the need for the existence of evil..

[FuXnDajenariht]

i just want some thoughts on this. my cousin and i had a 3 hour debate not too long ago about the meaning for existence.....among other things :D. the end of the conversation settled on the subject of good and evil. he came to the conclusion that evil needs to exist in the world. that there can't be balance in the universe without it. that its an inseparable part of human nature.

what do you think it exists for? what are the causes? if its part of human nature is free will precluded? or is the entire idea of good and evil subjective? etc... etc... on and on...

i would give some background but i dont wanna affect the replies. that and i was stoned to the gills.. my memory about exactly what was said is foggy.. lol so start it on a clean slate.

post any thoughts you have. :D

[Mr Punch]

I don't believe in Evil.

that's not to say I don't think some acts aren't evil, I do, but to say that i do not believe anyone is driven by some malignant force, energy or anything other than human emotion and electro-chemical reactions within the nervous system.

Ultimately I don't think it's a necessary construct to help with our understanding of why people do bad things, in fact I think it usually obscures our understanding with dualism and polarisation contributing to a cycle of prejudice and divisiveness. It blames a mythical 'force', an anthropomorphism of usually a causally explicable behaviour. This cause yet more attacks on the surface of behaviour; too much focus on the outcome and blame, and not enough on cause and responsibility for ensuring that the chances of such acts occurring again are minimized.

I also think your sig is nonsense! :D :p I don't think the 'common human' is many of those things... I don't credit the 'common human' with as much intelligence, nouse or foresightedness!

[joedoe]

If you think of it from the point of view of free will, then evil is a necessary option, otherwise you do not have any choice other than to do good.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Mat

I also think your sig is nonsense! :D :p I don't think the 'common human' is many of those things... I don't credit the 'common human' with as much intelligence, nouse or foresightedness!

lol! there song lyrics actually ;)

from a death metal band if that says anything. ''they're'' not exactly known for songs about roses and butterflies. mostly perpetual red letter moments....

the lyrics do actually have a point or a message to put across. but its done in a self deprecating, misanthropic fashion like most bands in that style of music. what genre conventions dictate basically...

and thanks for the reply. anyone else have any thoughts to add?

[rubthebuddha]

i don't buy the good vs. evil thing. i do buy good vs. bad. i basically evaluate things on a "good for myself/others" vs. "bad for myself/others" scale and then make a decision on whatever's validity/necessity/etc.

[Toby]

Originally posted by FuXnDajenariht
lol! there song lyrics actually ;)

from a death metal band if that says anything.Lol! I was gunna say reminds me of something Morbid Angel might write after I read Mat's post and before I read yours. Well, intersperse some little-known occult references and it might be Morbid Angel ...

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by joedoe
If you think of it from the point of view of free will, then evil is a necessary option, otherwise you do not have any choice other than to do good. That's exactly typical of the nonsense that is dualism! :p

There are more than two options! Free will is freedom to do A or B...? What about L? R? X or Y?! :D
FuX
lol! there song lyrics actuallyYeah I'd worked that out! Having been a stalwart listener and writer/singer of punk back in the day...! Nothing else would be so trite!!! :p

[FuXnDajenariht]

its from my favorite band. meshuggah. :D

i love morbid angel too \m/ :D

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Mat
1) That's exactly typical of the nonsense that is dualism! :p

There are more than two options! Free will is freedom to do A or B...? What about L? R? X or Y?! :D



2) Yeah I'd worked that out! Having been a stalwart listener and writer/singer of punk back in the day...! Nothing else would be so trite!!! :p

1) it depends on what your definition of good and evil(bad) is i believe. your decision will either effect you or another person positively or negatively. regardless of the means.



2) yea aint it great! i move away from the more extreme stuff as i get old.

[Brad]

It's way too late for me to be seriously thinking about this subject, but I'll try to insert my two cents in anyway(I'm just not going into a bunch of details :P).

