CMonster
01-23-2003, 04:56 AM
does evil exist? how do you define evil? why does evil exist?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : evil
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by CMonster
does evil exist? how do you define evil? why does evil exist?
Evil exist? In reality yes. In theory, it is merely the absence of good is it not?
does evil exist? how do you define evil? why does evil exist?
Evil exist? In reality yes. In theory, it is merely the absence of good is it not?
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 05:05 AM
Is the battle then enjoined C?:)
Silent Bob
01-23-2003, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by williamwbishop
Evil exist? In reality yes. In theory, it is merely the absence of good is it not?
Wouldn't it be the opposite of good?
e.g.
Good: giving money to charity
Absence of Good: Not giving money to charity
Evil: Taking money from charity
Evil exist? In reality yes. In theory, it is merely the absence of good is it not?
Wouldn't it be the opposite of good?
e.g.
Good: giving money to charity
Absence of Good: Not giving money to charity
Evil: Taking money from charity
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by Silent Bob
Wouldn't it be the opposite of good?
e.g.
Good: giving money to charity
Absence of Good: Not giving money to charity
Evil: Taking money from charity
Only in reality. In theory, evil is like the color black, it is merely the absence of color. Of course it is only an academic argument, as you need only two eyes to see evil, and know that black can be a crayon, which is not the absence of anything.
Wouldn't it be the opposite of good?
e.g.
Good: giving money to charity
Absence of Good: Not giving money to charity
Evil: Taking money from charity
Only in reality. In theory, evil is like the color black, it is merely the absence of color. Of course it is only an academic argument, as you need only two eyes to see evil, and know that black can be a crayon, which is not the absence of anything.
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Silent Bob
Wouldn't it be the opposite of good?
e.g.
Good: giving money to charity
Absence of Good: Not giving money to charity
Evil: Taking money from charity
Did I read your sig correctly?:confused:
That is funny, a video game quote translated from japanese to english to latin. :)
Wouldn't it be the opposite of good?
e.g.
Good: giving money to charity
Absence of Good: Not giving money to charity
Evil: Taking money from charity
Did I read your sig correctly?:confused:
That is funny, a video game quote translated from japanese to english to latin. :)
Silent Bob
01-23-2003, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by williamwbishop
Only in reality. In theory, evil is like the color black, it is merely the absence of color. Of course it is only an academic argument, as you need only two eyes to see evil, and know that black can be a crayon, which is not the absence of anything.
<head scrathing>
Trying to work out if this is a serious reply or not... It sounds a lot like what the mentor guy in Mystery Men kept saying...
</head scratching>
Only in reality. In theory, evil is like the color black, it is merely the absence of color. Of course it is only an academic argument, as you need only two eyes to see evil, and know that black can be a crayon, which is not the absence of anything.
<head scrathing>
Trying to work out if this is a serious reply or not... It sounds a lot like what the mentor guy in Mystery Men kept saying...
</head scratching>
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Silent Bob
<head scrathing>
Trying to work out if this is a serious reply or not... It sounds a lot like what the mentor guy in Mystery Men kept saying...
</head scratching>
Read up two replies, I have to know! It is almost a riddle.
<head scrathing>
Trying to work out if this is a serious reply or not... It sounds a lot like what the mentor guy in Mystery Men kept saying...
</head scratching>
Read up two replies, I have to know! It is almost a riddle.
Silent Bob
01-23-2003, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by williamwbishop
Read up two replies, I have to know! It is almost a riddle.
I was wondering when you'd notice :)
It's an ancient Roman saying. Mostly in popular usage at the height of the Empire :)
Seriously though the answer is YES. I can't claim to know latin though, a friend of mine gave it to me...
Read up two replies, I have to know! It is almost a riddle.
I was wondering when you'd notice :)
It's an ancient Roman saying. Mostly in popular usage at the height of the Empire :)
Seriously though the answer is YES. I can't claim to know latin though, a friend of mine gave it to me...
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Silent Bob
I was wondering when you'd notice :)
It's an ancient Roman saying. Mostly in popular usage at the height of the Empire :)
Seriously though the answer is YES. I can't claim to know latin though, a friend of mine gave it to me...
