Do you think evil is a condition on cannot change or a choice that one can chose and can alwas turn away from for the harder yet more rewarding path of good.I dont mean in the religious sense.
_________________
When will they learn,all Humans are equaly inferior to robots-Bender
You idiots I said Peaberry this is sandalwood,Bender if you cant push sandalwood your not cut out for this league.
For some people choosing evil may be a hard-wired condition, unfortunately.
OTOH, it is questionable as to whether the 'good' path is always more rewarding. I think that's part of the difficulty -- times when it appears that doing the wrong thing is actually going to be more rewarding. The most interesting (and awful) situations IMO are when a person is under extreme pressure to do the 'wrong' thing. How do they decide? How do they rationalize their choice?
And not the easy situations where it's just greed or something. Maybe they have a sick child, and can only pay the medical bills if they embezzle from their company.
The movie "Changing Lanes" makes a lot of good points about this subject IMO. People trying to do the 'right' thing, but the right thing doesn't help them, and the wrong thing seems to be their only way out.
_________________
Aspie Quiz: 160/43
Alien Quiz: √2/pi
I thinks the moraly grey is different if one has to do a morally questionable act for a cause which is just that it is niether good nor evil.Some times you need to break a few eggs to make an omlette it is what seperates mature indiviuals from children is to now be idolistic but do understand you have to swallow something you dont like but we have to try our best to make the best of a situation.Some will choose the hard path and overcome their failings and make their world and others a better place with out being detrimental to others.While others will chose a path a purely selfish yet quick path using greed to make the most money but will end up with a better life for themselves while hurting other most of the time amplifying their faults like there hate or other thing which can result in violence and horrors.While the rest of us will tend to take the middle path a mixture of them a morally grey area. That is how I see it.For most its a choice,but their are those among us predispostioned to evil that is where we get our serial killers,hitlers,stalins,sadams,bin ladens,pol pots,kim jong il's
_________________
When will they learn,all Humans are equaly inferior to robots-Bender
You idiots I said Peaberry this is sandalwood,Bender if you cant push sandalwood your not cut out for this league.
If Evil does not exist, then neither does Good.
ruveyn
Of course. Figured you would have noticed that by now.
Good and evil are little more than a means of impersonalizing actions.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Evil is a condition, but the terms change based on the society you're in.
Evil is a generalizing of incipient conditions and personalities into whether they are beneficial or malicious. Lighting and tornadoes and floods etc. can be considered evil if they are damaging but they are manifestations without intent. A person with the intent of gathering huge amounts of personal wealth might be considered evil by the damage done to those deprived by the effort but if it provides employment and sustenance to others can it be termed evil? Is it perhaps a personal judgment on an activity? Nazi policy of stealing Jewish wealth might be termed evil by those deprived but for the Nazis was it evil? (I in no way approve of the Nazis but I'm sure the Nazis equally would not approve of me.) Many phenomena and policies have both "good" and "evil" aspects and the terms are too loose to have much validity.
Evil is a condition, but the terms change based on the society you're in.
Evil is a generalizing of incipient conditions and personalities into whether they are beneficial or malicious. Lighting and tornadoes and floods etc. can be considered evil if they are damaging but they are manifestations without intent. A person with the intent of gathering huge amounts of personal wealth might be considered evil by the damage done to those deprived by the effort but if it provides employment and sustenance to others can it be termed evil? Is it perhaps a personal judgment on an activity? Nazi policy of stealing Jewish wealth might be termed evil by those deprived but for the Nazis was it evil? (I in no way approve of the Nazis but I'm sure the Nazis equally would not approve of me.) Many phenomena and policies have both "good" and "evil" aspects and the terms are too loose to have much validity.
I said the same thing in a whole lot less words.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Evil is a condition, but the terms change based on the society you're in.
Evil is a generalizing of incipient conditions and personalities into whether they are beneficial or malicious. Lighting and tornadoes and floods etc. can be considered evil if they are damaging but they are manifestations without intent. A person with the intent of gathering huge amounts of personal wealth might be considered evil by the damage done to those deprived by the effort but if it provides employment and sustenance to others can it be termed evil? Is it perhaps a personal judgment on an activity? Nazi policy of stealing Jewish wealth might be termed evil by those deprived but for the Nazis was it evil? (I in no way approve of the Nazis but I'm sure the Nazis equally would not approve of me.) Many phenomena and policies have both "good" and "evil" aspects and the terms are too loose to have much validity.
