The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

There are people who would proclaim that those who subscribe to this site would be subscribing to learning about evil.

I understand the difference between "dark" and "evil."

But my question is then (taken from Bloodmother's post):

There is no absolute good or evil outside of us?

Hmm...an action is good or evil depending on the intent, then I wonder if it gets bad if it is still valid as good, also what is evil and good is real a good question because that would depend if someone wants to believe in the moralist, legal side or their personal view.

Well if truth exists outside of us. I realize there are different perceptions and yadda yadda.. but outside of human thought, if there is truth, then there is right action.

Right action is not defendant on our thoughts then, and taking wrong action and knowing it is wrong would be evil.

Thoughts?

I'd say yes because you already know it's wrong from the beginning.

Good and evil is dependant on the person involved own views and morale standings.

How easy is it to lump actions into catagories?

Also how can there be different degrees of good and evil?

there is a absoluts good and evil but they come from within us,they have no life of they own but they spead and influence like they do.
i call it a ripple effect, example- if someone does an absolute evil and devastating act it would spread,
people all around would become traumatised to the point of insanity and rage.
the dark acts influence would cause someone to hate and exact revenge,example- someone loses a loved one they might be consumed with hate and develope a fixation on revenge they will become a twisted version of themselves.
evil and good can exist outside of us but it comes from within us.

Are you to say that genocide is righteous as long as it's viewpoint is good from the deliverer?

i never said genocide but that would cause a great ripple effect,
to my point of view genocide would be brilliant not only would it lower the population but it would do the world a lot of good(less humans to rape and ravage the planet of resources) but i would only use genocide as plan b.
so to your question-yes to me and perhaps other pure evil beings(no matter how rare) would consider it good
and to some point some "good" people might go for it too saying that its for the greater good.

I come from a different prospective here. I believe we all have the ability to do evil it is all a matter of choice. Do we or do we not. But then I prescribe to an existential philosophy.

What of those under pathological, and sociopathic conditions?

This is why i like animals and hate humans,animals do what nature intends useing their instincts and hunting and eating and so on,they never step above they station.
Humans on the other hand a;ways violates natural laws and ravages the world,build cities where a lush green forest use to be,the only plus is the free will(not anymore thanks to the government) and intelligence.
(always misused)
humans even say they are not animals then they are all living creatures are animals the rest are plants and stuff
the other good thing humans is choice,humans can choose they own path dark or light

Perhaps, as with all good laws, these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

And secondly, imho of course, true sociopathology (the philosophy that whatever one selfishly chooses to do, no matter how damaging to others, is "good" because in the end only the desires of one's self matters) would appear to be a developed and deliberately cultivated spiritual/emotional/mental/behavioral dysfunction based upon the continued ignoring of that which is perhaps best defined as the "conscience."

Again, my opinion only.

- Upir'

My weird, may be another persons freakin' insane.

Dabbler,

And what is insanity, at its core, if not sociopathic behavior and personality: doing whatever they feel like doing with no regard to the consequences to their actions to others... or sometimes even themselves... to an unusually heinous and horrific degree?

This might be a bit generic and too broad in scope. And yet, when a criminal is found not guilty by reason of "insanity," is not this indeed the motivation behind his/her actions... and the results thereof?

- Upir'

Would not people label such activities evil though? Diabolic intentions exist in a percentage of serial killing. Not all but a few cases can be found.

Diabolic being something done to exact an intense reaction. Example, killing a little old ladies dog, because she "appeared to scoff at the odd guy". The odd guy kills the dog, sort of saying, haha..

Now this is another futile topic, lol...One first has to decide what good is and then decide what is evil. This is how tenets get made up for faith based groups. They decide and these are the laws one must follow to get along with others.

Thing is, ferrel individuals work only on instincts so they may kill to survived and did in the past but survival of the fittest has been around awhile. I don't think that is evil but instinctual. Once we socialize then we control it so I would say it is a perception as well as inate behaviors that we learn to control. I think the phrase about is true because we decide this or our faiths tell us this is such and such and there are always those that won't fit into the mold.

a serial killer's actions are evil but the person himself/herself might just be insane or desperate
thats why i say a true evil person is rare,most murders have emotional motivation like jealousy or anger
and not for the sheer act of evil

So are they in a darkness.. they operate in a dark area.. they hide their activity. Richard Ramizs the Night Stalker, he had subscibed to evil, how did he find a modal for evil? In church groups, he did the opposite of holy..

there are many ways to become evil,i was born like it i have always felt a desire to inflict pain and misery on people just for my amusement,nothing drove me to it no abuse,no torment or anything it was both a desire from since i can remember and a choice.
I revel in it, the freedom from trappings of morality
also you get a feeling of superiority over people as well
its hard to explain the true nature of it because its different with anyone.
darkness and light does not alway mean good and evil either,example someone could dress all in black because they either like the colour or the are gothic
and someone evil could dres all white to seem benevolent.
reallly it all depends on your pov of how you perceive the world and humanity.

