Deleted UserSeptember 21, 2021 at 23:5511150 views79 comments
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Comments (79)
Tom StormSeptember 22, 2021 at 00:15#5985760 likes
I have never understood what the word 'pure' adds to the word evil. Would we talk of pure good versus good? I think the word is added to underline it in some way and to add some dubious precision. The word evil is so infected with religious connotations that it is hard to get past all the noise and history.
Your argument about philosophical zombies doesn't resonate with me. Humans behave and some of that behavior is fucked up. It might be easier for us, instead of understanding the causes of fucked up behavior, to use othering or zombie style categories.
What do you think you've added to our understanding of evil?
Maybe it would assist if you presented examples of a pure evil act so we could move past theory and explore your ideas in action.
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 00:29#5985790 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
James RileySeptember 22, 2021 at 00:43#5985830 likes
I tried to understand your post but I admit, I did not try very hard. I started to bog down and my eyes started to cross at the feeling that you said too much. That's why I can't debate you point by point. I will say this, though: Whenever I hear the term "good" I immediately ask "for who" or "for what'? Likewise, evil. I don't believe in evil. I think there is always something underlying a "bad" act or thought. And even then, I'm brought to "bad for who" and "bad for what"?
Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect. There are also unrelated third parties that benefit from the misfortune of others, intentionally or incidentally. Even if that is a microbe that chows down on a rotting carcass, or a shrink getting paid to listen to a victim work out their shit.
What makes a person "good" and what makes a person "evil"? If merely committing an evil act makes someone "pure evil" then I suppose we are all evil, given that most of us either have committed evil acts (graded from trivial to very substantial) or will in the future. Can someone be sort of good and commit a sort of evil act? Visa versa?
Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to.
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 01:04#5985940 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
180 ProofSeptember 22, 2021 at 01:21#5986030 likes
The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.
My wife has a bad temper. Sometimes, with very little provocation, she will say things to me and others that are very hurtful. There is not doubt that she does this intentionally. That cruelty is not reflected in other aspects of her life.
By your definition, I guess she's evil.
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 01:53#5986190 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Tom StormSeptember 22, 2021 at 01:55#5986200 likes
so you live in a cave? How is life in the cave. How do you deal with mold in your lungs?
Well Plato will tell you we all live in a cave. It's a key narrative in philosophy.
That aside is being hostile really a way to engage with a topic? Could it be you are missing something? I think the other responses are nailing this. For instance:
Its strange for you to drop an OP and then act like a smug prick to everyone who responds. Get humble, your OP is not the rock solid argument you seem to think it is. At best your logic requires explaining, its not that clear to the reader where the strength of your argument lies.
She might be evil, if that's the case, get away from her. However, if she was only expressing anger due to frustration with something, and only meaning to take control of the situation, then what we would say about her behavior is that it was a MISTAKE.
You're new here, and you're kind of being an asshole. We already have at least one member who thinks philosophy is mostly insults and condescending remarks. We don't need another one. Play nice.
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 02:03#5986260 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 02:05#5986290 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
The moderators here are a bit trigger happy about getting rid of those who send out what are known as "low quality posts". I think yours meet their standards. I predict you won't be here long. We'll open a pool. I'm down for midnight. Any takers?
And of course that's obvious, since the entire internet is flooded with them, and often are even crappy moderators that ban people for bullshit reasons, as is the case on reddit, and well you know so many others.
I was just sittimg here innocently minding my own business and you hurl an insult at me. Evil.
Ennui ElucidatorSeptember 22, 2021 at 02:50#5986470 likes
The OP could use work, but is there really anything he is saying that is so foreign to older ideas about happiness/the good? You just sort of naively take it for granted that someone pursues what they want, that what they want is the good, and that all actions of necessity aim towards good absent illness/error. So outside of lots of hand waving about how examples of intentional harm are either justified or the result of mistake (special pleading at its finest), what more is to be said? Man, the rational beast that pursues the good.
Totalizing theory, all counter-examples explained away, and conclusion affirmed because it is definitional.
TheMadFoolSeptember 22, 2021 at 02:51#5986480 likes
It seems our problems have doubled over the past 2000 years - first, it was evil, whatever that is, we had to deal with and now, pure evil! This task we're asked to perform is, manifestly, evil, pure evil. :lol:
[quote=Saint Augustine (Pear Tree, The Fall Of Man)]I loved not the thing for which I committed the sin but the sin itself[/quote]
A more accurate quote:
[quote=St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)]The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself.[/quote]
ZweisteinSeptember 22, 2021 at 10:53#5987350 likes
It's absolutele certain that we are not alone. The universe has an abundancy of life. Of course rhere is a small chance of no life being there, but then again, around every Sun-like word there are planets with life. That's no Russel's reapot.
