I suppose it depends on what you perceive as "good". How do you define someone as either good or evil? Surely there's no black and white answer to that, but a lot of grey. And to what extent should we judge others this way? Surely we have all done something which has had negative consequences, either for ourselves or for others at some point in our lives? And that's another thing - is it somebody's behaviour which defines them as either good or evil, or should their thoughts be penalised too, even if extreme ideas do not influence their behaviour? Is it a question of morals, choice, psychology or neurology?
It depends on your outlook on morality, that is whether it is subjective or objective.
If morality is subjective, there is no good or bad and no one has the right to judge people for their way of thinking, for the judgment and way of thinking are both subjective and personal, and do not represent the "good" and the "bad".
If morality is objective, then good is acting according to the standards of the objective morality, and evil is acting against it (I believe that objective morality can only be divine morality, that is rules that do not come from any living beings, because they are equal to others of their species that might think otherwise, and therefore have no right in determining what is good and what is bad.)
It is pretty obvious to me that morality is in fact objective, if it were subjective and varied from one to another then no one would have the right to judge anyone else, and we would live in complete anarchy without any ground rules whatsoever.
It depends on your outlook on morality, that is whether it is subjective or objective.
If morality is subjective, there is no good or bad… more and no one has the right to judge people for their way of thinking, for the judgment and way of thinking are both subjective and personal, and do not represent the "good" and the "bad".
If morality is objective, then good is acting according to the standards of the objective morality, and evil is acting against it (I believe that objective morality can only be divine morality, that is rules that do not come from any living beings, because they are equal to others of their species that might think otherwise, and therefore have no right in determining what is good and what is bad.)
It is pretty obvious to me that morality is in fact objective, if it were subjective and varied from one to another then no one would have the right to judge anyone else, and we would live in complete anarchy without any ground rules whatsoever.
It depends on your outlook on morality, that is whether it is subjective or objective.
If morality is subjective, there is no good or bad… more and no one has the right to judge people for their way of thinking, for the judgment and way of thinking are both subjective and personal, and do not represent the "good" and the "bad".
If morality is objective, then good is acting according to the standards of the objective morality, and evil is acting against it (I believe that objective morality can only be divine morality, that is rules that do not come from any living beings, because they are equal to others of their species that might think otherwise, and therefore have no right in determining what is good and what is bad.)
It is pretty obvious to me that morality is in fact objective, if it were subjective and varied from one to another then no one would have the right to judge anyone else, and we would live in complete anarchy without any ground rules whatsoever.
Morality could still be objective though, it's just that people choose to invent their own interpretations to morality from their own line of thought, emotions and their own standards. When I said mortality is probably objective I didn't mean everyone would have the same standards for it, but just that there would be 1 undoubtable set of standards in this world that would determine what is "good" and what is "bad", but of course, people would never agree to follow those standards even if it were presented to them, because some things are too loaded and complex for everyone to understand one view and agree on it... They would continue argue about what is wrong and what is right, and not necessarily be reasonable and understand it all at once
To me, someone is evil when they go out of their way to cause suffering to others for their own gain or enjoyment or to force their way of life onto everybody else.
I think we all do things in life that are just wrong, but that does 't define us. What defines us is our intention. Someone with good intentions who wishes for the well-being of others and feels guilt about doing the wrong thing, that's my definition of a good person.
-Bad Person: Someone who does bad and inmoral things, though he might do it because he needs money or to pay and addiction. (I'm not saying it's understandable,)
-Evil Person:Someone who does bad and inmoral things but doesn't need to, he does it to fullfill some kind of ambition and enjoys doing it. Also he doesn't care about other people and even likes making others suffer.