AzureDark:

The topic is not futile so long as we do not attempt to minutely define "good" and "evil" given that such definitions would, indeed, venture perhaps too far into the religious.

However, personally I am comfortable defining ... for the sake of your entry ... the "good" as being that which inherently helps and/or benefits others as well as one's self whereas "evil" is that which benefits oneself in some perceived way yet at the clear detriment of another or others. The greater the detriment to others, the greater the "evil" of the act.

- Upir'

Mortalitas:

Such megalomaniacal and narcissistic immaturity and selfishness as you have expressed denotes and connotes a personality and character who deserves in life just as much harm and hurt and pain and suffering as you desire to inflict upon others. For only in that way would one as self-centered begin to realize how it feels to be treated by others with the same degree of insensitivity.

How I do hope you either learn to be more empathetic the easy way than have to have life teach this basic lesson you have yet to learn in the hardest ways possible.

- Upir'

I agree that there is no good or evil beyond us.

They are concepts, and only concepts. Purely human and social in nature.

What is evil to one society might be commonplace to another, and once outside of our species, animals rely almost entirely on instinct.

Can an animal really be defined as evil simply for surviving in the manner which it has developed through evolution?

"What is evil to one society might be commonplace to another"
so if i killed you just for the fun of it,that would normal to someone?

And if I tortured you to death so you might begin to understand how stupidly immature and destructive your immature sadism truly is, that might not only be normal elsewhere... it also might be just what you need to wake up.

- Upir'

i am not aware of a society that is evil and kills for fun
if i find them maybe i should join them lol

there were some cannibalistic tribes that killed and eat a lot people even though they were other sources of food,its their pov they belive that eating their "enemies" gives them strength and knowledge.

not really, torturing me will just fuel my hate,
this is a forum not a chat room stick to bloody subject

Mortalitas: Be careful what evil you wish upon others... for karma is a bitch with teeth far sharper than your own.

- Upir'

Mortalitas: If you don't like being threatened... then don't start off threatening others, as you did me.

Again, you haven't yet apparently learned, as do most young children, that what goes around comes around.

- Upir'

i don't believe in karma and after all i have done to people nothing has been reflected back on me but this not the subject we should be discussing.

the topic is "There is no absolute good or evil outside of us." so i suggest we stick to it

Beastt, well put, as always.

My point not being lost - those differences are a human invention, because we have the ability to invent such concepts.

A bear is a bear and a human is a human - but outside influences can change each of their perceptions.

Mortalitas:

I am sticking to the subject, and you have proved my earlier point regarding what "good" and "evil" is and why it is found only inside ourselves.

- Upir'

Exactly Birra,

My point was more directed to the idea that human animals and non-human animals are somehow fundamentally different which is simply not a supportable stance (nor is it one you presented).

Aside from that, I reiterate that good and evil are perspectives, not absolutes. Most agree that it's best not to kill. Then come the fine points; best not to kill humans... animals... plants? Best for whom?

What is "best" is determined by the goal. If we're trying to save the planet then one could reasonably suggest that the extinction of the human race might be a "good" thing. If we care about the survival of the human race, then such an idea is called "evil".

The words represent concepts based only on perception. Unfortunately, people attempt to present them as absolutes because this is what they're taught when reading unverified books of demonstrably unsound principles and assertions.

Well, as far as outside of us, I wouldnt say that. What about the societies that are self supporting that help children and animals and the sick and disabled people. I would see that as good.

Alpha males will correct on the spot. It is instinctual to desire to be dominant, it is through learning and experience which tells you what to correct.

"non-human" animals have a sense of right and wrong.

There is not, because an interest is a variable. Give it a millennium, two, or three, if it needs be that much, even a absolutely good person will eventually act in an evil way, if only a little bit. So the same, absolutely evil person would eventually do something good, because it will suit its interest of doing so.

Evil can be viewed as a form of intimidation, usually defined not by those that are labeled evil, but by the "good" minority that benefit from those seeking to be protected from evil.

My personal opinion on good and evil, it is all depending on the morality of those involved, and just because ignorance easily allows it to be "evil" doesn't mean it is, the answer lies outside of ignorance, if you feel what your doing is wrong, than don't do it, if it feels right to you, than why not? However it is still your choice.