HermeticusSeptember 22, 2021 at 12:08#5987630 likes
There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are.
If knowing good and evil is instinctual, then not knowing what good and evil is would be impossible. Hence, as "knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts" there is no evil in this world.
On the most basic level though, I see a problem with your definition of evil. Quoting AlienFromEarth
That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.
What is justifiable and what is not is completely subjective. Hence by your definition, what is evil and what is not is completely subjective, ruling out "pure evil".
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 13:43#5988120 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 13:46#5988150 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
This is the term that has multiple definitions. Is the son of Hitler, no someone who say didn't get their ass kicked and who actually succeeded, say successfully killing off oh.. half the world's population and enslaving the other half to grueling labor and torture, not just for punishment, but often for fun.. let's take this fictional person. He has a kid. That kid is as innocent as you or I. Is he not?
Somewhere down the line, there's someone related to you who got away with unspeakable acts that by pure fact, enabled you to become the person you are today.
That said people far too frequently confuse evil with animals who simply don't know any better and thus need to be controlled. Mental illness too.
If a conscious person always considers their own actions justified but is sometimes wrong about this, then they are capable of committing an evil act that they considered justified (i.e. they’ve made a mistake). So evil doers aren’t necessarily unconscious.
Reply to AlienFromEarth I’m assuming that your stance on evil commits you to some kind of religious point of view. Is that the case? Also, how do you reconcile your view of evil with evolutionary theory? Is there adaptive survival value to pure evil? Perhaps even more than to good?
TheMadFoolSeptember 22, 2021 at 15:00#5988480 likes
It's absolutele certain that we are not alone. The universe has an abundancy of life. Of course rhere is a small chance of no life being there, but then again, around every Sun-like word there are planets with life. That's no Russel's reapot.
God is infinite, so His universe must be too. Thus is the excellence of God magnified and the greatness of His kingdom made manifest; He is glorified not in one, but in countless suns; not in a single earth, a single world, but in a thousand thousand, I say in an infinity of worlds.
[quote=Giordano Bruno]In space there are countless constellations, suns and planets; we see only the suns because they give light; the planets remain invisible, for they are small and dark. There are also numberless earths circling around their suns.[/quote]
Giordano Bruno was, unfortunately or not, burnt at the stake for heresy. Now, no one would look askance at you for asking the same questions he did. My, my, how the times have changed.
Deleted UserSeptember 22, 2021 at 15:00#5988490 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Not religious, just logical and autonomous. Oh and conscious. Lets not forget that.
Whether you know it or not, your description of evil puts your thinking in the category of ‘secular’ religion. You may have absolutely no affiliation with organized religion( thus it is secular) , but your approach is a classic example of a religious metaphysics, and not even a very modern one at that. It is incompatible with the implications of evolutionary biology as well as modern psychology.
Thus, the robots intentions are not it's own, it is merely the intentions of the organism that created it.
I agree. But I also say that those organisms providing the intentions can do so precisely because they are conscious, and intentions spring from consciousness.
An intention really, is an organism that sets out to do something.
If an organism is unconscious then in what sense can it “set out to do something”? Is the fact that a robot doesn’t have its own intentions not a consequence of it being unconscious?
There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are
BTW, there's no such a thing as "instinctual knowledge". An instinct is an innate behavior in response to certain stimuli. And knowledge refers to facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. It involves reasoning and it includes evaluation of good and evil. Instinct doesn't. It's just automatic reaction.
2) Knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts.
What acts? I suppose that the word "evil" or "bad" is missing, right?
Well, does knowing what is good for you prevent me from harming you? This in fact could be called a "conscious evil act".
Neither knowledge of evil prevents one from harming others.
