Does a good deed done by an evil person become evil?

@AThousandYoung said
We should not have to deal with spam. This is like those constant telephone calls we have to deal with in the USA. Ridiculous.

I tell you what: I’m going to keep posting in here, but if God comes up, it will be one of you first, not me.

@KingDavid403 said
This thread clearly belongs in the "Spirituality Forum;" seeing that your question to others is a spiritual question, is it not? The rest is nothing but you mis-guided spiritual opinions.

😂 constantly expecting others to abide by your rules ehh?

This is a “debates” forum… I see no exclusion of topics listed.

@KellyJay said
Does a good deed done by what we call an evil person does that mean the deed is now evil? When an evil deed is done by what we call a good person, does that mean that the deed is now good?

If we only see evil when we see some people, or only see good when we see some people, no matter what it is they are doing, are we viewing things properly, or have our eyes become dull ...[text shortened]... ee who we like and dislike, good and evil will be defined by the people, not by what they are doing.

All it takes is rational thought. Liberals have an issue with this.
Of course the deed is good.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
All it takes is rational thought. Liberals have an issue with this.
Of course the deed is good.

I agree, so good and evil are stand-alone things apart from people; we can do both. We can be the attacker, the attacked, or a witness, active or passive.

@KellyJay said
An ever-changing stage of development is a mutable standard always in flux, and you think this is a good thing? Exactly how do you know it is getting better and not worse if it’s always changing? Do you see murderers and such crimes going away with this advanced development? I have to work to strict standards all the time to see if what we are working on is doing what we ...[text shortened]... hich isn’t much of a standard. I’d also like to know who holds whom to this ever-changing standard?

Stages of individual moral development is not the same as a mutable standard of right and wrong. You are confusing two different concepts.

@moonbus said
I refer you to stages of moral development. There are several similar ladders of moral development, Kohlberg’s being one of the better known. Familiarize yourself with the concept, and we can continue the discussion.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Exactly.

@KellyJay said
An ever-changing stage of development is a mutable standard always in flux, and you think this is a good thing? Exactly how do you know it is getting better and not worse if it’s always changing? Do you see murderers and such crimes going away with this advanced development? I have to work to strict standards all the time to see if what we are working on is doing what we ...[text shortened]... hich isn’t much of a standard. I’d also like to know who holds whom to this ever-changing standard?

And this is why you fail.

@KellyJay said
Any judgment that isn’t the same for all is more of a personal preference, not much of a judgment, don’t you think? Like if I condemned someone for something I myself do.

As you might already know, this is merely hypocrisy, another moral failing.

@Metal-Brain said
You first have to define evil. If I set mouse traps is that evil? That is different than killing your dog. Is that evil? Some people would think so I am sure.

Is killing a terrorist evil? If so, you then have to define terrorism. Trump called Maduro a narco terrorist. Did he kill anybody? If not then Trump is the true terrorist. Right?

Trump says Iran is a terroris ...[text shortened]... by proxy? Now you have to define proxy. What is a proxy? Is an ally a proxy? What is the difference?

We know the difference.

Morally corrupt people confuse the border between the two. Anti-social behavior needs always be corrected, or isolated.

@AThousandYoung said
I remember when the Spirituality Forum was created specifically so people like you wouldn't post threads like this in Debates.

Back in the day the God Squad used to spam this forum to the point of uselessness.

Indeed.

The only reason for imposing spiritual beliefs on others through punishment (and isn't that the same as forcing people who do not read the Spirituality Forum to read the Spirituality Forum echoed in another forum?) is to satisfy one's own narcissistic tendencies.

This belongs in Spirituality. I beseech the Forum Moderators to move this or delete it, since it already exists IN the Spirituality Forum.

@KellyJay said
I post and this time I did bring Him up first, more times than not that is not the case. Know one is forcing you to read or join.this or any other conversation.

Au contraire, by posting this in a forum someone may read because they read this forum regularly, as opposed to posting it in a forum they never read, you are indeed forcing them to read it, when they ordinarily would have never seen it. This is another consequence of narcissism and giving the finger to normal forum etiquette is classic anti-social behavior.

@KellyJay said
I tell you what: I’m going to keep posting in here, but if God comes up, it will be one of you first, not me.

You've already brought God up.

As you always do when speaking of "universal truths".

@Mott-The-Hoople said
😂 constantly expecting others to abide by your rules ehh?

This is a “debates” forum… I see no exclusion of topics listed.

Normal forum etiquette, dude.

"Post in the correct forum." If you don't, you are grandstanding and forcing people who wouldn't normally read your musings (judgements?) to read them.

@Suzianne said
You've already brought God up.

As you always do when speaking of "universal truths".

If something is true, is it only true in one place, or everywhere when it is true? Opinions my vary about any thing but truth is always a reflection of reality as is.

@Suzianne said
Au contraire, by posting this in a forum someone may read because they read this forum regularly, as opposed to posting it in a forum they never read, you are indeed forcing them to read it, when they ordinarily would have never seen it. This is another consequence of narcissism and giving the finger to normal forum etiquette is classic anti-social behavior.

Every post here people who open and read will always be subject to the posts themselves. You think something is wrong about that?