-Louis

E-Everything
V-Vile
I-In
L-Life

But once something is labeled Evil, is it not placed in divine realms? How convenient that no matter how evil something is said to be, there is always a counter for it?

True, in my eyes the divinity just serve as a psychological "pillow", i am not bashing religion i am religious my self just look at it in my own way, there is no 100% way to stop everything, example.
A certain person may view a person wearing all black as an evil minded person, while the person wearing black might find the person with a colorful personality to be like a bug.

am sorry,i think evil and dark is in the same place,
because,the darkness never do good thing,and evil always stay in the dark.

Beastt17:

I could not disagree more in your argument that we are "animals" and that animals are no less programmed than are we... and for the very reasons previously given. However, to elucidate further a few of the foundational differences between us and animals, consider the following:

We ask questions and seek answers, while they do not

We have a "conscience" which, if followed, causes us to consider the greater good rather than our own selfish self-interests alone, while they do not

We create... in fact, we MUST create... the drive within Humans to do so matches and/or surpasses our drive to procreate. Animals have no such drive and only "create" (e.g., a tool for gathering food) such as is absolutely necessary to perform some immediate task necessary to survival.

Unlike animals, we tend to strive all our lives to grow, to progress, to learn, to become better people than we are... assuming we have not, as has one person here, chosen to simply become narcissistically selfish and seek destruction for cheap kicks and thrills instead of construction.

And finally, contrary to your view, we are not motivated by instinctual preprogramming, at all. Instead, we react to events and stimuli based on our own individual personality, knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence.

And unlike animals who operate on instinct, we change, adapt, and/or create our environment as we choose and as pleases us rather than instinctually adapting ourselves to our environment as chosen by Nature and our own instinctual pre-programming of same.


- Upir'

There is no good or evil, wrong or right... It just is and what is is just what people want it to be. Society makes up all the rules. Society dictates whats the norm and what's just plain creepy. An insane person doesn't think he's crazy. He thinks he's probably the only sane person in the world. An Evil person doesn't see his actions as wrong. He sees them as revolutionary. Beauty isn't the only thing that's in the eye of the beholder....

We ask questions and seek answers, while they do not

Perhaps not verbally, however beasts are inquisitive

We have a "conscience" which, if followed, causes us to consider the greater good rather than our own selfish self-interests alone, while they do not


Pack animals consider the greater good, will sacrifice themselves for their brood.


We create... in fact, we MUST create... the drive within Humans to do so matches and/or surpasses our drive to procreate. Animals have no such drive and only "create" (e.g., a tool for gathering food) such as is absolutely necessary to perform some immediate task necessary to survival.


Ever see an ant hill and think it just appeared spookily?? Me either, I think it came from ant who MUST create it.


Unlike animals, we tend to strive all our lives to grow, to progress, to learn, to become better people than we are... assuming we have not, as has one person here, chosen to simply become narcissistically selfish and seek destruction for cheap kicks and thrills instead of construction.



Actually as humans grow they become more confident in what they know and tend to slow down in their aggregation of knowledge. So much so, that after thousands of years of this we have become less able in latter years.

And finally, contrary to your view, we are not motivated by instinctual preprogramming, at all. Instead, we react to events and stimuli based on our own individual personality, knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence.

Yeah, ahh all men hunt women because they thought it to be slightly more artistic, or that it would setup their 401k better if they had another person's income and they could invest more.

And unlike animals who operate on instinct, we change, adapt, and/or create our environment as we choose and as pleases us rather than instinctually adapting ourselves to our environment as chosen by Nature and our own instinctual pre-programming of same.


Here's a question for you.. give me a random number, random thought, random color.

Human's are incapable of random thought - "Causal Determinism"


Now... this is going to through this off a different path so if you'd like to message me arguements against I'd be willing to respond..


For the rest of this thread can we continue as if humans did not exist, no living creature exists.... then.. does good and evil exist?

I'd say that good and evil need to act UPON a soul to be represented by their value.

But does the source need to be from a soul? A rock couldn't evilly fall and hit someone.

So we would have to say good and evil must come from a defining source - God (gods) and Lucifer (deamons)

....

I'll keep this short, but a response is necessary as all the limited examples you gave in counter to my arguments were all instinctive animal reactions and not contradictions to my statements.

Yes, ants "create" anthills... and for exactly the reasons I gave: instinct and tasks necessary for survival, only. Obviously, if the ant hill was not created, or if the beehive was not created, no ant or bee would survive.

