# If you had to design a test that determined if something was EVIL what would it look like?



## Makalakumu

If you had to design a test for something that was evil, what would it look like?  Once you design your Evil Test, what kinds of things would it classify as Evil?


----------



## Buka

Sounds interesting, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.

You mean like, passing the Bar Exam?   (couldn't resist)


----------



## Cyriacus

I really dont find anything to be Evil. 
Despicable? Sure.
Senseless? Sure.
Disgusting? Sure.
Appalling? Sure.
Evil? Not so much, since Good and Evil are subject to the individual.

I can make one fun reference here.
WW2.
*Were the Civilians who supported the Wehrmacht Soldiers and such on parades of Their own free will Evil, for supporting the Faction?
No, because Germany was under alot of pressure at the time, and discontent with other Nations was already breeding a bit amongst the Commoners. Of course Theyd support something contrary to that.
*Were the Wehrmacht Soldiers they were supporting evil, though? No, because They were fighting for Their Country, by order of Officers.
Therefore, is it still even potentially Evil, for the already-found-to-be Not-Evil Civilians to support the Not-Evil Soldiers?
*So were the Officers Evil?
No. The Officers were directed by Commanders.
*Were the Commanders Evil?
No. Even if They ordered Atrocities, They didnt order the Atrocities. They were given the freedom to conduct Them in the interests of Victory. Permitted by the Hierarchy of the Government.
*Was the Nazi Government Evil?
One might then say, the Nazi Government answered to Their Fuhrer. But...
*Was Hitler Evil?
The most Evil thing Hitler did, was allow His Heirarchs and Generals the Freedom to use Unnecessary Force.
*So WAS the Nazi Government Evil?
Some of the Acts ordered by some of the Generals/Commanders and Politicians surely were.
But, They believed They were acting Righteously. It is only others who may call Them evil, as well as those who dared to agree with Them at the time, or support them.
But apparently, Stalin isnt Evil for slaughtering and destroying His way through Germany later on.

Its all subject to the beholder.
So I prefer to use any word that isnt Evil, to describe someones deeds.


----------



## Dirty Dog

"Does this cause avoidable harm to others?"

I believe it was Robert Heinlein who said "The only sin is hurting another. Hurting yourself isn't a sin. It's just stupid."


----------



## Bill Mattocks

If I don't get my coffee in the morning, I'm evil.  Otherwise, everything's OK.


----------



## Jenna

Makalakumu said:


> If you had to design a test for something that was evil, what would it look like?  Once you design your Evil Test, what kinds of things would it classify as Evil?


Another provoking question.  Thank you.

My test for evil would be based on catching any action that had the intention of causing deliberate harm or damage, that action being in the absence of the perception of, or desire for, any long term mitigation upon the subject of that harm or damage.

It would catch almost everything except chocolate.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Jenna said:


> It would catch almost everything except chocolate.



No no no....chocolate is not evil! Chocolate is the Root of Earthly Goodness.

Or as my wife says... "Step away from the chocolate and nobody has to get hurt..."


----------



## Tez3

Cyriacus said:


> I really dont find anything to be Evil.
> Despicable? Sure.
> Senseless? Sure.
> Disgusting? Sure.
> Appalling? Sure.
> Evil? Not so much, since Good and Evil are subject to the individual.
> 
> I can make one fun reference here.
> WW2.
> *Were the Civilians who supported the Wehrmacht Soldiers and such on parades of Their own free will Evil, for supporting the Faction?
> No, because Germany was under alot of pressure at the time, and discontent with other Nations was already breeding a bit amongst the Commoners. Of course Theyd support something contrary to that.
> *Were the Wehrmacht Soldiers they were supporting evil, though? No, because They were fighting for Their Country, by order of Officers.
> Therefore, is it still even potentially Evil, for the already-found-to-be Not-Evil Civilians to support the Not-Evil Soldiers?
> *So were the Officers Evil?
> No. The Officers were directed by Commanders.
> *Were the Commanders Evil?
> No. Even if They ordered Atrocities, They didnt order the Atrocities. They were given the freedom to conduct Them in the interests of Victory. Permitted by the Hierarchy of the Government.
> *Was the Nazi Government Evil?
> One might then say, the Nazi Government answered to Their Fuhrer. But...
> *Was Hitler Evil?
> The most Evil thing Hitler did, was allow His Heirarchs and Generals the Freedom to use Unnecessary Force.
> *So WAS the Nazi Government Evil?
> Some of the Acts ordered by some of the Generals/Commanders and Politicians surely were.
> But, They believed They were acting Righteously. It is only others who may call Them evil, as well as those who dared to agree with Them at the time, or support them.
> But apparently, Stalin isnt Evil for slaughtering and destroying His way through Germany later on.
> 
> Its all subject to the beholder.
> So I prefer to use any word that isnt Evil, to describe someones deeds.





 I think to be honest you are being very naive in your thinking here, the everyday atrocities committed by the ordinary 'man in the street' were many and they _were_ evil. The stoning of Jews and others in the street, the looting of their shops, the beatings, the informing on neighbours, the endless horrors committed by people who could just have easily not done it shouldn't be overlooked. To imagine that an 'innocent' people were led by monsters is incorrect.


----------



## Cyriacus

Tez3 said:


> I think to be honest you are being very naive in your thinking here, the everyday atrocities committed by the ordinary 'man in the street' were many and they _were_ evil. The stoning of Jews and others in the street, the looting of their shops, the beatings, the informing on neighbours, the endless horrors committed by people who could just have easily not done it shouldn't be overlooked. To imagine that an 'innocent' people were led by monsters is incorrect.


I never said Their actions werent wrong.
Im saying that to Them, They were working to an end that They believed in. If I called them Evil, They are only Evil to Me.
And again, what about the Soviets? What about everything They did?

As for Innocent People being led by Monsters, if that was interprited out of something I said, it certainly isnt what I meant.

Ultimately, Im saying call it what it is.
Atrocities.
Criminal.
Senseless.
Misdirected.
Despicable.
But its only from Our Perspective, that those deeds were Evil.
"_No, because Germany was under alot of pressure at the time, and discontent with other Nations was already breeding a bit amongst the Commoners. Of course Theyd support something contrary to that."
_So now, hows about those Riots in Egypt? Since there were stonings, and burnings, are They all now Evil as well? Or is it just that because the German People were provoked by the results of the Treaty of Versailles, among other things... Oh, wait. Thats perhaps an even better reason to be angry with the state of national affairs. Of course They were angry. And when that anger could be pointed at other Europeon Countries, and the Jews, of course They became Violent. Im not saying its justified, Im saying that to THEM, THEY justified it to themselves, clearly. Since those were very regular occurances.

