If you had to design a test that determined if something was EVIL what would it look like?

[Makalakumu]

Naturally, choosing between Good and Evil, the Theft was Evil. And the Aid, Good.

Why?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

[Makalakumu]

What is the standard that you use to label something as evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

[Tez3]

To My knowledge, its the only way to Reply to seperate parts of a Quote, without manually inputting HTMLfor each bit I want, and so forth.
Ive used the device of Bolding Text, as have others, to do that for Months now, and have never had any dramas as a result. And it was Bold there, because it was Copied from where it was Bold in the post.
My sincere apologies if You were mislead by that to think I was yelling at You, since it was in a Quote. And not in My Reply. Like this, here. Which isnt Bold.

I makes it hard to reply to your replies when you format them like this. Can you not use the quote function? If you are going to do it this way instead of bolding people usually use a different colour.

I have to say I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in your last couple of posts.

[MA-Caver]

And now this seems to be getting somewhere.

In closing to that...
Good, Evil.
Righteous, Despicable.
Rich... Or wealthy, or affluent, or opulent.
Was always what I was trying to explain.

How much money a person has in their personal holdings has NOTHING to do with good or evil. It's what they choose to (or not to) do with it. I'm poor, but that doesn't necessarily make me a good person... nor does it make me evil. It's what I DO that determines that.

[Cyriacus]

I makes it hard to reply to your replies when you format them like this. Can you not use the quote function? If you are going to do it this way instead of bolding people usually use a different colour.

I have to say I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in your last couple of posts.

The other Gentlemans comment about it mostly related to the use of Bold Text outside of the Quote itself. The last part was Me apologizing if He interpreted it as yelling as a result.
Im using the Quote function, evidently. I just find it tedious to type the Quote thing back out each time.

How much money a person has in their personal holdings has NOTHING to do with good or evil. It's what they choose to (or not to) do with it. I'm poor, but that doesn't necessarily make me a good person... nor does it make me evil. It's what I DO that determines that.

Dear lord.
That was never the implication.
Im beginning to see why Ive heard people say They dislike The Study.
I was saying, that Good and Evil are two ways of saying it. Righteous and Despicable is perhaps another. Which is comparable to saying Wealthy instead of Rich. Or Opulent instead of Rich. I can say that, but I couldnt say Despicable instead of Evil?

Why?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

Because stealing from a disabled child is not only cowardly, but it also damaged His livelyhood, as well as those of others. Its fortunate someone went on to pay them, otherwise Theyd still probably be living down that singular event.
In My Eyes, anyway.

[Makalakumu]

Yes, but why is something like theft evil in general?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

[Cyriacus]

Yes, but why is something like theft evil in general?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

It isnt theft, so much as who it was stolen from, and the effect it had on them.
And plus, apparently I have to call it evil, as oppose to cowardly and malicious.

[Zenjael]

Evil is something which is subjective, and hence is how we cant quantify it really. Hitler was no worse than Genghis Khan, yet time seems to have relegated his atrocities to a forgotten period of past, which doesn't affect or touch us. And as emotion, and morality shifts... This question makes me ask if there were a more objective sense of evil.

To me evil and good are not different, they are like hot and cold, degrees on the same scale. After all, the brightest candle casts the darkest shadow.

I don't think there is morality in martial arts... just the martial artist. Except maybe Aikido as O-sensei taught it.

[Makalakumu]

If evil is subjective, then anything that is evil now can be good later.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

[MA-Caver]

Dear lord.
That was never the implication.
Im beginning to see why Ive heard people say They dislike The Study.
I was saying, that Good and Evil are two ways of saying it. Righteous and Despicable is perhaps another. Which is comparable to saying Wealthy instead of Rich. Or Opulent instead of Rich. I can say that, but I couldnt say Despicable instead of Evil?

This is another reason why people say they hate the study. For that reason that whatever is typed out isn't either specific enough or clearly stated as intended for it to come across. Knowing that it's impossible to dictate tone, and inflection of what is being said.
I rarely go around slapping people in the face for what they say. I will however challenge it if I see a need to. Perhaps, I took your view a bit too personally
All I do know is that throughout my own life's experiences I've encountered both good and evil persons who were both rich or poor. Among the good I count as my friends, regardless of their social class standing. As for the evil ones I've known, many I will never seen again and will be a better man for it.
They have both taught me what each are capable of doing.
The amount of dimes in their pockets didn't matter one whit to me.