I think "evil" only exists in human beings and isn't necesary(as far as continued existance of the world). I think it's more of a man made thing brought into existance by free choice. So I guess in that sense, evil(or the potential for evil) has to exist in order for true freedom of choice to exist... but it doesn't mean you have to bring it about :P

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings.. (the following represents my personal perspective and not intended to be an assertion of "cosmic truth")

There is no "good/evil".. only consequences and our arbitrary labels of desirability.. Good/evil are contrived values that satisfy changing standards.. good in one culture may be bad in another..

It is two sides of the same coin.. too much time spent analyzing and judging good/evil conflicts with simple response to a situation based on one's established value system.. conflicts over the perspectives of good/evil are essential to empower the concept..

Analysis of consequences and actions that either promote chaos or harmony are foundational to my personal philosophy.. Was Hitler "evil"? in the broader scope of consequences, his actions caused the world to unite under a common cause, to state a principle that is being challenged again today.. his "evil" may have spawned a greater "good"..

Freewill.. has no dependency on the notions of "good/evil", it simply means we choose our own destiny.. and no choice is still a choice.. we cannot blame our situation on others, we each choose our station in life.. we will choose to create our own way, or we will choose to let others do it for us.. either way we "choose"..

"Give me liberty or give me death", a radical choice by Patric Henry, but one with consequences that have reshaped human perspectives of their worth.. With that choice, and similar choices by others, came war, death and difficult times.. Bad?.. With that choice there emerged a new Nation founded on the notion of freedom and self-determination.. Good?.. who knows, the consequences are still rippling through civilization.. and the current US administration may taint the US concept.. but, that's another story..

Be well..

[The Willow Sword]

This is a Mysterious world we live in,,and not all of those mysteries can be explained. of course it doesnt mean that if it cannot be explained in the scientific terms we cling to so desperately,,that it is illusion or not real.

you have to be able to "see" beyond the perspective of your "doing"s in the world and look beyond that scope for it is a minute aspect of this mysterious and wonderful world we live in.

Now as for there being a "NEED" to have evil. I have always believed that "Evil" is inherent in the minds and hearts of men,,and so is "good" ... it is the age old struggle that human beings force on themselves to make them more "self important" and "superior" to the world around them. Man vs Man,, Man Vs Nature Man Vs Animal and finally the most difficult struggle we force ourselves into, Man vs Himself.
I also believe that the mind is very powerful,,and if a large mass of people who consiously and subconsiously believe in something such as the concept of evil being an intelligent being or entity(ie:the devil) or good (ie: god or whatever) that the collective consiousness gives those thoughts power,,and thus makes it real for themselves,,,,and since a good portion of the world believes in these concepts in their many forms,,they in turn make it "REAL" for themselves. they all share in the same "neurosis" as i like to call it.
Creation in my opinion has been humankinds greatest achievement,,and existing within that creation has been the animal kingdoms greatest hardship and yet they live harmoniously in those creations,,they adapt and live or they suffer and die,,just as human kind does in the face of the religions we create for ourselves to give ourselves self worth and meaning,,those "evils" that we think about and question emerge out of these things.

As for the balance of things,, "evil cannot exist with out good",,or you cant have one without the other,,,,these concepts are blind ones to me and they lock us in a constant pattern of chaos,,they are trappings of the mind,,and truly have prevented us from evolving past these mindsets that i have seen that justify the killings of mass amounts of people and so on and so forth.

religion is our greatest failure as a species of being in my opinion,,yet another trapping of the mind. however i do not totally condemn the ideas,,for the ideas of what is and what shall never be can be changed and re thought and constantly questioned,,,the beliefs are the major downfall,,those beliefs that many think are so concrete and right,,just as science seeks to solidify that which can be seen touched felt tastes and in some cases,,comprehended,,,have contributed to most of the conlficts and struggles we go through as a species that i feel we should not be struggling with,, those conflicts that we then turn into "EVIL" as a result of our frustrations and conflicts.