I said the same thing in a whole lot less words.
My compliments.
Evil is a condition, but the terms change based on the society you're in.
Evil is a generalizing of incipient conditions and personalities into whether they are beneficial or malicious. Lighting and tornadoes and floods etc. can be considered evil if they are damaging but they are manifestations without intent. A person with the intent of gathering huge amounts of personal wealth might be considered evil by the damage done to those deprived by the effort but if it provides employment and sustenance to others can it be termed evil? Is it perhaps a personal judgment on an activity? Nazi policy of stealing Jewish wealth might be termed evil by those deprived but for the Nazis was it evil? (I in no way approve of the Nazis but I'm sure the Nazis equally would not approve of me.) Many phenomena and policies have both "good" and "evil" aspects and the terms are too loose to have much validity.
I said the same thing in a whole lot less words.
My compliments.
My compliments to you since you basically expounded on it the way I would have....except I think I probably would have used the 100 Years' War as the example since Monarchs are a little easier to draw toward and are more impersonal than the Nazis where we still have trouble seeing both sides of the story to understand that someone could see good in that mess.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Evil is a condition, but the terms change based on the society you're in.
Evil is a generalizing of incipient conditions and personalities into whether they are beneficial or malicious. Lighting and tornadoes and floods etc. can be considered evil if they are damaging but they are manifestations without intent. A person with the intent of gathering huge amounts of personal wealth might be considered evil by the damage done to those deprived by the effort but if it provides employment and sustenance to others can it be termed evil? Is it perhaps a personal judgment on an activity? Nazi policy of stealing Jewish wealth might be termed evil by those deprived but for the Nazis was it evil? (I in no way approve of the Nazis but I'm sure the Nazis equally would not approve of me.) Many phenomena and policies have both "good" and "evil" aspects and the terms are too loose to have much validity.
I said the same thing in a whole lot less words.
My compliments.
My compliments to you since you basically expounded on it the way I would have....except I think I probably would have used the 100 Years' War as the example since Monarchs are a little easier to draw toward and are more impersonal than the Nazis where we still have trouble seeing both sides of the story to understand that someone could see good in that mess.
Goodness me! I hope I never implied that I felt the Nazi activity was good. I merely tried to indicate that the Nazis had their own viewpoint. Aside from good and evil I never approve of idiotic brutal jerks.
Evil is a condition, but the terms change based on the society you're in.
Evil is a generalizing of incipient conditions and personalities into whether they are beneficial or malicious. Lighting and tornadoes and floods etc. can be considered evil if they are damaging but they are manifestations without intent. A person with the intent of gathering huge amounts of personal wealth might be considered evil by the damage done to those deprived by the effort but if it provides employment and sustenance to others can it be termed evil? Is it perhaps a personal judgment on an activity? Nazi policy of stealing Jewish wealth might be termed evil by those deprived but for the Nazis was it evil? (I in no way approve of the Nazis but I'm sure the Nazis equally would not approve of me.) Many phenomena and policies have both "good" and "evil" aspects and the terms are too loose to have much validity.
I said the same thing in a whole lot less words.
My compliments.
My compliments to you since you basically expounded on it the way I would have....except I think I probably would have used the 100 Years' War as the example since Monarchs are a little easier to draw toward and are more impersonal than the Nazis where we still have trouble seeing both sides of the story to understand that someone could see good in that mess.
Goodness me! I hope I never implied that I felt the Nazi activity was good. I merely tried to indicate that the Nazis had their own viewpoint. Aside from good and evil I never approve of idiotic brutal jerks.
I understood you but just saying that others may have a very hard time grasping the concept with the example used.. Especially if a relative was a victim of Nazi actions.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
I don't believe in evil...I think there's moral and immoral actions. The word "evil" just has too many supernatural connotations. Even genocidal dictators and serial killers eat breakfast, have bowel movements, and walk on two legs.
I think people just function in certain ingrained ways and they aren't even that concious about how they act.
I think people just function in certain ingrained ways and they aren't even that concious about how they act.
More or less like other animals.