Just to add to what I said earlier, (assuming there is a black-and-white definition of good and evil to you) - do you think it is a person's personality traits (dispositional factors) or the situation that they are in (positional factors) that makes them act in such a way that could be considered 'evil'? Food for thought - I don't actually know where to begin answering these questions, but here's a documentary of the infamous Zimbardo et al study into role acceptance which is extremely interesting and definitely worth a look if you are not easily disturbed:
I think parts of it are objective. For example, we can all agree that killing someone when they pose no threat to you or others is wrong, or that stealing when you have enough is wrong.
But then we go into things like abortion. There's logic and facts to back up each side of the argument, so there is no right or wrong there since people have differing opinions. When it comes to morality, there are things that are obviously wrong and unjust, but there are also things that just come down to opinion.
Morality could still be objective though, it's just that people choose to invent their own interpretations to morality from their own line o… moref thought, emotions and their own standards. When I said mortality is probably objective I didn't mean everyone would have the same standards for it, but just that there would be 1 undoubtable set of standards in this world that would determine what is "good" and what is "bad", but of course, people would never agree to follow those standards even if it were presented to them, because some things are too loaded and complex for everyone to understand one view and agree on it... They would continue argue about what is wrong and what is right, and not necessarily be reasonable and understand it all at once
I don't know, that's my opinion.
I really hate to start about abortion, I already said why it is wrong in the thread about it so you should really go back there and read it if you want my insight on it, but I'll sum it up for you:
A fetus is a human being by virtue of their human genome (they have all 64 chromosomes, unlike an egg or a sperm cell which have 32 each are not human separately), a crushing majority of scientists agree that life begins at conception, and so abortion according to reasonable logic is murder. It is robbing the life of a human being at its very start.
Abortion might be an emotionally loaded topic, and people will never agree on it, but it still has an objective answer. It is either wrong or right, it cannot be both. While the answer might be vague and hard for some people (whose opinions on the topic are clouded by subjective and emotional experiences from their own life) to hold on to, it will always be there for us to find.
By the way, if you want to talk to me about that topic, you should PM me so we won't make anyone close this thread for bringing up this topic, the thread about abortion was closed :P
I think parts of it are objective. For example, we can all agree that killing someone when they pose no threat to you or others is wrong, or… more that stealing when you have enough is wrong.
But then we go into things like abortion. There's logic and facts to back up each side of the argument, so there is no right or wrong there since people have differing opinions. When it comes to morality, there are things that are obviously wrong and unjust, but there are also things that just come down to opinion.
I really hate to start about abortion, I already said why it is wrong in the thread about it so you should really go back there and read it … moreif you want my insight on it, but I'll sum it up for you:
A fetus is a human being by virtue of their human genome (they have all 64 chromosomes, unlike an egg or a sperm cell which have 32 each are not human separately), a crushing majority of scientists agree that life begins at conception, and so abortion according to reasonable logic is murder. It is robbing the life of a human being at its very start.
Abortion might be an emotionally loaded topic, and people will never agree on it, but it still has an objective answer. It is either wrong or right, it cannot be both. While the answer might be vague and hard for some people (whose opinions on the topic are clouded by subjective and emotional experiences from their own life) to hold on to, it will always be there for us to find.
By the way, if … [view original content]
I really hate to start about abortion, I already said why it is wrong in the thread about it so you should really go back there and read it … moreif you want my insight on it, but I'll sum it up for you:
A fetus is a human being by virtue of their human genome (they have all 64 chromosomes, unlike an egg or a sperm cell which have 32 each are not human separately), a crushing majority of scientists agree that life begins at conception, and so abortion according to reasonable logic is murder. It is robbing the life of a human being at its very start.
Abortion might be an emotionally loaded topic, and people will never agree on it, but it still has an objective answer. It is either wrong or right, it cannot be both. While the answer might be vague and hard for some people (whose opinions on the topic are clouded by subjective and emotional experiences from their own life) to hold on to, it will always be there for us to find.
By the way, if … [view original content]
You want to know my definition of evil? Read any creepypasta, Watch Herpe, the Love Sore from Family guy. And watch Ren seeks help from Ren and Stimpy Adult Party Cartoon.