PEACE,,,TWS

[Kristoffer]

''..Without evil there can be no good so it must be good to be evil somethiiiiimes..''

- Satan

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Mat
That's exactly typical of the nonsense that is dualism! :p

There are more than two options! Free will is freedom to do A or B...? What about L? R? X or Y?!

There must be a choice to do good or evil for our choices to mean anything; for free will to exist. I don't think it's just an "A" or "B" option. All options that may be available exist in degrees of good or bad, with no choice (or at least the majority of the cchoices) being truly good or truly evil. That’s where the moral relativism arguments come into play. Some choices may be better to some, worse for others.

As long as man exists, there will be things defined as good and things defined as evil.

[red5angel]

What is this evil you speak of exactly? why do you and your brother get to determine what is evil or that it exists?

[SPJ]

Shun Tzi theory about the bad nature of people.

Xin Er Xuo, over 2000 years ago,

In contrast, Meng Tzi has theory about the good nature of people.

Kong Fu Tzi specified what you do not want happen to yourself. Do not do unto others.

Ji Xuo Bi Yu. Wu Shi Yu Ren.

Evil would do damage to others with ill intent while there is no good for himself.

But a bad karma will start and come back to the initiator.

So it all starts with the intent or thoughts.

That is why the Buddhists cultivate good thoughts and see thru evil thoughts.

Daoist thinks that everything is relative. Your goodness may be evils to others.

Christians believe in greater love for others. The greatest love from God.

Love creates, gives, forgives, nurtures and life may continue.

Evil brings destructions, revenges, and life may end.

---

[red5angel]

Evil brings destructions, revenges, and life may end.

How are those necessarily evil?

[SPJ]

Yes. everything is relative.

If there is no death, there is no birth.

If there is no beginning, there is no end.

If there is no end, there is no beginning.

In between, we call it life.

However, this is referring to one entity or oneself moving relative to time.

Cause and effect.

In reference from one (people) to the other (people), that is a different story.

--

[The Willow Sword]

i guess my earlier post went way over peoples heads. oh well. :cool:


Peace,,TWS

[red5angel]

yes Willow Sword, you are way too advanced for the likes of us poor mortals.


Actually while some people see this as a "deep" subject, I don't really view it that way. Good and Evil are concepts that are strictly subjective. Your good can be my evil and so on. I think way down deep inside, even the most religious of us understand this but we cling to ideals that allow us to explain away the things that make us uncomfortable. Without something like "Evil" you have no reason to hate, to make war, or oppress those around you who do not think like you do.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings,

TWS.. i think we have similar perspectives, only i choose to avoid the baggage that comes with the labeling of "good/evil".. it is what it is, the only consequence flows from our response to whatever it is.. Good/Evil as inherent qualities in humans exist only as arbitrary value judgements.. two sides of the same coin, value the coin regardless of which side faces you.. and, know that the other side is just a flip away..

Be well..

[FuXnDajenariht]

good replies... i think basically everyone is in agreement. i think im beginning to understand why my cousin thinks the way he does.

anyway... when i have more time ill post what i think about the whole thing.

[Judge Pen]

"Just as every cop's a criminal and all the sinner's saints;
To end this tale just call me Lucifer, 'cause I'm in need of some restraint;
So if you meet me, have some courtesy, have some sympathy, have some taste;
Use all your well earned qualities before I lay your souls to waste."

Woohooo
Woohooo
Woohooo
Woohooo

[Shaolinlueb]

sounds like something out of the matrix, without one there cant be the other. you need one to have another one.

[red5angel]

awesome reference JP!

[Judge Pen]

I've been humming that **** song since I started reading this thread!!!

[Ray Pina]

All things come from the taiji.

In the beginning ...... Before creation, big bang, etc. was singularity (scientists say so, not me)

There is no existance like this because 1 can not experience itself because there is no relativity so then 1 becomes two and everything so you can experience yourself because you are not me , etc. etc. Everyone is experiencing everything .... pretty clever trick of God, Tao.