Yes, animals are mildly curious of their surroundings to identify them as friend, foe, food, or the means to gain access to such... but that's about it. This is hardly in the same ballpark with a Human who asks why things, feelings, events, phenomena, oneself, etc., are as they are... and then is driven to investigate to understand them and their relationship to him/herself and the Universe, none of which has anything to do with survival, evolution, or even this life... and everything to do with a deeper driver to understand the purpose of Life, of the Universe, and all that in it exists and why things are as they are.

Yes, pack animals might sacrifice themselves, though this is again instinctual pack behavior. You don't find an animal risking its life to save a stranger, unless specifically trained by Humans for that purpose. And yet, regular every-day Humans often risk their lives rescuing or otherwise risking their lives for complete strangers, as did the male airline passenger several years ago when a jetliner plunged into the Potomac river in sub-freezing temperatures. He rescued six complete strangers from the wreckage before then succumbing to the cold, himself, ... and drowned.


As specific to this topic, we CREATE both good and evil given that... unlike animals... we CREATE the emotional and spiritual environment in which we choose to live just as much as we create, mold, and shape our physical environment.

Whether "Good" or "Evil", whether constructively or destructively, we ARE creators. Creation is what best and most defines us. And not ironically, in the end we find that of all our creations in life... our ultimate creation, our greatest "masterpiece" is, in fact, ourselves.


- Upir'

UpirLikhyj,

Re: "I could not disagree more in your argument that we are "animals" and that animals are no less programmed than are we"

Please feel free to disagree. That's one of the purposes served by a forum. But I'll not hesitate to point out that you're demonstrably wrong about us not being animals. The first two kingdoms in the classification of living beings (biology) are "Plant" and "Animal". If we're not animals, then where would you place us?

We're mammals. "Mammal" is a biological classification into which humans fit just as well as any other mammal.

We're primates. We fit the "primate" classification no less well than do mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.

We're apes. Apes are tailless primates with long arms. We're tailless primates with long arms.

So; we're animals, mammals, primates and apes. Each term is defined by biological classification and there is no rational argument as to whether or not we fit the classification. We are animals no matter what unverified reading material might claim to the contrary. If it disagrees, it's not only wrong, but demonstrably wrong.
---

Re: "We ask questions and seek answers, while they do not"

Obviously, you're unfamiliar with the Gorilla foundation or with the research carried out by Dr. Irene Pepperburg at the University of Arizona. In the first, gorillas have been taught to communicate with people using modified American Sign Language and they do indeed ask questions and seek answers. In the latter example, the animals in question are parrots (Congo African Gray Parrots). Sadly, the star pupil "Alex" died some years ago but he was very inquisitive, very intelligent and clearly utilized the human language he was taught (English), to ask questions, answer questions and to relay information about quantities, colors, shapes and more. But his legacy is being carried forward by Griffin, another Congo African Gray.
---

Re: "We have a "conscience" which, if followed, causes us to consider the greater good rather than our own selfish self-interests alone, while they do not."

Have you never seen a dog when it's been left alone and did something it knew it wasn't supposed to do? If that's not conscience they show, then the same argument would apply to human conscience.

And when they're left alone and don't take advantage of the accessibility to food, the ability to run through the neighborhood or other activities they understand we wish them not to do, how can you consider that to be anything other than conscience?
---

Re: "Animals have no such drive and only "create" (e.g., a tool for gathering food) such as is absolutely necessary to perform some immediate task necessary to survival."

Food gathering is the primary necessity for all animals. It makes sense that this would be the activity around which "constructing" (not "creating"; nothing has ever been witnessed to be "created"), tools or anything else would first occur. Bees build wax honeycombs, not just for food but also to provide for the new members of the colony. Ants create shelters to protect them from the elements. Termites create complex structures to serve as their homes and protection. Beavers build dams. Caddisflies build their own portable shelters, like suits of armor to protect them from predators. Chimpanzees have only recently been observed forming spears out of sticks and using them to hunt. The chimpanzees obtained enough food to survive before this adaptation but developed it anyway.


"IT'S a revelation that destroys yet another cherished notion of human uniqueness."
---

Re: "Unlike animals, we tend to strive all our lives to grow, to progress, to learn, to become better people than we are"

What makes you think animals don't do the same thing? Don't dogs strive to please their human pack-mates? Do you think you could potty train a cat or dog if they weren't interested in trying to form their behavior to your desires?

What about wolves and bats that have been observed bringing food back to injured members of their communities?
---

Re: "we are not motivated by instinctual preprogramming, at all."

