh, I can see the hackles raising on that one! ) and draw your lines a little more conservatively (as to 'how far' you'll go) out of consideration of others. (Of course, the opposite goes, too - wrong for a guy to lead a girl on).

[Rían]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Is there such a thing as "justifiable evil" Can you commit evil intentionally to further a cause for a greater good?

Oy, it's too early to answer that one! Brain not awake yet... very complex - think Rahab lying to save the Jewish spies, etc., and she was commended... but for her faith, maybe not for the lying .... Oy! *takes 2 aspirin*

Quick answer would be 'absolutely not', but modified by 'things aren't always as black-and-white as we would like them to be' ... rats! *takes 2 more aspirin*

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No, I don't think it makes them evil, because "evil" is a human construct. I was just asserting that animals DO kill beyond necessity.

I disagree. Chimpanzees rape and murder for a reason. Usually territorial. Often to establish pecking order or usurp dominant individuals. They dont do it just because. Theres always a reason for it. Now isnt it interesting that as animals get more complex their actions get harder to analyze thus opening up the door to questioning their "good" vs "evil" intent? I find that interesting. And says a lot about us as humans.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If good and evil are a lens through which we humans percieve the world, then morals are entirely figments of human thought. If morals are a figment of human thought, then we have no reason to follow these morals besides that it's right to.

...

You see, there is no real reason why we should follow these morals, because they go in a loop. Morals are right, because they make everyone happy and do everyone good. But if people are just creatures, they have no reason to care about other people's feelings.

Therefore we must ask yourselves, what is right? Why do we, and why should we follow it?

Morals are entirely human construct. But only to a certain extent. They have their basis in (and here we once again hit the great divide between your thoughts and mine): EVOLUTION. On a species level murder within species is a detremental act on average. Because hey if I have no psychological quams about murdering you then that means you have none about murdering me and so nobody does and there will be murder aplenty and how can you survive like that as a species. you cant. you go extinct. self destruction. But if we evolve with a predisposition againts all out muder of each other then operating as a species is much easier and that enhances our survival abilities. we cant take this too far however and make self species murder an impossibility biologicaly because there are cases where its stil necessary as we all know. but it needs to be a pretty big deal in order for us to overcome that instinctual feeling of species preservation and go ahead and kill someone. it has to be the best choice of a worst case scenerio.

But anyway what i was getting at was that "morals" as we call them are simply the reflection of our instincts against killing (and other things) because A) its just plain dangerous to kill another living creature and B) its setting a real bad precedent within a species and C) it takes away from the altruistic benefit of being a social species which is a big factor in the survival of our genes - and that people is what its all about.

Of course as I said above this hinges all on the fact that you can accept evolution as a tool in our formation. I know for a number of you this is not an option you will entertain because of the limits of the rules of your religion so perhaps this is as far as we can go with it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Morals are entirely human construct......

I disagree, but you probably knew that!

Of course as I said above this hinges all on the fact that you can accept evolution as a tool in our formation. I know for a number of you this is not an option you will entertain because of the limits of the rules of your religion so perhaps this is as far as we can go with it.

I'm fine with this statement until this part: "because of the limits of the rules of your religion". From all of the posts that I have seen, the Christians that have posted on this thread do NOT blindly and idiotically say "um, Bible say this so we believe it without question *scratch under armpit, pick nose* Now let's go out and lynch someone that doesn't believe the same way as we do! Whee!". The Christians represented on this thread are thoughtful, intelligent people, IMO, who have used their intelligence to examine various worldview options and have come to an informed conclusion that Christianity is the correct and logical worldview, and have found it to stand up under the test of time.

In my opinion, IR, YOU (and others who believe that the theory of evolution is correct in its current form) are limited by what the THEORY of evolution asserts! (on some very doubtful evidence, IMO). But I'll do you the courtesy of assuming that you have brought your intelligence to bear on the question of whether or not it appears to be a valid theory, and have come to the conclusion that it IS, IYO.

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, IR, but I just really get irritated when Christians are perceived as putting their brains aside when their religious beliefs are involved - we DON"T!! (at least I don't, and the Christians I see represented on this thread don't, IMO).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
1) Morals are entirely human construct. But only to a certain extent.
2) They have their basis in (and here we once again hit the great divide between your thoughts and mine): EVOLUTION.
3) Because hey if I have no psychological quams about murdering you then that means you have none about murdering me and so nobody does and there will be murder aplenty
-snip-
4) we cant take this too far however and make self species murder an impossibility biologicaly because there are cases where its stil necessary as we all know. but it needs to be a pretty big deal in order for us to overcome that instinctual feeling of species preservation and go ahead and kill someone. it has to be the best choice of a worst case scenerio.
5) But anyway what i was getting at was that "morals" as we call them are simply the reflection of our instincts against killing (and other things) because A) its just plain dangerous to kill another living creature and B) its setting a real bad precedent within a species and C) it takes away from the altruistic benefit of being a social species which is a big factor in the survival of our genes - and that people is what its all about.

1) Entirely...only to a certain extent...LOL! And people say we contradict ourselves!
2) Respectfully disagree.
3) Not necessarily. Maybe your brain doesn't work. I know mine doesn't.
4) Agree.
5) No comment, for whatever reason...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
But anyway what i was getting at was that "morals" as we call them are simply the reflection of our instincts against killing (and other things) because A) its just plain dangerous to kill another living creature and B) its setting a real bad precedent within a species and C) it takes away from the altruistic benefit of being a social species which is a big factor in the survival of our genes - and that people is what its all about.

Re the "and that people is what its all about" - is it your opinion that it is a good thing for our species to survive? If so, why?