Animal Cruelty: Evil or Not?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ushomefree
View with Caution!

OlJlT_7zajE

Animal Cruelty is evil; on humanistic terms, it is repugnant!

Undecided? Learn more:

d-kvZq4ARg4

Symmetric Chaos
FACT: Hitler was against animal cruelty.

DO YOU WANT TO BE LIKE HITLER?

Shakyamunison
Causing suffering to an animal including humans, is an act of evil.

ushomefree
With regard to that respect, yes.



I completely agree; but why is it evil?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
With regard to that respect, yes.



I completely agree; but why is it evil?

Because suffering leads to suffering.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because suffering leads to suffering.

How do we define suffering? Why is suffering bad?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because suffering leads to suffering. And drinking leads to peeing.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

ushomefree
Yes, but what does that have to do with something being evil (or why something is evil). Suffering is the "result" -- the extension/effect -- of evil? Suffering is also the result of bad choices and/or ignorance. It may have absolutely nothing to do with morality. Let's not get sidetracked, please. With respect to the video provided in the thread: Why is Animal Cruelty evil? To state, "suffering leads to suffering" contains zero explanatory insight/power to the issue. Understand?



And drinking also leads to siroccos of the liver, alcoholism, and the destruction of families! If you think such statements are humorous or an overstatement, join a self-help group (AA). Reality is bigger than your ego, buddy. You'd actually be amazed, ha ha!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How do we define suffering? Why is suffering bad?

It all depends on what type of suffering. Suffering for a good cause is not what I was talking about, but causing the Innocent to suffer is.

King Kandy
By what moral standard is it to be declared evil? I'm going to take a guess and say you're going to lead this conversation into "morality can only be justified by divinity" logic.

What is the rationality-based argument that this is evil that you have in mind?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
Yes, but what does that have to do with something being evil (or why something is evil). Suffering is the "result" -- the extension/effect -- of evil? Suffering is also the result of bad choices and/or ignorance. It may have absolutely nothing to do with morality. Let's not get sidetracked, please. With respect to the video provided in the thread: Why is Animal Cruelty evil? To state, "suffering leads to suffering" contains zero explanatory insight/power to the issue. Understand?...

You are the one who does not understand. There is no difference between animal suffering and human suffering. Evil is an action, and suffering is an action. To cause the innocent to suffer is a corruption of the individual, and that action is evil. The suffering of the innocent is also evil. The first evil lead to the second evil.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And drinking leads to peeing.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Even through your sarcasm the truth shines.

ushomefree
That is my question! We all agree that animal cruelty is evil; but what makes such actions/behavior evil? Is the answer found in a test tube, lab and/or text book? Or can it be found within ourselves? It's very simple question, but it demands honesty.



That is a view that I believe; all man (regardless of social upbringing and/or race share). We all understand moral law, and we all apply it to ourselves. That is for damn sure. The difference is, only some apply it to others. Understand? Regardless, the sense of morality still exists. Where does it come from?!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by ushomefree
That is my question! We all agree that animal cruelty is evil; but what makes such actions/behavior evil? Is the answer found in a test tube, lab and/or text book? Or can it be found within ourselves? It's very simple question, but it demands honesty...


Evil is a social judgment. This social judgment came into being through evolution. Those societies that did not have a well defined definition of evil did not function as well, and they died out. It all has to do with getting along. Getting along means survival.

King Kandy
Originally posted by ushomefree
That is my question! We all agree that animal cruelty is evil; but what makes such actions/behavior evil? Is the answer found in a test tube, lab and/or text book? Or can it be found within ourselves? It's very simple question, but it demands honesty.
Oh, that is a very simple one. Originally, no such concept existed: hunter-gatherers would have to kill animals in often brutal and painful manor just to survive. Clearly they were not worried about the suffering of the animals. But in order for the race to survive, a sense to not kill each other had to be developed. A sense that causing each other suffering was wrong.

Later, when not all of man's resources were occupied in the killing for food, reason prompted man to apply the logic that an animal ought not to be treated differently than a man. This coincides with the creation of domesticated animals, where animals became viewed as allies in the quest for survival rather than beasts that had to be killed by necessity.

