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

@Mott-The-Hoople said
please explain how you are "forced" to read anything here?

Isn't that what happens, though?

I shouldn't have to always have to be explaining stuff to you. But it always seems to be what happens.

@KellyJay said
I posted something that the following conversation brought up that topic for me. But from here on out someone else will have to bring that up. Is it your desire to keep that conversation going?

What? I think you've lost the plot, here.

@KellyJay said
You want to talk about God?

Not especially.

Not to people who refuse to understand him.

@Suzianne said
Not especially.

Not to people who refuse to understand him.

Then, after I said I’d stop talking about Him here, unless another brings Him up, that bring Him up in this very conversation?

@Suzianne said
Isn't that what happens, though?

I shouldn't have to always have to be explaining stuff to you. But it always seems to be what happens.

There are a lot of posts here. Do you feel the need to explain everything to everyone? You do not have to read or respond to anything I say; more often than not, it isn’t to enter the conversation; it is to find fault in someone somewhere.

@Suzianne said
You have the cart before the horse here, as usual.

zzz

@boonon said
more abundant life in the here and now.

The here and now is Satan's world. Your own desires.

Your eternal salvation is what Jesus preached. Or your eternal damnation.

John 10:10
"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

1 John 4:4
"Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world."

1 John 4:17-19
"Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us."

By following the Calvinistic idea that God is punishment, we lose track of the message.

@KellyJay said
There are a lot of posts here. Do you feel the need to explain everything to everyone? You do not have to read or respond to anything I say; more often than not, it isn’t to enter the conversation; it is to find fault in someone somewhere.

You see exactly what you look for.

@Indonesia-Phil said
Keep taking the meds, you'll be fine.

Yeah, I got nothing out of that, either. Seems more akin to babbling.

@moonbus said
If your where-does-it-come-from question is of a historical nature, then I suppose the answer is that some tribe in ancient prehistory realized that might makes right is not a very nice way to live for anybody except the high and mighty. As Nietzsche somewhere says, morality is the herd instinct in the human animal.

Kant claimed that morality comes from pure reason, but th ...[text shortened]... ty for everyone for all time from God, and everybody just does whatever he feels like at the moment.

I rather think Rousseau has the right of it.

@Metal-Brain said
Then explain the difference. Answer the questions I posted. Is this only about people or is killing your dog evil? Is it just your dog or any dog? I ask because people have their own dogs killed sometimes.

https://theconversation.com/when-is-it-ethical-to-euthanize-your-pet-44806

You do not speak for everybody. Do not say we. What is evil is very much an opinion and ...[text shortened]... questions. You know it too. That is why you will not answer them. You are not honest as we all know.

You are a liar, you are a confuser, you strive not for understanding, you strive to bring the darkness.

This is why I choose mostly not to interact with you. That way lies madness. You speak of many things, yet not with facts, but with confusion. You do not seek to unite, you seek to scatter. You seek not the truth, you only seek ambiguity. You seek to cloud minds. There is no understanding there.

@Suzianne said
You see exactly what you look for.

We all do, but are we looking at the world and the people in truth, or are we coloring it by our own hearts, trying to find some reason to vent, out of love, or out of condemnation?

@Suzianne said
I rather think Rousseau has the right of it.

Compassion is certainly an essential component. The case of Phineas Gage and others with similar brain injuries demonstrate that a person with damaged passions but intact reasoning capacity may correctly answer abstract ethical questions but cannot consistently act morally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

I believe this shoots down Kant’s idea that morality is based on or deducible from reason alone.

@KellyJay said
Can they go back up and get worse?

Can individuals or societies degenerate into depravity and savagery? Yes.

@KingDavid403 said
So we should not care for the hungry? those devastated by nature? the Sick? Etc?

I don't think these things fall under "regulating behavior." However, I do see your point also. It's the middle path in between that's hard to find.

Every ethical system I know anything about presumes a general obligation not to harm others through acts of commission. No coherent ethical system requires ensuring that no one comes to harm through acts of omission, if only because one’s resources are limited and (almost) no one is ever really in a position to prevent millions from starving if there happens to be a drought somewhere. It is not my duty to save everyone from every possible harm and prevent every possible danger.

There are not only obligatory actions and forbidden ones. A coherent ethical system must leave room for supererogation. Acts of supererogation are discretionary, and as such, unpalatable to KellyJay, who thinks rules have to be the same for everyone, everywhere, immutably for all time.