Well, the reason I said opinion is the root of all evil is because of the following theoretical-
If everyone is of like mind on an issue, then there cannot be an "evil" that pertains to that issue. If everyone thinks killing people is fine, then it's not evil to kill people (unless you want to argue that there are certain things that are just innately evil acts). It is only through a contrary opinion that a division occurs, and the two sides may decide to paint the other opinion as evil, not good, what have you.
In that particular case, it doesn't matter whether people act on their opinions. Many people voice the opinion that murder is evil, but don't act on their opinion by trying to prevent murder, etc. So, action does not have anything to do with evil. You can say something is evil without acting on that belief.
So I'm essentially agreeing with what you say. I do not believe in an absolute evil. Evil is relative because it's ultimately based on moral rights and ethics.
And since the TS asked what is the root of all evil, the root cannot be anything but opinion to me. While the difference in opinion may not lead to acts of evil, acts of evil occur only because of opinion. Unless there exists some absolute evil that is completely separate from action.
The human mind is the root of all evil. The human mind is the only thing on this Earth that can even comprehend what evil is. Can an animal comprehend evil? No.
Free Will is not. Money is not.
Is comprehension necessary for something to be evil? The people working in German concentration camps thought they were doing the world a service by ridding the world of Jews. Men working in Korean concentration camps mentioned the things they did to prisoners (and made prisoners do to one another) were normal because well, they were prisoners, not humans.
Or do you mean that the only reason evil as a concept exist is because we thought it up?
Yes, comprehension is necessary for something to be evil. While the Gestapo didn't see the evil in their actions during World War II, others did. The Jews saw the evil in their ways. The Allies did too. If no one comprehends or recognizes an action as evil, is it evil? I guess it depends what moral or ethical theory you subscribe too (Divine Command theorists would suggest that God's recognition is enough).
But there is an argument for evil has a human concept. Why is murder wrong? Why is it evil? Early humans killed each other in clans for thousands of years before, and there was nothing prohibiting it before the Code of Hammurabi in 1772 B.C.E. Is evil even a thing if we as a human race don't recognize it?
I can't say I know for sure, honestly.
So then the question should be "What are properties that makes people/things do actions we would describe as evil"? Because I do agree that you that if there were no sapient creatures, actions could not be described as evil.
Yes, then maybe that would be the question.
Can the Gestapo's actions be viewed as truly evil? They were merely soldiers in the Third Reich, simple peons. There's a reason not every single foot soldier was put on trial like the higher in command at the Nuremberg Trials.
At what extent does humanity stop and say:
"Okay, that's evil without outside influence."
I can argue that serial killers with poor upbringings and psychological trauma should be exempt from conviction just like the Gestapo, can't I?
Difficult. I'd say that the actions are without any word evil. If the people in question are depends, I'd say at least, somewhat on their knowledge of their actions.
Fair enough, but I can argue that those action are not evil, and the people that committed them aren't either, using consequential ethics.
Ignorance. Because it is only ignorance that causes good men to do wicked things, whether due to a misrepresentation of humanity or a simple good-natured mistake.
I believe the root of all evil, or rather the definition of evil is the act of not allowing someone their free agency. However, evil is healthy. It creates desperation in people that produces creativity, innovation, and development.
Also, evil is generally combatted by more evil which is why evil is eternal. For example, someone may want to rape somebody which is evil considering that that person would be taking away the victims will to be a virgin or NOT be raped. Then, the culprit would be put into prison or would somehow have his free will taken away, which, back to the definition of evil, would be evil. Punishment for doing evil things is evil is essentially what my point is in this paragraph.
The root of all evil is one's decision to enage in what is evil. Evil being dependent on whatever your mores are. Of course, when it comes to interpretation, you must consider the observers' own ethical code.
The root of -1 returning a defined non-imaginary integer for an answer. At that region in n-dimensional space, matter could phase out of our universe instantly.
To me evil is going out of your way to create pain and/or discomfort for someone or a group of people.
A soldier on the front line following orders killing someone, is not inherently evil, but it can be done in an evil way, such as bruning them alive or hanging them and letting the elements kill them over time.
Now hunting someone down, tying them up and torturing them and then killing them in a way they suffer, that is evil.
Just because you kill someone/something doesnt make you an evil person.
I agree that the act of killing itself isn't evil just by it's nature, but "following orders" or "I was just doing my job" doesn't automatically absolve someone of evil either. If a soldier is ordered to kill innocent civilians, and they do it, is that an evil act? I would argue yes.
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I would probably say anything that doesn't help the needy when you can help them in one way or another, because it will probably snowball into more chaos.
Let's say there's a starving man with a family outside and you have 2 loaves of bread. You realize that you have your family to feed and that if you give him a loaf, your family will have less food.
If you give him the loaf, nothing happens. The starving man is happy and you're not starving, but you have less food.
If you don't, one of two things will likely happen(there may be other things, but I'm not sure):
He'll leave you alone and find someone else.In this scenario, you have more bread. The bad thing is that you feel guilty or you don't feel anything and just do the same thing over and over again, until scenario 2 happens.