So, it's not knowledge that prevents someone from doing harm. It's "personal ethics". It one's ethical level. It goes on a scale from immoral (unethical) to amoral (lacking etches) to moral (ethical)
3) If evil were a choice just anyone could make, the ability to commit evil would require a good person to somehow "unknow" what evil is
This might happen but it's not usually the case. A good --I prefer "ethical"-- person can go easily astray and commit a bad action. But he will know, he will be aware that he did something bad. It is the evil ("unethical") person who usually manages to "unknow" what evil is, i.e. to hide, burry the evil nature of his acts. That's why most really unethical persons cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad". They are characterized by "no remorse". They are actually mentally ill. That's why when such a condition is established in courts, the culpable is sent usually to a mental clinic rather than in prison.
6) Mental Illness cannot be used as a reason to commit evil either
Certainly. I'm glad you brought the "mental" case! I mentioned already myself in (3) above. However, there are various degrees or levels of mental illnesses. They start from simply irrational behavior and go up to complete madness. At the lower levels the individual can still think rationally and recognize the evil of his actions. As he goes up on the scale, he loses any sense of moderation to finally get totally disconnected from reality. He acts automatically, totally compulsively, in a way that would resemble instinct. So, since reasoning in such a case is inexistent one cannot talk anymore about reasons to commit evil.
Conclusion: Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil.
I am afraid that I have to disagree in that. (What a pity, the last thing I'm commenting on! :smile:)
OK, we have agreed that evil cannot be committed by mistake but only on purpose (intention).
However, in the case of mental illness one cannot talk about intention, because intention involves aiming and planning and these involve reasoning and this is missing in most cases of mental illness.
Ennui ElucidatorSeptember 22, 2021 at 16:34#5989010 likes
I assume you have been exposed to basically the same information on the different religions as I have, therefore you know clear and well they do not share my sentiments on evil.
I wouldn't make such assumptions.
You didn't answer my other question. How are sinning and evil related?
the problem with it being "religious" metaphysics is that no religion in history as ever attempted to truly separate good from bad in human beings. Rather, ALL religions have ALWAYS pronounced evil to be a choice in every human being. That is precisely what I am arguing against.
All religions that I have read about do not agree with my views. I assume you have been exposed to basically the same information on the different religions as I have, therefore you know clear and well they do not share my sentiments on evil.
I don’t have in mind religion in the way that you may be thinking about it ( the major faith groups and their doctrines of good and evil as understood in the most general and generic way). What I have in mind is a movement in philosophy dating back 400 years, commonly referred to as Rationalism. Yes, this is philosophy but it espouses a metaphysics that is theological in nature. Rationalism believes we were born with the ability to discern good from evil. We use our logical faculties to achieve this differentiation. Sounds a lot like your view. All we have to add is that in some people this innate capacity is faulty or missing ( or as you say they ‘lack consciousness’). So it sounds to me like your view is a variation on the Rationalist theme.
I’m not saying your thinking is identical with Descartes, Spinoza or Leibnitz, but it belongs within that era.
TheMadFoolSeptember 22, 2021 at 16:50#5989110 likes
Also in St Augustine's confessions, this prayer... "Lord, make me chaste—but not yet."
Where have I heard that before? :chin:
Ennui ElucidatorSeptember 22, 2021 at 17:44#5989250 likes
Also, I haven't the patience at this point to do any great googling for you, but I suggest you look into "evil" in other cultures and whether those cultures have anything to say about your type of evil (as a moral/theological matter). Buddhists make up around 6% of the world population. What does Buddhism say about evil?
The Western need to re-interpret non-Western faiths (read Christian and non-Christian) into its own religious terms does great injustice to non-Christian religions. "Evil" as such may be far less of an issue for the rest of the world than it is for you.
Reply to AlienFromEarth Do you mean absolute evil? Is your use of evil related to nouxio actions for the person taking the action, or it is refered to a gratuite hurt over anything? Perhaps to both actions into different situations, but yes. In case you are talking about actions only producing certain satisfaction by their gratuite commitment over anything, then yes those are actions that must be avoided. However absolute "evil," or noxious is beyond our capacity, due to our limitation as tiny animals.
Deleted UserSeptember 23, 2021 at 15:39#5993930 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to AlienFromEarth
Evil doesn't exist as more than a description of things made by humans, who are free to dictate to others what their description means and what prompted or justified its use. Treatment of good and evil as objective truths is nonsense as is to attempt to dictate the rules these truths operate under. Your extensive list of assertions are all baseless, you seem intent on giving them an authority they're not entitled to. Your ideas have as much legitimacy as the rules written in a book like Harry Potter for a fictional world, mere productions of your imagination, hope you at least have some reason for bothering with it.