You just have to see the humour in that though.:eek: It struck me full force as a play on a play on a play. Outstanding. Send my regards to your friend, that is indeed a great jest.:D
I was wondering when you'd notice :)
It's an ancient Roman saying. Mostly in popular usage at the height of the Empire :)
Seriously though the answer is YES. I can't claim to know latin though, a friend of mine gave it to me...
You just have to see the humour in that though.:eek: It struck me full force as a play on a play on a play. Outstanding. Send my regards to your friend, that is indeed a great jest.:D
Silent Bob
01-23-2003, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by williamwbishop
You just have to see the humour in that though.:eek: It struck me full force as a play on a play on a play. Outstanding. Send my regards to your friend, that is indeed a great jest.:D
Glad I (he) could brighten up your day!
edit:
Sorry for Hi-jacking the thread CMonster...
You just have to see the humour in that though.:eek: It struck me full force as a play on a play on a play. Outstanding. Send my regards to your friend, that is indeed a great jest.:D
Glad I (he) could brighten up your day!
edit:
Sorry for Hi-jacking the thread CMonster...
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Silent Bob
Glad I (he) could brighten up your day!
edit:
Sorry for Hi-jacking the thread CMonster...
Yes, you are correct. Back to topic:
"For he that does good, having the unlimited power to do evil, deserves praise, not only for the good which he performs, but for the evil which he forbears.":)
Glad I (he) could brighten up your day!
edit:
Sorry for Hi-jacking the thread CMonster...
Yes, you are correct. Back to topic:
"For he that does good, having the unlimited power to do evil, deserves praise, not only for the good which he performs, but for the evil which he forbears.":)
Hena
01-23-2003, 06:24 AM
I don't think evil exists as such. We determine what is good and evil by ourselves. Sure there are things that most people consider "evil" eg. open a person up with carving knife and spreading everything around when the reason is that they met. But we do create the "surroundings" to the act. Good and evil are just our quitifying (sp?) acts. Similar to thinking that doing something is great or just. We make up what is just and what is great. It doesn't really exists outside of our own self.
One of the main reasons it would be intresting to meet an "alien", would be to find out whether similar things exists for them. And if that has something to do with intelligece or higher though.
One of the main reasons it would be intresting to meet an "alien", would be to find out whether similar things exists for them. And if that has something to do with intelligece or higher though.
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by Hena
I don't think evil exists as such. We determine what is good and evil by ourselves. Sure there are things that most people consider "evil" eg. open a person up with carving knife and spreading everything around when the reason is that they met. But we do create the "surroundings" to the act. Good and evil are just our quitifying (sp?) acts. Similar to thinking that doing something is great or just. We make up what is just and what is great. It doesn't really exists outside of our own self.
One of the main reasons it would be intresting to meet an "alien", would be to find out whether similar things exists for them. And if that has something to do with intelligece or higher though.
Hence the difference between "reality" and "theory". The idea of evil or good is a social construct.
I don't think evil exists as such. We determine what is good and evil by ourselves. Sure there are things that most people consider "evil" eg. open a person up with carving knife and spreading everything around when the reason is that they met. But we do create the "surroundings" to the act. Good and evil are just our quitifying (sp?) acts. Similar to thinking that doing something is great or just. We make up what is just and what is great. It doesn't really exists outside of our own self.
One of the main reasons it would be intresting to meet an "alien", would be to find out whether similar things exists for them. And if that has something to do with intelligece or higher though.
Hence the difference between "reality" and "theory". The idea of evil or good is a social construct.
ASCI Blue
01-23-2003, 06:36 AM
Evil is the color of the red and blue butterfly. :mad:
GeekGuy
01-23-2003, 07:02 AM
Responses are IMHO....
Originally posted by CMonster
does evil exist?
No.
But there does exist negativity, but that in itself is not evil.
how do you define evil?
Evil in the Judaeic/Christian/Islamic/Muslim tradition is "The opposite of God".
The interpretation of this is beyond the entire LNO forum.
Most beliefs not based on the aforementioned paths, do not acknowledge "evil", but negativity as thoughts that beget counterproductive actions. The thought or action may be good in itself, but if it affects others around you negatively, it is negativity. Conversely, a "negative" action that produces positive results, is no longer a negative action, but positive.