Ill leave You with that for now, I dont want to play every card right away.


----------



## Tez3

I'm sorry but whitewashing what the 'everyday' German people did and blaming it on their leaders is being ignorant of history. Informing on your neighbours so you could get your hands on their house and/or belongings isn't being driven by any political beliefs. Germany wasn't under any pressure that any other coutnry wasn't at the time, America was going through a huge recession but didn't go down this road. I think also you undersestimate the level of anti semitism that has always been in Germany. You are taking the view that many who haven't been affected by the Holocaust take, that of oh dear, the German people aren't responisble for their evil but it was all that nasty man's fault. Sorry it doesn't wash.


----------



## Cyriacus

Tez3 said:


> I'm sorry but whitewashing what the 'everyday' German people did and blaming it on their leaders is being ignorant of history.
> 
> *Slow down. Im not doing that at all. I trailed off about why the People were acceptant of the Conflict. I wasnt trying to shift blame.**
> 
> Informing on your neighbours so you could get your hands on their house and/or belongings isn't being driven by any political beliefs.
> 
> *Nope. It isnt. Its exploiting the fact that You can, which is self righteous and rather appalling.*
> 
> Germany wasn't under any pressure that any other coutnry wasn't at the time, America was going through a huge recession but didn't go down this road.
> 
> *The main terms of the Treaty of Versailles were:*
> *War Guilt Clause - Germany should accept the blame for starting World War One*
> *Reparations - Germany had to pay £6,600 million for the damage caused by the war*
> *Disarmament - Germany was only allowed to have a small army and six naval ships. No tanks, no airforce and no submarines were allowed. The Rhineland area was to be de-militarised.*
> *Territorial Clauses - Land was taken away from Germany and given to other countries. Anschluss (union with Austria) was forbidden.
> Other Countries had all that, did They?*
> 
> I think also you undersestimate the level of anti semitism that has always been in Germany.
> 
> *No, I dont. That Anti Semitism is a part of the point Im trying to make.***
> 
> You are taking the view that many who haven't been affected by the Holocaust take, that of oh dear, the German people aren't responisble for their evil but it was all that nasty man's fault.
> 
> *Im sorry, but at NO POINT did I even begin to imply that. How many times have I said that I am simply not using the word Evil, because it would only be Evil from MY Perspective? To them, were WE not Their Enemy? Or did They look at Us as the Good Guys? And I also CLEARLY said earlier...****
> 
> Sorry it doesn't wash.



*"And when that anger could be pointed at other Europeon Countries, and the Jews, of course They became Violent. Im not saying its justified, Im saying that to THEM, THEY justified it to themselves, clearly. Since those were very regular occurances." - Was in regards to Civilians. Not Governments.

**"Of course They were angry. And when that anger could be pointed at other Europeon Countries, and the Jews," - Notice how I said, and the Jews? How else do You figure I concluded that Jews would be in the spectrum to begin with, other than the Anti Semitism already present?

***"
*Was the Nazi Government Evil?
One might then say, the Nazi Government answered to Their Fuhrer. But...
*Was Hitler Evil?
The most Evil thing Hitler did, was allow His Heirarchs and Generals the Freedom to use Unnecessary Force.
*So WAS the Nazi Government Evil?
Some of the Acts ordered by some of the Generals/Commanders and Politicians surely were."
- So perhaps I should also need mention that the Civilian Populace were allowed the same Freedoms? Did I seriously need to capitulate on that? In the first post I was mostly going for the causes of the hostility within the Country to begin with.
_EDIT_: Also, I was trying, but apparently failing, to make it clear here that no one party was wholly to blame, outside of the fact that noone was stopping them. And that isnt meant to be the focus, its just Me daring to mention that They werent trying to knuckle down on these violent occurances. And I wonder why that would be.

So what is this? A "How Dare I Condemn Them But Not Condemn Them With The Word Evil" situation here?


----------



## Tez3

Your history is way off actually the causes of the Second World War go way back to wars that happened in Europe long before, the cause of the First World War was far more than just a squabble between Royalty. You need to take a good look at European history and then realise that the Germans weren't under any pressure that other countries weren't under. Nothing that happens in Europe is unconnected, it's a long game of consquences. The Germans didn't sudenly up and decide to have the First World War which then lead onto the second. Look deeper into the history rather than just glossing over with cliches.


----------



## harlan

Years ago I conceived of the perfect weapon...an "A"-bomb...that only kills A...well...you know. 
The problem with it is I realized that I might use it and what if the person I was talking to dropped dead? All that time, my friend had been an 'A', maybe to someone else, and I'd not realized it. 

Got me to thinking, 'What was the difference between us? What if I'M an "A" and don't realize it?' LOL!


----------



## Cyriacus

Tez3 said:


> Your history is way off actually the causes of the Second World War go way back to wars that happened in Europe long before,
> 
> *Oh, Ok. I guess I made a mistake by isolating one part of the cause, and not writing a full historical recount of the Causes of the War. Would You like Me to copypaste as many complete articles about it as I can, so that Im not missing anything? Becuase if itll appease You, I will. Also, at what point was something I said not Historically Correct? How is My History way off, when it seems to be pretty much the same as Yours? The main difference is that You seem to be discussing the causes and effects of WW2 and Race Crimes, whilst I was using it as a reference point for why I dont like calling anything Evil?*
> 
> the cause of the First World War was far more than just a squabble between Royalty.
> 
> *Aha.*
> 
> You need to take a good look at European history and then realise that the Germans weren't under any pressure that other countries weren't under.
> 
> *So there were other Countries that were forced to practically Demilitarize Themselves and give away Territory? Im genuinely asking for examples of other Countries at the time, I am curious.*
> 
> Nothing that happens in Europe is unconnected, it's a long game of consquences. The Germans didn't sudenly up and decide to have the First World War which then lead onto the second.
> 
> *Again with My offer to copypaste Articles.
> And I never, ever said that it did that.*
> 
> Look deeper into the history rather than just glossing over with cliches.
> 
> *And at what point did I do that? At what point have I not acknowledged, and on a couple of points even gone on to show that I acknowledged Them before You brought them up, what Youre saying here? Im sitting here trying to explain why Im using words to describe their actions other than Evil. I was originally using WW2 as an example of how to Them, They werent the Enemy. To Us, They were the Enemy. It was an example of how similar reasoning can be applied to Good and Evil.*



I await Your Response.


----------



## Tez3

Sometimes evil is just that ...evil, there is no other word.

The Germans Allies in the First World War also lost territories, were demilitarised etc but much of what was in the Treaty of Versailles was at the instigation of the French who had lost the previous war to the Germans who had imposed the same hard conditions on the French when they surrendered.