Originally posted by ushomefree
That is a view that I believe; all man (regardless of social upbringing and/or race share). We all understand moral law, and we all apply it to ourselves. That is for damn sure. The difference is, only some apply it to others. Understand? Regardless, the sense of morality still exists. Where does it come from?!
It comes from the instincts necessary for the survival of the species, taken to their logical conclusion through the use of reason and empathy.

ushomefree
False.

Tradition or what you like for dinner is!

Having your head cut off would never be a good thing.

Well... maybe someone else, but never yourself.

Of course, this may be the result of an over inflated imagination or a sense of self-indulgence/pride.

I don't know... contact your local Shrink or Satanist for alternate views.



I agree with the your first premise: "societies a well defined definition of evil did not function as well," but not the latter: "they out."

For the former, that is absolutely true, but let me explain something.

Morality does not evolve, and it does not change.

Anyone familiar with history knows that morality has remained the same.

Only politics, social grips, and bureaucrats change. Like the Bible says, "Their is nothing new under the sun."

If further explanation is needed, please let me know.

I'm not trying to be a prick!

I just have strong conviction in my beliefs (which is rare these days).

That, however, has nothing to do with survival, ha ha!

The point is, survival deals with reproduction and sources of food. Some of the worst crime infested cities in the US continue to grow. And let me tell you, it has nothing to to with morality! The cause: reproductive organs and a food supply. Get it?

Red Nemesis
Then it is still moral to hold slaves?

King Kandy
Originally posted by ushomefree
False.

Tradition or what you like for dinner is!

Having your head cut off would never be a good thing.

Well... maybe someone else, but never yourself.

Of course, this may be the result of an over inflated imagination or a sense of self-indulgence/pride.

I don't know... contact your local Shrink or Satanist for alternate views.
I think you are confusing "survival instincts" with morality. Of course people don't want to be killed, it's built into every single life form on Earth to preserve it's own life and has nothing to do with morality.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree with the your first premise: "societies a well defined definition of evil did not function as well," but not the latter: "they out."

For the former, that is absolutely true, but let me explain something.
There is no society that has no concept of hurting others being wrong, and there is a reason for this: they could never form a society in the first place! So while Shaky is not entirely correct in saying they "die out", this doesn't aid your point at all. Humans are physically weak and NEED to be able to interact with others to survive, so it is a BIOLOGICAL NECESSITY to have a sense of morality.


Originally posted by ushomefree
Morality does not evolve, and it does not change.
Complete nonsense. In pre-civilized cultures the mentioned animal issue DID NOT EXIST because every day was spent finding and killing animals in painful ways. If people had complete empathy for animals in the beginning, they never would have survived. There was nothing even remotely resembling PETA in pre-history.

Originally posted by ushomefree Anyone unfamiliar with history knows that morality has remained the same.
Quote changed for improved accuracy.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Only politics, social grips, and bureaucrats change. Like the Bible says, "Their is nothing new under the sun."
Oh yeah, that totally proves it. I see your wisdom now, oh great teacher!

Originally posted by ushomefree
The point is, survival deals with reproduction and sources of food. Some of the worst crime infested cities in the US continue to grow. And let me tell you, it has nothing to to with morality! The cause: reproductive organs and a food supply. Get it?
Apparently you haven't realized that you can't reproduce if you're dead. If you have no empathy with those around you you CANNOT find a mate and you CANNOT cooperate enough to find food. Morality is nothing but the label put on instincts collected for the purpose of allowing safe interactions with other members of the species.

Shakyamunison

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Even through your sarcasm the truth shines. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Sado22
imo anytime people (who had nothing to do with the cause at hand and didn't chose to suffer) suffer from a cause its wrong. i can pick up a sword or gun and join a cause but the moment the cause ruins lives of people who don't have anything to do with it are involved and forced to make sacrifices they didn't chose..........it becomes wrong.

so does wrong make it evil. I assume it does. is raping a woman or a man wrong? does that make it evil? does maiming another person wrong? does it make it evil?

if the answer to the above is yes, then yes animal cruelty is evil.