View this individualistic 4 dimensional existance as the expression of a single multidimensial force .... this is what scientists are calling string theory, vibrations from a higher dimension.

View yourself as your local internet connection but you are only one outlet of The Internet.

Good and evil are all silly things happening on the individual level, but its sort of like calling it bad when one leaf falls from a tree. A tree is all of its leaves, its branches, the trunk, the roots, the soil, the sun and rain helping it grow.

What you do to "other" you do to "self". So what is evil?

[red5angel]

I've been humming that **** song since I started reading this thread!!!


yeah fukker! Since I read that I haven't been able to get it out of my head! :mad: :( :D

It did remind me to go pick up a copy of Mikail Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" though! :D

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by red5angel
yeah fukker! Since I read that I haven't been able to get it out of my head! :mad: :( :D

It did remind me to go pick up a copy of Mikail Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" though! :D

Glad to be of service.

Let's start debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin now.

Better yet: Can God create a rock that is too big for Him to lift?

These questions are, by nature, unanswerable to anyone else other than yourself.

[red5angel]

These questions are, by nature, unanswerable to anyone else other than yourself.

That's not completely true. I hold no religious beliefs and so evil or good, is not a universal truth. There is no proof that evil exists as anything but a concept. ;)

[red5angel]

same thing.

[SevenStar]

I haven't read this thread yet, so this may have been said, but humans are destructive by nature. When you think about it, THAT is what's prevalent in human beings. We are taught how to be nice, but we are born knowing how to retaliate. Order is an ideal of humanity - and even that ideal is driven by destruction. Humans are chaotic by nature, and thus evil is unavoidable.

[red5angel]

I think man's ability to instinctively retaliate is a survival trait. One how reacts violently and instantly to a threat comes out the other end in better shape the one who doesn't. That capacity is not "evil" it just is. As a matter of fact in a discussion of good and evil, I would qualify that as good.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
Better yet: Can God create a rock that is too big for Him to lift?


ultimately, what is that question supposed to prove? Whenever I hear someone talk about the existence/nonexitence of God, that question is asked... Are you trying to prove that he is not actually omnipotent? If that's the case, what would the actual limit of his power be?

[red5angel]

It's not an answerable question. It's posed by those who don't really understand the nature of an omnipotent entity who is all powerful because those who pose it have finite minds and are limited in their ability to comprehend something that is not finite and not limited.

[Ming Yue]

Good and evil are a human construct, not a force.

We're born with the instinct to protect ourselves and then later on we get an idea of why one method of doing so may be socially preferable to another.

we're taught how to get along in society. If we were loners, not responsible to or for one another, the definitions of good and evil would be very different, I think. The definitions would be individual, not biased by a group influence.

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by red5angel
It's not an answerable question. It's posed by those who don't really understand the nature of an omnipotent entity who is all powerful because those who pose it have finite minds and are limited in their ability to comprehend something that is not finite and not limited.

Exactly. These questions can't really be answered to any degree of satisfaction by me or anyone else. I can only satisfy my own notions of good and evil and the nature of God to me. It is, as this thread is revealing, very subjective and unique to each individual.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Mat
That's exactly typical of the nonsense that is dualism! :p

There are more than two options! Free will is freedom to do A or B...? What about L? R? X or Y?! :DYeah I'd worked that out! Having been a stalwart listener and writer/singer of punk back in the day...! Nothing else would be so trite!!! :p

I think someone has said this before, but my statement about needing to have the concept of evil does not preclude the existence of more than two choices, it only states that there is more than one choice. ;)

I guess this also raises the question of the subjectivity of evil and whether it is socially defined, or if it is in fact an absolute.

And as for no choice still being a choice, I do not fully agree with that. There is always the choice to do something, or do nothing. Having no choice, by definition means that there is no choice. You must fall back on the absolute situation where you can choose to do something, or choose to do nothing.

[Yum Cha]

I intellectualised about this as a young man, and it was a great journey...