I think your reasoing that the Germans were just the enemy to us and therefore not evil, doesn't stand up. We've had plenty of wars where the enemy is just that - the enemy, the acts of the majority of people in the Axis _were_ actually evil though. It was a war unlike the others we have had. There was tremendous acts of cruelty and yes evil.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Evil is subjective and highly dependant on the society in which you are trying to define evil and it is also highly dependant on the time period in which you are trying to define it. 

And of course as tez has already said



Tez3 said:


> Sometimes evil is just that ...evil



Other than that all I got is 
:yinyang:


----------



## Cyriacus

Tez3 said:


> Sometimes evil is just that ...evil, there is no other word.
> 
> The Germans Allies in the First World War also lost territories, were demilitarised etc but much of what was in the Treaty of Versailles was at the instigation of the French who had lost the previous war to the Germans who had imposed the same hard conditions on the French when they surrendered.
> 
> *And how many Countries then proceeded to join Germany for their second go at Warfare?**
> Namely, Germany Japan and Italy. Italy got a bad deal out of it as well, from the Treaty of Versailles, and then proceeded to sign the Tripartite Pact. Based on a similar Anger at the other Nations.
> *
> *I guess I also have to add this: Did France have the opportunity that Italy did? And this is about WW2; WW1 is a whole other topic. With the exception of the elements which lead to WW2.*
> 
> I think your reasoing that the Germans were just the enemy to us and therefore not evil, doesn't stand up.
> 
> *Ill present it another way: When the Soviets made Their way to Berlin, They were progressively slaughtering German Soldiers, and people. There were Rapes, Shootings, Burnt Buildings, and so forth. Are They Good, just because They were Fighting Evil? Im inclined to say Yes, if I were forced to call the Germans Evil. But to Them, They, who believed Themselves to be the good guys, were facing vicious retribution. The Italians and Japanese, and Russians had best join in with being Evil.*
> 
> We've had plenty of wars where the enemy is just that - the enemy, the acts of the majority of people in the Axis _were_ actually evil though.
> 
> *And this is what I was trying to say, as well. They had the Freedom to commit Atrocities, with no consequence. And They had some anger to point at something. So, They point it at the things They were already inclined to Hate, and the things They were told to Hate. To Us, to our perhaps sounder minds, this is evil. To them, it was Retribution. Much like the Soviet Retributions against Germany.*
> 
> It was a war unlike the others we have had. There was tremendous acts of cruelty
> 
> *Ive acknowledged that many times now.*
> 
> and yes evil.
> 
> *Evil as it is viewed by us - Viewing them as Our Enemy, and as the wrongdoers. Where to them, they were the ones who started the conflict. They started it because They felt that They were doing what They believed was... Right is not the correct word. But like You Yourself said: They didnt just up and start WW2. And the People werent exactly opposed to it. *



Im still trying to work out how exactly Ive "being very naive" in My Thinking, when We seem to agree, in all but the fact that I stated that in My personal opinion, I prefer to attribute these acts of Cruelty and Atrocity, to words like, well, Cruelty and Atrocity. Where You clearly prefer evil.
Somehow this lead straight onto...
_"I'm sorry but whitewashing what the 'everyday' German people did and blaming it on their leaders is being ignorant of history."_
_"You are taking the view that many who haven't been affected by the Holocaust take, that of oh dear, the German people aren't responisble for their evil but it was all that nasty man's fault. Sorry it doesn't wash."_
_"Your history is way off actually the causes of the Second World War go way back to wars that happened in Europe long before, the cause of the First World War was far more than just a squabble between Royalty. "_
_"Look deeper into the history rather than just glossing over with cliches."

_Hence why in My second Reply, I suggested slowing down. Because clearly there was some kind of misconception which only now seems to be dieing down. We have yet to disagree on any aspect of History. This, really, has all been over You being willing to just call it Evil, which I could then go on to say is using a blanket term by Your own definitions, and Im not doing that, because its as well founded as Me choosing to use specific terms, instead of a blanket term, so as to avoid naming Myself as being so very right, where They were clearly all just wrong about quite alot of things,* especially from My Perspective.*


----------



## Cyriacus

Xue Sheng said:


> Evil is subjective and highly dependant on the society in which you are trying to define evil and it is also highly dependant on the time period in which you are trying to define it.
> 
> And of course as tez has already said
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that all I got is
> :yinyang:





Cyriacus said:


> ...since Good and Evil are subject to the individual.
> Its all subject to the beholder.
> So I prefer to use any word that isnt Evil, to describe someones deeds.



I used an Analogy.
You didnt.
Perhaps Your Statement will come across better.


----------



## Tez3

Perhaps I call it evil because the Germans killed all my mother's family? Perhaps too because I've heard so many people's* first hand *histories of the acts of evil that were committed in Germany and the countries they occupied. Call me biased of course if you like...


----------



## Cyriacus

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps I call it evil because the Germans killed all my mother's family?
> 
> *My Grandmothers Parents were killed in an Air Raid, and My Grandfather was a POW. Youre not the only person here with a European Family. She became a Refugee, and doesnt know what happened to the rest of Her Family.*
> 
> Perhaps too because I've heard so many people's* first hand *histories of the acts of evil that were committed in Germany and the countries they occupied.
> 
> *Im only bringing up that one could also seek out German Families accounts of Soviet Soldiers slaughtering Germans. And that We can then call it Less Evil, because it was done to Evil.*
> 
> Call me biased of course if you like...
> 
> *Notice how I have done little but criticize Their actions, and call them Atrocious? For the last time, Were agreeing on everything here but how We choose to use one word. Youre using it as a blanket term, where Im preferring to use more specific terms. Theres nothing wrong with that, and our reasoning is pretty much aligned. I brought up every criticism You made, because Id like to know where it call came from. Because while I didnt mind that You disagreed, I couldnt quite see what We were disagreeing upon, other than how We choose to use one word.*



I await Your Reply.


----------



## rframe

Makalakumu said:


> If you had to design a test for something that was evil, what would it look like?  Once you design your Evil Test, what kinds of things would it classify as Evil?



This test already exists, it's called:  a mirror.

Have person stand in front of mirror, if they have a reflection... they're evil.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps I call it evil because the Germans killed all my mother's family? Perhaps too because I've heard so many people's first hand histories of the acts of evil that were committed in Germany and the countries they occupied. Call me biased of course if you like...



