Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
Whatever that kind of reason, to kill someone is to want them dead. It is and act of evil.
Not in the case of self defense IMO.
So fear motivates the response...real or imagined...
When you strip away all of the details this is true in most cases of murder. There are always exceptions. It would depend on the circumstances and on the person as to whether I would paint them as generally evil.
But is the seeing real or imagined? Is the act of killing someone (or otherwise taking away their ability to compete) evil? If the competitors are much the same in attitude is it just a matter of the more cunning wins and thus it isn't evil? What about the negative consequences of their competitiveness upon others not directly involved but still collateral damage?
I guess my yardstick would be if the person had other options for settling the problem to achieve a win/win situation but opted for murder as the best course of action, then that would be evil. Once again, it really depends on the circumstances and the person involved.
The examples are not overly detailed that anyone can make a relevant assessment. It appears finding good or evil in many circumstances requires details.
Because you would need to judge the situations on an individual basis. Life doesn't fit in neat little categories all the time. Watch the movie Delores Claiborne, was that her only choice of action? Some might brand her evil, I didn't.
And there are levels of ignorance. Perhaps the evil is in the ignorance in which the person has no interest in being less ignorant, preferring to remain in the state of ignorance that suits their agenda.
I agree with you on this one.
If it cannot be helped, perhaps that is something to pity as well as keep an eye on. If the person has it within them to make the necessary adjustments and chooses not to, and acted out evil on others, then that would be evil.
Yes, I think so.
I still maintain that most of us do know good from evil. Those who have had evil acts done upon them, most of them know the acts were evil and what are commonly called 'psychological issues' are not all things which cannot be changed IF the person who suffered evil acts wants to make that effort. If not, then they will likely become victimizers themselves.
Agreed. It takes a special person in those cases who is insightful enough to realize that without outside help and they are rare.
I can empathize with those who have been treated badly as children and have no opportunity or know-how on ways to heal the damage and move forward in goodness. I don't have the same empathy for those who have the opportunity but choose to hold onto their suffering and make others suffer as well.
Me either
What would be the deciding factor for you either way?
What their personal history and situation might be that lead up to that point. I would not consider a mentally ill person to be evil as an example.
Yes. I wasn't aware I was marginalize this. Hard work is required. The will to want to heal is required. Time is required. A workable environment where such a thing is supported is required. Nonetheless my point was that forgiveness is crucial and in some ways the first major step towards getting over it and moving on.
I'm not so certain that forgiveness is key. If you re-evaluate the circumstances for why a person does something to you sometimes it's not a personal thing at all but a matter of you being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't think someone who has kids starving that knocks me down and steals my purse is evil, I also don't consider drug addicts that steal to be evil, but the drug dealers might fall into that category.
If the choices are available and the supports in place, no matter that there is a lot of effort needed by the victim to get to that point, if they choose not to do so and become a part of the cycle of abuse by being abusive, then they perpetuate an evil thing.
Yes they do, but once again, it depends on the person's capacity to have that insight into the situation.
I am not hard nosed about this but neither am I someone who thinks it is appropriate to enable victims to remain victims and become vicitimizers. That is not a solution to the problem. Some systems are far too precious with victims that victims see a convenience in the sympathy and support which does not have as a critical goal of healing and moving on (becoming a victor) and victims take advantage of that to remain in the victim role. They can even victimize by using their victim status as a means to solicit continuous support and sympathy whilst making no real effort whatsoever to get over it and fully help themselves. They say 'I can't' and that is accepted as truth.
OK, a lot of people feel that way about it. I just don't think things are so cut and dry or simple in most cases.
Now I can agree that some simply cannot. They obvious do not have it in them for various reasons. Often they are not purposefully victimizing anyone else. Purposefully victimizing others is evil, even that it has been done to you, how much more one should know the evil of it.
You get into that gray area where one has to ask whether it's willful ignorance or just plain ignorance. We all judge people, putting them into categories, but often what we think about individual people or situations simply doesn't matter.
I assume then that this 'greater reality' is something other than the material one?
Yes, in my opinion. I have no proof, but I do think we are just one small facet of what reality is like overall.
Asking for forgiveness is a different thing from being forgiving.
In the context of this thread, the bible speaks about both. We are taught to turn the other cheek and ask Christ for our own forgiveness when we fail to live up to spiritual expectations.
Yes but you said in arguing a point I made...
"That's crap. Every action and reaction is a personal choice. I can't see what I anyone could learn from suffering as a result of an evill act."
According to the bible, we are supposed to learn something through suffering. I don't think that's true. We might not be able to control who inflicts suffering upon us but we can control, to some extent, how we react to it. For example, I wait two days after getting angry about something before I sit down to talk it through with the person because it allows me to put things in a different perspective and be civil.
Repetitive child abuse isn't in this category, no one expects a victim, especially a child, to have any kind of emotional resources or ability to process that kind of insult. What kind of lesson is that child supposed to learn anyway?
that is irony in the sense that the Christian tradition is built around the idea of learning from ones suffering.
I think the Christian identity is about Christ's suffering to save us from our sins, which I think is just some made up stuff to replace sacrificing people to imaginary God's.
More to the point, one can indeed learn from ones own suffering the result of an evil act against one. Every reaction (as you said in the same breath) is a personal choice.
What lesson are you learning from suffering?
Sounds logical yes? And yet, I also can see how some people might require feeling guilty for their actions and that having someone else who didn't deserve it 'pay the price' for your evil actions might be the very thing which tips someone into feeling real remorse and wanting to and making the effort to change the way they act. Apparently this has genuinely happened to many. Not saying of course that such a tactic will work on everyone...but if it works I am not going to criticism it.
Sounds like scapegoating to me, which is historically a dysfunctional family pattern.
The way I look at it, perfection is overrated and misunderstood for that. I can never be perfect (whatever they hey that is) but I can always be better...
As to 'salvation' *shrugs* - From 'hell'? That was just a place for the waste - on the outskirts of town...like the dump...it was a metaphor according to some and how it got twisted into some actual place the organised religion of Christianity created really didn't do their idea of god any favors.
If 0='off' and 1='on' then salvation would be a matter of remaining 'on'. Not 'on' and sentenced to an eternity of pain and suffering. Seems like as usual some evil got in there and twisted the message to suit some evil agenda... but *whatever*...
Yeah, I can't see the point of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
