[Revolution]

Originally Posted by bulldogs85

This is just the nature vs nurture debate that has been going on in sociology forever.
I think evil does exist. Some people simply has less regard for human life than others. And some actually enjoy inflicting pain on others. Evil vs mental disorder? Who knows. Without getting into religion/spirit, we can't really address that issue, but yeah, "evil", "bad intent", "dangerous mental disorders", whatever we call it, it exists.

Human greed also exists. And left unregulated, we would have absolute chaos. That, IMO, is the true intent of the criminal justice system. To regulate greed, not to combat evil. Think about crime. It all comes back to greed.

No, that's just my point. It's NOT nature vs. nurture. Rather, it's nature+nurture+ . . . something else? That's the real question at hand.

As for the poster who said this thread is "juvenile," um, you bothered to post here . . . why?

[Revolution]

Well alrighty then. So far I've been called an idiot for suggesting evil (not nature or nurture) exists unto itself, and I've been called an idiot for asking whether it does. I guess I'm doing my job.

[mkess101]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

This is the greatest threat atheists face, the deny God, so they must deny evil in the way, then it gets them, they fall in the trap where only few survive.

Really? I am NOT an atheist, but I don't really see this as a big hurdle for atheism. I think most atheists would tell you evil does not in fact exist. I guess it somewhat becomes a question of moral relativism. I am guessing most atheists (and keep in mind this is a guess as I am not an atheist) believe that we, as societies, evolve and therefore get better and better at deciding what is non-allowable behavior. I could never buy into this line of reasoning but nor would I call it an unreasonable belief. My guess would be the average atheist would deem those who act far outside society's norms in negative ways as "disturbed", "depraved", "warped", etc., but not "evil". It's an interesting discussion, to say the least.

[PornoSatan]

Good nor evil exist in their accepted definitions when used in context, where one is the antonym of the other. It isn't a "does one exist?" type of thing. Neither exist. People shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose. They're just superstitious equivalents to those who may or may not act altruistic.

Good - People who do unselfish acts at their own expense, defined by their culture.
Evil - People who only keep to themselves, who do things not generally accepted by their culture. (Salem Witch Trials attributed antisocialism to "evil")

As mentioned earlier, neither exist. Almost everything defined as evil can be found to be acceptable in another culture or scenario. (Kill 1 person and you're a murderer, kill 100 and you get a medal.)


Almost

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by Revolution

No, that's just my point. It's NOT nature vs. nurture. Rather, it's nature+nurture+ . . . something else? That's the real question at hand.

This is the best argument for the supernatural.

I know materialistic people hate me, but we can not go beyond the problem of evil without asking for something else.

[mkess101]

Originally Posted by PornoSatan

Good nor evil exist in their accepted definitions when used in context, where one is the antonym of the other. It isn't a "does one exist?" type of thing. Neither exist. People shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose. They're just superstitious equivalents to those who may or may not act altruistic.

Good - People who do unselfish acts at their own expense, defined by their culture.
Evil - People who only keep to themselves, who do things not generally accepted by their culture. (Salem Witch Trials attributed antisocialism to "evil")

As mentioned earlier, neither exist. Almost everything defined as evil can be found to be acceptable in another culture or scenario. (Kill 1 person and you're a murderer, kill 100 and you get a medal.)


Almost

Isn't the "Almost" where it gets tricky? And just because a society deems something appropriate, does that really make it so? I'd argue that just because it was accepted in many past societies to have sex with children doesn't mean it wasn't an abhorrent act. Those people were just warped. I'm not sure it's the same exact discussion as TS brought up, but I don't think you can use a society's acceptance as the qualifier of whether something is wrong, (or "evil") or not. If, hypothetically, everyone in America (or the world, for that matter) decided within the next 10 years that pedophelia was acceptable (obviously it would never happen, it's an extreme hypothetical I'm using to make a point) does that mean it became a less abhorrent act? I just can't buy into that.