Nope... because you're not, Germany, or more to the point some Germans, committed horrendous acts that I could only call evil as did the Japanese of that same period in history. Not all Germans from that period were evil or coud be called evil by association with the acts they committed . Call Hitler or Mengele evil or many of the Third Reich evil and you would get no argument form me. Call my freshman year in college German teacher evil, who was in Berlin during WW II and I would not agree. He was a small child trying to survive at the end of the war as German and Russian troops shot through the floors of the building he lived in trying to kill each other as his family hid where ever they could. He remembers a Russian soilder kicking in thier door and shooting through the ceiling actually. Now if you wanted to call him a jerk I&#8217;d agree with that&#8230;he grew upto be one.. but evil, just because he is German and was there during the war...no

However Germany is not necessarily evil and Germany of the21st century is not the same Germany of the 30s and 40s either.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cyriacus said:


> I used an Analogy.
> You didnt.
> Perhaps Your Statement will come across better.



aaa no, I said what I wanted to say and that is all...did not need the analogy...just stating facts as I see them and have learned them based on history, pshychology and sociology.

Not exactly sure what you were getting at with that response actually. My post was more to the OP than anything else but I can see why there would be confusion there since I forgot to quote him


----------



## Cyriacus

Xue Sheng said:


> aaa no, I said what I wanted to say and that is all...did not need the analogy...just stating facts as I see them and have learned them based on history, pshychology and sociology.
> 
> Not exactly sure what you were getting at with that response actually. My post was more to the OP than anything else but I can see why there would be confusion there since I forgot to quote him



I was acknowledging that perhaps using an Analogy was the wrong way to go about responding. At the time, I just decided to use an analogy, is all.
The result of that Analogy was an exchange of words.

Does that clear it up for You?


----------



## MA-Caver

What is evil and what is good?
Only our hearts can decide that.

Once you've determined that then you can design a test. 
For me it's simple... I ask my heart how I feel about this that or the other thing/person/place... then I act accordingly to my heart's desires.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cyriacus said:


> *[/COLOR]*Was Hitler Evil?
> The most Evil thing Hitler did, was allow His Heirarchs and Generals the Freedom to use Unnecessary Force.




Umm you may want to check the history on that one as to how much influence Hitler actually had, it is well documented

Also you may want to check the history on the Rise of Hitler and the Third Reich.


----------



## Cyriacus

Xue Sheng said:


> Umm you may want to check the history on that one as to how much influence Hitler actually had, it is well documented
> 
> Also you may want to check the history on the Rise of Hitler and the Third Reich.
> 
> [/COLOR]



Here we go, Good Sir.
I never said He didnt. I said, "_The most Evil thing Hitler did,"
_Not the Only. The MOST.
And the fact that He did allow those Freedoms did lead to a fair few of the negative outcomes.

EDIT: By which I mean, that He gave the Instructions and allowed the Freedoms, alot more than He actually did the work Himself.
Id be inclined to call the people who went out and committed the deeds more Evil than He was for allowing it, or asking for it.


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Nope... because you're not, Germany, or more to the point some Germans, committed horrendous acts that I could only call evil as did the Japanese of that same period in history. Not all Germans from that period were evil or coud be called evil by association with the acts they committed . Call Hitler or Mengele evil or many of the Third Reich evil and you would get no argument form me. Call my freshman year in college German teacher evil, who was in Berlin during WW II and I would not agree. He was a small child trying to survive at the end of the war as German and Russian troops shot through the floors of the building he lived in trying to kill each other as his family hid where ever they could. He remembers a Russian soilder kicking in thier door and shooting through the ceiling actually. Now if you wanted to call him a jerk I&#8217;d agree with that&#8230;he grew upto be one.. but evil, just because he is German and was there during the war...no
> 
> However Germany is not necessarily evil and Germany of the21st century is not the same Germany of the 30s and 40s either.





I didn't say the Germans were evil or that modern Germany was evil. The point I was trying to make is that the argument that Cyriacus puts forward that only the German High command and politicians did 'bad' things and that no 'evil' was done in Germany is false. He is trying to say that because they were the enemy we are demonising them. I was pointing out that acts of evil were committed by 'ordinary' people and that this couldn't be blamed on Hitler or 'pressures from the First World War. He's determined that the word 'evil' should be used but for the horrors that were committed by people what other word would do? 
I know what happened to my family, the died in the camps where a huge number of evil acts happened, I don't think you can get around or excuse acts such as happened there with semantics.
Evil exists ie evil is nailing babies to trees in the Balkans, saying you want to use different words for evil is not facing up to what is happening.


----------



## Cyriacus

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say the Germans were evil or that modern Germany was evil. The point I was trying to make is that the argument that Cyriacus puts forward that only the German High command and politicians did 'bad' things
> 
> *Ok, apparently I havent cleared this up at all. Because that still wasnt what I was ever saying. I said at one point, that the Higher Command and Politicians allowed it. And I never implied that ONLY They did it, and if I did, it certainly wasnt intentional.*
> 
> and that no 'evil' was done in Germany is false.
> 
> *Aha.
> *
> He is trying to say that because they were the enemy we are demonising them.
> 
> *Were not demonising Them, so much as singling Them out to be the Demons. Which was also meant to be the point. Hence why Ive brought up Russia many times now. *
> 
> I was pointing out that acts of evil were committed by 'ordinary' people and that this couldn't be blamed on Hitler or 'pressures from the First World War.
> 
> *Which I acknowledged, and on a couple of notes, noted that I had already acknowledged that.*
> 
> He's determined that the word 'evil' should be used but for the horrors that were committed by people what other word would do?
> 
> *Ive determined that I prefer to use specific terms, instead of a blanket statement. Nothing more.*
> 
> I know what happened to my family, the died in the camps where a huge number of evil acts happened, I don't think you can get around or excuse acts such as happened there with semantics.
> 
> *I NEVER TRIED TO EXCUSE THE ACTIONS. On many occassions here in This Thread, I have condemned them. But somehow, You are repeatedly overlooking that.*
> 
> Evil exists ie evil is nailing babies to trees in the Balkans, saying you want to use different words for evil is not facing up to what is happening.
> 
> *When did I try to deny any of this was happening? At what point, did I deny that Atrocities were committed? I ask again:*



So what is this? A "How Dare I Condemn Them But Not Condemn Them With The Word Evil" situation here?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cyriacus said:


> I was acknowledging that perhaps using an Analogy was the wrong way to go about responding. At the time, I just decided to use an analogy, is all.
> The result of that Analogy was an exchange of words.
> 
> Does that clear it up for You?


 Clears it up for me as to what you were trying to say andthat you are missing the point of what Iam saying. Your analogy, IMO, is anover simplification of a very complex issue.

Evil is subjective and highly dependent on the society inwhich you are trying to define evil and it is also highly dependent on the timeperiod in which you are trying to define it. 

based on your analogy we agree it is subjective however itis subjective based on the society you are talking about as it applies to history.What may have been called evil 1000 years ago may not be called evil now andwhat may have not been called evil 1000 years ago may be called evil now. Andwhat one society calls evil may not be thought of as evil by another and thefurther you get from the current time we live in the more murky that canbecome.