So our desire to mate and sexual attraction are something we taught ourselves? Do we only seek companionship from other members of our species because we've read about companionship in books? We don't instinctively pick our noses, clean our ears, rub our eyes and even run our fingers through our hair unless we're taught to do so? That's simply not the case. We still harbor preening instincts just like most other animals. We instinctively protect our young and often take the instinctual drive to do so to insane proportions. Just because one doesn't take the time to notice our instinctual programming doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
---

Re: "Instead, we react to events and stimuli based on our own individual personality, knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence."

No more so than do many other animals. Do you think dolphins just instinctively gather around a pregnant female when she goes into labor? They show every sign of understanding her need for protection. What do you think causes one dog will bark incessantly while another lies quietly? Why do some meerkats become group leaders while others remain followers?
---

Re: "And unlike animals who operate on instinct, we change, adapt, and/or create our environment as we choose and as pleases us rather than instinctually adapting ourselves to our environment as chosen by Nature and our own instinctual pre-programming of same."

When a spider builds a web is it not changing the environment to suit itself? When a beaver builds a damn, is it not changing the environment for it's own pleasure and needs? When a bird builds a nest far away from where most predators can reach rather than on the ground, is it not altering it's environment to its own taste?

As I said before in quoting Twain; "It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions."

If you could ask a cheetah what makes him special, it would probably talk of it's extreme speed. If you could ask an eagle or hawk it would talk of flight, mid-air acrobatics and acute eye-sight. If you could ask a whale, it would likely speak of size, compassion and the ability to dive to great depths and remain submerged for long periods despite being an air-breathing mammal. But you can't ask these questions because you've never learned their language. And yet different animal species have learned human languages which they use to communicate with us. Ask a human and he'll talk of his intellect, while demonstrating it's limits by proclaiming himself to be other than an animal.

If you read a book which claims that geese can't fly, the book is wrong. If you read a book which claims that Earth is flat, the book is wrong. If you read a book which claims that the universe is shrinking, the book is wrong. And if you read a book which tells you that humans aren't animals, the book is wrong. Reality always speaks with greater authority than books.

And reality shows us that good and evil are but perspectives which change (as do all perspectives), dependent upon one's point of view.

hmm there is no absolute good or evil unless you want to argue about religion, in that belief there is good and evil. but in life no there isn't

Yes ... back to good/evil...

My previous post:

I'd say that good and evil need to act UPON a soul to be represented by their value.

But does the source need to be from a soul? A rock couldn't evilly fall and hit someone. (nor do we say someone was evil to a rock).

So we would have to say good and evil must come from a defining source - God (gods) and Lucifer (deamons)

....

So.. can we all say that good / evil only exist absolutely (which means NOT from the viewpoint of humans) if there are supreme beings?

Beastt17:

Conscience is not defined as performing an act for which an animal knows will be met with disapproval later. All this takes is... simple memory skills knowing what the reactions to such have been in the past. Conscience is an internal capability: "the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good to independently judge been right and wrong, good and evil, and act accordingly." Source

As for questions, you are grossly over exaggerating the motives as well as the results of those animals taught ASL and Human speech mimicry.

And finally, as regards the chimps using spears... again, you have used yet another example of an animal using a tool for a basic instinctive need and/or for survival, none of which is stronger than the need for food. And again, this is exactly what I said previously.

Now, should the day come that in fact you find "...the Fongoli chimps...begin drawing on the wall of the caves," ...well, you let us know.


- Upir'

This reminded me of a topic that was posted a while back by trepidation called "A Balance in Life" which might add some more to this string.

The Principle of Opposition that I have posted below is an interesting view (Philosphy) of Opposites, as written by Summunn, which I think might support your point of view that there might be a "grey" area between our system of distinct opposites and that they are not truly "black and white":

IV. The Principle of Opposition

"Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled." -- Summum

This Principle embodies the idea that everything is dual; everything has two opposing sides; everything has its pair of opposites, of which all are ancient aphorisms. It explains the paradoxes that have perplexed so many and have been stated as follows: "Thesis and antithesis are identical in nature, but different in degree"; "opposites are the same, differing only in degree"........

Reference and further reading:

Seven Summum Principles

From that aspect it is easy to see that as the probability, a soul is can not be doubted as a requirement to have such concepts within the object, a higher developed creature, such as humans, like many other things then, shouldn't good/evil concepts, because this what they are, be in relation to the soul experiencing the influence?

-Louis

Humans also argue make-believe as though it was real. I wonder if nature has this ability?