I agree. morality, when truly understood, does not evolve. unfortunately human beings are rarely "moral" unselfishly thats why so many things in the past that were immoral from today's standards were moral back then. prejudice against women was moral in the eyes of many a few decades ago even though religious leaders and talkers were quick to point out that men and women were equal. slavery was legal and moral, where good upstanding christians were keeping slaves even though god says we are all equal.
today americans are bombing iraq and calling arabs "sand nigg3rs". is that moral? in their mind and in the mind of lots of people, they are doing it for a just cause and helping them (the usual paradox of a dominant civilization plundering their way into a weaker civilization under the guise of equality and justice roll eyes (sarcastic) ). is that moral? how do iraqis view this morality? and what will the world think of this moral act 50 years in the future? will they scoff at it the same way the world scoffs at the british empire and their "just, moral cause" of undertaking the white man's burden?

~Sado

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And drinking leads to peeing.

roll eyes (sarcastic)

Hahahaha!

lil bitchiness
On the topic at hand - people who are cruel to animals, rarely stop there.

Is it bad - of course it is. But how can we expect to be fair to animals when we are killing/torturing our fellow humans.

Changing that is important before any real change towards animals can be achieved.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Sado22
...I agree. morality, when truly understood, does not evolve...

You have not given anything to support this claim.

Sado22
yes, you're right, i was vague.
what i meant was that if there is something called "true morality" then it will not change. unfortunately, we dont' have true morality because at various times, in different parts of the world everyone had a different take on morality. slavery was moral about a century ago even as far as god fearing people were conscerned for instance. but if it truly was moral, then there would no time where it would be compromised.

thus, there is no such thing as true morality and if it is, then its horribly unknown to us.

~Sado

inimalist
lol

the answer to every question about morality: we can't talk about morality

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Sado22
yes, you're right, i was vague.
what i meant was that if there is something called "true morality" then it will not change. unfortunately, we dont' have true morality because at various times, in different parts of the world everyone had a different take on morality. slavery was moral about a century ago even as far as god fearing people were conscerned for instance. but if it truly was moral, then there would no time where it would be compromised.

thus, there is no such thing as true morality and if it is, then its horribly unknown to us.

~Sado

I think morality is relative.

WO Polaski
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
FACT: Hitler was against animal cruelty.

DO YOU WANT TO BE LIKE HITLER?

**** you. crylaugh

Rogue Jedi
I dunno if it's evil, but if I were to run across some guy bashing in the heads of seals with a club, I'd take the club from him and give him a taste of his own medicine.

Sado22
yes, because we don't know what "truly moral" is. so we just interpret it. its kinda like truth/god


well, we can't now can we. every time you try to tell a person what moral and immoral is you're heading to two very troublesome territories:
-you're being a dick because you expect everyone to agree with you
-you're being a dick because you don't understand that its highly subjective from time, people and places.


why would you do it if its not immoral? would you walk up to a guy playing baseball and bash his head in for hitting the ball?

~Sado
P.S. you better make sure the guy doesn't come back and run you over with an SUV because until then bashing someone repeatedly wiht a bat does not equal "ass kicking" mad

Captain REX
It can and can't be immoral, personally. We use certain animals for food; some may disagree strongly, but I feel that, in that case, it is not immoral.

Setting a cat on fire for entertainment, however, is immoral.

Rogue Jedi
So is beating a seal to death with a club.

Sado22
which goes to show the subjectivity of "morality". a jainist or buddhist or hindu consider even eating animals immoral while muslims and jews are fine with eating most animals but consider eating a pig immoral. setting a cat on fire is immoral but pre-renaissance europe setting a supposed-witch on fire was moral. two centuries ago, slavery and "white man's burden" was moral. today we spit at those chums.


so's running over someone with an SUV

~Sado

Bardock42
Originally posted by ushomefree

View with Caution!

OlJlT_7zajE

Animal Cruelty is evil; on humanistic terms, it is repugnant!

Undecided? Learn more:

d-kvZq4ARg4 Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
FACT: Hitler was against animal cruelty.

DO YOU WANT TO BE LIKE HITLER?

You both make good points, but I think I have to side with the bigger font.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Captain REX
It can and can't be immoral, personally. We use certain animals for food; some may disagree strongly, but I feel that, in that case, it is not immoral.

Setting a cat on fire for entertainment, however, is immoral.