I also do not agree using words that are not evil todescribe someone&#8217;s deeds if in fact I see them or they are judge by history asevil. Yes Hitler may have once helped an old lady across the Straße but ultimatelyhe is evil and ordering exterminations of thousands would constitute an act ofevil and his complicity in an evil act thereby &#8220;evil&#8221;. Stalin killed thousandsand even though he played a big part in helping overthrow Hitler he too hasproven to be mostly evil by deeds. And I do not think I would attempt todescribe Pol Pot in non-evil ways either. Although he may have done some goodin his life he also committed great acts of evil.

IMO, looking at people and focusing only on describing themin ways based on deeds in words that are not evil is denying or ignoring whatthe person actually did or who they were.


----------



## Cyriacus

Xue Sheng said:


> Clears it up for me as to what you were trying to say andthat you are missing the point of what Iam saying. Your analogy, IMO, is anover simplification of a very complex issue.
> 
> *I realise this. Which is why I acknowledged that perhaps saying less, is being clearer.*
> 
> Evil is subjective and highly dependent on the society inwhich you are trying to define evil and it is also highly dependent on the timeperiod in which you are trying to define it.
> 
> based on your analogy we agree it is subjective however itis subjective based on the society you are talking about as it applies to history.What may have been called evil 1000 years ago may not be called evil now andwhat may have not been called evil 1000 years ago may be called evil now. Andwhat one society calls evil may not be thought of as evil by another and thefurther you get from the current time we live in the more murky that canbecome.
> 
> *Yes. And I never denied that.*
> 
> I also do not agree using words that are not evil todescribe someone&#8217;s deeds if in fact I see them or they are judge by history asevil.
> 
> *If I were to choose to not use specific words, I would readily call them Evil. Am I not permitted to hold a preference in this matter, or defend it, without being accused of not acknowledging, or being blinkered to, these harsh acts both then and now?*
> 
> Yes Hitler may have once helped an old lady across the Straße but ultimatelyhe is evil and ordering exterminations of thousands would constitute an act ofevil and his complicity in an evil act thereby &#8220;evil&#8221;. Stalin killed thousandsand even though he played a big part in helping overthrow Hitler he too hasproven to be mostly evil by deeds.
> 
> *You realise that this makes us in Agreement?* EDIT: And Id better say "On that part of things", before that gets misread.*
> 
> And I do not think I would attempt todescribe Pol Pot in non-evil ways either. Although he may have done some goodin his life he also committed great acts of evil.
> 
> *He has committed acts of Evil. He has commited cruel atrocities. So if I use the second statement, Im blinkered to whats going on, apparently.*
> 
> IMO, looking at people and focusing only on describing themin ways based on deeds in words that are not evil is denying or ignoring whatthe person actually did or who they were.
> 
> *There deeds make them Evil, correct? And what constitutes evil? Disturbing acts of unjust and unfair cruelty? Genocides? I prefer to call them that, instead of using one term to summarize it. Thats all Ive ever been saying, from the very start.*


**Were not demonising Them, so much as singling Them out to be the Demons. Which was also meant to be the point. Hence why Ive brought up Russia many times now. 

*Also, Ill point out incase it isnt clear, that Im not trying to prove anyone wrong, or Myself right. And I consider this to be an interesting debate, for the very reason We dont seem to be agreeing.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say the Germans were evil or that modern Germany was evil. The point I was trying to make is that the argument that Cyriacus puts forward that only the German High command and politicians did 'bad' things and that no 'evil' was done in Germany is false. He is trying to say that because they were the enemy we are demonising them. I was pointing out that acts of evil were committed by 'ordinary' people and that this couldn't be blamed on Hitler or 'pressures from the First World War. He's determined that the word 'evil' should be used but for the horrors that were committed by people what other word would do?
> I know what happened to my family, the died in the camps where a huge number of evil acts happened, I don't think you can get around or excuse acts such as happened there with semantics.
> Evil exists ie evil is nailing babies to trees in the Balkans, saying you want to use different words for evil is not facing up to what is happening.



We do not disagree.... well I do a bit...maybe...not exactlysure.... yes there was evil done by Germans that were not in the high commandand the history of Germany between WWII and WWI is very complicated and I do notwant to type that much at the moment...or ever... so I will not get into thathere, basically there were a lot of contributing factors both from inside andoutside of Germany but none of that excuses Nazi death camps

There is a question I have heard however as it applies toGermany during WWII. Was the average German citizen responsible for orcomplicit in that evil acts done by ot ordered by other Germans jsut becausethey did nothing or because they were powerless to do nothing?

And for the record I did not have any family that wentthrough what yours did but I did have family in WW II and an Uncle on thebeaches on D-Day who did survived D-day and did get off the beach, he also survivedthe war but once he got off the beaches stepped over a dead German soldier whowas booby trapped and my uncle spent some time in the hospital form that.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cyriacus said:


> Here we go, Good Sir.
> I never said He didnt. I said, "_The most Evil thing Hitler did,"
> _Not the Only. The MOST.
> And the fact that He did allow those Freedoms did lead to a fair few of the negative outcomes.
> 
> EDIT: By which I mean, that He gave the Instructions and allowed the Freedoms, alot more than He actually did the work Himself.
> Id be inclined to call the people who went out and committed the deeds more Evil than He was for allowing it, or asking for it.



Nope, he gave orders, not instructions, to have things done or those that he ordered to do them would be replaced or shot.... he flat stopped listineing to his Generals as the war went on actually... like I said...you need to check your history...it is rather well documented.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cyriacus said:


> **Were not demonising Them, so much as singling Them out to be the Demons. Which was also meant to be the point. Hence why Ive brought up Russia many times now.
> 
> *Also, Ill point out incase it isnt clear, that Im not trying to prove anyone wrong, or Myself right. And I consider this to be an interesting debate, for the very reason We dont seem to be agreeing.



You do realize that bold, in a web discusion, is taken as yelling don't you?


