Yes but I have a followup question. This scenario is going to sound a bit outlandish but bear with me. Consider a man who wants to murder 100 people in a building that is occupied by 1,000. He plans it out. He prepares a bomb. And he attempts to do it. But during the attempt, his plan goes wrong and instead of the bomb blowing up and killing all those people, it's discovered and the building is evacuated. After everyone leaves the building, by freak coincidence the entire structure just collapses on itself. So quite unexpectedly, the presence of the bomb meant to kill 100 ended up saving 1,000. Is this particular act of planting the bomb evil?

A lot of arguments about the inherent goodness of an act vs. the inherent evil of an act rely on the outcome. If it makes more people happy then it was good, more people sad then it's bad. The problem with this position is that it can be used to excuse a lot of horrific behavior. That's why as of yet I've never seen an argument about ethics that I've bought into. I believe it's too complicated an issue with far too many variables. I think it was Albert Einstein that said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."



I'm not very familiar with Bruno. I don't have a whole lot of experience outside of Socrates, Plato, Decartes, and Kant.

Yes, I believe evil can sometimes be the result of trauma, abuse, or whatever, but I still think some people are just born with it, as in being inseparable from it because it's who they are.

Also, it's hard record all types of evil acts and trace them back to abuse and such because not all evil people make their evil acts as obvious and direct as murder or rape. Some evil people use mental manipulation and indirect or subliminal attacks that destory people from the inside out instead of the other way around.

In cases like these, it's much harder for cops or scientists to record these acts because they are imperceptible even to the victims, especially if the evil ones makes himself appear as normal and good as possible.

It's hard to give you a specific example of this kind of evil, but I've heard about people who become depressed and/or mentally and emotionally overwhelmed when around certain people who appear completely normal and calm on the outside. There's also people who can appear compassionate and even God-loving, but they take the chance to cunningly corrupt people whenever possible, like when people are drunk or vulnerable in such ways.

Evil doesn't always come in forms that are easily analyzable like the killers who had abusive childhoods and stuff. So even though most of the evil that science is aware of comes from traumatized people or whatever, I'm sure there are undocumented healthy people who are evil for no other reason than because it's who they are.


.....
See but here, you're putting evil acts all in the same category. There are different reasons for commiting crimes like murder. If I murdered someone who took pleasure in consistently making angry, sad, and afraid and so I killed them because I couldn't take it anymore, then I wouldn't consider myself to be an evil person. If I wanted to kill someone because I simply wanted to do it for fun and because it would give me sadistic joy and then I showed no remorse for it, then I do think I would be evil.

I do not have desires to kill people for fun or because the sight of suffering people whom I don't even know anything about makes me horny and happy. Wanting to kill my enemies because they have put me through hell is a different thing.

See, I don't see evil solely as a choice made. I think it would be more accurate to include the emotional and mental reasoning behind the evil as well.


I did not mean to measure evil and stupidity together as individual things. I was trying to measure and compare the benefits of being one or the other, not the concepts of stupidity and evil alone.

It was the benefits only, particularly which would provide more long-term pleasure.

-TTT said........-

I really don't think this relates directly to what I was saying, but I will try to give my opinion on the matter. The man had intended to do evil, and therefore he actually did commit an evil act. It may have helped people, but the idea was not meant to do so. The concept of the act was what was evil. I think you can credit luck, god, or, fate for the result, not the man. For after all, the result was quite contrary to what he had intended. I think we could debate this all day, but I doubt we are going to come to any kind of consensus on the matter. It should be noted that all of this is nothing but my opinion, I try to confer that as often as possible. I am no expert on philosophy or morality. It really doesn’t matter rather or not you “buy into it.” because I don’t expect you to think like I do, I was just voicing my own view. I am still open to hear the views of others, but I am not just going to change my whole opinion on morality because I had a debate on the internet, and I wouldn’t expect you to either. We are all quite imperfect after all, and this is just my attempt at defining my own morality. Please allow me to reiterate my stance, and reconstruct my point to you. All I was trying to say is that everyone has a choice. With the best knowledge you have at hand, you make a choice and then you have to live with that choice. Much as you said, life is a game of chance. If you play the odds, you have the best chance. Noone can build a moral code to protect themself fully against every instance, but they can have a set of guidelines to live by. This opinion is precisely why I do not follow a religion. I think they have as incomplete a set of morals as any other philosophy or approach. My point was simply that even if a person did have some burning evil or good inside themself they could (at least in most instances) chose to fight it or fulfill it. After all is this not the essence of free will?

I wouldn’t really be fair to continue this unless I asked you in return: What is your personal opinion on the matter of the nature of good and evil. Do you think it is inherent, decided, or more like my own opinion, that we have both inside and simply needs to choose? I recognize that it cannot be summed up shortly, but give me a brief idea of what your opinion is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QS(TB): -Yes, I believe evil can sometimes be the result of trauma, abuse, or whatever, but I still think some people are just born with it, as in being inseparable from it because it's who they are.-

Fair enough, but that wasn't what we were talking about. You specificaly brought up serial killers. I responded with the information that is available about them. I simply believe that no matter what amount of evil a person has inside them, it is not trluy anything untill they express it in some way. I wasn't denying all of your points, I simply thought that one was worth interjecting about.


-See but here, you're putting evil acts all in the same category. There are different reasons for commiting crimes like murder.-

I have already commented on this at least twice. Everyone knows that there are different levels and degrees of evil. You seem particualry concerned with justifying your desire for revenge, but that is neither here nor there. The point of my statement was this. Let us consider that you want to commit an unjust murder. No reason to go into why, let us just say it is wrong and you want to do it anyway. Now is that evil, or is actualy setting out to do it what is evil? After all good would be easy if we never had to worry about having evil desires. I think it is much like KombatVeteran said before, that it is in overcoming those urges that make us more than animal. It is in this, that I believe, the nature of good exists.