But killing isn't always cruel.

inimalist
Originally posted by Sado22
well, we can't now can we. every time you try to tell a person what moral and immoral is you're heading to two very troublesome territories:
-you're being a dick because you expect everyone to agree with you
-you're being a dick because you don't understand that its highly subjective from time, people and places.

relativism = baby out with the bath water

EDIT: Like, don't take this personally, because it certainly isn't a critique of you, but like, on what other subject would anyone have any intellectual respect for "we can't know, so lets stop looking". It is the literal equivalent of "we know, so lets stop looking", which you say is bad above.

Also, it is very easy to talk about objective morals without judging people or demanding that they agree with you...

Bardock42
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So is beating a seal to death with a club. Arguable.

Sado22
no offense taken mate smile
i too wasn't refering to you either when i was speaking. as for what you said, i dont' know how i sounded in my claims about us never knowing morality, but i didn't mean "lets stop looking because we can never know it". that's why i mentioned "true morality" in the earlier post because i honestly do believe that there is something that would be noble for all people, for all ages. i'm just saying that we don't know what it is as of now.


i suppose so.

~Sado

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by inimalist
relativism = baby out with the bath water

I'm not sure what you mean here. Relativism is useful in that it allows us to accept that there are different ways to view the world, it doesn't necessitate ignoring your own sense of morals.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, it is very easy to talk about objective morals without judging people or demanding that they agree with you...

How you can avoid judging a person you define as evil?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what type of suffering. Suffering for a good cause is not what I was talking about, but causing the Innocent to suffer is.


But what if you could save all but 100,000 innocent people by causing those 100,000 people to die or chose to let the 100,000 live, but cause the rest of humanity to die through your inaction?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by dadudemon
But what if you could save all but 100,000 innocent people by causing those 100,000 people to die or chose to let the 100,000 live, but cause the rest of humanity to die through your inaction?

Then it sucks to be you.

mindbomb
i think it is wrong but for the sake of argument

cats play with their food they are only animals
humans are only animals why shouldn't they be able to play with their food

Sado22
a bit of an extreme example isnt it? confused

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
But what if you could save all but 100,000 innocent people by causing those 100,000 people to die or chose to let the 100,000 live, but cause the rest of humanity to die through your inaction?


Do I know who those 100 000 are, or is it random choice?

lord xyz
Oh **** off PETA.


I refuse to agree with anything PETA says.

Animal Cruelty is wrong, but evil? Holy Books promote animal sacrafice and meat, so, it's probable animal cruelty is sacred.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh **** off PETA.


I refuse to agree with anything PETA says.

Animal Cruelty is wrong, but evil? Holy Books promote animal sacrafice and meat, so, it's probable animal cruelty is sacred.

Only if you hold to a Christian interpretation of the word evil.

evil path

Also, evil path(s) of existence. The realms of suffering into which fall those who have committed evil acts; also the suffering that such people undergo. "Path" here means a state of life or realm of existence. The worlds of hell, hungry spirits, and animals are called the three evil paths, and with the realm of asuras they are called the four evil paths.

http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php

siriuswriter
Sacrificing animals would not be considered "evil," as the best way to sacrifice something to any god was to kill it quickly and efficiently. if the animal suffered or its death was long and drawn out, the sacrificer had some problems. like... he didn't care enough to do it neatly, therefore he did not care enough to do it the way god, thor, whomever wanted it to be done, therefore he did not care about god or thor or zeus or whatever.

there was a lot of hard work and studying and rising in the community before you could even touch an animal set to be sacrificed. think of the hindu and their cows. zeus was supposed to get white bulls - no dark spots, dashes, spots... but pure white. israelites gave the best of the herd - the fatted calf, the best sheaf of wheat, grain... to their yahweh.

in current times, those people who choose to abuse animals might be considered evil religiously, because they're doing it for the thrill and the excitement - feeling satisfied by causing another living being torment. that particular psychology is not the best for a person. think of a serial killer, and i'll bet that if you look into their past, there would be animal abuse, or mutilation...

but i think i'd consider those people evil for the fact that their intention is to draw out a death. that's why hanging and the electric chair were considered inhumane - they draw out death. cruel and unusual punishment, and all that.

ermm.. yeah.

Digi
Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh **** off PETA.

I refuse to agree with anything PETA says.

