Originally posted by no1marauderI'll attempt to clarify.
What does any of that ACTUALLY mean?? In your first post, you said being able to do evil was part of being human but now you say some really evil people aren't human at all?? Nonsense.
"I surrender" Kerry? Didn't he vote for and support the War in Iraq? Didn't he actually fight in a war? What does your label mean?
Th ...[text shortened]... ional elections in 1992 refuted that. The same thing could happen in 2006 and 2008.
The concept of good and evil is unique to humans. Some (STANG) will deny they exist. I don't. I believe life is all about the choices we make. You got your macro choices and your micro choices. Marco choices would be something like .. does God exist? Micro choices would be something like .. what do I wear today?
Does evil exist? is a macro question IMO. I believe we as humans choose whether to do evil or not. SOME humans don't have a conscience .. physcopaths, sociopaths and the like. They do evil and enjoy it. Are they aware that what they do is evil? Therein lies the rub. Many will say they are simply sick .. not responsible for their actions
Some humans are aware that what they do is evil and choose to do it regardless .. this (to me) is an "evil" person.
But the 1st question you have to ask is .. Does evil exist?
What do you think? Is evil a choice and are people responsible for the choices they make? Is their? .. should their be?, a price to pay for doing evil?
Originally posted by jammerThe concept of "evil" is too slippery for me; the word is bandied about as if it has some clear meaning when individuals disagree sharply on what is evil and what is not. I believe what STANG was trying to express is that the temptation is for people to say that the other side is "evil" and thus anything is justified. The Japanese were "evil" so Hiroshima was OK; the US was evil, so you can fly planes into buildings, Saddam was evil so you can invade his country and cause 100,000 deaths and on and on and on. In this manner the very concept of evil leads to more death and destruction because one invariably judges their own actions as "good" and thus those that oppose them must be "evil".
I'll attempt to clarify.
The concept of good and evil is unique to humans. Some (STANG) will deny they exist. I don't. I believe life is all about the choices we make. You got your macro choices and your micro choices. Marco choices would be something like .. does God exist? Micro choices would be something like .. what do I wear today?
Does evil exist? i ...[text shortened]... onsible for the choices they make? Is their? .. should their be?, a price to pay for doing evil?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe fact that evil is relative, and not absolute, allows you to make such a statement. Generally evil is a term used by religions to describe morally objectionable behavior or unbelievers. Attempts to describe evil are difficult without standards of comparison.
The concept of "evil" is too slippery for me; the word is bandied about as if it has some clear meaning when individuals disagree sharply on what is evil and what is not. I believe what STANG was trying to express is that the temptation is for people to say that the other side is "evil" and thus anything is justified. The Japanese were "evil ...[text shortened]... nvariably judges their own actions as "good" and thus those that oppose them must be "evil".
But, if I defined it as: 'Purposely intending to cause great harm.' would that not draw a line between certain men or their deeds?
Or how about evil=the opposite or absence of good, Can you show me the good in bin Laden or Saddam?
Individuals exists against the backdrop of society. The very mass of society (at a point in time) is what will define the consensus of 'good' or 'evil' and how to deal with it.
no1marauder says "The concept of "evil" is too slippery for me; the word is bandied about as if it has some clear meaning when individuals disagree sharply on what is evil and what is not."
..................
The "Problem of Evil" is a philosophical stumbling block for many people. The 1st hurdle is answering the question: Does God exist?
This is the ultimate question. Without God, there is no moral base .. no absolute truth. Good and Evil become "relative" terms. This is how the Secular Moral Relativist is able to equate GW Bush with Saddam Hussian morally. To the religious person evil is obvious .. evil = sin, to the secular person the same question is answered with .. "it depends"
This is how " the word is bandied about as if it has some clear meaning when individuals disagree sharply on what is evil and what is not."
To the religious person what is evil is obvious, not so with the secular person. As you say ...
"The concept of "evil" is too slippery for me (them); the word is bandied about as if it has some clear meaning when individuals disagree sharply on what is evil and what is not."
Without a moral base or code "the concept of evil" is indeed a slippery issue.
.........
That's the best I can do right now. The confusion exists due to the fact that theists and secularists define evil in different ways. To the theist evil is an absolute term (evil=sin), to the secularist evil means different things in different situations .. it's flexible, it depends ..
..................