-I did not mean to measure evil and stupidity together as individual things. I was trying to measure and compare the benefits of being one or the other, not the concepts of stupidity and evil alone. It was the benefits only, particularly which would provide more long-term pleasure.-

I guess we can try, but I am not sure if you understand how complex this is going to be, or how subjective for that matter. Consider several points:

1)These are bad qualities not benefits, so I am going to assume you are pitting good against intelligence not evil against stupid.

2) Adding in that last part about long term pleasure is stacking the deck in your favor. There are others who do not think long term pleasure is the ultimate goal, and I would argue that survival is more important. This should be considered as a valid point but not part of the criteria. So realy we should leave that last part out of it. Let us leave it open to all forms of benifit, not just the ones that you like the most.

3) would we allow belife in the afterlife to enter into a debate of this nature, or are we simply talking about this world that we can see. That could realy make it impossible for us to come to terms, seing as how you believe in a part of reality that I am not convinced exists. See my point?

4) Also who will be the judge, clearly both of us are very biased to whatever side we chose, so we can't realy judge ourselves. I don't know about you but I don't feel like being peir reviewed by M.K.O. memebers. (no offense everyone, but I think you all know enough people on here that would make you not want to yourself)

5) What are the defintions of the terms Intelligent, and Good as we would be using them. This has to be defined in order for us to come to a logical conclussion.

Do you see why I am reluctant to go about this now?

Well, yes because those are the qualities we would be left with. If I chose stupid I would have been left with good, if I chose evil I would have been left with intelligence. So of course I made it about good vs. intelligence, but I think I made it more about good vs. evil later on.


Okay, but just wondering.... Why is survival the ultimate goal for you? I don't think you've explained that thoroughly yet.


Yes. We're not seeing this debate from the same angle, making it impossible for us to come to a conclussion.


Right. I don't think we should even try to agree on which would be more beneficial, though. No one will judge but us.


Yes, it's safe to end this between you and I.

QS(TB)-Okay, but just wondering.... Why is survival the ultimate goal for you? I don't think you've explained that thoroughly yet.-

I never said that it was the ultimate goal, just that I could argue that it was more important than long term pleasure. This is not to say that I 100% believe that, just that I see the logic in it, and I follow it from time to time. Simply put. I cannot enjoy pleasure if I do not survive to see it, so it is really pretty simple. I would rather be a less than idealy happy person than to be a bright and happy corpse I am not talking about hiding from the world though, that would be more like death, I am talking about doing what it takes to get by and then thinking about happiness. Considering that being happy is dependant on being alive and not vice versa, in my mind, it is supperior. As I have basicaly said I only believe this passingly. I still feel it is a valid arguement though.

I believe in possibilities. I don't discount the possibility that a person can be by pure chance predisposed to do evil moreso than someone else. I don't necessarily think that everyone is born as a blank slate every time. Obviously I also believe that environmental influences can influence a person as well. And to top it off, as you said, free will is the ultimate deal breaker. None of us can be certain how people will react to various stimuli throughout their lives. The problem is that we can't redo history. We can't go back and run experiments on the exact same individual. Would changing this or that have made (insert bad guy) a better man? Or would making a good man live the life of a bad man have turned him into a bad man as well?

I'm mostly a free will junkie. And that's why I'm...cautious...about much of the psychology, sociology, and philosophy surrounding ethics. I don't think free will can really be so fully understood that it becomes measurable enough to allow us to figure out what makes us who we are. I think in the case of ethics the right answer is that there isn't one. And, honestly, I wouldn't want it to be any other way. Because to imply that there is an answer also means that we have just that much less freedom of choice.

How funny because I see it the other way around... What's the point of being alive if I'm not gonna have love or true happiness in my life?

LOL.

I guess both reasons make sense.

It's just that I see being alive as pointless if I'm gonna be evil. Evil people seem very much like zombies to me; alive, but with really nothing inside. Emotionally, they're like a flat wall, as I see it. And so without a sane and widely sentient life force, I just think there's little point to it.

Evil people are like 1-dimensional characters sort of, imo. But that's just me.

QS(TB)-I guess both reasons make sense.-

I think so, it seems like both are valid points.

-It's just that I see being alive as pointless if I'm gonna be evil. Evil people seem very much like zombies to me; alive, but with really nothing inside. Emotionally, they're like a flat wall, as I see it. And so without a sane and widely sentient life force, I just think there's little point to it. Evil people are like 1-dimensional characters sort of, imo. But that's just me.-

I guess I just don't see it like that. I think evil people would be far from empty, I would think that they would likely be quite tormented and full of emotion, it just wouldn't be pleasant most of the time. I think, perhaps their are as many types of evil as there are evil people, or people capable of evil, and therefore they could be any manor of things. Perhaps both would be a possibility, but your description still sound more like a sociopath to me, than it does an evil person. Hopefully neither of us will ever actualy be the kind of person that will truly know


TTT....

I can appreciate that position as it seems well balanced, and not to condemn. I am just of a nature to always be seeking truth and answers, inquisitive from birth if you will.

Edit: I am reminded of something my old kung fu instructor taught me and I thought it would be pertinent. He told me that no matter how much I train and study my forms that they will never win a fight for me, that no matter what happens I will not be prepared for real combat as it is an imperfect and varied thing by nature. The truth, as he taught it, was that we learned forms in order to give ourselves the skills needed to be as well prepared for any situation as we can be, not to have already planned out the fight. I suppose this is also the way I look at philosophy and morality, as an imperfect science that we use to increase our logic and knowledge. It is not however an ultimate answer for anything. I thought you might be able to appreciate that outlook.