This is where "Rule of Law" has it's biggest weakness, turning heros into criminals and criminals into heros - by not seeing the above principle.
why does evil exist?
Good creates evil by drawing that etherical "line" as to what is right and what is wrong.
Negativity exists by going out of line with the universal principle "Everything in its own time"
This is my twoonie on this thread ;)
Originally posted by CMonster
does evil exist?
No.
But there does exist negativity, but that in itself is not evil.
how do you define evil?
Evil in the Judaeic/Christian/Islamic/Muslim tradition is "The opposite of God".
The interpretation of this is beyond the entire LNO forum.
Most beliefs not based on the aforementioned paths, do not acknowledge "evil", but negativity as thoughts that beget counterproductive actions. The thought or action may be good in itself, but if it affects others around you negatively, it is negativity. Conversely, a "negative" action that produces positive results, is no longer a negative action, but positive.
This is where "Rule of Law" has it's biggest weakness, turning heros into criminals and criminals into heros - by not seeing the above principle.
why does evil exist?
Good creates evil by drawing that etherical "line" as to what is right and what is wrong.
Negativity exists by going out of line with the universal principle "Everything in its own time"
This is my twoonie on this thread ;)
Hena
01-23-2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by GeekGuy
Most beliefs not based on the aforementioned paths, do not acknowledge "evil", but negativity as thoughts that beget counterproductive actions. The thought or action may be good in itself, but if it affects others around you negatively, it is negativity. Conversely, a "negative" action that produces positive results, is no longer a negative action, but positive.
This is where "Rule of Law" has it's biggest weakness, turning heros into criminals and criminals into heros - by not seeing the above principle.
I would not say that so. It would basicly mean that dr Mengele didn't do anything wrong. "Evil" action can create good or bad results, but the action itself still is bad (evil).
Good creates evil by drawing that etherical "line" as to what is right and what is wrong.
I wouldn't see it that way. Good creates itself by defining it's borders. Merely something not being good doesn't make it evil.
Most beliefs not based on the aforementioned paths, do not acknowledge "evil", but negativity as thoughts that beget counterproductive actions. The thought or action may be good in itself, but if it affects others around you negatively, it is negativity. Conversely, a "negative" action that produces positive results, is no longer a negative action, but positive.
This is where "Rule of Law" has it's biggest weakness, turning heros into criminals and criminals into heros - by not seeing the above principle.
I would not say that so. It would basicly mean that dr Mengele didn't do anything wrong. "Evil" action can create good or bad results, but the action itself still is bad (evil).
Good creates evil by drawing that etherical "line" as to what is right and what is wrong.
I wouldn't see it that way. Good creates itself by defining it's borders. Merely something not being good doesn't make it evil.
GeekGuy
01-23-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Hena
I would not say that so. It would basicly mean that dr Mengele didn't do anything wrong. "Evil" action can create good or bad results, but the action itself still is bad (evil).
Ah, then you misunderstood the description...His work affected others negatively, therefore was wrong. The science may have been positive, but the way it was carried out - blah, negativity :p
What I meant as a negative act being positive for example, an act of immediate self defense.
I wouldn't see it that way. Good creates itself by defining it's borders. Merely something not being good doesn't make it evil.
As I see the definitions, "good" and "evil" are polarities, like a battery in a sense. Ones actions are either or.
I would not say that so. It would basicly mean that dr Mengele didn't do anything wrong. "Evil" action can create good or bad results, but the action itself still is bad (evil).
Ah, then you misunderstood the description...His work affected others negatively, therefore was wrong. The science may have been positive, but the way it was carried out - blah, negativity :p
What I meant as a negative act being positive for example, an act of immediate self defense.
I wouldn't see it that way. Good creates itself by defining it's borders. Merely something not being good doesn't make it evil.
As I see the definitions, "good" and "evil" are polarities, like a battery in a sense. Ones actions are either or.
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by GeekGuy
Responses are IMHO....
No.
But there does exist negativity, but that in itself is not evil.
Evil in the Judaeic/Christian/Islamic/Muslim tradition is "The opposite of God".
The interpretation of this is beyond the entire LNO forum.