But one of those wrongs is costing you a great personal expense. They had no control in that wrong by someone else's wrong doing. Why should they suffer?
And the other wrong costs an even greater expense; The life of a human baby.
They also had no control in what happened, and it's not their fault for existing, who are we to selfishly take the right of a human to live, just because giving birth to it is a pain? Why should the baby not get his undeniable right to live for the sake of the mother not giving birth to him?
Again, I think it would be best if anyone who wants to talk about this subject would do it in a PM, and not here
But one of those wrongs is costing you a great personal expense. They had no control in that wrong by someone else's wrong doing. Why should they suffer?
I would disagree about abortion being objective. Even having been presented by plenty of evidence to the contrary, I still believe abortion should still be legal. Why? Because there are people who do truly hold that view and will continue to, and I don't think it's right to force a woman to suffer through a childbirth she does not want. Making abortion illegal when there are people who do not have an issue with it would be making a law based on opinion, which I think is just as bad as trying to ban gay marriage for religious reason. That's why I support the right to have an abortion, because there are people out there who believe that it should not be banned and they have a right to not have that view disregarded completely.
I really hate to start about abortion, I already said why it is wrong in the thread about it so you should really go back there and read it … moreif you want my insight on it, but I'll sum it up for you:
A fetus is a human being by virtue of their human genome (they have all 64 chromosomes, unlike an egg or a sperm cell which have 32 each are not human separately), a crushing majority of scientists agree that life begins at conception, and so abortion according to reasonable logic is murder. It is robbing the life of a human being at its very start.
Abortion might be an emotionally loaded topic, and people will never agree on it, but it still has an objective answer. It is either wrong or right, it cannot be both. While the answer might be vague and hard for some people (whose opinions on the topic are clouded by subjective and emotional experiences from their own life) to hold on to, it will always be there for us to find.
By the way, if … [view original content]
and I don't think it's right to force a woman to suffer through childbirth she does not want.
And allowing the murder of babies and taking their right to live is?
You see, if childbirth were to kill the woman, then your argument would be legitimate, but in reality most pregnancies do not end up with the mother dying, there is no other justification to the planned murder of a human being but the fact that it would prevent a different loss of life, which it rarely does.
This argument for abortion is so one-sided, so selfish and so abnormally hypocritical in the way that it only puts one life in question, as if the life of the child is inferior to the life of the mother, and this makes me sick.
It is nothing like banning gay marriage, gay marriage is not the primarily cause of the murder of infants, abortion is.
They have the right to hold that view, but they do not have the right to commit murder, which it is.
I would disagree about abortion being objective. Even having been presented by plenty of evidence to the contrary, I still believe abortion … moreshould still be legal. Why? Because there are people who do truly hold that view and will continue to, and I don't think it's right to force a woman to suffer through a childbirth she does not want. Making abortion illegal when there are people who do not have an issue with it would be making a law based on opinion, which I think is just as bad as trying to ban gay marriage for religious reason. That's why I support the right to have an abortion, because there are people out there who believe that it should not be banned and they have a right to not have that view disregarded completely.
and I don't think it's right to force a woman to suffer through childbirth she does not want.
And allowing the murder of babies and … moretaking their right to live is?
You see, if childbirth were to kill the woman, then your argument would be legitimate, but in reality most pregnancies do not end up with the mother dying, there is no other justification to the planned murder of a human being but the fact that it would prevent a different loss of life, which it rarely does.
This argument for abortion is so one-sided, so selfish and so abnormally hypocritical in the way that it only puts one life in question, as if the life of the child is inferior to the life of the mother, and this makes me sick.
It is nothing like banning gay marriage, gay marriage is not the primarily cause of the murder of infants, abortion is.
They have the right to hold that view, but they do not have the right to commit murder, which it is.