----------



## Cyriacus

Xue Sheng said:


> Nope, he gave orders, not instructions, to have things done or those that he ordered to do them would be replaced or shot....
> 
> *Ok Good Sir. One thing. "He Instructed Them to Shoot Him." "He Ordered Them to Shoot Him." - This may just be a difference in what I was taught and what You were, but I wasnt aware of a tremendous difference between saying that a person in a position of Authority gives an Instruction or an Order. If Im mistaken in that, Im more than willing to commit that to memory.*
> 
> he flat stopped listineing to his Generals as the war went on actually...
> 
> *I know that. And how exactly is that relevant to the matter at hand? They werent exactly arresting Civilians for committing Hate Crimes. They had the Freedom to do it. Freedom He allowed. Where did I say He was listening to His Generals? All I said, was that He pretty much gave Them heavyhanded orders, then set them loose.*
> 
> like I said...you need to check your history...it is rather well documented.
> 
> *I have been, as we go along. And this was never intended to be a fully documented History Lesson courtesy of Me: Your additional MartialTalk user. It was an Analogy. Im almost inclined to just do this:*


Question:
If I suddenly, for the sake of Conversation, Concurred, and agreed to use the Word Evil, and then that that Hitler was Evil, the Nazis were Evil, Stalin and the Soviets were Evil, what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia and all those other places to face Atrocity were Evil...
Would that make absolutely everything else Ive said suddenly more valid?

Would You also like Me to spend hours documenting as many details as I can, rather than dare to focus on the relevant aspects?
For that matter, Were drifting more and more into aspects that were quite deliberately barely touched on initially, because it was always an Analogy. Not a Fully Detailed History Lesson.


----------



## Cyriacus

Xue Sheng said:


> You do realize that bold, in a web discusion, is taken as yelling don't you?


To My knowledge, its the only way to Reply to seperate parts of a Quote, without manually inputting HTMLfor each bit I want, and so forth.
Ive used the device of Bolding Text, as have others, to do that for Months now, and have never had any dramas as a result. And it was Bold there, because it was Copied from where it was Bold in the post.
My sincere apologies if You were mislead by that to think I was yelling at You, since it was in a Quote. And not in My Reply. Like this, here. Which isnt Bold.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cyriacus said:


> Question:
> If I suddenly, for the sake of Conversation, Concurred, and agreed to use the Word Evil, and then that that Hitler was Evil, the Nazis were Evil, Stalin and the Soviets were Evil, what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia and all those other places to face Atrocity were Evil...
> Would that make absolutely everything else Ive said suddenly more valid?
> 
> Would You also like Me to spend hours documenting as many details as I can, rather than dare to focus on the relevant aspects?
> For that matter, Were drifting more and more into aspects that were quite deliberately barely touched on initially, because it was always an Analogy. Not a Fully Detailed History Lesson.



History is important and you have made it important based on your statement you are making a statement about Hitler that is historically incorrect to make your point you when are saying that he gave instruction and thereby suggesting that took those instructions where the ones that committed the evil acts on their own and thereby leaving the possibility that Hitler was unaware of those acts. Giving instructions and giving orders is not the same thing similar but not the same. With an order comes a command or a mandate from an authority that does not come with instructions. Therefore Hitler did not give instructions which leave room for interpretation he gave orders that were to be carried out. 

As to the rest, describe them any way you wish but from my POV you are avoiding the reality of it. But then I only know you via this web interface and it is possible that I am miss understanding what you are saying but then I only have what you type here to go on.

But enough of this, I am at work and have a job to do..later


----------



## Cyriacus

Xue Sheng said:


> History is important and you have made it important based on your statement you are making a statement about Hitler that is historically incorrect to make your point you when are saying that he gave instruction and thereby suggesting that took those instructions where the ones that committed the evil acts on their own and thereby leaving the possibility that Hitler was unaware of those acts.
> 
> *Unaware of the acts? Where did You even get that from. I have acknowledged, so many times now, every one of these deeds. I have acknowledged full well that He ordered Concentration Camps, and everything else. I never said He wasnt responsible, I only ever said that He didnt do those things personally, and that it ought make the people who did do it, more despicable in My Eyes.*
> 
> Giving instructions and giving orders is not the same thing similar but not the same. With an order comes a command or a mandate from an authority that does not come with instructions. Therefore Hitler did not give instructions which leave room for interpretation he gave orders that were to be carried out.
> 
> *I have learnt something today. Thankyou.*
> 
> As to the rest, describe them any way you wish but from my POV you are avoiding the reality of it. But then I only know you via this web interface and it is possible that I am miss understanding what you are saying but then I only have what you type here to go on.
> 
> *And I have typed so, so, so many times now, that I condemn Their actions. I consider them atrocious. I consider them despicable. I have said that many, many times, but apparently, it means nothing, if I dont use the word Evil. Which is why I asked, and in fact, Ill do it, right now. They are Evil. I will use the word Evil. I have stopped caring about My personal preference in terminology. They are Evil, Their Deeds were Evil, the Deeds themselves were Evil. There, happy? Does that really change anything else? Am I less blinkered now, because Im using a different term for it?*



I await Your Response.
Im also pretyping a collective of every single time Ive condemned Them for what They did, to use as a Reply for if someone again declares that Im avoiding Reality.


----------



## MA-Caver

Hey how about something more simpler for an example between evil and good. 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...hlc2lkZXNob3cEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3


----------



## Cyriacus

MA-Caver said:


> Hey how about something more simpler for an example between evil and good.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...hlc2lkZXNob3cEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3


Naturally, choosing between Good and Evil, the Theft was Evil. And the Aid, Good.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Cyriacus said:


> I await Your Response.
> Im also pretyping a collective of every single time Ive condemned Them for what They did, to use as a Reply for if someone again declares that Im avoiding Reality.



I said IMO, I also said I do not really know you so I may be misunderstanding what you are saying but all I have to go on is the forum web interface and what you are typing

Now this is from you



> Unaware of the acts? Where did You even get that from. I have acknowledged, so many times now, every one of these deeds. I have acknowledged full well that He ordered Concentration Camps, and everything else. I never said He wasnt responsible, I only ever said that He didnt do those things personally, and that it ought make the people who did do it, more despicable in My Eyes.



My first statement about checking this history comes from this statement you typed 



Cyriacus said:


> *Was Hitler Evil?
> The most Evil thing Hitler did, was allow His Heirarchs and Generals the Freedom to use Unnecessary Force.



He did not allow any of his Generals any freedom at all. 

My second point comes from here



Cyriacus said:


> EDIT: By which I mean, that He gave the Instructions and allowed the Freedoms, alot more than He actually did the work Himself.
> Id be inclined to call the people who went out and committed the deeds more Evil than He was for allowing it, or asking for it.


He did not allow freedoms nor did he give instructions.He gave orders as to what he wanted done and also allowed them to use any meanspossible to achieve what he wanted done. He had expectations that had to bemeant or else that is all. That is not allowing freedoms. You see from my POVto first say he allowed &#8220;Freedoms&#8221; and follow that by saying he gave &#8220;instructions&#8221;does sound as if you are trying to, at some degree, absolve him from some of theatrocities committed my the Third Reich and the Nazi party that he ordered. Now at this point Ido not think that is what you are trying to do, but it was the impression I wasgiven by the words you chose to use in your discussion

Please check the history,it is well documented as to what Hitleer was and was not and what he did and did not do. Beyond that you are right, this post will go way off course into a history lesson that I donot wwant to type

Now I really must dash and likely I will not be back to this anytime soon. If at all, I tend to do my best to stay out of the study but occasionally I fail


----------



## Cyriacus

And now this seems to be getting somewere.



