Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I mean, in a way evil can help sometimes. When evil things happen with evil people because they brought it upon themselves... I think its a little like karma. In this way evil could be a way to do justice.

Like a murderer, a rapist, or just a corrupt politician that by getting involved in such evil deeds open themselves for evil to be comitted against them too.

In other situations we could use evil to defend ourselves against it if we are defenseless. Sometimes, extreme aversion for evil can make us defenseless, and if we feel free to use evil as a weapon agaisnt evil we would be more safe. Pacifism, and moralism can be weaking sometimes, so in some situations maybe "The means does justify the ends".

What do you think ?

We can't know what good is without evil. And vice versa....

All things have the potential of good or evil, but there is no such thing as pure good or pure evil, there is always a mix. So something that is evil could have a good effect. As for example; what Hitler did was evil, but because we saw what he did, we are more aware of the potential evil that can be done. If the world learns from this lesson and never forgets, then that would be a good that came from evil.

There is no such thing as evil. Everything is relative. 5 billion people may percieve an act, thought or idea as evil while 100 percieve it as good. People believe Hitler's actions and intentions were evil, yet he did not....go figure. The word evil itself is merely an aural/visual representation of a person's thoughts and/or feelings........

Originally posted by Evil Dead
There is no such thing as evil. Everything is relative. 5 billion people may percieve an act, thought or idea as evil while 100 percieve it as good. People believe Hitler's actions and intentions were evil, yet he did not....go figure. The word evil itself is merely an aural/visual representation of a person's thoughts and/or feelings........

I agree, however, I keep things simple, and talk about good and evil. I use expedient means to bring people to an understanding. Most people will not understand what you are talking about; I could be wrong.

might want to post the definition of expedient for those same people you were just speaking of..........

Evil itself is always bad, regardless of consequences.

Intent > Action > Consequence

If the intent and/or action are evil, or lacking good, the consequence is irrelevant. No one gets into a car accident and goes "Well, my mom died, but at least I don't have to put her in a nursing home or pay car insurance anymore." To define evil as anything other than bad would be like saying darkness can sometimes be light. And the analogy connection there is that while both ideas need each other to contrast and thus be identified, it doesn't mean they are interchangeable. If anything, making them or their products interchangeable would disrupt the meaning. Good itself cannot be evil, nor can good acts, though the consequence can be viewed as "bad" or "unfortunate" if it was not viewed as beneficial or in accordance with moral good.

Example: a surgeon intends to save a patient's life (good) and performs life saving surgery (good) but the patient dies (bad or evil outcome). Why would we believe that the intent and action were possibly evil because of the consequence? Medicine is a good in that it allows people to aid and save lives. But people can be allergic and it can kill people. Is it thus evil? Was the medicine itself evil for being an instrument of an evil outcome, even though the intent and action was essentially good in nature?

No, that doesn't make any sense. And neither does the idea of evil being "good" sometimes. Now, it may be your point that evil can inadvertantly cause some good, but this isn't a philosophical revelation or a reason to reevaluate the notion of evil; it's just the way things happen. Consider this: I drop a coin of Fate. It will cause a chain of reactions that will eventually either war or peace, an outcome which I cannot predict nor affect. If I drop the coin, and it causes peace, does that determine that my intent was to cause peace? No. Because of all the variables in life, we cannot determine 100% all outcomes. Therefore the outcome of an action should not determine its nature as good or bad, but the action and intent should, which we DO have control over.

Anyways, the nature of consequences does not preclude objective morality and prove consequentialism.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
might want to post the definition of expedient for those same people you were just speaking of..........

I don't want them to know what I'm doing.




Originally posted by Wesker
...Intent > Action > Consequence...

Intent is an action. Just thinking about something makes karma.

Also, dieing is not an evil outcome, we all die someday.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Intent is an action. Just thinking about something makes karma.

That's a particularly subjective and religious approach to the issue. I could say that believing in good or bad neccessitates both, but that's just rhetoric and nonsense. Intent is separate from action in that not all intents are realized, while actions always are. Also, not all actions come from intentions; there are forced actions or poorly thought-out actions as well.

Are circles always round?
My evil may not be your evil, but whose ever evil it is, it's bad. Otherwise, it would not be "evil."

Seems to me we're overintellectualizing here. But then, that's part of the fun at good ol' KMC.

Originally posted by Mindship
Are circles always round?
My evil may not be your evil, but whose ever evil it is, it's bad. Otherwise, it would not be "evil."

Seems to me we're overintellectualizing here. But then, that's part of the fun at good ol' KMC.

What is good and evil?

I have noticed that dependent opposites are usually abstractions of some other thing. So, good and evil are really two aspects of something. What do you think that could be?

So now we know what creates karma?

Originally posted by Wesker
That's a particularly subjective and religious approach to the issue.

Karma is not supernatural, it is more psychological, an explanation for why some suffer, and some do not.

Anyway, what do you have agaisnt religious viewpoints ? Independetly of being used in religion it is philosophy. Your opinion is just philosophy like them, why is your opinion any more right ?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is good and evil?

I have noticed that dependent opposites are usually abstractions of some other thing. So, good and evil are really two aspects of something. What do you think that could be?

Free will? Or at least, the illusion of free will?
Or perhaps Trump's comb-over. Nah. That's just evil. Or vile?