**ILLUSION ** abortion!!! do not want to know what is evil?
how about to kill bought unborn baby and mother... or maybe let she suffer for childbirth show baby to mother and then kill the child in front of hes eye them cruelty take skin from the mother piece by piece then stab slowly in every part of body util she bleed to dead... and this is evil... so for give you nightmare but...
and I don't think it's right to force a woman to suffer through childbirth she does not want.
And allowing the murder of babies and … moretaking their right to live is?
You see, if childbirth were to kill the woman, then your argument would be legitimate, but in reality most pregnancies do not end up with the mother dying, there is no other justification to the planned murder of a human being but the fact that it would prevent a different loss of life, which it rarely does.
This argument for abortion is so one-sided, so selfish and so abnormally hypocritical in the way that it only puts one life in question, as if the life of the child is inferior to the life of the mother, and this makes me sick.
It is nothing like banning gay marriage, gay marriage is not the primarily cause of the murder of infants, abortion is.
They have the right to hold that view, but they do not have the right to commit murder, which it is.
I don't mind if anyone would hate me for this, but yes, I would make abortion illegal, because killing babies for the inconvenience of bearing them for only 9 goddamn months and then giving them up for adoption or something is an abrupt violation of all that is just. I would be truly sorry for the women who had to give birth against their will, but that sitting on my conciousness is way lighter than the millions of dead babies that would be haunting my every being for not giving them a chance to live their life, simply because they weren't concieved at the right time or the right measures for the mother to actually want to give birth to them.
It's one of the hardest choices to be made, but they must be made without any subjective point of view or emotions.
Let me just ask you one thing, and I understand if you don't wish to answer it.
If you had the power to make abortion illegal on the basis that it is murder, would you do so? Regardless of what anyone else said?
**ILLUSION ** abortion!!! do not want to know what is evil?
how about to kill bought unborn baby and mother... or maybe let she suffer fo… morer childbirth show baby to mother and then kill the child in front of hes eye them cruelty take skin from the mother piece by piece then stab slowly in every part of body util she bleed to dead... and this is evil... so for give you nightmare but...
'A new life is born while the other die.'
well there that is evil true enough.. sorry about that, back to objective thinks, abortion is a personal choice, if he choice to kill baby is her call and you can't do a shi*, there is still risk for she do die in process of giving life, why she will take that risk... wait, why I am discussion this...
Murder is also a personal choice, and I might not be anything to prevent it at times, but I sure will try to make it clear why it shouldn't be done.
The risk is extremely small, it's not even legitimate to allow all abortion for such a small risk (that is almost nonexistent today due to modern technology, sanitary hospitals and what not).
well there that is evil true enough.. sorry about that, back to objective thinks, abortion is a personal choice, if he choice to kill baby i… mores her call and you can't do a shi*, there is still risk for she do die in process of giving life, why she will take that risk... wait, why I am discussion this...
Comments
Id define them as evil c:
Evil is choice, not morality.
I'd define him as "Ramsay Snow".
I suppose it depends on what you perceive as "good". How do you define someone as either good or evil? Surely there's no black and white answer to that, but a lot of grey. And to what extent should we judge others this way? Surely we have all done something which has had negative consequences, either for ourselves or for others at some point in our lives? And that's another thing - is it somebody's behaviour which defines them as either good or evil, or should their thoughts be penalised too, even if extreme ideas do not influence their behaviour? Is it a question of morals, choice, psychology or neurology?
Okay I'll stop.
To me an evil person:
works toward selfish and/or destructive goals.
Displays apathy or contempt for the well-being of others.
So yeah, like Lingvort said, Ramsey Snow.
I don't think anyone's intrinsically evil.
It depends on your outlook on morality, that is whether it is subjective or objective.
If morality is subjective, there is no good or bad and no one has the right to judge people for their way of thinking, for the judgment and way of thinking are both subjective and personal, and do not represent the "good" and the "bad".
