Register to reply

Universal Evil

by Shere_Khan
Tags: evil, universal
Share this thread:
Shere_Khan
#1
Sep3-07, 01:45 AM
P: 4
"Are there certain acts, like torturing children, which are always wrong? If so, what are they?"
[taken from a list of stimulus questions]

I believe this question invokes one huge look into evil/morality as a whole [questioning the value of moral absolution, moral relativism, universalism, etc], so I'm finding it a bit hard to answer.


Any opinions or suggestions on a narrower viewpoint?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Mysterious source of ozone-depleting chemical baffles NASA
Water leads to chemical that gunks up biofuels production
How lizards regenerate their tails: Researchers discover genetic 'recipe'
JonF
#2
Sep6-07, 01:26 PM
P: 617
Absolutely, deontology FTW
JoeDawg
#3
Sep8-07, 12:25 PM
P: 1,330
Quote Quote by Shere_Khan View Post
"Are there certain acts, like torturing children, which are always wrong? If so, what are they?"
Whose children?

Evo
#4
Sep8-07, 09:07 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,523
Universal Evil

Sorry, religious discussions citing specific religious beliefs are not allowed here.
Shere_Khan
#5
Sep8-07, 09:14 PM
P: 4
sorry! fixed.
baywax
#6
Sep9-07, 10:33 PM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Evil can only be universal when there is a universal consensus that determines what is evil and what is not evil. Further from that evil is a product of the mind and no one is sure that the mind is a univeral organ.

Good luck with that.
granpa
#7
Sep10-07, 05:40 PM
P: 2,258
i cant imagine any circumstances in which torturing children would be acceptable but generally speaking, you have to separate the act itself from the way the act is commited. whether an act is evil or not normally depends on the way it is done. the time, the place, the circumstances, and what results from it.
sas3
#8
Sep10-07, 07:54 PM
PF Gold
sas3's Avatar
P: 201
Torturing anyone is wrong (why just children?) along with killing stealing rape and revenge.
There are more but I can think of any right now.
JoeDawg
#9
Sep10-07, 08:10 PM
P: 1,330
Quote Quote by sas3 View Post
Torturing anyone is wrong (why just children?) along with killing stealing rape and revenge.
There are more but I can think of any right now.
First one would have to define the terms. In some societies the 'disciplining children' can be extreme relative to others. In some contexts, where there is extreme peril, these more extreme forms of discipline may keep the child from getting killed.

Do you object to killing in self defense? In War? Of food? Is scavenging or killing plants ok, why?

At what point does coercion become rape? If a woman is taught she has a duty to satisfy her husbands needs, as he has a duty to protect and provide for her, does this lack of consent imply she is being raped?

Revenge? If the fear of revenge is the only thing that keeps your children from being raped or murdered... is it not justified?

Its easy to sit back and judge others while we sit in our nice comfy chairs, but others have hard decisions to make. Can you handle the truth?
lawtonfogle
#10
Oct4-07, 03:06 PM
P: 194
The flaw in the original question centers around acts. You need to define the set of all acts, and then ask if any in this set is always wrong.

Now a different question that should be answered first is what constitutes an act. Which of these are elements of this set of all acts.
1.Killing one person to save 10.
2.Killing one person.
3.Shooting a gun where it results in one person dying and in 10 others not dying.
4.Shooting a gun where it results in one person dying.
5.Shooting a gun.
6.Contracting the muscle in your finger where it results in the shooting of a gun with {3, 4, 5} as the result.
7.Contracting the muscle in your finger.
8...
You see where how it continues on. In different instances in philosophy, the act is considered without the consequences, but no explanation for what is and is not the act is given. Which element(s) of this set is considered an act without consequences considered: {Murdering, Killing, Shooting a gun, Moving a finger, Sending a nerve impulse to the finger,...}.