Most beliefs not based on the aforementioned paths, do not acknowledge "evil", but negativity as thoughts that beget counterproductive actions. The thought or action may be good in itself, but if it affects others around you negatively, it is negativity. Conversely, a "negative" action that produces positive results, is no longer a negative action, but positive.
This is where "Rule of Law" has it's biggest weakness, turning heros into criminals and criminals into heros - by not seeing the above principle.
Good creates evil by drawing that etherical "line" as to what is right and what is wrong.
Negativity exists by going out of line with the universal principle "Everything in its own time"
This is my twoonie on this thread ;)
This sounds markedly like the reverse paradigm concept of good and evil. By chance are you a student of said theory?
Responses are IMHO....
No.
But there does exist negativity, but that in itself is not evil.
Evil in the Judaeic/Christian/Islamic/Muslim tradition is "The opposite of God".
The interpretation of this is beyond the entire LNO forum.
Most beliefs not based on the aforementioned paths, do not acknowledge "evil", but negativity as thoughts that beget counterproductive actions. The thought or action may be good in itself, but if it affects others around you negatively, it is negativity. Conversely, a "negative" action that produces positive results, is no longer a negative action, but positive.
This is where "Rule of Law" has it's biggest weakness, turning heros into criminals and criminals into heros - by not seeing the above principle.
Good creates evil by drawing that etherical "line" as to what is right and what is wrong.
Negativity exists by going out of line with the universal principle "Everything in its own time"
This is my twoonie on this thread ;)
This sounds markedly like the reverse paradigm concept of good and evil. By chance are you a student of said theory?
GeekGuy
01-23-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by williamwbishop
This sounds markedly like the reverse paradigm concept of good and evil. By chance are you a student of said theory?
'Tis a minor hobby one might say ;)
This sounds markedly like the reverse paradigm concept of good and evil. By chance are you a student of said theory?
'Tis a minor hobby one might say ;)
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by GeekGuy
'Tis a minor hobby one might say ;)
It has been long since Pius the thirteenth. It is a most entertaining theory at that. Warm wishes.
'Tis a minor hobby one might say ;)
It has been long since Pius the thirteenth. It is a most entertaining theory at that. Warm wishes.
Hena
01-23-2003, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by GeekGuy
What I meant as a negative act being positive for example, an act of immediate self defense.
Skipping the choices before this and other possibilities of action is rather cruel. But i assume we have a situation that person itself didn't cause and has no other options (like run or whaterver). There is still the degree of levels. But then the action (punch) is connecte to previous action (original punch). Not all should be removed from context. But i do understand what you mean. And do agree to it somewhat.
As I see the definitions, "good" and "evil" are polarities, like a battery in a sense. Ones actions are either or.
But where that leaves a person. If act can have 3 particles of good and 3 particles of bad (using these as measure now, nothing else) is the act now good or bad? Meaning that once you define good/bad, then you have define how they are "used". I'm not probably very clear here :).
What I meant as a negative act being positive for example, an act of immediate self defense.
Skipping the choices before this and other possibilities of action is rather cruel. But i assume we have a situation that person itself didn't cause and has no other options (like run or whaterver). There is still the degree of levels. But then the action (punch) is connecte to previous action (original punch). Not all should be removed from context. But i do understand what you mean. And do agree to it somewhat.
As I see the definitions, "good" and "evil" are polarities, like a battery in a sense. Ones actions are either or.
But where that leaves a person. If act can have 3 particles of good and 3 particles of bad (using these as measure now, nothing else) is the act now good or bad? Meaning that once you define good/bad, then you have define how they are "used". I'm not probably very clear here :).
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 07:47 AM
A bit of jest to ligthen the mood?
A famous quote:
"When choosing between two evils I always like to take the one I've never tried before." - Mae West
In seriousness though, I think you two are rowing in the same boat, unawares.
A famous quote:
"When choosing between two evils I always like to take the one I've never tried before." - Mae West
In seriousness though, I think you two are rowing in the same boat, unawares.
Hena
01-23-2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by williamwbishop
In seriousness though, I think you two are rowing in the same boat, unawares.
To some extent, i expect so. But i want to make sure :D.
In seriousness though, I think you two are rowing in the same boat, unawares.
To some extent, i expect so. But i want to make sure :D.
GeekGuy
01-23-2003, 08:08 AM
I agree with Mr. Bishop. it appears we are rowing in the same boat.
