Yes; a self serving act (and which act isn't self serving in some way?) can result in unintended evil. Doesn't the "Cry Wolf" story help us understand that?Do you think an evil act can be performed without some form of attachment?
Sean
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes; a self serving act (and which act isn't self serving in some way?) can result in unintended evil. Doesn't the "Cry Wolf" story help us understand that?Do you think an evil act can be performed without some form of attachment?
Yes; a self serving act (and which act isn't self serving in some way?) can result in unintended evil. Doesn't the "Cry Wolf" story help us understand that?
Sean
Misereatur nostri omnipotens Deus [SIZE=-1]et dimissis peccatis nostris, en nomini Patri, et Fillii, et Spiritu Sanctu Amen.[/SIZE]
We'd all feel much better about that if we weren't damn sure you memorized it from watching Boondock Saints one too many times....
Do you think an evil act can be performed without some form of attachment?
I see what you're saying. To take the boy in the Cry Wolf story as an example. Even though he had a desire to be noticed and important, he had no desire to harm the village.
This would suggest that evil is not defined by culture and perception. What happened to the village was evil, not evil due to perception or cultural bias.
Following that logic I would have to conclude that water, fire, snow and ice, wind and other natural occurences are evil because of the damage they do and the suffering they cause in some instances, again not due to perception or cultural bias.
And traffic jams. Lots of suffering caused by traffic jams. Most definitely evil.
If all those people that believe that god is omnipotent (not telling you what I believe here just throwning in an "if" for discussion) believe that evil is possible but god is all good.... then that's an oxymoron isn't it?
How can an omnipotent and totally good god allow evil to exist, therefore is anything really evil? is it ALL for the greater good?
popcorn indeed LOL*Sits back with popcorn and waits*
I think thats a fundamental question thats been asked for ages now. Here is my take on it though... just my view
How can we describe something as being light w/out knowing that darkness exists? Isn't darkness, in essence, abscence of light? Isn't it the same way with goodness/badness? Isn't badness just the abscence of goodness? MBuzzy said it well, I think... I'll be using "badness" and "evil" interchangably...
Now, that leaves humans with a choice of following good or bad. Do we believe that freedom of choice is important? As a soceity, we have (well, for the most part) evolved to the point where marriages are no longer forced. We consider that progress. Women are no longer treated as possessions in our culture, but have the same degree of freedom as men. We perceive this as a good thing. In all civilized countries slavery is mostly non-existant. This is a good thing. So, can we say that increasing freedom and reducing "bondage" is good? Doesn't that apply to all of humanity? Would it be "good" for God to enslave us and force us to only follow the "good"? Is that what love is about? How can there be love w/out the choice to not love? How can there be goodness w/out the choice to follow badness?
Ask your average child if they would prefer having a puppy or a robot. Most would say puppy. Those choosing a robot would eventually grow tired of it and sit it in a corner. A puppy can conceivably bite you, can attack other children, can run away, and eventually dies. However, in those years you spend with them, you can experience such love, companionship and happiness too... Robots do just one thing. Obey what you ask them to do. It will never love you, because it has no choice for love. for me, I'd prefer a puppy
popcorn indeed LOL
Again I would say that the human interaction with the environment has either a positive or negative effect on the outcome of the event in question.Following that logic I would have to conclude that water, fire, snow and ice, wind and other natural occurences are evil because of the damage they do and the suffering they cause in some instances, again not due to perception or cultural bias.
Is that really such a bad thing? LOLHow can one person honestly appraise another person's definition of evil? What objective criteria would you use to do this?
I, personally, do not think that it is possible to fairly judge one definition over another. There are just too many contradictions.
IMHO, those contradictions spell out the relative nature of evil.
Think about it, given time, humans can rationalize anything, even destroying ourselves.
Following that logic I would have to conclude that water, fire, snow and ice, wind and other natural occurences are evil because of the damage they do and the suffering they cause in some instances, again not due to perception or cultural bias.
So..if there is no definition of evil. Is there a distinction between "right" and "wrong"?