Eventually, I found somethting that works for me. In my personal interpretation, I believe that everything has a balance, for one to exist, it is defined by the existance of its opposite.

Everything in life boils down to the bell curve. Each end is an extreme, and the greatest balance flucuates around the center point. Like the very model of the cosmos.

Thus true evil exists just about as often as true good, however most of the force pulls towards the middle. We use our experiences with morality and ethical behaviour to moderate the location of that median point. At times we pull it well to the positive, at others to the negative, but the greatest force is towards the middle.

Thus, we are all morally obliged to push that median point towards good in everything we do and our failings are the force that pushes it towards evil. Individually, and collectively.

The battle between good and evil rages on....at least in my interpretation of the universe.

May the force be with you....

:D

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by joedoe
If you think of it from the point of view of free will, then evil is a necessary option, otherwise you do not have any choice other than to do good. joe, that's saying according to free will if I don't do something evil, then what I'm doing is automatically part of good... which is saying there are two choices and maybe saying there are several non-choices to do good. You're not precluding the existance of more than two choices but by the definition that you have to choose something for it to be good/evil which again is part of the definition of free will, the fact that you've missed out mention of other choices or even non-choices suggests that it is a dualistic statement.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by SevenStar
I haven't read this thread yet, so this may have been said, but humans are destructive by nature. When you think about it, THAT is what's prevalent in human beings. We are taught how to be nice, but we are born knowing how to retaliate. Order is an ideal of humanity - and even that ideal is driven by destruction. Humans are chaotic by nature, and thus evil is unavoidable. I disagree. It sounds like nitpicking but nature is destructive, not specifically humans. And nor is chaos necessarily bad... that is like the whole of this good vs evil thing. Chaos is bad to those who believe in order.

Plus, I also think people have a capacity to care for things from birth, not only to destroy. Maybe this is driven by selfish instinct (ie the wittle doggy's fur feels comforting), but it's still an instinct. By a similar token, you could say that human's desire to destroy is a desire to simplify their existance (just look at Bush - you're with us or you're a terrorist!) which is a preclusion to order.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Mat
joe, that's saying according to free will if I don't do something evil, then what I'm doing is automatically part of good... which is saying there are two choices and maybe saying there are several non-choices to do good. You're not precluding the existance of more than two choices but by the definition that you have to choose something for it to be good/evil which again is part of the definition of free will, the fact that you've missed out mention of other choices or even non-choices suggests that it is a dualistic statement.

Maybe I did not word it properly, but what I was saying was that for there the be free will there must be the ability to choose. If there is good with no opposite, then there is no choice. Obviously there are varying shades of grey between the two extremes, but there must be the two extremes in the first place.

[Mr Punch]

OK. That makes sense. :D

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Mat
OK. That makes sense. :D

In future I will try to express myself in English :D

[Vash]

Evil is the man who rapes children.

Evil is the person who starts wars where none was needed.

Evil is the woman who breaks her children's spirit, who takes their identity.

Evil is the man who beats his wife.

Evil is the unrestrained, absolute expression of destruction - destruction without rebirth.

Evil is the lack of knowledge and the drive to gain such.

[SPJ]

Good points.

[SPJ]

It is all interesting that the dependent origination of goodness on existence of evils???

Let me step back a bit.

Chinese version of Jack and the bean stalk.

If you seed a melon, you grow a melon. Zhong Gua De Gua.

If you sow a corn, you reap a corn. Zhong Do De Do.

If you do some goodness, you will harvest goodness.

If you implant evil, the evil will come back to you.

So what are you planting or seeding in your life?