Deleted UserSeptember 23, 2021 at 16:13#5994130 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Reply to AlienFromEarth
You could call a teapot evil, I wouldn't know how to "defeat" your argument but what I'd do in that or this circumstance, would be to tell you that your assertion lacks any utility or truth value and is uninteresting. I'm comfortable with my assertions coming from me, don't feel undermined by acknowledging them as assertions either.
Your logic can't be judged, some of your premises seem absurd, such as that humans can be consciousness, (did you mean conscienceless? that would make a lot more sense). Your logic can't be judged because "pure evil" is just some nonsense term you made up. It's like if I made a thread talking about "hyper evil" and saying certain crimes are hyper evil and some aren't, without defining what hyper evil was, totally meaningless. Meaninglessness isn't bad in some contexts, it's just pretty bad in philosophy.
Deleted UserSeptember 23, 2021 at 17:24#5994620 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
ghostlycutterSeptember 23, 2021 at 18:18#5994800 likes
Nothing is a Greater Evil encircled by Good, a Greater Good is a blue mirror that comes naturally when the encircling good cubes itself. Evil is any process against a greater good, in which the blue mirror would say no. A belief in Pure Evil is a intollerable process, against a greater good which can never be.
Nothing is a Greater Evil encircled by Good, a Greater Good is a blue mirror that comes naturally when the encircling good cubes itself
Who colored the mirror blue? Inquiring minds want to know.
Alkis PiskasSeptember 28, 2021 at 16:50#6015910 likes
Reply to AlienFromEarth
Basic courtesy dictates that you respond to someone you has replied to your topic and in fact in length ...
(Re:¨https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/598900, 6 days ago)
Comments (79)
Your argument about philosophical zombies doesn't resonate with me. Humans behave and some of that behavior is fucked up. It might be easier for us, instead of understanding the causes of fucked up behavior, to use othering or zombie style categories.
What do you think you've added to our understanding of evil?
Maybe it would assist if you presented examples of a pure evil act so we could move past theory and explore your ideas in action.
I tried to understand your post but I admit, I did not try very hard. I started to bog down and my eyes started to cross at the feeling that you said too much. That's why I can't debate you point by point. I will say this, though: Whenever I hear the term "good" I immediately ask "for who" or "for what'? Likewise, evil. I don't believe in evil. I think there is always something underlying a "bad" act or thought. And even then, I'm brought to "bad for who" and "bad for what"?
Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect. There are also unrelated third parties that benefit from the misfortune of others, intentionally or incidentally. Even if that is a microbe that chows down on a rotting carcass, or a shrink getting paid to listen to a victim work out their shit.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
What makes a person "good" and what makes a person "evil"? If merely committing an evil act makes someone "pure evil" then I suppose we are all evil, given that most of us either have committed evil acts (graded from trivial to very substantial) or will in the future. Can someone be sort of good and commit a sort of evil act? Visa versa?
Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to.
It's worse than that I think. I posted this on an old thread "What Is Evil" ... (what evil is) with links to further discussions.
:up:
Quoting James Riley
:up:
My wife has a bad temper. Sometimes, with very little provocation, she will say things to me and others that are very hurtful. There is not doubt that she does this intentionally. That cruelty is not reflected in other aspects of her life.
By your definition, I guess she's evil.
There's your problem. It isn't. :smile:
Well Plato will tell you we all live in a cave. It's a key narrative in philosophy.
That aside is being hostile really a way to engage with a topic? Could it be you are missing something? I think the other responses are nailing this. For instance:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Its strange for you to drop an OP and then act like a smug prick to everyone who responds. Get humble, your OP is not the rock solid argument you seem to think it is. At best your logic requires explaining, its not that clear to the reader where the strength of your argument lies.
You wrote:
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Quoting AlienFromEarth
No, you did not.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
You're new here, and you're kind of being an asshole. We already have at least one member who thinks philosophy is mostly insults and condescending remarks. We don't need another one. Play nice.
The moderators here are a bit trigger happy about getting rid of those who send out what are known as "low quality posts". I think yours meet their standards. I predict you won't be here long. We'll open a pool. I'm down for midnight. Any takers?
I think that's going to do it. We'll see you later.
:lol:
….
:lol:
Hysterical :rofl:
Like perfectly hysterical, from your delivery to my out loud laughter.
Look out everyone we’re all going to jail :rofl:
What are you? 10? 12?