Xue Sheng said:


> I said IMO, I also said I do not really know you so I may be misunderstanding what you are saying but all I have to go on is the forum web interface and what you are typing
> 
> *Yeah, but I have had to say some things numerous times.*
> 
> Now this is from you
> --
> My first statement about checking this history comes from this statement you typed
> 
> *Reply will be below.*
> 
> He did not allow any of his Generals any freedom at all.
> 
> *And that was poor, poor phrasing on My end. Ill readily admit to that. Lets take Concentration Camps. Order is given, Order is accepted, Order is carried out. Did He actually oversee the handling of it, and specify exactly how They rounded people up to be thrown in there? From everything I can find, it looks more like He told them what to do, with a moderate amount of detail as to how, and They filled in the gaps.*
> 
> My second point comes from here
> 
> *Thats a misunderstanding caused by the way these posts have stacked. Were the Civilians who stoned people on the Streets arrested? No, because They had the Freedom to do it.*
> 
> He did not allow freedoms nor did he give instructions.He gave orders
> 
> *Weve been over this - Thats cleared up now. *
> 
> as to what he wanted done and also allowed them to use any meanspossible to achieve what he wanted done. He had expectations that had to bemeant or else that is all.
> 
> *Yes. And They met them, by any means necessary. Thats a level of Freedom, in the context of the Analogy at hand.*
> 
> That is not allowing freedoms. You see from my POVto first say he allowed &#8220;Freedoms&#8221; and follow that by saying he gave &#8220;instructions&#8221;does sound as if you are trying to, at some degree, absolve him from some of theatrocities committed my the Third Reich and the Nazi party that he ordered.
> 
> *Which I absolutely am not, I have condemned them so many times now, to try and make that clear. I mean, that as You just said, He wanted His Orders to be successfully carried out, and They could do quite alot to get them done. Freedoms was meant to point out that They were pretty much doing whatever it took, to get those Orders carried out. If that was misread as being Freedom to do anything they wish? That certainly wasnt the intention, and I deliberately tried not to imply that.*
> 
> Now at this point Ido not think that is what you are trying to do, but it was the impression I wasgiven by the words you chose to use in your discussion
> 
> *In which case, Im glad thats to some extent clear. But at the same time, I have had to repeat Myself on various things, various times.*
> 
> Please check the history,it is well documented as to what Hitleer was and was not and what he did and did not do. Beyond that you are right, this post will go way off course into a history lesson that I donot wwant to type
> 
> *And that I dont want to type either. I did alot of reading about Him, and the War, about a Year ago. So far, it seems to be terminology thats bogging us down, as seen above.*
> 
> Now I really must dash and likely I will not be back to this anytime soon. If at all, I tend to do my best to stay out of the study but occasionally I fail
> *
> I try to keep My stays in here short. But then I was told I was trying to whitewash War Crimes.*



In closing to that...
Good, Evil.
Righteous, Despicable.
Rich... Or wealthy, or affluent, or opulent.
Was always what I was trying to explain.


----------



## zDom

I think it has something to do with the letter X.

eX wife? Evil.

eX girlfriend? Evil.

eX boyfriend? Yep, I reckon thems evil, too, along with eX husbands ...

Hidden treasure marked on a map with an X? Evil. That kind of treasure is always cursed.

Illiterate so sign with an X? Evil.

X-rated? dang.. I guess that stuff is evil, too.

XX liquor? Evil.

XXX liquor? A bit more evil.

Two X chromosomes? Very evil.


----------



## Makalakumu

rframe said:


> This test already exists, it's called:  a mirror.
> 
> Have person stand in front of mirror, if they have a reflection... they're evil.



Humans are born evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

MA-Caver said:


> What is evil and what is good?
> Only our hearts can decide that.
> 
> Once you've determined that then you can design a test.
> For me it's simple... I ask my heart how I feel about this that or the other thing/person/place... then I act accordingly to my heart's desires.



What if your heart's desire is something someone else considers evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

Cyriacus said:


> Naturally, choosing between Good and Evil, the Theft was Evil. And the Aid, Good.



Why?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu

What is the standard that you use to label something as evil?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Cyriacus said:


> To My knowledge, its the only way to Reply to seperate parts of a Quote, without manually inputting HTMLfor each bit I want, and so forth.
> Ive used the device of Bolding Text, as have others, to do that for Months now, and have never had any dramas as a result. And it was Bold there, because it was Copied from where it was Bold in the post.
> My sincere apologies if You were mislead by that to think I was yelling at You, since it was in a Quote. And not in My Reply. Like this, here. Which isnt Bold.



I makes it hard to reply to your replies when you format them like this. Can you not use the quote function? If you are going to do it this way instead of bolding people usually use a different colour.

I have to say I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in your last couple of posts.


----------



## MA-Caver

Cyriacus said:


> And now this seems to be getting somewhere.
> 
> In closing to that...
> Good, Evil.
> Righteous, Despicable.
> Rich... Or wealthy, or affluent, or opulent.
> Was always what I was trying to explain.



How much money a person has in their personal holdings has NOTHING to do with good or evil. It's what they choose to (or not to) do with it. I'm poor, but that doesn't necessarily make me a good person... nor does it make me evil. It's what I DO that determines that.


----------



## Cyriacus

Tez3 said:


> I makes it hard to reply to your replies when you format them like this. Can you not use the quote function? If you are going to do it this way instead of bolding people usually use a different colour.
> 
> I have to say I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in your last couple of posts.


The other Gentlemans comment about it mostly related to the use of Bold Text outside of the Quote itself. The last part was Me apologizing if He interpreted it as yelling as a result.
Im using the Quote function, evidently. I just find it tedious to type the Quote thing back out each time.



MA-Caver said:


> How much money a person has in their personal holdings has NOTHING to do with good or evil. It's what they choose to (or not to) do with it. I'm poor, but that doesn't necessarily make me a good person... nor does it make me evil. It's what I DO that determines that.



Dear lord.
That was never the implication.
Im beginning to see why Ive heard people say They dislike The Study.
I was saying, that Good and Evil are two ways of saying it. Righteous and Despicable is perhaps another. Which is comparable to saying Wealthy instead of Rich. Or Opulent instead of Rich. I can say that, but I couldnt say Despicable instead of Evil?