You have made your point clear, to me anyways ;)
Once again we come to well, it's part evil, it's part not, what is it? My case exactly for personally not choosing the good/evil dogma for my own personal life.
What was the result? That will be my answer to the dillema.
But, not neccesarily the right or wrong one, just mine (here we go again :rolleyes: ).
haha, I like the jest - on topics like this, it's better to have jest mixed with discussion than a thread of overseriousness :D :D :D
You have made your point clear, to me anyways ;)
Once again we come to well, it's part evil, it's part not, what is it? My case exactly for personally not choosing the good/evil dogma for my own personal life.
What was the result? That will be my answer to the dillema.
But, not neccesarily the right or wrong one, just mine (here we go again :rolleyes: ).
haha, I like the jest - on topics like this, it's better to have jest mixed with discussion than a thread of overseriousness :D :D :D
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 08:11 AM
It does my heart good to see two of such mild manner and friendly disposition.:)
muchmark
01-23-2003, 08:12 AM
The question why there is evil in existence is the same as why there is imperfection... But this is the real question we ought to ask: Is this imperfection the final truth, is evil absolute and ultimate?
Rabindranath Tagore
Rabindranath Tagore
Hena
01-23-2003, 08:26 AM
That sounds somewhat silly. Why would evil be absolute and ultimate, when you can so easily make the same question about good. Either way it expects people to default to direction if not given any reason not to do it otherwise. Besides since good and evil depends from society, its a society specific which question is the one needed. Too bad i can't speak to person that made the statement.
But if what i've said above is acceptable, then why did he ask it about evil? What does that tell about our own society... Damn this is not going to good direction :p.
But if what i've said above is acceptable, then why did he ask it about evil? What does that tell about our own society... Damn this is not going to good direction :p.
Arcane_Disciple
01-23-2003, 11:32 AM
I was asked this question on an exam in one of my college classes. I was unable to decide because of what a high school teacher once told me about love/opposites.
What is the opposite of love? One might say that it is hate, they would be wrong. If you love someone, what do you do? You think about them. Same as if you hate that person. You still will think about how much you despise them or what the do that grabs you the wrong way. Knowing this, the proper answer to the question is indifference. You don't care at all and you don't care to think about them.
After pondering this I wrote that evil exists, but not in the way society thinks of it and used this:
Good: Helping an elderly person pick up a dropped object(s)
Evil: Kicking that same object a few feet down the road (you still had to give it thought. Therefore this isn't the meanest thing to be done.)
Indifference: Just keep on walking with out batting an eye or giving thought either way to that person.
What is the opposite of love? One might say that it is hate, they would be wrong. If you love someone, what do you do? You think about them. Same as if you hate that person. You still will think about how much you despise them or what the do that grabs you the wrong way. Knowing this, the proper answer to the question is indifference. You don't care at all and you don't care to think about them.
After pondering this I wrote that evil exists, but not in the way society thinks of it and used this:
Good: Helping an elderly person pick up a dropped object(s)
Evil: Kicking that same object a few feet down the road (you still had to give it thought. Therefore this isn't the meanest thing to be done.)
Indifference: Just keep on walking with out batting an eye or giving thought either way to that person.
Penrich
01-23-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by CMonster
does evil exist?
Yes evil exists, in the same way GOOD exists. There is no good or evil force, but there are good and evil actions (or intentions).
how do you define evil?
Generally, doing something unprovoked that is intended to cause physical or mental harm to another human.
why does evil exist?
People are mean and petty. They are bored, jealous and ignorant.
does evil exist?
Yes evil exists, in the same way GOOD exists. There is no good or evil force, but there are good and evil actions (or intentions).
how do you define evil?
Generally, doing something unprovoked that is intended to cause physical or mental harm to another human.
why does evil exist?
People are mean and petty. They are bored, jealous and ignorant.
Stween
01-23-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Penrich
Generally, doing something unprovoked that is intended to cause physical or mental harm to another human.
You don't even need to specify 'human' there. You could argue to any living creature.
Generally, doing something unprovoked that is intended to cause physical or mental harm to another human.
You don't even need to specify 'human' there. You could argue to any living creature.