[Apple Pie]

Most Evil is an American forensics television program on the Discovery Channel starring forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone from Columbia University. On the show, Stone rates murderers on a scale of evil that he has developed in order to help science understand and thus prevent this type of behavior. The show features profiles on various murderers, serial killers, and sociopaths. Stone researched hundreds of killers and their methods and motives to develop his hierarchy of "evil." The scale ranges from Category 1, those who kill in self defense, to Category 9, psychopath jealous lovers, to the "most evil" Category 22, serial torture and killers (for example; Westley Allan Dodd was among those classed as Category 22). Neurologists, psychologists, and other forensic psychiatrists are interviewed on the show in an attempt to examine and profile the minds of notorious killers.





Evil exists. it's just that the Devil isn't the guy pulling their strings.

Evil is a combination of nature and nurture.

[PornoSatan]

Originally Posted by mkess101

Isn't the "Almost" where it gets tricky? And just because a society deems something appropriate, does that really make it so? I'd argue that just because it was accepted in many past societies to have sex with children doesn't mean it wasn't an abhorrent act. Those people were just warped. I'm not sure it's the same exact discussion as TS brought up, but I don't think you can use a society's acceptance as the qualifier of whether something is wrong, (or "evil") or not. If, hypothetically, everyone in America (or the world, for that matter) decided within the next 10 years that pedophelia was acceptable (obviously it would never happen, it's an extreme hypothetical I'm using to make a point) does that mean it became a less abhorrent act? I just can't buy into that.

If society deems something as appropriate, that means the greater majority accept it. As far as everyone else is concerned YOU'RE the odd man out. The whole idea of what is and isn't appropriate is defined by society itself. If you think A or B is wrong, it has more to do with how society shaped your morals than anything. You may believe stoning someone to death is wrong, would you if you just happened to grow up in a region where it was common place? Probably not. Religion has alot to do with weaving this moral rainbow too.

Using your pedophilia example, if it became acceptable worldwide, as the generations went by the ones born oblivious to its previously taboo label wouldn't even question it.

[mkess101]

Originally Posted by PornoSatan

If society deems something as appropriate, that means the greater majority accept it. As far as everyone else is concerned YOU'RE the odd man out. The whole idea of what is and isn't appropriate is defined by society itself. If you think A or B is wrong, it has more to do with how society shaped your morals than anything. You may believe stoning someone to death is wrong, would you if you just happened to grow up in a region where it was common place? Probably not. Religion has alot to do with weaving this moral rainbow too.

Using your pedophilia example, if it became acceptable worldwide, as the generations went by the ones born oblivious to its previously taboo label wouldn't even question it.

I see where you're coming from, but I just can't buy it. Wrong is wrong, no matter how accepted a given behavior is. It seems very simplistic, but for lack of a better term, "it is what it is".

Does something have to be accepted worldwide to be deemed acceptable? What about an island cut off for generations from the rest of the world. If their behavior is abhorrent to the rest of humanity, does it matter since they didn't interact with anyone else for decades? Were their children who suffered at the hands of these people not victims of "evil", since in their society it was deemed acceptable?

I do believe in evil. The best way to put it would be "I can't necessarily describe it, but I know it when I see it". The whole question delves into mostly philosophical waters, so there is bound to be a myriad of opinions on the issue.

[PornoSatan]

Originally Posted by mkess101

Does something have to be accepted worldwide to be deemed acceptable? What about an island cut off for generations from the rest of the world. If their behavior is abhorrent to the rest of humanity, does it matter since they didn't interact with anyone else for decades? Were their children who suffered at the hands of these people not victims of "evil", since in their society it was deemed acceptable?

It's precisely which side of this culture you're on. Looking from the outside in you're going to think it's wrong, because it's not parallel to your social morals. That part is easy to understand. Now, try a bit harder to understand it from the other cultures perspective. If the proper age for sex for country A is 18 and for country B its 14, who's wrong? If you say B, it's because you're looking at it from A's perspective. Perhaps from B's perspective, 18 might seem late. There's a near infinite number of comparisons that clash morals than just that. It's all about perspective, and the ability to understand/accept depends upon which region by sheer accident you grew up in.