Makalakumu said:


> Why?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk



Because stealing from a disabled child is not only cowardly, but it also damaged His livelyhood, as well as those of others. Its fortunate someone went on to pay them, otherwise Theyd still probably be living down that singular event.
In My Eyes, anyway.


----------



## Makalakumu

Yes, but why is something like theft evil in general?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cyriacus

Makalakumu said:


> Yes, but why is something like theft evil in general?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


It isnt theft, so much as who it was stolen from, and the effect it had on them.
And plus, apparently I have to call it evil, as oppose to cowardly and malicious.


----------



## Zenjael

Evil is something which is subjective, and hence is how we cant quantify it really. Hitler was no worse than Genghis Khan, yet time seems to have relegated his atrocities to a forgotten period of past, which doesn't affect or touch us. And as emotion, and morality shifts... This question makes me ask if there were a more objective sense of evil.

To me evil and good are not different, they are like hot and cold, degrees on the same scale. After all, the brightest candle casts the darkest shadow.

I don't think there is morality in martial arts... just the martial artist. Except maybe Aikido as O-sensei taught it.


----------



## Makalakumu

If evil is subjective, then anything that is evil now can be good later.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk


----------



## MA-Caver

Cyriacus said:


> Dear lord.
> That was never the implication.
> Im beginning to see why Ive heard people say They dislike The Study.
> I was saying, that Good and Evil are two ways of saying it. Righteous and Despicable is perhaps another. Which is comparable to saying Wealthy instead of Rich. Or Opulent instead of Rich. I can say that, but I couldnt say Despicable instead of Evil?


 This is another reason why people say they hate the study. For that reason that whatever is typed out isn't either specific enough or clearly stated as intended for it to come across. Knowing that it's impossible to dictate tone, and inflection of what is being said. 
I rarely go around slapping people in the face for what they say. I will however challenge it if I see a need to. Perhaps, I took your view a bit too personally :idunno: 
All I do know is that throughout my own life's experiences I've encountered both good and evil persons who were both rich or poor. Among the good I count as my friends, regardless of their social class standing. As for the evil ones I've known, many I will never seen again and will be a better man for it. 
They have both taught me what each are capable of doing. 
The amount of dimes in their pockets didn't matter one whit to me.

:asian: If I have stepped on your toe, I'm sorry, for that was not my intention either.


----------



## Cyriacus

MA-Caver said:


> This is another reason why people say they hate the study. For that reason that whatever is typed out isn't either specific enough or clearly stated as intended for it to come across. Knowing that it's impossible to dictate tone, and inflection of what is being said.
> I rarely go around slapping people in the face for what they say. I will however challenge it if I see a need to. Perhaps, I took your view a bit too personally :idunno:
> 
> *Its all fine.*
> 
> All I do know is that throughout my own life's experiences I've encountered both good and evil persons who were both rich or poor. Among the good I count as my friends, regardless of their social class standing. As for the evil ones I've known, many I will never seen again and will be a better man for it.
> 
> *As have I. This was only ever meant to be about the word I use for them though, not what I classify them as. Thats why I was honestly, for a while, deeply confused. Then I gave up trying to discuss the topic itself, and started trying to work out why this turned into some kind of moral debate. That was right around the start of page 2, I think.*
> 
> They have both taught me what each are capable of doing.
> The amount of dimes in their pockets didn't matter one whit to me.
> 
> *And We agree on that.*
> 
> :asian: If I have stepped on your toe, I'm sorry, for that was not my intention either.
> 
> *Its all fine - Ill never mind discussing something, but when discussing something turns into... Im not even going into it. I apologize if anything I wrote was read as being remotely inflammatory. Peace out, Study!*


*nods


----------



## Xue Sheng

Makalakumu said:


> What is the standard that you use to label something as evil?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk



anyone or anything that interferes with me drinking my Pu-erh Cha....and YOU'RE pushing it with this ENTIRE Thread... I came darn close to steeping it to long reading this thing :uhyeah:


----------



## thepieisready

Morality is relative and subjective.  What is good to one is evil to others.  Additionally, a negative deed does not make a negative person and vice versa.  However, this is just my opinion.  That's all it can be. There are many people who do think that there is an objective morality.  Until one is definitively proven, my opinion will remain the same.  Then again, if there is no objective morality the only other option is that all takes on morality are subjective, making it fact and paradoxical.
If you wanted to observe my personal chart of judgment, I have none.  My judgment for the same action varies entirely depending on the circumstances under which the act was committed.


----------



## Makalakumu

thepieisready said:


> Morality is relative and subjective.  What is good to one is evil to others.  Additionally, a negative deed does not make a negative person and vice versa.  However, this is just my opinion.  That's all it can be. There are many people who do think that there is an objective morality.  Until one is definitively proven, my opinion will remain the same.  Then again, if there is no objective morality the only other option is that all takes on morality are subjective, making it fact and paradoxical.
> If you wanted to observe my personal chart of judgment, I have none.  My judgment for the same action varies entirely depending on the circumstances under which the act was committed.



They don't teach much about ethics and morality in public schools because of the charged nature of the subject.  It's a shame, because students always leave with this impression, myself included.  When I started to actually study this, as an adult, that started to change.  There are systematized ways of looking at the world that provide you with a moral compass.  Many of these systems are taught by religions and justify themselves with divine mandates.  Other systems are completely secular and rely on reason, and argument to provide their legitimacy.  I prefer the latter.

Here's an example of an evil test that I've been experimenting with.  I'll start with the first principles.

1.  The non-aggression principle.  This is a prohibition against the initiation of force in human interactions.
2.  The self-ownership principle.  This is an axiom that states that every human owns the products of their minds and labor.

These two principles can be found in just about every culture that one looks.  All kinds of rules, laws, and unsaid social mores boil themselves down to these two things.  For example, murder and rape violate the non-aggression principle.  Theft and lying violate the self-ownership principle.  This makes the evil test pretty simple. 

And it makes it difficult, because once you universalize these principles, you find that there actually is a great deal of evil being done in the world that is called good.  For example, wars violate the non-aggression principle, therefore those are evil.  Modern Governments are organizations that are defined by the ability to initiate force, therefore those are evil.  Taxes violate the ownership principle, therefore those are evil.  

These contradiction happen because of the underlying conflict of ethical systems inherit.  Other common first principle for people is the Utilitarian Principle.  

1.  Actions that provide the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of people are good.  Therefore war, government taxes, lying, rape and murder can be justified as long as they provide the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of people.  

The ethical struggle of these principles in human action does not mean that some universal standard is absent.  If the memes of logic and reason, the hallmarks of consciousness, are applied, the clear winners appear.

So, what is your evil test?  Mine are the non-aggression principle and the self-ownership principle.  And debate...


----------