The answer all depends on what 'you' consider to be 'evil'. Because no one, not even Osama Bin Laden does what they do just to be evil- they always have an alterior motive that, in their head, justifies what they do in a 'good' way.

Evil as you define it can include war and violence, but total oversion of such things could only lead to more of it unless there could one day be a society where people for the most part lived in peace with eachother.

So evil by your standards isnt always bad- but evil can NEVER be good. Mostly because it is a paradox. Good things can come from evil but the act itself is always bad.

Alright, I can see your thinking much better now. And yes, that does make a good deal of sense, that having evil intent does somehow corrupt the person or their soul. However, people often have evil intent or ill intent and don't act upon it. I can have road rage and want to WTFpwn everyone on Highway 17, but I will never realize that intent, and it does not constitute as an evil act in the strictest sense, because it does not effect others in society. We recognize as outsiders another's evil by their actions, not their inner thoughts to which we aren't able to perceive and evaluate.

I don't agree with that. I could be on the other end of this computer with all the evil intent in the world, but if I don't post anything or see anyone, how can it change anyone's reactions.

Originally posted by Wesker
I don't agree with that. I could be on the other end of this computer with all the evil intent in the world, but if I don't post anything or see anyone, how can it change anyone's reactions.

Not through a computer. The other person has to be near you or see you. Don't be silly.

However, you change yourself when you have evil thoughts.

No I don't. I sit in the same pants. Seriously.

lol

I beleieve this has already been stated, but just in case...Evil is a point of view. A bankrobber serving 25 years in a fed joint may consider his jailers evil. Especially if if he had what he considered to be a "good reason" for robbing a bank, though most of us would vehemently argue there is no such thing (Daughter needs expensive surgery, about to lose the family home, etc...).

Take a look at the concept of revenge. Most people I've come across consider revenge to be evil, or more specifically, a sin under the umbrella of what their religion teaches. But there is also a small # of us who view revege as a sort of universal balancer...the end result of causality, to which we are all slaves. To quote some famous physicist "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Certainly one cannot be seen as evil, or having performed an evil act it's done in the name of revenge...

I don't think arguing causality is really the way to determine the absoluteness of evil. The term itself implies it is absolute. Evil is not defined as "sometimes good" or "subjective viewpoints on the morality of human actions". Also, don't confuse things that are simply "bad" or "unfortunate" with real evil.

"I don't think arguing causality is really the way to determine the absoluteness of evil."

I agree 100%. I was arguing that revenge is the result of causality, in which case revenge wouldn't always be evil. Since revenge is generally considered an evil thing, my logic to answer the original ? of the thread would be no, evil is not always bad.

We all think about revenge against someone some time in our life. Thinking about revenge is a part of the anger process. Seeking revenge is another matter.

Well, I always assumed that "evil" by definition has to be "bad" ...if it exists, wqhich it doesn't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I always assumed that "evil" by definition has to be "bad" ...if it exists, wqhich it doesn't.

All evil things are bad, but not all bad things are evil.

While bad can be a matter of perception (Specifically, bad consequences), evil itself focuses more on the intent and actions following the intent than the actual consequences. Calling the death of a patient "evil" when the intent and actions were meant to save and thus be "good" is just misusing the term.

Originally posted by Wesker
All evil things are bad, but not all bad things are evil.

While bad can be a matter of perception (Specifically, bad consequences), evil itself focuses more on the intent and actions following the intent than the actual consequences. Calling the death of a patient "evil" when the intent and actions were meant to save and thus be "good" is just misusing the term.

Evil does not exist without Good. Therefore all things that are good have some element of evil and all things evil have some element of good.

Yen and Yang

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evil does not exist without Good. Therefore all things that are good have some element of evil and all things evil have some element of good.

Yen and Yang

Warmth does not exist without cold. Therefore all things that are cold have some element of warmth and all things warm have some element of cold.

Tall does not exist without short. Therefore all things that are short have some element of tall and all things tall have some element of short.

Lies do not exist without truth. Therefore all things that are truth have some element of lies, and all lies have some element of truth.

Congrats, that logic flops on its face.

Originally posted by Wesker
Warmth does not exist without cold. Therefore all things that are cold have some element of warmth and all things warm have some element of cold.

Tall does not exist without short. Therefore all things that are short have some element of tall and all things tall have some element of short.

Lies do not exist without truth. Therefore all things that are truth have some element of lies, and all lies have some element of truth.

Congrats, that logic flops on its face.

Smart does not exist without stupid. Therefore all things that are smart have some element of stupid and all things stupid have some element of smart.

That saying is probably correct too.

Originally posted by Wesker
That saying is probably correct too.

At least you have a good sense of humor about it.

That's just a nifty little logical argument that happens to be more or less true based on what I've seen in life. I've always said that there really aren't any stupid people; they just are smart in different ways.

Without evil,there could be no good.

Originally posted by K.Diddy
Without evil,there could be no good.

No wai!!!

Seriously.

It boils down to your defenition of "bad" or "evil".

Originally posted by K.Diddy
Without evil,there could be no good.

I agree...

I think good and evil are not absolute, there are no situations or actions that are inerently good or evil. Things are just good or evil in relation to some specif circunstance, and maybe something that is good in one circunstance, can be evil in another.