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

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
34,275
Reaction score
9,387
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
I await Your Response.
Im also pretyping a collective of every single time Ive condemned Them for what They did, to use as a Reply for if someone again declares that Im avoiding Reality.

I said IMO, I also said I do not really know you so I may be misunderstanding what you are saying but all I have to go on is the forum web interface and what you are typing

Now this is from you

Unaware of the acts? Where did You even get that from. I have acknowledged, so many times now, every one of these deeds. I have acknowledged full well that He ordered Concentration Camps, and everything else. I never said He wasnt responsible, I only ever said that He didnt do those things personally, and that it ought make the people who did do it, more despicable in My Eyes.

My first statement about checking this history comes from this statement you typed

*Was Hitler Evil?
The most Evil thing Hitler did, was allow His Heirarchs and Generals the Freedom to use Unnecessary Force.

He did not allow any of his Generals any freedom at all.

My second point comes from here

EDIT: By which I mean, that He gave the Instructions and allowed the Freedoms, alot more than He actually did the work Himself.
Id be inclined to call the people who went out and committed the deeds more Evil than He was for allowing it, or asking for it.
He did not allow freedoms nor did he give instructions.He gave orders as to what he wanted done and also allowed them to use any meanspossible to achieve what he wanted done. He had expectations that had to bemeant or else that is all. That is not allowing freedoms. You see from my POVto first say he allowed “Freedoms” and follow that by saying he gave “instructions”does sound as if you are trying to, at some degree, absolve him from some of theatrocities committed my the Third Reich and the Nazi party that he ordered. Now at this point Ido not think that is what you are trying to do, but it was the impression I wasgiven by the words you chose to use in your discussion

Please check the history,it is well documented as to what Hitleer was and was not and what he did and did not do. Beyond that you are right, this post will go way off course into a history lesson that I donot wwant to type

Now I really must dash and likely I will not be back to this anytime soon. If at all, I tend to do my best to stay out of the study but occasionally I fail
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
And now this seems to be getting somewere.

I said IMO, I also said I do not really know you so I may be misunderstanding what you are saying but all I have to go on is the forum web interface and what you are typing

Yeah, but I have had to say some things numerous times.

Now this is from you
--
My first statement about checking this history comes from this statement you typed

Reply will be below.

He did not allow any of his Generals any freedom at all.

And that was poor, poor phrasing on My end. Ill readily admit to that. Lets take Concentration Camps. Order is given, Order is accepted, Order is carried out. Did He actually oversee the handling of it, and specify exactly how They rounded people up to be thrown in there? From everything I can find, it looks more like He told them what to do, with a moderate amount of detail as to how, and They filled in the gaps.

My second point comes from here

Thats a misunderstanding caused by the way these posts have stacked. Were the Civilians who stoned people on the Streets arrested? No, because They had the Freedom to do it.

He did not allow freedoms nor did he give instructions.He gave orders

Weve been over this - Thats cleared up now. :)

as to what he wanted done and also allowed them to use any meanspossible to achieve what he wanted done. He had expectations that had to bemeant or else that is all.

Yes. And They met them, by any means necessary. Thats a level of Freedom, in the context of the Analogy at hand.

That is not allowing freedoms. You see from my POVto first say he allowed “Freedoms” and follow that by saying he gave “instructions”does sound as if you are trying to, at some degree, absolve him from some of theatrocities committed my the Third Reich and the Nazi party that he ordered.

Which I absolutely am not, I have condemned them so many times now, to try and make that clear. I mean, that as You just said, He wanted His Orders to be successfully carried out, and They could do quite alot to get them done. Freedoms was meant to point out that They were pretty much doing whatever it took, to get those Orders carried out. If that was misread as being Freedom to do anything they wish? That certainly wasnt the intention, and I deliberately tried not to imply that.

Now at this point Ido not think that is what you are trying to do, but it was the impression I wasgiven by the words you chose to use in your discussion

In which case, Im glad thats to some extent clear. But at the same time, I have had to repeat Myself on various things, various times.

Please check the history,it is well documented as to what Hitleer was and was not and what he did and did not do. Beyond that you are right, this post will go way off course into a history lesson that I donot wwant to type

And that I dont want to type either. I did alot of reading about Him, and the War, about a Year ago. So far, it seems to be terminology thats bogging us down, as seen above.

Now I really must dash and likely I will not be back to this anytime soon. If at all, I tend to do my best to stay out of the study but occasionally I fail

I try to keep My stays in here short. But then I was told I was trying to whitewash War Crimes.

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

zDom

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
3,081
Reaction score
110
I think it has something to do with the letter X.

eX wife? Evil.

eX girlfriend? Evil.

eX boyfriend? Yep, I reckon thems evil, too, along with eX husbands ...

Hidden treasure marked on a map with an X? Evil. That kind of treasure is always cursed.

Illiterate so sign with an X? Evil.

X-rated? dang.. I guess that stuff is evil, too.

XX liquor? Evil.

XXX liquor? A bit more evil.

Two X chromosomes? Very evil.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
This test already exists, it's called: a mirror.

Have person stand in front of mirror, if they have a reflection... they're evil.

Humans are born evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
What is evil and what is good?
Only our hearts can decide that.

Once you've determined that then you can design a test.
For me it's simple... I ask my heart how I feel about this that or the other thing/person/place... then I act accordingly to my heart's desires.

What if your heart's desire is something someone else considers evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
What is the standard that you use to label something as evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
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

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
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

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
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.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
Yes, but why is something like theft evil in general?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk
 

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
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

Purple Belt
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
355
Reaction score
6
Location
Fairfax Virginia
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.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
If evil is subjective, then anything that is evil now can be good later.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk
 

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
312
Location
Chattanooga, TN
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 :idunno:
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.

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

Cyriacus

Senior Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
3,827
Reaction score
47
Location
Australia
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 :idunno:

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.

:asian: 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

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
34,275
Reaction score
9,387
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
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 :uhyeah:
 

thepieisready

White Belt
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
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.
 
OP
Makalakumu

Makalakumu

Gonzo Karate Apocalypse
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
13,887
Reaction score
232
Location
Hawaii
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...
 

Latest Discussions

Top