[FuXnDajenariht]

good replies... ****ing 'a' :D.

i dont think i can add much more on it. i think we're all basically in agreement that morality and therefore the "concept" of good and evil are subjective. an imperfect ability to reason will always create an imperfect idea of cause and effect. "evil" being an unavoidable and necessary effect of free will as some of you stated before.

the concept of evil as a separate entity would only create endless chaos in my opinion (also stated before). i dont believe nature leaves anything to chance. meaning the laws and principles that govern nature. "evil" is caused by ignorance and indifference to the free will of other humans (or any living thing). "evil" as a separate entity would preclude the need for evolution in my -opinion-. life is lived to experience. experience is needed to learn lessons. lessons are used to evolve beyond what you are. being trapped in the same cycles leads to hopelessness and nihilism. it would make existance pointless. you dont need to believe in god to see this i dont think. it also leads to unaccountability..

does that make sense? lol its 4am here so bare with me....

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Duality is the nature of existence.. the labels we assign to the duality are subjective..

There are many examples of groups of people that consider themselves "good" seeking isolation from a corrupt society.. but, after a time these "good" people begin to divide their group into another duality of "more good and less good", finally setting up another duality of preferences.. it is the nature of existence.. as was said, nothing exists except by comparison to something else.. even the basic concept of One singular being ("God", Allah, Tao, etc..) exists as compared to that which does not exist (Yin/Yang, light/dark, etc..).. it is only in the mind/perception of we, the observers, that values are assigned to these natural conditions..

Be well..

[Judge Pen]

Originally posted by Vash
Evil is the man who rapes children.

Evil is the person who starts wars where none was needed.

Evil is the woman who breaks her children's spirit, who takes their identity.

Evil is the man who beats his wife.

Evil is the unrestrained, absolute expression of destruction - destruction without rebirth.

Evil is the lack of knowledge and the drive to gain such.

"I stuck around in Saint Petersburg when I saw it was time for a change. I killed the Czar and his minsters; Anastasia screamed in vain.
I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkreig raged and the bodies stank."

[TaiChiBob]

"Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name"

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob
"Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name" Er, pleased to meet you too... it's Bob isn't it?

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Vash
Evil is the man who rapes children.

Evil is the person who starts wars where none was needed.

Evil is the woman who breaks her children's spirit, who takes their identity.

Evil is the man who beats his wife.

Evil is the unrestrained, absolute expression of destruction - destruction without rebirth.

You see, that's just a load of crap!
Evil is the lack of knowledge and the drive to gain such. And that's the reason why!

Although, I would qualify that last one as stupid, not necessarily evil. Some stupid people can't help it; so without their free choice, they can't be classed as evil. Just look at Red! :D :p

Eg, if you execute someone for raping children, without trying to find out why, that's maybe stupid; and if that knowledge could have gone towards preventing someone else from doing the same thing, that's bordering on evilly negligent (although I appreciate this prevention is possibly impossible in the US but in a small state like the UK perfectly feasible).

These things you mentioned are personifications of evil, not evidence of evil, or even an evil force. To anthropocentrize evil is a contrived and unhelpful construct. As I said before and somebody else (MY?) agreed, evil is not an entity, it's a human construct.

[Merryprankster]

Evil is not ignorance.

An amoral person cannot be held morally accountable for their actions.

Similarly, you can't educate immorality away.

Note that I am not concerned with the framework of morality here. That is, it doesn't matter which morality you choose.

Here's a question - is a sociopath immoral or amoral? I tend to think amoral. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be locked up mind you. Public good plays a role as well.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Evil is not ignorance.Thank you. As I said:
me
Although, I would qualify that last one as stupid, not necessarily evil. Some stupid people can't help it; so without their free choice, they can't be classed as evil.

Merry
An amoral person cannot be held morally accountable for their actions.Yep. Again that's what I was saying, which is why I used the words 'bordering on evilly negligent' rather than any reference to ignorance.

Negligence (ie the refusal to act for the good or what you see as the good on prior information) is as close to evil as I would allow my definitions to go.


Merry
Here's a question - is a sociopath immoral or amoral? I tend to think amoral. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be locked up mind you. Public good plays a role as well. Here's a question before I go to bed...