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Stween
You don't even need to specify 'human' there. You could argue to any living creature.
Exactly, people who kick pets, need themselves kicked.
You don't even need to specify 'human' there. You could argue to any living creature.
Exactly, people who kick pets, need themselves kicked.
braindrop
01-23-2003, 06:52 PM
i say good and evil exist because how could you tell one without the other. you couldnt have just good because then it would be the norm. you cant have good and neutral cause then neutral would become the evil and it would rebalance.
the balance point is the only thing that changes for each individual reality and makes what seems good for one person( a lumberjack cutting a tree for profit) seem evil to another( a member of greenpeace or peta or something)
its like a number scale negative one side and positive another and everybodies perspective is at zero and everybodies zero point is different in relation to everyone elses and changes per situation also.
edit: i have often theorized that nobody ever wants to be evil, but if someones zero point is far enough off from the average norm... then their actions that seem evil to us really dont to that person
the balance point is the only thing that changes for each individual reality and makes what seems good for one person( a lumberjack cutting a tree for profit) seem evil to another( a member of greenpeace or peta or something)
its like a number scale negative one side and positive another and everybodies perspective is at zero and everybodies zero point is different in relation to everyone elses and changes per situation also.
edit: i have often theorized that nobody ever wants to be evil, but if someones zero point is far enough off from the average norm... then their actions that seem evil to us really dont to that person
Penrich
01-23-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Stween
You don't even need to specify 'human' there. You could argue to any living creature.
While in general I certainly do agree (shaving a cat for example, just for "fun"), I did not put that because what about slaughtering animals for food? It causes them "harm" (i.e. kills them), but is not inherently evil (as we need to eat [although I used to be a vegetarian]).
So torturing animals for fun is out. In fact, hasn't a link been shown between children starting out being mean to small pets and going on to be serial killers and the like? The kid who did the shootings at Columbine, for example, had a history of torturing pets, IIRC. It demonstrates a general lack of conscience and tendency towards sociopathic behaviour.
You don't even need to specify 'human' there. You could argue to any living creature.
While in general I certainly do agree (shaving a cat for example, just for "fun"), I did not put that because what about slaughtering animals for food? It causes them "harm" (i.e. kills them), but is not inherently evil (as we need to eat [although I used to be a vegetarian]).
So torturing animals for fun is out. In fact, hasn't a link been shown between children starting out being mean to small pets and going on to be serial killers and the like? The kid who did the shootings at Columbine, for example, had a history of torturing pets, IIRC. It demonstrates a general lack of conscience and tendency towards sociopathic behaviour.
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Penrich
While in general I certainly do agree (shaving a cat for example, just for "fun"), I did not put that because what about slaughtering animals for food? It causes them "harm" (i.e. kills them), but is not inherently evil (as we need to eat [although I used to be a vegetarian]).
So torturing animals for fun is out. In fact, hasn't a link been shown between children starting out being mean to small pets and going on to be serial killers and the like? The kid who did the shootings at Columbine, for example, had a history of torturing pets, IIRC. It demonstrates a general lack of conscience and tendency towards sociopathic behaviour.
Yes, children who torture animals are generally given to a lack of conscience and ALMOST always go on to hurt people. You wouldn't believe the number of them I had in my foster care cases. My wife does not understand my wishes to not have a "difficult" child for foster care, as she want's to do foster care when our kids get older. Me? I don't know. I was labeled a difficult child(but mostly because I was just plain violent, drank too much, and was anti-authority). So I know that not all will turn out bad(although some posters would argue that I *am* bad.
While in general I certainly do agree (shaving a cat for example, just for "fun"), I did not put that because what about slaughtering animals for food? It causes them "harm" (i.e. kills them), but is not inherently evil (as we need to eat [although I used to be a vegetarian]).
So torturing animals for fun is out. In fact, hasn't a link been shown between children starting out being mean to small pets and going on to be serial killers and the like? The kid who did the shootings at Columbine, for example, had a history of torturing pets, IIRC. It demonstrates a general lack of conscience and tendency towards sociopathic behaviour.