He steals a loaf. You can either chase him, or just let him go.
If scenario one, where you chase him and try to stop him, he'll go mad and will either die of starvation or steal food without asking.
If you let him go, he'll realize that the consequences of stealing aren't so bad and he'll do it again, or he'll just leave and not ask for food again from you.
In this case, it can just snowball and get really bad. Who knows what the starving man will do to get food now? When the loaf of brad wasn't given away, he got desperate and responded with more desperation and was willing to do anything to get that bread.
However, when you gave him the loaf, he was happy and realized that asking will get him what he wants without getting into any trouble.
Evil, like most things, is relative, and would not exist if humans did not label things
And this isn't a cop out, I truly believe this. We can't feel evil like we can an emotion such as anger or hate, even though it can cause those feelings. And it's not something base that other animals experience or understand, so it's specific to humans.
Evil, like most things, is relative, and would not exist if humans did not label things
And this isn't a cop out, I truly believe this. We can't feel evil like we can an emotion such as anger or hate, even though it can cause those feelings. And it's not something base that other animals experience or understand, so it's specific to humans.
Thoughts?
Do you think animals cannot experience pain or suffering because they do not know the word "evil"? Do you think they cannot dislike the actions of others that lead to these experiences, and seek to discourage or avoid such actions?
If so, go kick a dog, because apparently it won't mind. Hell, if you want to say that simple pain aversion doesn't count as an understanding of right and wrong behavior, take a swing at its owner and see what happens then.
Am I saying that dogs are human-level moral philosophers? Of course not. I'd be hesitant even to call what they have "morality". And what understanding of right and wrong behavior they have does come from particular features of their psychology. Other kinds of animals, like sponges, definitely don't have this understanding. But it's pretty obvious that a dog's understanding is the same basic kind of mental process as human morality. And the point I'm illustrating is that this understanding is unconnected to the animal's linguistic abilities or lack thereof. It stems from other social adaptations, most notably empathy and the theory of mind. A dog, like a person, is able to decide that another agent is bad - someone to be opposed or avoided - because it can connect the agent's actions to their results, evaluate those results as harmful to itself or its ingroup, extrapolate the agent's intentions from these results, realize that intentions usually persist over time, and conclude that the agent is likely to perform further harmful actions in the future, thus ought to be opposed or avoided. This whole calculation is instinctual, whether in a dog or a human; none of it requires conscious thought, much less verbal articulation. In short, the absence of the word "evil" from the vocabulary is utterly irrelevant.
Evil, like most things, is relative, and would not exist if humans did not label things
And this isn't a cop out, I truly believe this. We can't feel evil like we can an emotion such as anger or hate, even though it can cause those feelings. And it's not something base that other animals experience or understand, so it's specific to humans.
Thoughts?
Do you think animals cannot experience pain or suffering because they do not know the word "evil"? Do you think they cannot dislike the actions of others that lead to these experiences, and seek to discourage or avoid such actions?
If so, go kick a dog, because apparently it won't mind. Hell, if you want to say that simple pain aversion doesn't count as an understanding of right and wrong behavior, take a swing at its owner and see what happens then.
Am I saying that dogs are human-level moral philosophers? Of course not. I'd be hesitant even to call what they have "morality". And what understanding of right and wrong behavior they have does come from particular features of their psychology. Other kinds of animals, like sponges, definitely don't have this understanding. But it's pretty obvious that a dog's understanding is the same basic kind of mental process as human morality. And the point I'm illustrating is that this understanding is unconnected to the animal's linguistic abilities or lack thereof. It stems from other social adaptations, most notably empathy and the theory of mind. A dog, like a person, is able to decide that another agent is bad - someone to be opposed or avoided - because it can connect the agent's actions to their results, evaluate those results as harmful to itself or its ingroup, extrapolate the agent's intentions from these results, realize that intentions usually persist over time, and conclude that the agent is likely to perform further harmful actions in the future, thus ought to be opposed or avoided. This whole calculation is instinctual, whether in a dog or a human; none of it requires conscious thought, much less verbal articulation. In short, the absence of the word "evil" from the vocabulary is utterly irrelevant.
But morality is still relative because maybe kicking a dog would help a rabbit escape.
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Taking evil as given, I'd say there is no root, because there may be any number of underlying motives for being evil and no motive has to have the same underpinning.
But morality is still relative because maybe kicking a dog would help a rabbit escape.
This entirely fails to address the point being discussed. My argument was neither for nor against relativism. When considering the ontology of morality, its relativity or objectivity is a matter of surprisingly little consequence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And I realize I've been sadly remiss in enforcing the spam rules in this thread, but really, people, enough with the bare declarative answers. If you want to post your opinion, justify it. You have been warned.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If everyone is of like mind on an issue, then there cannot be an "evil" that pertains to that issue. If everyone thinks killing people is fine, then it's not evil to kill people (unless you want to argue that there are certain things that are just innately evil acts). It is only through a contrary opinion that a division occurs, and the two sides may decide to paint the other opinion as evil, not good, what have you.