Again UpirLikhy,

You see humans and animals doing exactly the same kind of things, then blindly proclaim that the reasons for doing those things are different. You have no basis for such a claim other than your desire to believe it to be what you claim.

You claim to know an animals motives -- something you simply can't know. That's a sign of desperation to have your argument be correct, even when there is nothing to indicate that you're correct. I just turned my attention to the television for a moment, care to tell everyone what my motive was?

It is NOT instinctive for chimpanzees to utilize spears. There is simply no way for you to credibly make any such assertion. Chimpanzees have been around for thousands and thousands of years, yet only recently have then been any indication that they've developed to the point of making spears and using them to hunt -- just like humans did in their gradual development.

But since this is about good and evil, I must again state that good and evil are not absolutes. There is no getting around this (no matter what primitive and ancient texts assert). Good and evil are perspectives. Two people can witness the same act and one can see it as blatantly evil, while another finds it to be obviously good.

Show me a single war where both sides didn't see themselves as the "good" attempting to vanquish evil.

It's about perspectives, not absolutes.

I don’t believe that good & evil exist outside of us. I believe that we (humans) created the concept to begin with.

Ever watch a small child when they see an insect or even their first puppy? The first instinct is usually to squish at it, poke it in the eyes and so on. This doesn’t make the child evil at all. However if an adult was to do the same thing, society would consider them evil, because by the time they reach a certain age they have been trained in what is right & wrong. By then I suppose they have a moral code that keeps them within what society labels the good range.

Then there are those that simply seek to get a rise out of others, by catering to the agnst of other, if people that are astonished by annoying behavior, then the next step to torment such people is evil, or at lest to demonstrate things that are projected as evil. Evil is it in intent?

I believe that all things are neither good nor evil. Humans manipulate them to make them either good or evil. If we were not around the world would continue to do what it normall does (plants grow, animals eat, etc). But when humans step in they can take animals, like dogs for example, and train them to either be a pet or to be mean. Is it the dog's fault that its owner trained it to bite? No. so it is because of humans that things become good or evil.

I fully agree with the Principle of Opposites, as exemplified by PsiVampire, and have developed a personal sense of neutrality on the concepts of good an evil.

Good cannot exist without it's opposite. It is then necessary for there to be evil so that good may exist. It is for this reason, that I have always found a fascination with the dynamic of good/evil in the universe. I don't see either as being more beneficial or detrimental to the world because both are needed to maintain balance. The darkness of evil is what allows the goodness of humanity to be beautiful.

Well good and evil are for the most part personal perception of someone or somethings actions. Like there are people that break into personally owned hardware stores and they do it over and over... Finally one day the owner has had enough. He sits in his shop after hours with a fire arm and waits for the thief. The thief comes in and the thief has a fire arm too... The Store owner shoots the thief dead in response. The thief's family are in grief after this and see the store owner as evil and try to file charges even though they can't. Others view the Store owner as a local hero for standing up to the thief and they give him praises and shop at his store more than the other stores because of his praise...

It's all perception.... Some people see abortion as evil others don't think it is.

This is one of those questions that you need a few centuries (at least) to answer....

The cosmic speed bump is always the same. You have to define what is "evil" as opposed to what is "good". Alas, opinion differs from one individual to another about as much as the average snowflake. I know what my definition is, but chances are the gent sitting across from me has a totally different world view.

When I was a Criminal Justice major we used two terms that stuck with me. From the Latin: mala en se and mala prohibita. The first refers to "evil in and of itself" under which was included but not limited to: murder, rape, etc. While the second represented that which society has deemd wrong or "evil" such as say, breaking the speed limit.

For my own world view, I can take evil to be a choice made by an individual or group to impose it's will upon another life for the sake of gratification that is not related or necessary to said group's survival.

But again, this is dependent upon a certain point of view...and a personal choice.

i have been told by ALL of my family that this website and ones like it are nothing but evil and b.s. like that that and i don't agree. i think there is but it mostly not in the form that everyone thinks they see it in.

It is my belief that "good" and "evil" are based solely upon the belief of those who know of the action and those who judge the action. The very basics of both are non-existent at best and contrary at worst. They are judged based upon how many persons think and therefore, there can be no "good" or "evil" that is simply one or the other. Both are too loosely structured for there to be any possible way to determine what is and what is not "good" or "evil"

Beastt17,

Ad hominem belittlements and insults do not make logical arguments nor further your own; there is no "desperation" in my counters, only simple logic.

