Quote from tekushikume

# morally objectionable behavior
# morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds"
# that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
# having the nature of vice
# the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world"
# malefic: having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


this is the one i would be going by. and over a majority would agree that murder rape, stealing are morally wrong but that's just a few things a push out there that i put into my posts

Quote from ROCKduhHOUSE

If you would please post responses quoting me, I would appreciate it.

As I like to say, it's not the act that makes it evil, it's the intention. If I was to commit two different crimes - stealing and murder - I might be considered evil, but what if I was stealing only what I needed to survive? The act would be (considered) evil, but the intentions would not. and what if the murder was just because I got angry? The act and the intentions could both be considered evil.

Evil is much more a concept than a reality. Evil exists, but is different to each of us. Evil cannot go by one definition, as people see it differently. We know it when we've done evil, it gives you a strange feeling nothing else can. If we have done something we think is not evil, we don't feel guilt. if we have done something we think IS evil, we will more than likely feel guilty.

it is not in human nature to do evil, it is that we are corrupted by this generation. in the begginning (wether you believe in evolution or creation) there was no evil. evil was created by that intent to do what is forbidden.

Quote from Zed

Forgive any incoherence. It's 2:30am.



No problem.



I disagree. Whilst the intention matters, it should not be taken as the sole determinant in morality. If you have not done all that may be reasonably expected of you to gauge a situation before making a decision, you cannot claim that what you did was right because you were negligent in assessing the situation. If a company that runs cruises doesn't bother to make sure that their ships are seaworthy and then one sinks killing hundreds, whose fault is it?

What matters more is necessity. The thief who steals to survive has, we presume, no alternative available. He didn't take the evil course of action, he took the only course of action. People must be judged by their actions against what other actions they could have taken.



Look at this picture:



What do you see? Odds on you see an orange (and if not, imagine you did for the sake of the exercise). I don't. I see a grapefruit. One of us is right. I searched the image, I know it's a grapefruit.

My point is, just because we see things differently, doesn't mean that there can't be an objective truth. Hitler may have thought he was doing the right thing by killing the Jews, but we can look at that situation and declare that Hitler was either misinformed or morally impaired. If misinformed, he was evil for having not done the research that most people do to become aware that there is nothing wrong with Judaism. If he was morally impaired then he could be considered basically evil in his very nature.

If morality is subjective, then what is right is self-evidently defined by the majority. If your ethical principles go against those of the majority then the majority will consider you immoral. With more people considering you immoral than moral, your point of view becomes more immoral than moral. If you are mostly immoral, therefore, it can't be right to use your morality as the basis for any argument over who or what is evil - you are morally impaired; it would be like asking a guy on LSD to describe a room to you. And since what is right is defined by the majority we suddenly have an objective reality for what is right and what is wrong. Sure, it's emotive, but it's still objective.

So if morality is objective then it is objective, and if morality is subjective the it is objective at any given moment. And since the question is "Is Humanity Evil" rather than "Has Humanity Always Been Evil" there must be an objective answer.


I will be genuinely astonished if I get away with that.





Then you admit that humanity as it stands today is, as a whole, evil?

If a company that runs cruises doesn't bother to make sure that their ships are seaworthy and then one sinks killing hundreds, whose fault is it?

It's 2:30am.

Quote from ROCKduhHOUSE

I am saying by that, that evil exists in all of us, in the form of temptations. In reality, it is those who can controll their temptations that are considered "good" in modern terms.

It's like the grapefruit. someone who can see it in real life can tell the difference, because of many characteristial differences. and even if they can't tell it apart on the outside, once you've gotten a taste, you can tell it's a grapefruit. Things can be manipulated for people to see them differently. if you gave me a REAL grapefruit, I could tell the difference. putting a picture on the internet is like getting somebody's manipulation of the truth. (I'll put this in an easier to understand scenerio.) Let's say I saw someone murder when I was younger, and that person says it wasn't evil because he was stopping that man from doing evil. It's still evil (a grapefruit), but hemade it seem like good (an orange).

I didn't say humanity as a whole was evil, I said the evil that DOES exist is because of corruption.

Quote from ROCKduhHOUSE

It is the cruise company's fault, but that's not evil, that's human error. there is a big difference. human error is like making a mistake, while evil is (considered) an intentional or unintentional wrongdoing. I do not see how that was relevant. but, as you said

Quote from ROCKduhHOUSE

conversations with you are always fun, Zed. =D

Okay, let's get this comment started. Humanity itself is not evil. We always had evil, but that doesn't mean we are evil. I never said "We became evil," I said "we've always had evil, but we're not evil." we always will have evil, but humanity cannot be considered evil.

As for the iron, it can be rusted over, with out being COMPLETELY rust. It is only partially rusted. Once it crumbles and turns into dust is when you say "it is a pile of rust." It is once again classifying all of it as what only part of it is. Humanity may be like rusty Iron, but it is not only rust. you cannot say all humanity is evil, it's not fair to all the ones who are NOT evil.