:rofl:
Apparently my link wasn't worth you making an effort. Nevermind. :shade:
:smirk:
:up:
I was just sittimg here innocently minding my own business and you hurl an insult at me. Evil.
Totalizing theory, all counter-examples explained away, and conclusion affirmed because it is definitional.
I can't seem to get my hands on the quote but allow me to paraphrase it, the best I can.
[quote=Some saint (forgot his name)]I sinned, not towards an end, but because I loved the sin[/quote]
If you can tell me the name of the saint and the actual quote, I'd be much obliged.
Fermi Paradox
1. Are we alone? Don't know! Uncertain!
2. Are they alone? No, 100% No! Certain!
I found the quote I was looking for.
Doing evil for nothing = Pure Evil?!
[quote=Saint Augustine (Pear Tree, The Fall Of Man)]I loved not the thing for which I committed the sin but the sin itself[/quote]
A more accurate quote:
[quote=St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)]The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself.[/quote]
It's absolutele certain that we are not alone. The universe has an abundancy of life. Of course rhere is a small chance of no life being there, but then again, around every Sun-like word there are planets with life. That's no Russel's reapot.
This doesn't make any sense at all. As @TheMadFool says with his not so accurate but lovely quote:
Also you contradict yourself with it.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
If knowing good and evil is instinctual, then not knowing what good and evil is would be impossible. Hence, as "knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts" there is no evil in this world.
On the most basic level though, I see a problem with your definition of evil.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
What is justifiable and what is not is completely subjective. Hence by your definition, what is evil and what is not is completely subjective, ruling out "pure evil".
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Are you saying then that a person can commit an act they themselves consider unjustified?
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Is this not a contradiction?
I’m contending that if a person always considers their own actions justified then evil is always a mistake, never deliberate.
This is the term that has multiple definitions. Is the son of Hitler, no someone who say didn't get their ass kicked and who actually succeeded, say successfully killing off oh.. half the world's population and enslaving the other half to grueling labor and torture, not just for punishment, but often for fun.. let's take this fictional person. He has a kid. That kid is as innocent as you or I. Is he not?
Somewhere down the line, there's someone related to you who got away with unspeakable acts that by pure fact, enabled you to become the person you are today.
That said people far too frequently confuse evil with animals who simply don't know any better and thus need to be controlled. Mental illness too.
If a conscious person always considers their own actions justified but is sometimes wrong about this, then they are capable of committing an evil act that they considered justified (i.e. they’ve made a mistake). So evil doers aren’t necessarily unconscious.
Quoting Giordano Bruno
[quote=Giordano Bruno]In space there are countless constellations, suns and planets; we see only the suns because they give light; the planets remain invisible, for they are small and dark. There are also numberless earths circling around their suns.[/quote]
Giordano Bruno was, unfortunately or not, burnt at the stake for heresy. Now, no one would look askance at you for asking the same questions he did. My, my, how the times have changed.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
And intention in a conscious act; so if “evil doers” are unconscious then they aren’t capable of intention, and so aren’t capable of evil.
So this appears to be your main problem. Evil can’t both be deliberate and unconscious.
Do you think deliberation can be an unconscious act also?
Whether you know it or not, your description of evil puts your thinking in the category of ‘secular’ religion. You may have absolutely no affiliation with organized religion( thus it is secular) , but your approach is a classic example of a religious metaphysics, and not even a very modern one at that. It is incompatible with the implications of evolutionary biology as well as modern psychology.
I agree. But I also say that those organisms providing the intentions can do so precisely because they are conscious, and intentions spring from consciousness.
If evil doers are on your terms unconscious just as robots are, then they can’t actually intend anything and so are not capable of evil.
Even if they’re unconscious?
This is what I’m getting at. If an evil doer is unconscious then they lack that intention.
Have you studied all religions for all of time?
What is the relationship between sinning and doing evil?
It seems to me that we’re going in loops because your view isn’t coherent and you’re being obtuse about it.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
If an organism is unconscious then in what sense can it “set out to do something”? Is the fact that a robot doesn’t have its own intentions not a consequence of it being unconscious?
@AlienFromEarth
I'm glad. I was in a bad mood yesterday. When I saw how upset he was, I knew I'd gone too far.