If morality is objective, then good is acting according to the standards of the objective morality, and evil is acting against it (I believe that objective morality can only be divine morality, that is rules that do not come from any living beings, because they are equal to others of their species that might think otherwise, and therefore have no right in determining what is good and what is bad.)
It is pretty obvious to me that morality is in fact objective, if it were subjective and varied from one to another then no one would have the right to judge anyone else, and we would live in complete anarchy without any ground rules whatsoever.
Not Good.
If morality was actually 100% objective then every country would have the same laws about crime and rights etc.
I am. When I was a baby I use to shit my diapers, just so my parents would have to clean it up Muhahahaha.
what so ever you have right, still...
'There's is no such thing as "good" or "bad" there is just an illusion'
It depends of concept, if I kill someone who tread the life of many what that mean, I am good or bad?
To define someone evil? hmmm
the evil person is some one who enjoy making bad thinks, "The evil in his nature has destroyed the good."
more about evil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil
You sadistic piece of shit. How could someone do that? How do you sleep at night?
Morality could still be objective though, it's just that people choose to invent their own interpretations to morality from their own line of thought, emotions and their own standards. When I said mortality is probably objective I didn't mean everyone would have the same standards for it, but just that there would be 1 undoubtable set of standards in this world that would determine what is "good" and what is "bad", but of course, people would never agree to follow those standards even if it were presented to them, because some things are too loaded and complex for everyone to understand one view and agree on it... They would continue argue about what is wrong and what is right, and not necessarily be reasonable and understand it all at once
I don't know, that's my opinion.
To me, someone is evil when they go out of their way to cause suffering to others for their own gain or enjoyment or to force their way of life onto everybody else.
I think we all do things in life that are just wrong, but that does 't define us. What defines us is our intention. Someone with good intentions who wishes for the well-being of others and feels guilt about doing the wrong thing, that's my definition of a good person.
For me it's like this:
-Bad Person: Someone who does bad and inmoral things, though he might do it because he needs money or to pay and addiction. (I'm not saying it's understandable,)
-Evil Person:Someone who does bad and inmoral things but doesn't need to, he does it to fullfill some kind of ambition and enjoys doing it. Also he doesn't care about other people and even likes making others suffer.
If Telltale ever makes an interactive version of CHINATOWN, I really, really hope we'd get to kill this bastard.
I think everybody is inherently evil.
Just to add to what I said earlier, (assuming there is a black-and-white definition of good and evil to you) - do you think it is a person's personality traits (dispositional factors) or the situation that they are in (positional factors) that makes them act in such a way that could be considered 'evil'? Food for thought - I don't actually know where to begin answering these questions, but here's a documentary of the infamous Zimbardo et al study into role acceptance which is extremely interesting and definitely worth a look if you are not easily disturbed:
Lemons are pretty evil.
You know what to do when life gives you lemons?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mt8I6cvFsM&feature=player_detailpage
I think parts of it are objective. For example, we can all agree that killing someone when they pose no threat to you or others is wrong, or that stealing when you have enough is wrong.
But then we go into things like abortion. There's logic and facts to back up each side of the argument, so there is no right or wrong there since people have differing opinions. When it comes to morality, there are things that are obviously wrong and unjust, but there are also things that just come down to opinion.
I really hate to start about abortion, I already said why it is wrong in the thread about it so you should really go back there and read it if you want my insight on it, but I'll sum it up for you:
A fetus is a human being by virtue of their human genome (they have all 64 chromosomes, unlike an egg or a sperm cell which have 32 each are not human separately), a crushing majority of scientists agree that life begins at conception, and so abortion according to reasonable logic is murder. It is robbing the life of a human being at its very start.
Abortion might be an emotionally loaded topic, and people will never agree on it, but it still has an objective answer. It is either wrong or right, it cannot be both. While the answer might be vague and hard for some people (whose opinions on the topic are clouded by subjective and emotional experiences from their own life) to hold on to, it will always be there for us to find.
