you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I disagree. The world, outer space, rocks, are incapable of being good or bad. They exist. Galaxies being created and destroyed over and over, this is just natural events which have no ill intent.

Animals do what animals do mostly. A bird fetching a worm to feed it's young is not even, nor a lion hunting a gazelle. Times when we determine animals to be evil are more often down to human stupidity or misunderstanding. A dog biting a child is not evil if it felt threatened. We wouldn't put the dog down for being evil, we would do so due to it presenting a danger. It's not to say animals can't be malicious, but beyond our civilization they mostly do what they do to survive.

Evil is intentionally wicked, decisively immoral. Morality itself, being of course a human construct in the eyes of a non-religious man such as myself. The world, the universe, animals cannot be held to the standard of human morality, which too is subject to cultural differences. It was not immoral in the eyes of Islam to blow themselves up to murder innocent bystanders.

People are evil. The world is sometimes just really fucking shitty, there is a difference.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Well the world is evil by design, because it's run by evil people.

Evil is intentionally wicked, decisively immoral.

No one does that. Everyone thinks of themselves as good. But are they making others suffer for personal gain? Even if it's "jusitifed".

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Society is evil by design because it is run by evil people. The world remains neutral, as does nature.

Indirect suffering as a result of decisions made for personal gain is not evil, it is unfortunate unless the suffering was intended in malice.

We cannot look at every action or inaction as being simply good or evil, some decisions are morally justified and have unfortunate consequences, but are necessary. The two patient moral puzzle springs to mind. If you can only save one, who do you save? Or save neither and be damned with them all. Each decision has consequences but are not necessarily evil.

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's not an excuse for cases that aren't dilemmas. And we rarely make the right choice because nature is evil.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's difficult for me to comprehend your view that which is without the ability to reason, as being evil. 😐

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If it did have the ability to reason, it would be exceptionally wicked.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah but this is like banging one's head against a brick wall, no?