In that particular case, it doesn't matter whether people act on their opinions. Many people voice the opinion that murder is evil, but don't act on their opinion by trying to prevent murder, etc. So, action does not have anything to do with evil. You can say something is evil without acting on that belief.
So I'm essentially agreeing with what you say. I do not believe in an absolute evil. Evil is relative because it's ultimately based on moral rights and ethics.
And since the TS asked what is the root of all evil, the root cannot be anything but opinion to me. While the difference in opinion may not lead to acts of evil, acts of evil occur only because of opinion. Unless there exists some absolute evil that is completely separate from action.
Fair enough, but I can argue that those action are not evil, and the people that committed them aren't either, using consequential ethics.
We'll never know what evil truly is. Ever.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
Spam infraction.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Decks:
:symgu::simic: Momir Vig, Simic Visionary :simic::symgu:
:symb::symub: Grimgrin, Corpse-Born :symub::symb:
Believe the hype!
Also, evil is generally combatted by more evil which is why evil is eternal. For example, someone may want to rape somebody which is evil considering that that person would be taking away the victims will to be a virgin or NOT be raped. Then, the culprit would be put into prison or would somehow have his free will taken away, which, back to the definition of evil, would be evil. Punishment for doing evil things is evil is essentially what my point is in this paragraph.
Turblahhh. There you have it.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
A phenomenon similar to division by zero.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.
I agree that the act of killing itself isn't evil just by it's nature, but "following orders" or "I was just doing my job" doesn't automatically absolve someone of evil either. If a soldier is ordered to kill innocent civilians, and they do it, is that an evil act? I would argue yes.
thanks to DNC of Heroes of the Plane Studios for the coolest sig
vintage-WBdark timesBW
legacy-BGRJund-51/60BGR
RBBob Sligh 48/60BR
GRone land belcherRG
URBTES-54/60URB
Fun deck-BBBBKobolds stormBBBB
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Let's say there's a starving man with a family outside and you have 2 loaves of bread. You realize that you have your family to feed and that if you give him a loaf, your family will have less food.
If you give him the loaf, nothing happens. The starving man is happy and you're not starving, but you have less food.
If you don't, one of two things will likely happen(there may be other things, but I'm not sure):
He'll leave you alone and find someone else.In this scenario, you have more bread. The bad thing is that you feel guilty or you don't feel anything and just do the same thing over and over again, until scenario 2 happens.
He steals a loaf. You can either chase him, or just let him go.
If scenario one, where you chase him and try to stop him, he'll go mad and will either die of starvation or steal food without asking.
If you let him go, he'll realize that the consequences of stealing aren't so bad and he'll do it again, or he'll just leave and not ask for food again from you.
In this case, it can just snowball and get really bad. Who knows what the starving man will do to get food now? When the loaf of brad wasn't given away, he got desperate and responded with more desperation and was willing to do anything to get that bread.
However, when you gave him the loaf, he was happy and realized that asking will get him what he wants without getting into any trouble.
Thanks Argentleman;)
WB Teysa token aggroBW (retired)
MAKING (Onmath, Numot, maybe something in Esper)
Evil, like most things, is relative, and would not exist if humans did not label things
And this isn't a cop out, I truly believe this. We can't feel evil like we can an emotion such as anger or hate, even though it can cause those feelings. And it's not something base that other animals experience or understand, so it's specific to humans.
Thoughts?
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=9733836#post9733836
Do you think animals cannot experience pain or suffering because they do not know the word "evil"? Do you think they cannot dislike the actions of others that lead to these experiences, and seek to discourage or avoid such actions?
If so, go kick a dog, because apparently it won't mind. Hell, if you want to say that simple pain aversion doesn't count as an understanding of right and wrong behavior, take a swing at its owner and see what happens then.
Am I saying that dogs are human-level moral philosophers? Of course not. I'd be hesitant even to call what they have "morality". And what understanding of right and wrong behavior they have does come from particular features of their psychology. Other kinds of animals, like sponges, definitely don't have this understanding. But it's pretty obvious that a dog's understanding is the same basic kind of mental process as human morality. And the point I'm illustrating is that this understanding is unconnected to the animal's linguistic abilities or lack thereof. It stems from other social adaptations, most notably empathy and the theory of mind. A dog, like a person, is able to decide that another agent is bad - someone to be opposed or avoided - because it can connect the agent's actions to their results, evaluate those results as harmful to itself or its ingroup, extrapolate the agent's intentions from these results, realize that intentions usually persist over time, and conclude that the agent is likely to perform further harmful actions in the future, thus ought to be opposed or avoided. This whole calculation is instinctual, whether in a dog or a human; none of it requires conscious thought, much less verbal articulation. In short, the absence of the word "evil" from the vocabulary is utterly irrelevant.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But morality is still relative because maybe kicking a dog would help a rabbit escape.
Good.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.