The use of tools by animals in the acquisition of food, whether this be a stick to use on termite mounds (long observed in chimps) or a larger stick to essentially accomplish the same thing used as a spear (only more recently observed and not, as you allude, definitive evidence of some recent development), is still the simple extension of the instinctual desire to survive. This is simply a more advanced form of the same animal mental process involved as one might see in a dog as it pushes a chair or a box near a table so as to use same to get onto the table and enjoy the food thereon (yes... that one is an event I personally witnessed).

Look... for those desiring to view Human Beings as simply a more "evolved" animal, no arguments will counter this belief... as in most cases, the foundational motivation for championing such a belief is to justify and rationalize unethical "animalistic" behaviors against which their Human conscience disapproves. However for those of us who value that conscience higher, who are being directed thereby toward potentials otherwise unseen and unattainable, and who view life as having purpose far greater than that dictated by a belief in evolution alone, such rationalizations as you propose will not be found very satisfying as they leave far far too much of the observable around us unaddressed and unanswered.

So let's just call it a draw, shall we?


The point I have made here is that, as Humans truly do create, we create within ourselves by our behavior both "good" and "evil" in the ways in which we act either selfishly and to the detriment of others... or altruistically in ways that benefit both ourselves and others.

- Upir'

Good or Evil? hmm... Is what a soul or being chooses to be...we all have choices on what we want to be...so I'd have to say that is a personal thing....

The term "ad hominem" refers to an attack against one's person rather than a demonstration of the failure of their argument. Noting that an argument seems desperate is a commentary on the argument, not the person.

Assuming that one has some assigned higher purpose is fully without evidence and is something which, if true, should be fully evidenced.

Non-human animals use tools and human-animals use tools. It's the same concept. Humans have become more adept at tool use than other animals. Some non-human animals have become far more adept at climbing, running and use of their keen senses than humans.

Many different species show compassion, intelligence, communication skills, creativity and desire. There's nothing all that special about humans except in the mind of certain humans who think themselves so special. It's a mind-set largely responsible for the vile treatment of non-human species.

If one is to consider forced suffering, killing and manipulation of sentient beings to be wrong, then such an act might be called "evil". If another justifies such acts by unevidenced assertions that they are somehow special and by virtue of their self-assigned unsupportable status, are uniquely worthy of consideration and the right to live, then they may see the mistreatment of other species as "good" or even as a gift bestowed upon them.

It's all in the perspective.

depends, for animals kill to eat isn't evil, and for human it depends of religion and society evil changes a lot, really be dark is totally different to be evil.

In a Take or Be Had world, is it not best to seek Mutual Benefit?

In a Good Versus Evil World .. Is their a gray area?

yes,there is a lot of people who are morally grey but there are different types of morally grey or neutral,some stay clear of every event good or evil,some constantly switch sides to suit their benefit or others have certain goals and they use the methods of either good or evil to attain it.

Then by degrees, evil and good are extreme settings, what makes the settings? I know a Ponzi scheme is a bad morally corrupt practice (exsasting a persons resources) but what if I use a Ponzi Scam for Charity? Poker and gambling in the bible is A no-no, but Bingo is gray?
I know this is all far from Evil, but what of the Gate way theory? If a kid is taught to rationalize a cigar, then a joint follows, leading to Heron?

If man had never existed on earth, would good and/or evil have ever existed, as defined by man?

Good food.. evil food.. my instinct would say anything with bigger teeth, and claws.. bad idea food.. but not evil food..

good and evil are in non-human animals as well,i have read that some nh animals adopt other nh animals and some look out for predators for other species.
as for evil well obviously there is murder,some nh animals kill for no reason, others kill for territory although the latter could be considered survival,i doubt society would say the same if a human did it(even if it was for survival) example- a homeless person killing the owner of a house to take it and keep warm and eat.
is that murder or survival?

That is an interesting head line. Ethics would come in to play there some where.

So if an "evil person" is someone with the motive of blaspamy, or against a religious sanctified place, that must calify as evil because religious folk have been violated. Some religions call it being tested by the gods? Then there is Karma when people fuse Karma with Evil.. never under stood all the religious splicing.

Based on personal experiences and the things I've gone through there is good and evil and we're not perfect enough to distinguish the two.

What we believe is good or evil is mainly based on personal beliefs. Many of which were told to us by either adults, society, or religion. If you believe something is evil in your mind then that makes it evil I guess but the next person who has a different belief may see it as good.

Ethics are often suppress by the concept of evil and good. Morals are set higher then a devoted person can obtain (especially when natural urges are considered evil) If Taboos exist when people relaxe their inhibitions to strict codes then, what of things that are placed off limits as evil? Are not people a curios beast?

there is no good or evil or right or wrong.. there just is

Accepted behavior, and precepts for interaction.