I get lumped in with PETA often because I'm a vegetarian. It's annoying. I usually want to punch the person who makes the supposed connection, punch PETA members, or both.

I heard they want to rename fish "sea kittens" to make people more reluctant to eat them. Fortunately, I'm a "Catholic" vegetarian (Catholic in eating preference only) and eat fish...which makes it taste even better when I realize I'm eating kitten.

Mmm. Kitten.

droolio

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
I get lumped in with PETA often because I'm a vegetarian. It's annoying. I usually want to punch the person who makes the supposed connection, punch PETA members, or both.

I heard they want to rename fish "sea kittens" to make people more reluctant to eat them. Fortunately, I'm a "Catholic" vegetarian (Catholic in eating preference only) and eat fish...which makes it taste even better when I realize I'm eating kitten.

Mmm. Kitten.

droolio

There are so many insane animal rights groups out there that they'd probably do more to help animals if they didn't do anything.

The Dark Cloud
People who are cruel and abuse animals are evil. People who torture animals should recieve prison sentences lasting decades.

mindbomb
i dont think there is a good reason to be cruel to animals so why do it

Quincy
The word "Cruel" is an evil thing anyways

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quincy
The word "Cruel" is an evil thing anyways

How can a word be evil?

BackFire
Cruelty towards anything is evil.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by BackFire
Cruelty towards anything is evil.

How can cruelty toward a rock be evil?

siriuswriter
because of your intentions.

in africaans there is a word; muntu. muntu can be used for man, woman, child, trees, rocks, everything that exists. it sort of translates into "the spirit that made us" or "the thing all of us have in common." but then it gets deeper into that religion which i don't know much about.

but for christians, i suppose that might translate into "god put us here as caretakers for this world." because.... we're all made by god, everything is made by god, but apparently we're the most sentient beings so we have to watch out for the not so bright.

also religiously - the intention to commit evil - or to be cruel, is, i think, the more evil sin. with an intention to be cruel, you want to be destructive. and that really doesn't go with the "peace, love, and power to the people/kum-bi-ah circle" thing.

so really the point is not what you're being cruel to, but that you're being cruel in the first place, that that's not a "religiously good" place to be mentally.

inimalist
hell, why not:

PETA kills animals - http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Symmetric Chaos
I move that murder be the new standard for "ethical treatment".

All in favor?
All apposed?

Motion carries.

leonheartmm
its evil. unless the person is a sociopath with no empathy.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by leonheartmm
its evil. unless the person is a sociopath with no empathy.

Or if you just really hate animals.

inimalist
Originally posted by leonheartmm
its evil. unless the person is a sociopath with no empathy.

why would a sociopath be incapable of committing evil?

leonheartmm
Originally posted by inimalist
why would a sociopath be incapable of committing evil?

i think a truly evil ACT wud have evil intentions AND evil consequences. i also think evil intentions can only be present if you have empathy. because people who can not feel that other people are alive in the same way that they themselves are and feel the same way they do and can make sense of the golden rule at an intuitive/instinctual level, have no MOTIVATION {much less, knowledge of the emotional consequences and the ability to EMPATHISE with the victim} to veer away from evil acts. its like a a robot doing what they are programmed to do desireable or like a very small child killing a butterfly because of curiosity or a lion killing a deer. u wudnt call any of these actions EVIL wud u, atleast, not the perpetraters.

i think its only WITH the knowledge of the emotional consequences on the victim and having the ability to care for them and understanding the inherent connection between the action and the suffering that follows as "evil" can one be held responsible for being an EVIL being. becauase unlike the sociopath, this person KNEW BETTER.

basically, u cant have evil unless u have a conciounse to begin with.

inimalist
Originally posted by leonheartmm
basically, u cant have evil unless u have a conciounse to begin with.

I couldn't disagree more, but cool

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
I couldn't disagree more, but cool

So, you believe that evil is something outside of the mind?

I believe that good and evil are solely a product of the mind that humans manifest in the world around us.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you believe that evil is something outside of the mind?

I believe that good and evil are solely a product of the mind that humans manifest in the world around us.

no, I believe it is possible for people who don't believe they are evil to be evil. I believe it is possible for someone who cannot comprehend good and evil to do something evil.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
no, I believe it is possible for people who don't believe they are evil to be evil. I believe it is possible for someone who cannot comprehend good and evil to do something evil.