Yes, children who torture animals are generally given to a lack of conscience and ALMOST always go on to hurt people. You wouldn't believe the number of them I had in my foster care cases. My wife does not understand my wishes to not have a "difficult" child for foster care, as she want's to do foster care when our kids get older. Me? I don't know. I was labeled a difficult child(but mostly because I was just plain violent, drank too much, and was anti-authority). So I know that not all will turn out bad(although some posters would argue that I *am* bad.
Penrich
01-23-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by braindrop
edit: i have often theorized that nobody ever wants to be evil, but if someones zero point is far enough off from the average norm... then their actions that seem evil to us really dont to that person
Sociopaths are people who have no conscience, and thus know no right or wrong. How they get that way, however, is beyond me. Chemical imbalance in the brain? Being beaten as a child?
A child-raising theory is that children inherently want to do good. They want you to love them, and pay attention to them. They honestly do not want to be spanked, put in time out or shouted at. There comes a time, however, when some of them realize that any attention is better than no attention, and so if they do not get positive reinforcement of the good will do the bad. I don't know if this is 100% true, but I give it the benefit of the doubt and try and give my kids as much positive attention as I can muster (although they do get time-outs too)
edit: i have often theorized that nobody ever wants to be evil, but if someones zero point is far enough off from the average norm... then their actions that seem evil to us really dont to that person
Sociopaths are people who have no conscience, and thus know no right or wrong. How they get that way, however, is beyond me. Chemical imbalance in the brain? Being beaten as a child?
A child-raising theory is that children inherently want to do good. They want you to love them, and pay attention to them. They honestly do not want to be spanked, put in time out or shouted at. There comes a time, however, when some of them realize that any attention is better than no attention, and so if they do not get positive reinforcement of the good will do the bad. I don't know if this is 100% true, but I give it the benefit of the doubt and try and give my kids as much positive attention as I can muster (although they do get time-outs too)
Stween
01-23-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Penrich
I did not put that because what about slaughtering animals for food? It causes them "harm" (i.e. kills them), but is not inherently evil (as we need to eat [although I used to be a vegetarian]).
Yeah, it's a double edged sword that. I suppose it's not 100% evil, since we show compassion and can't really be accused of *torturing* the animals, thats for sure. It just isn't really fair that the animals in question have to die.
I did not put that because what about slaughtering animals for food? It causes them "harm" (i.e. kills them), but is not inherently evil (as we need to eat [although I used to be a vegetarian]).
Yeah, it's a double edged sword that. I suppose it's not 100% evil, since we show compassion and can't really be accused of *torturing* the animals, thats for sure. It just isn't really fair that the animals in question have to die.
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Penrich
Sociopaths are people who have no conscience, and thus know no right or wrong. How they get that way, however, is beyond me. Chemical imbalance in the brain? Being beaten as a child?
A child-raising theory is that children inherently want to do good. They want you to love them, and pay attention to them. They honestly do not want to be spanked, put in time out or shouted at. There comes a time, however, when some of them realize that any attention is better than no attention, and so if they do not get positive reinforcement of the good will do the bad. I don't know if this is 100% true, but I give it the benefit of the doubt and try and give my kids as much positive attention as I can muster (although they do get time-outs too)
In my experience, most of the kids I had in my caseload who tortured animals or siblings...were themselves abused by parents, or were born addicted to some drug. Some small percentage were just this way for no obvious reason, and I always suspected either a neurological or functional flaw.
Sociopaths are people who have no conscience, and thus know no right or wrong. How they get that way, however, is beyond me. Chemical imbalance in the brain? Being beaten as a child?
A child-raising theory is that children inherently want to do good. They want you to love them, and pay attention to them. They honestly do not want to be spanked, put in time out or shouted at. There comes a time, however, when some of them realize that any attention is better than no attention, and so if they do not get positive reinforcement of the good will do the bad. I don't know if this is 100% true, but I give it the benefit of the doubt and try and give my kids as much positive attention as I can muster (although they do get time-outs too)
In my experience, most of the kids I had in my caseload who tortured animals or siblings...were themselves abused by parents, or were born addicted to some drug. Some small percentage were just this way for no obvious reason, and I always suspected either a neurological or functional flaw.
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 07:13 PM
And I did notice that the addiction was to "speed" type things...crack, crank, etc...Children of depressant type drugs(barbituates, alcohol, etc...) often had other type disorders, but not the seeming cruel nature. They were often inattentive, low IQ, etc...but they did not seem as violent. Take it for what you will.