Norms, and fringe.. another either or.

the world is full of both sides

and the materialistic life cycle is evil most it is live due to feeding on othr beings.

and only celestial realm if we awaken is truely good as we realize that celestial world always rescue us from dropping in to trouble.

in all the worlds there is good and evil just as there is black and white you can not have one with out the other to say that one is just good or just evil is like saying they have no soul or will or there own and if you believe in the christian god then you know that that is the one thing he did give us , Free will ,Free will to pick and choose to decide what was right or wrong .

And yet, no matter what you believe, every example of evil can be perceived as good and every example of good can be perceived as evil. In reality, there is no such thing. They are simply labels applied to perspectives.

I think there is good and evil out side of our actions.
If there were no evil then good would not be and vice versa.
For us to know the concepts then they must exist out side of our realm or on the fringe of our realities.

I would suggest looking to examples to understand that we can grasp concepts which don't exist at all. Take Aristotle's view of celestial spheres, for example. It turns out they don't exist. Yet we did grasp the concept.

Looking at the perspectives of good and evil might be analogized to looking at hot and cold. Where is the line between one and the other? When do we switch from hot to cold or cold to hot?

The answer is; we don't. We can only relate one state of thermal energy to another -- it's relative and perspective. At what point do we cross from evil to good or good to evil? It's the same problem. We can only make an assessment relative to an individual's perspective.

I think every action has a good or evil side based on one the actions or intent of the action, two societiees rules of black and white. for each of us have the insight to deem it evil act or good, unless your incapable of said such action. religion and society deem most of the acts of evil that we are governed under to say human existance. one could not exist without the other, for if we think we have done a good act, someone else may be criticle to say it was evil because of the outcome.

I am not a believer in an absolute, or omnipresent if you will, good or evil entitie(s).

I think that that's true- that there is no absolute good or evil. This is for the reason that everything good has some kinda evil in it and everything evil has some kinda good in it.

It serves only the interest of those who Bless people against Evil.

bless people against evil, yet in turn some time faith turns towards evil, persecution towards what is not good in their mind................

There is no absolute good or absolute evil because both are simply perspectives. The German people didn't think of themselves as evil when they helped Hitler to rise to power. They simply fell for a story about a communist plot to overthrow the German government. They bestowed Hitler with more power so that he could protect them. Even after the slaughter began, most didn't feel any need to see themselves as other than good.

In any war, show me either side actually believing themselves to be evil. In all wars, both sides believe themselves to be good, and the other evil.

It's just perspective.

You need both good and evil to keep balance in the world.

For every one person thats murdered a new beautiful baby is born.

prove that. lol.

Proove your diebelief in what I say :)

Sadly, it doesnt work that way. You made a statement claiming some sort of link between those who have died and those born. It is not up to me to prove my disbelief, it is up to you to prove your assertion. I dont say this any kind of mean way, hence my laughter to begin with. I just think thats a sort of wild tangent to this thread and coming with no logic or reason to back it up, it struck me as rather funny.

I don't know when, but I know how. In the same way that people are convinced that negative constructs are true, despite evidence to the contrary. Personal, empirical experience that denies the greater picture. When forced to choose between the two, many will choose what is more personally relevant to themselves.

I think if one fails to objectively weigh the evidence, it's easy to draw the conclusion one wishes to find. And objectivity, while of absolute importance, is a difficult standard for any emotional animal. Often we can be objective when it leads our evaluation of the evidence to the conclusion we find most desirable. When it leads us away from what we desire, we often stray to subjective conclusions based on a twisting of evidence to meet our desires.

There is much to be said for consistency in being objective. If one flips a coin a dozen times and each time the upward side of the coin is blank, it's not inappropriate to hold a strong suspicion that the coin has neither head nor tails -- a dummy or blank. To continue flipping the coin indefinitely, in unevidenced faith that it will eventually land in one's favor is a failure to adhere to the objective analysis of the evidence. This applies whether one wishes to flip heads, "good", tails or "evil". And when one must take account of the price of the coin for each flip, those insistent that the evidence is simply incomplete can rapidly expend beyond their budget.

When I see the ease at which people label things evil, I think, wait is their not something else, even as a believer I did this, and yes there is .. deviance, deviations, pathologies, Actualized Complexes, Fanaticism, devote egotism, and on.. and on.. but it is not uncommon to hear those who are called evil adopt that label for shear delight.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.