Until a definition of this is given, it is impossible to say that certain acts are or are not always wrongs.
SpartanInjun
#11
Oct5-07, 05:46 AM
P: 7
universally, it always wrong to kill a sentient being. You are killing the center of existence when you do.
Rade
#12
Oct6-07, 09:29 PM
P: n/a
I submit that universal evil is ANY willful violation of a moral code. Now, suppose I steal food, from someone that has lots of food, to feed my starving child--is that action evil ? I say yes. If I have enough energy and presence of mind to steal, then I have other non-evil options to provide food for my child.
JoeDawg
#13
Oct7-07, 01:19 AM
P: 1,330
Quote Quote by Rade View Post
I submit that universal evil is ANY willful violation of a moral code. Now, suppose I steal food, from someone that has lots of food, to feed my starving child--is that action evil ? I say yes. If I have enough energy and presence of mind to steal, then I have other non-evil options to provide food for my child.
What if your chosen moral code isn't violated by taking from those who unethically horde food they don't need?

Not to mention that your moral code might have a serious problem with people who claim to own land and then extort money and resources from those who actually work that land.
novaa77
#14
Oct7-07, 04:55 AM
P: 29
Do we need to define evil? Do we need to come up with a moral code that is acceptable to all?

I think the answer lies in the word "care"

If you don't care for your fellow human, if you don't care for the forests and the wild life if you don't care for our planet, no defination of evil, no law of moral conduct will ever be able to solve our problems.
baywax
#15
Nov9-07, 12:05 AM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
I don't know I any of you have thought about it this way but...... good is often used by evil as a source of energy, sustenance and so on. You see all of these altruistic institutions being used as camoflage for evil accountants and business dealings and they seem to attract "careless" people to all levels of their administration. Even the Red Cross showed its real colours when so many donations came in after the mass murder event in NY on 9/11/01. The "good" unions have often be found lacking of character and the "good" church harbours its own brand of pedophiles, land grabbers, favoritism, false charity, and possible genocidal maniacs.

There are many examples of evil using good to carry on.

Can you point out an opposite scenario? Are there instances where good uses evil to advance its cause?

Why or why not?

I think it would make a nice turn of events and no doubt it would be profitable.
Rade
#16
Nov25-07, 10:47 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by baywax View Post
...There are many examples of evil using good to carry on.
Can you point out an opposite scenario? Are there instances where good uses evil to advance its cause?...
Well, first we can look to good gods. So, see how a good god allowed evil snake in garden to tempt poor Eve with apple. And then consider poor Job, how "all that he had" was put within the power of evil Satan during a meeting with the same good god, so that god could test Job. I assume god would justify both actions as being for good cause to appease the mind of god. For a human example--a good warden of jail may use evil inmates to do some good action for community. But note here that action is for greater good of many humans, not warden. I cannot think of a example where a good human would use an evil human to advance its own personal good cause--seems like a contradiction in terms.
baywax
#17
Nov25-07, 11:43 PM
PF Gold
baywax's Avatar
P: 2,215
Quote Quote by Rade View Post
Well, first we can look to good gods. So, see how a good god allowed evil snake in garden to tempt poor Eve with apple. And then consider poor Job, how "all that he had" was put within the power of evil Satan during a meeting with the same good god, so that god could test Job. I assume god would justify both actions as being for good cause to appease the mind of god. For a human example--a good warden of jail may use evil inmates to do some good action for community. But note here that action is for greater good of many humans, not warden. I cannot think of a example where a good human would use an evil human to advance its own personal good cause--seems like a contradiction in terms.
Try reading Robin Hood perhaps.
Rade
#18
Nov26-07, 06:43 PM
P: n/a
Quote Quote by baywax View Post
Try reading Robin Hood perhaps.
I find nothing morally good about the actions of Robin Hood--bad example of what you look for.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
What is evil? General Discussion 14
Evil, Evil Clown Art General Discussion 5
Evil, evil proof Introductory Physics Homework 5
I am an evil Bob General Discussion 11
There are no evil bobs, but all joes are evil General Discussion 2