What side in real-life do you think is going to win?

[loseyourname]

You guys really have that Palpatinian view of what is good and evil, don't you? Do you honestly think there is no action (such as say, raping and slicing the throat of a three year-old girl) is just plain evil, regardless of the circumstances? It might be done by a person mentally incapable of realizing what he was doing, and you can argue that he is not evil, but even so? Are we really willing to be that relativistic about everything? Just because something is a human construct doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

By the way, lockecole, do you ever post on any topic other than good and evil?

 

[Smurf]

You guys really have that Palpatinian view of what is good and evil, don't you? Do you honestly think there is no action (such as say, raping and slicing the throat of a three year-old girl) is just plain evil,

I would argue that they are never evil, regardless of the circumstances. Evil is just a concept conjured up to justify someone being able to exercise control over someone else. Rape, or even Murder is not inherently evil. Death is not evil, why should causing it be Evil?

 

[loseyourname]

I would argue that they are never evil, regardless of the circumstances. Evil is just a concept conjured up to justify someone being able to exercise control over someone else. Rape, or even Murder is not inherently evil. Death is not evil, why should causing it be Evil?

So you think the word 'evil' literally has no meaning? What about "rude?" Friendly? Is it not possible for someone to be friendly?

 

[GCT]

What side do you think is going to win in real life?


Tell me why too.

This is possibly the stupidest question I've encountered here at PF. I apologize though if it's coming from an <12 year old

 

[Smurf]

So you think the word 'evil' literally has no meaning? What about "rude?" Friendly? Is it not possible for someone to be friendly?

Yes. Rude and Friendly have well defined and universally understood meanings. Evil does not. Evil has every meaning, because everyone intereprets it in their own way, so effectively it has no meaning at all.

 

[lockecole]

IClown's reply

I posted my question at Experts-Exchange.com's Philosophy and Religion sub-topic area of the "Miscellaneous" topic area. Take a look at IClown's reply. He gave me an answer that was not a flame. Can you too?

"There is an excellent socratic argument regarding this very question in the Apology. You'll find Socrates facing a death sentece declaring that no man could do harm to a better man. His argument goes something like this:

1) By harming a good man, you prevent good;
2) Once good is prevented, evil will prevail;
3) With evil prevailing, evil will fall upon the evil doers;
4) Evil doers will suffer;

Thus it is harmful to evil men to do evil.

Therefore, good wins."

 

[WhiteWolf]

Even rude and friendly, they have meanings that revolve around what the society they came from dictates. If one is a Muslim, and he or she kills a hundred innocent people in a suicide bombing, many would consider that evil, yet they believe they are doing the best thing they can do with their life. They believe they will go to paradise. So it all depends on what that person individually considers to be good or evil. The fact of the matter is... all behavioral terms are indeed relativistic.