Penrich
01-23-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Stween
Yeah, it's a double edged sword that. I suppose it's not 100% evil, since we show compassion and can't really be accused of *torturing* the animals, thats for sure. It just isn't really fair that the animals in question have to die. But if you were to believe in the Bible, then do we not have dominion over all the beasts of water, land and air? So we can surely kill and eat them, and who knows, maybe torture too ;)
Yeah, it's a double edged sword that. I suppose it's not 100% evil, since we show compassion and can't really be accused of *torturing* the animals, thats for sure. It just isn't really fair that the animals in question have to die. But if you were to believe in the Bible, then do we not have dominion over all the beasts of water, land and air? So we can surely kill and eat them, and who knows, maybe torture too ;)
williamwbishop
01-23-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Penrich
But if you were to believe in the Bible, then do we not have dominion over all the beasts of water, land and air? So we can surely kill and eat them, and who knows, maybe torture too ;)
I won't speak on the ethics or the morals of eating all of those little critters....but....really. Can you really think of an instance where a giant steak is NOT a good thing?;) I canna help it, I'm a carnivore(well technically an omnivore since I do eat some garnish;) )
But if you were to believe in the Bible, then do we not have dominion over all the beasts of water, land and air? So we can surely kill and eat them, and who knows, maybe torture too ;)
I won't speak on the ethics or the morals of eating all of those little critters....but....really. Can you really think of an instance where a giant steak is NOT a good thing?;) I canna help it, I'm a carnivore(well technically an omnivore since I do eat some garnish;) )
Penrich
01-23-2003, 07:42 PM
Philistine! DON'T EAT THE GARNISH!
emetib
01-23-2003, 07:43 PM
The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.
Socrates (469 BC - 399 BC)
here's a tangent to follow, "would you know what good is if you don't know what evil is?"
if in fact that you don't know, not told, or raise indifferently towards what good is, would you know, tell, or change your beliefs towards what some say is evil.
q- a boy walks in on his mother and father making love, notices that she is making alot of noise, and hears things that he doesn't understand. would this boy then, if not told, know that rape was a evil thing?
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.
Socrates (469 BC - 399 BC)
here's a tangent to follow, "would you know what good is if you don't know what evil is?"
if in fact that you don't know, not told, or raise indifferently towards what good is, would you know, tell, or change your beliefs towards what some say is evil.
q- a boy walks in on his mother and father making love, notices that she is making alot of noise, and hears things that he doesn't understand. would this boy then, if not told, know that rape was a evil thing?
CMonster
01-24-2003, 05:16 AM
Thanks to all. I really asked because I think it is good that people question and think about such things.
I see a kind of "evil is relative to good" theme in many of the replies, sometimes almost touching on a yin-yang kind of thing -interesting, but I don't think in terms of good and bad, pleasure and pain when I define evil.
To me, evil has to do with intent; if you run me over with your car by accident that is bad -if you did it on purpose that is evil.
I have seen people who take pleasure in causing pain to others, they are aware that they are causing pain and know that they take pleasure in doing so -this I consider evil.
I see a kind of "evil is relative to good" theme in many of the replies, sometimes almost touching on a yin-yang kind of thing -interesting, but I don't think in terms of good and bad, pleasure and pain when I define evil.
To me, evil has to do with intent; if you run me over with your car by accident that is bad -if you did it on purpose that is evil.
I have seen people who take pleasure in causing pain to others, they are aware that they are causing pain and know that they take pleasure in doing so -this I consider evil.
Stween
01-24-2003, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Penrich
But if you were to believe in the Bible, then do we not have dominion over all the beasts of water, land and air?
Well, I don't really believe in the bible :) I'd choose to believe that no one creature commands all others. It's just evolution gave us the intelligence to think that we were better than all other creatures on Earth, and therefore the right to do what we wanted with them.
But if you were to believe in the Bible, then do we not have dominion over all the beasts of water, land and air?
Well, I don't really believe in the bible :) I'd choose to believe that no one creature commands all others. It's just evolution gave us the intelligence to think that we were better than all other creatures on Earth, and therefore the right to do what we wanted with them.
justlinux.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.