By the way, if you want to talk to me about that topic, you should PM me so we won't make anyone close this thread for bringing up this topic, the thread about abortion was closed :P
"Abortion is wrong". Rape is wrong and its more often than not the cause.
I love Portal
That's okay. Just using it as a example.
You want to know my definition of evil? Read any creepypasta, Watch Herpe, the Love Sore from Family guy. And watch Ren seeks help from Ren and Stimpy Adult Party Cartoon.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
But one of those wrongs is costing you a great personal expense. They had no control in that wrong by someone else's wrong doing. Why should they suffer?
And the other wrong costs an even greater expense; The life of a human baby.
They also had no control in what happened, and it's not their fault for existing, who are we to selfishly take the right of a human to live, just because giving birth to it is a pain? Why should the baby not get his undeniable right to live for the sake of the mother not giving birth to him?
Again, I think it would be best if anyone who wants to talk about this subject would do it in a PM, and not here
I would disagree about abortion being objective. Even having been presented by plenty of evidence to the contrary, I still believe abortion should still be legal. Why? Because there are people who do truly hold that view and will continue to, and I don't think it's right to force a woman to suffer through a childbirth she does not want. Making abortion illegal when there are people who do not have an issue with it would be making a law based on opinion, which I think is just as bad as trying to ban gay marriage for religious reason. That's why I support the right to have an abortion, because there are people out there who believe that it should not be banned and they have a right to not have that view disregarded completely.
Everybody has at least a little bit of evil in them but nobody is pure evil.
You should never call someone else evil because it's hypocritical because you also have a bit of evil in yourself.
And allowing the murder of babies and taking their right to live is?
You see, if childbirth were to kill the woman, then your argument would be legitimate, but in reality most pregnancies do not end up with the mother dying, there is no other justification to the planned murder of a human being but the fact that it would prevent a different loss of life, which it rarely does.
This argument for abortion is so one-sided, so selfish and so abnormally hypocritical in the way that it only puts one life in question, as if the life of the child is inferior to the life of the mother, and this makes me sick.
It is nothing like banning gay marriage, gay marriage is not the primarily cause of the murder of infants, abortion is.
They have the right to hold that view, but they do not have the right to commit murder, which it is.
Let me just ask you one thing, and I understand if you don't wish to answer it.
If you had the power to make abortion illegal on the basis that it is murder, would you do so? Regardless of what anyone else said?
**ILLUSION ** abortion!!! do not want to know what is evil?
how about to kill bought unborn baby and mother... or maybe let she suffer for childbirth show baby to mother and then kill the child in front of hes eye them cruelty take skin from the mother piece by piece then stab slowly in every part of body util she bleed to dead... and this is evil... so for give you nightmare but...
'A new life is born while the other die.'
I don't mind if anyone would hate me for this, but yes, I would make abortion illegal, because killing babies for the inconvenience of bearing them for only 9 goddamn months and then giving them up for adoption or something is an abrupt violation of all that is just. I would be truly sorry for the women who had to give birth against their will, but that sitting on my conciousness is way lighter than the millions of dead babies that would be haunting my every being for not giving them a chance to live their life, simply because they weren't concieved at the right time or the right measures for the mother to actually want to give birth to them.
It's one of the hardest choices to be made, but they must be made without any subjective point of view or emotions.
Sorry, I don't really understand when you stand in this :c
well there that is evil true enough.. sorry about that, back to objective thinks, abortion is a personal choice, if he choice to kill baby is her call and you can't do a shi*, there is still risk for she do die in process of giving life, why she will take that risk... wait, why I am discussion this...
Murder is also a personal choice, and I might not be anything to prevent it at times, but I sure will try to make it clear why it shouldn't be done.
The risk is extremely small, it's not even legitimate to allow all abortion for such a small risk (that is almost nonexistent today due to modern technology, sanitary hospitals and what not).