If I have stepped on your toe, I'm sorry, for that was not my intention either.

[Cyriacus]

This is another reason why people say they hate the study. For that reason that whatever is typed out isn't either specific enough or clearly stated as intended for it to come across. Knowing that it's impossible to dictate tone, and inflection of what is being said.
I rarely go around slapping people in the face for what they say. I will however challenge it if I see a need to. Perhaps, I took your view a bit too personally

Its all fine.

All I do know is that throughout my own life's experiences I've encountered both good and evil persons who were both rich or poor. Among the good I count as my friends, regardless of their social class standing. As for the evil ones I've known, many I will never seen again and will be a better man for it.

As have I. This was only ever meant to be about the word I use for them though, not what I classify them as. Thats why I was honestly, for a while, deeply confused. Then I gave up trying to discuss the topic itself, and started trying to work out why this turned into some kind of moral debate. That was right around the start of page 2, I think.

They have both taught me what each are capable of doing.
The amount of dimes in their pockets didn't matter one whit to me.

And We agree on that.

If I have stepped on your toe, I'm sorry, for that was not my intention either.

Its all fine - Ill never mind discussing something, but when discussing something turns into... Im not even going into it. I apologize if anything I wrote was read as being remotely inflammatory. Peace out, Study!

*nods

[Xue Sheng]

What is the standard that you use to label something as evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

anyone or anything that interferes with me drinking my Pu-erh Cha....and YOU'RE pushing it with this ENTIRE Thread... I came darn close to steeping it to long reading this thing

[thepieisready]

Morality is relative and subjective. What is good to one is evil to others. Additionally, a negative deed does not make a negative person and vice versa. However, this is just my opinion. That's all it can be. There are many people who do think that there is an objective morality. Until one is definitively proven, my opinion will remain the same. Then again, if there is no objective morality the only other option is that all takes on morality are subjective, making it fact and paradoxical.
If you wanted to observe my personal chart of judgment, I have none. My judgment for the same action varies entirely depending on the circumstances under which the act was committed.

[Makalakumu]

Morality is relative and subjective. What is good to one is evil to others. Additionally, a negative deed does not make a negative person and vice versa. However, this is just my opinion. That's all it can be. There are many people who do think that there is an objective morality. Until one is definitively proven, my opinion will remain the same. Then again, if there is no objective morality the only other option is that all takes on morality are subjective, making it fact and paradoxical.
If you wanted to observe my personal chart of judgment, I have none. My judgment for the same action varies entirely depending on the circumstances under which the act was committed.

They don't teach much about ethics and morality in public schools because of the charged nature of the subject. It's a shame, because students always leave with this impression, myself included. When I started to actually study this, as an adult, that started to change. There are systematized ways of looking at the world that provide you with a moral compass. Many of these systems are taught by religions and justify themselves with divine mandates. Other systems are completely secular and rely on reason, and argument to provide their legitimacy. I prefer the latter.

Here's an example of an evil test that I've been experimenting with. I'll start with the first principles.

1. The non-aggression principle. This is a prohibition against the initiation of force in human interactions.
2. The self-ownership principle. This is an axiom that states that every human owns the products of their minds and labor.

These two principles can be found in just about every culture that one looks. All kinds of rules, laws, and unsaid social mores boil themselves down to these two things. For example, murder and rape violate the non-aggression principle. Theft and lying violate the self-ownership principle. This makes the evil test pretty simple.

And it makes it difficult, because once you universalize these principles, you find that there actually is a great deal of evil being done in the world that is called good. For example, wars violate the non-aggression principle, therefore those are evil. Modern Governments are organizations that are defined by the ability to initiate force, therefore those are evil. Taxes violate the ownership principle, therefore those are evil.

These contradiction happen because of the underlying conflict of ethical systems inherit. Other common first principle for people is the Utilitarian Principle.

1. Actions that provide the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of people are good. Therefore war, government taxes, lying, rape and murder can be justified as long as they provide the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of people.

The ethical struggle of these principles in human action does not mean that some universal standard is absent. If the memes of logic and reason, the hallmarks of consciousness, are applied, the clear winners appear.

So, what is your evil test? Mine are the non-aggression principle and the self-ownership principle. And debate...