Most religions and laws would disagree with you. If you don't know that what you are doing is wrong (evil), then you are not held accountable. Example: insanity plea.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Most religions and laws would disagree with you. If you don't know that what you are doing is wrong (evil), then you are not held accountable. Example: insanity plea.

Thats fine, I see evil more as measurable harm to a person. Not being in control or understanding the consequences to ones actions certainly do not morally excuse the harm inflicted on the person, thus the act is evil.

EDIT: The law, also, does not concern itself with evil and good, but rather with personal accountability, which I said before that I don't think is tied to whether a person's actions are evil or not. And to religion, why would I want to allow a term like evil to be the sole possession of metaphysical abstractions? We can see how we affect eachother, we can see where we hurt eachother. Obviously there is grey, but certainly one doesn't need God to determine how we ought to treat eachother.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
Thats fine, I see evil more as measurable harm to a person. Not being in control or understanding the consequences to ones actions certainly do not morally excuse the harm inflicted on the person, thus the act is evil.

EDIT: The law, also, does not concern itself with evil and good, but rather with personal accountability, which I said before that I don't think is tied to whether a person's actions are evil or not. And to religion, why would I want to allow a term like evil to be the sole possession of metaphysical abstractions? We can see how we affect eachother, we can see where we hurt eachother. Obviously there is grey, but certainly one doesn't need God to determine how we ought to treat eachother.

So, if a rock falls out of the sky, and hits you on the head, killing you, is that evil?

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if a rock falls out of the sky, and hits you on the head, killing you, if that evil?

no, though I get where you are coming (lol, cumming was an actual choice on spell check for comming) from. It certainly meets the "harm" requirement.

But no, to me morals and that deal with interpersonal actions. I even hesitate at times to call some things "evil" that are done to nature or to animals, simply because, look at what animals do to eachother. I can't presume to say that nature is evil, or else the term is meaningless, as evil must be a negative aberration from the norm (re: evil is relative to good).

Morals are something people develop and apply to one another, for sure, and there isn't anything more absolute about them than that, so ya, in that way there is a connection between man and morality. Its more that volition, imho, is not a requirement for something to be evil.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by inimalist
I couldn't disagree more, but cool

let me clarify and elaborate. in judging a situation, i consider two things. actions and intentions. taking shaky's example. a person can have cruel INTENTIONS towards a rock. but a rock lacking a conciosness wudnt suffer. thus whatever that person did wudnt translate to a CRUEL "ACTION", as it relates to the rock because the rock cant suffer. the very fact that the person thinks that the can be CRUEL to a rock points towards either faulty perception{which makes the person think the rock has a conciousness on which to inflict suffering} or delusion{the person knowing to themselves that the rock is dead but lying to themselves to convince themselves that it does}.

similarly both "cruelty" and "evil" are a by product of EMPATHY. because they both have an element of INTENTIONALLY INFLICTING SUFFERING on another object which you KNOW to be alive. a person can not understand the concept of suffering as it applies to people other than themselves without "empathy". a sociopath without empathy causing physical or emotional harm to another human from the point of view of the sociopath is similar to a human being destroying an ice sculpture or a robot which he or she does not feel to posess and conciousness. it may cause suffering to the victim but that was never part of the intention of the socipath. to the sociopath other people are merely inanimate machines to be toyed with for personal amusement.

therefore the "sociopath" is not evil in a similar way to a how a person who accidentally runs over another person is not evil. in both cases, the intentional impulse to cause suffering{in the former case, due to lack of empathy and inability to UNDERSTAND the concept of suffering as it applies to others and the later, a faulty understanding of the physical world around u} is lacking.

inimalist
so, if someone does something they think isn't evil, yet it ends up hurting thousands, though there was no way they could have known, you don't consider that evil?

leonheartmm
Originally posted by inimalist
so, if someone does something they think isn't evil, yet it ends up hurting thousands, though there was no way they could have known, you don't consider that evil?

seeing as only people can be evil, YES, i dont consider any actions to be evil. nor do i consider a completely unknowing perpetrater "evil".

inimalist
cool, we couldn't disagree more smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
cool, we couldn't disagree more smile

Oh, I'm sure you could. wink

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.