Maybe true for those who defend themselves. Not for the attacker, whose purpose is only to dominate, exploit, get profit, and so on.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
BTW, there's no such a thing as "instinctual knowledge". An instinct is an innate behavior in response to certain stimuli. And knowledge refers to facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. It involves reasoning and it includes evaluation of good and evil. Instinct doesn't. It's just automatic reaction.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
I agree.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
What acts? I suppose that the word "evil" or "bad" is missing, right?
Well, does knowing what is good for you prevent me from harming you? This in fact could be called a "conscious evil act".
Neither knowledge of evil prevents one from harming others.
So, it's not knowledge that prevents someone from doing harm. It's "personal ethics". It one's ethical level. It goes on a scale from immoral (unethical) to amoral (lacking etches) to moral (ethical)
Quoting AlienFromEarth
This might happen but it's not usually the case. A good --I prefer "ethical"-- person can go easily astray and commit a bad action. But he will know, he will be aware that he did something bad. It is the evil ("unethical") person who usually manages to "unknow" what evil is, i.e. to hide, burry the evil nature of his acts. That's why most really unethical persons cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad". They are characterized by "no remorse". They are actually mentally ill. That's why when such a condition is established in courts, the culpable is sent usually to a mental clinic rather than in prison.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Certainly!
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Certainly!
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Certainly. I'm glad you brought the "mental" case! I mentioned already myself in (3) above. However, there are various degrees or levels of mental illnesses. They start from simply irrational behavior and go up to complete madness. At the lower levels the individual can still think rationally and recognize the evil of his actions. As he goes up on the scale, he loses any sense of moderation to finally get totally disconnected from reality. He acts automatically, totally compulsively, in a way that would resemble instinct. So, since reasoning in such a case is inexistent one cannot talk anymore about reasons to commit evil.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
I am afraid that I have to disagree in that. (What a pity, the last thing I'm commenting on! :smile:)
OK, we have agreed that evil cannot be committed by mistake but only on purpose (intention).
However, in the case of mental illness one cannot talk about intention, because intention involves aiming and planning and these involve reasoning and this is missing in most cases of mental illness.
I wouldn't make such assumptions.
You didn't answer my other question. How are sinning and evil related?
As an aside. Egoism
Also, you might look into the role of freewill in religion. See theological determinism.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
I don’t have in mind religion in the way that you may be thinking about it ( the major faith groups and their doctrines of good and evil as understood in the most general and generic way). What I have in mind is a movement in philosophy dating back 400 years, commonly referred to as Rationalism. Yes, this is philosophy but it espouses a metaphysics that is theological in nature. Rationalism believes we were born with the ability to discern good from evil. We use our logical faculties to achieve this differentiation. Sounds a lot like your view. All we have to add is that in some people this innate capacity is faulty or missing ( or as you say they ‘lack consciousness’). So it sounds to me like your view is a variation on the Rationalist theme.
I’m not saying your thinking is identical with Descartes, Spinoza or Leibnitz, but it belongs within that era.
Where have I heard that before? :chin:
The Western need to re-interpret non-Western faiths (read Christian and non-Christian) into its own religious terms does great injustice to non-Christian religions. "Evil" as such may be far less of an issue for the rest of the world than it is for you.
Evil doesn't exist as more than a description of things made by humans, who are free to dictate to others what their description means and what prompted or justified its use. Treatment of good and evil as objective truths is nonsense as is to attempt to dictate the rules these truths operate under. Your extensive list of assertions are all baseless, you seem intent on giving them an authority they're not entitled to. Your ideas have as much legitimacy as the rules written in a book like Harry Potter for a fictional world, mere productions of your imagination, hope you at least have some reason for bothering with it.
You could call a teapot evil, I wouldn't know how to "defeat" your argument but what I'd do in that or this circumstance, would be to tell you that your assertion lacks any utility or truth value and is uninteresting. I'm comfortable with my assertions coming from me, don't feel undermined by acknowledging them as assertions either.
Your logic can't be judged, some of your premises seem absurd, such as that humans can be consciousness, (did you mean conscienceless? that would make a lot more sense). Your logic can't be judged because "pure evil" is just some nonsense term you made up. It's like if I made a thread talking about "hyper evil" and saying certain crimes are hyper evil and some aren't, without defining what hyper evil was, totally meaningless. Meaninglessness isn't bad in some contexts, it's just pretty bad in philosophy.
Who colored the mirror blue? Inquiring minds want to know.
Basic courtesy dictates that you respond to someone you has replied to your topic and in fact in length ...
(Re:¨https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/598900, 6 days ago)