Evil is a force.
A man rapes and kills a family.
He is judged as evil.
Yet because evil is a force he can't have had any choice in his actions.
Therefore his actions are amoral, not evil?

If you believe in evil, you are absolving people of personal responsibility for their actions.

(In the same way, I do not agree with the death penalty, because you are giving people a get out... but that's another (oft-had!) thread.)

The answer to yours is amoral I'd say Merry. And therefore (****, these worms just look soooo tasty! :D ) should be locked up rather than snuffed out anyday.

[Merryprankster]

Interesting perspective on the death penalty. Practically, we make mistakes. One dead innocent person is one too many.

As far as evil not existing, I disagree. Evil exists. However, it's not a "force" looking for an actor. The actor commits evil.

Very different.

[red5angel]

Duality is the nature of existence..

duality is as real as Evil or Good is.


Similarly, you can't educate immorality away.

I'd have to disagree here Merry. Morality is a part of education. There is not natural morality, in my belief. To slightly contradict myself however, I believe quite a few morals to be derived from our natural instinct for survival. However you have to educate to make members of a society understand what your particular morality is.

I don't believe in amorality. I believe even those who commit crimes understand that they are not moral in the eyes of the society they live in.


**** YOU JP!!!!!

[Merryprankster]

Morality is a part of education. There is not natural morality, in my belief. To slightly contradict myself however, I believe quite a few morals to be derived from our natural instinct for survival. However you have to educate to make members of a society understand what your particular morality is.

Ok, but that's not precisely my point. If a person is ignorant of a particular piece of the moral framework, you can't hold them accountable in a moral sense. You might ethically or legally, but can you hold them morally accountable? Did they make the choice knowing what they did was morally wrong?

If they didn't know, that's just ignorance. It's not a moral decision because it didn't require determining right and wrong.

Once they are educated what the framework is, then you can hold them morally accountable.

However, an immoral person won't care what the framework is. They will do whatever, whenever. That is my point. You cannot "educate away" evil/immorality, because immorality requires knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing wrong anyway. A wrong act out of ignorance is just ignorance, not immorality.

So you can educate away ignorance of the moral framework, but not immorality.

[SPJ]

Conscience is innate with your gene.

Meng Tzi said people are born with goodness.

Shun Tzi said people are born with evilness.

Educations and religions give you why and how you should love others like yourself. Greater love for your fellow citizen. Greatest love for God.

Because hatred and evils will bring destructions upon oneself. Because we are created by God. The wage of the sin is death.

Morality is a society or culture agreed upon "conduct" acceptable to all.

As TCB said it is a construct for the greater good for everyone in the society.

Morality is man made and so it can be changed.

Laws are more rigid. It dishes out punishments based on culture, "morality", interpretations of some "religions" etc.

It is all for the preservation of everyone as a whole.

Evil does not give birth to good. Good does not give birth to evil.

Good comes out from your gene of self preservation and common good for everyone else.

Evils beget evils.

The arbitration of right vs wrong is dependent on the dynamic flux of many factors as pointed out earlier.

---

[red5angel]

MP, figured you were heading that direction but decided to comment anyway, just in case.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Death penalty? should we kill as a punishment for killing? ultimately, "an eye for an eye", leaves everyone blind...

I do not have the right to terminate another being's physical existence except as a deterent to real and present danger to myself or others.. once the danger is neutralized (or terminated).. the criminal should be isolated in such a manner as to prevent any future threat to society. Now, i advocate geographic isolation and sterilization of both sexes with rudimentary tools for survival.. they will exist or cease to exist by their own hand(s).. but, i do not want the State to act on my behalf by terminating a life when that life's threat to society has been neutralized.. as long as the death penalty is used a a tool for social justice it is validated as simply a tool by any that choose to contrive it use for gain.. any use of gov't sponsored death as a punishment and deterent has been futile as a deterent.. and as punishment only puts the government is the same light as the criminal it seeks to punish, both are killers.. and, has been stated, a life of isolation and hardship is much more daunting than early release from this physical existence..

Be well..

[Merryprankster]

I don't believe in amorality. I believe even those who commit crimes understand that they are not moral in the eyes of the society they live in.

Really? A sociopath by definition has no sense of empathy. A religious person might say they have no soul.

While they logically know that they will be punished for doing what society defines as "wrong," they have no personal sense of right and wrong. Killing a person to get something is the same as choosing to cross the street.

Can we genuinely call a sociopath immoral as they have no sense of right and wrong? We can certainly brand them criminally insane...but how do you hold a person with no conscience morally accountable for their actions?

Amorality in a person is very dangerous for everybody else because all social decisions look the same to them. Very very spooky, IMO.

[red5angel]

Empathy is one thing and it too can be subjective. For example a Terrorist might be empathetic to his own people (I say might) but won't be to what he determines is god's enemy. Some soldiers may also appear to not care but later suffer horrible nightmares and such.

A line from the Last Samurai comes to mind - when Cruise and the main Samurai dude are chit chatting about fighting and war and in response to somehting cruise says about having nightmares he says somehitng like "A warrior only has nightmares about things he regrets" or something like that.

Anyway, the point is that even one who is not empathetic, may still understand what is right or wrong.

[Merryprankster]

Red, the examples you provided are not sociopaths.

Sociopathy is a psychological conditioned characterized by a lack of empathy. They don't need to justify anything they do because there is no moral distinction between say, killing and making a right hand turn.

A lack of empathy for a particular group is quite different. And even then, the actor has to justify their lack of empathy through some rationalization. It's okay to blow up the WTC BECAUSE we are protecting Islam from the Great Satan, etc.

Sociopaths require no such rationalization. It's very difficult to think about. I have a very hard time with it because it's so alien. Not surprisingly, sociopaths usually have poor impulse control....

[red5angel]

no I understand what you're saying, that's why I also said that I don't believe sociopaths while unable to empathize, don't know the difference bewteen right and wrong. They've heard it, and may even understand the concept or logic behind it.

This is why I'm going back to school to get my doctorate in psychology. This sort of stuff intrigues me.

[Merryprankster]

no I understand what you're saying, that's why I also said that I don't believe sociopaths while unable to empathize, don't know the difference bewteen right and wrong. They've heard it, and may even understand the concept or logic behind it.

Ah, okay. So what you're really saying is that Sociopathy doesn't exist. I think the world of psychology/psychiatry would disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion.


This is why I'm going back to school to get my doctorate in psychology. This sort of stuff intrigues me.

Might help you understand this forum better.

[red5angel]

Ah, okay. So what you're really saying is that Sociopathy doesn't exist. I think the world of psychology/psychiatry would disagree with you, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I'd have to understand Sociopathy better before I could say it doesn't exist. What I am saying is that it's probably misunderstood.


Might help you understand this forum better.

I could probably make a cozy career studying this forum :D

[FuXnDajenariht]

seems like everyone has a slight difference in their definition of morality. :confused:

[red5angel]

of course why do you think so many people are killing each other all the time? that's the point, morality is purely subjective.

[FuXnDajenariht]

for instance. what is a law besides a more easily define-able moral? a culturally agreed upon moral. why is headhunting culturally accepted in some parts of the world for instance....

sociopaths are not held 'morally' accountable or punished under the full weight of the law because their not mentally stable i think. i dont think its fair to compare to them to people will a functioning brainstem. lol comprehending right and wrong or being able to experience things like empathy are pretty difficult without full use of your mind. its like trying to hold an animal accountable for killing dinner. we still are animals at the basic level. its our minds that separate us.

why you do believe what people consider evil to not be caused by ignorance? im interested to know.

we already established that its neccessary if free will is possible.... but then what else could it be?

do you believe immorality can be taught? why can't amorality be a choice?

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by red5angel
of course why do you think so many people are killing each other all the time? that's the point, morality is purely subjective.

i meant on the thread. im kinda lost in the sauce here.