Is Anything Evil? Does Evil Exist?

Your thesis is heading for a train wreck unless you can first nail down precisely what you mean, then build a coherent argument from that.Please define evil and good as you use the terms.Please define nature as you use the term. Then delineate between the two ideas of 'non-nature' you are putting into play: the unnatural and the supernatural._____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

'Evil' is not a word I throw around, but here's my working definition:

Evil is that which threatens what I cherish.

​

Absolute evil is that which threatens what I cherish absolutely.

Awareness of evil is thus the flip side of awareness of love. One becomes conscious of evil as a natural consequence of having something to protect. Evil is that which threatens what I love. Withdrawal of empathy is a matter of technique.If I am called upon to protect what I love, it helps if, for the moment, I am not feeling too sorry for any butts I have to kick. This helps me do a better job of kicking the butts, and thus protecting what I love (if I am kicking the right butts).One can take this technique too far. It works best in a moment of acute crisis. As a habit of thought stretched over a long period of time, it is self-defeating.The worst mistake you can make in any conflict is to underestimate your enemy. When you think of a human adversary as subhuman, you have underestimated your enemy.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

It is subjective, obviously. Whether it is completely subjective is an unwarranted assumption.Reason and emotion are not opposites. They are two functions of a healthy personality. As such they can should, and often do, have a profitable dialogue with one another. Emotion can be informed by reason and reason can be informed by emotion.If I notice myself getting angry, for example, I may ask myself 'What do I cherish that feels threatened here?' It's a very useful question. Reason takes notice of my emotion and asks it for more information. I can examine where I have invested my emotions and reassess the wisdom of the attachment. I can evaluate whether the perceived threat to what I cherish is really so great and, even if so, whether my present response is the most useful one in reducing that threat. It's a common fallacy on this board to equate subjectivity with pointlessness.Subjective as the definition is, I think you will find that, in practice, my criteria are universally valid.Every person recognizes as 'evil' that which threatens what he or she most cherishes.

​

Every person recognizes as 'absolute evil' that which threatens what the individual cherishes absolutely.Don't take my word for it. Run your own experiments. I'm confident you'll be able replicate the results.It's also not logical to assume that subjectivity requires the 'imposition' of beliefs. Other possibilities exist. One is that people will continue to have different ideas, and that's just how it will be. Another is that free and open discussion might yield the discovery that healthy human beings universally love pretty much the same kinds of things. On that basis people might build a consensus.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Here, Taz, is an excellent example of what I was talking about in Message 34.Rob is angry because he perceives a threat to something he cherishes. The thing being threatened, apparently, is his belief that he needs a saviour.This belief is so cherished by Rob that he places its validity beyond debate. He demands that Phat regard the contemplation of any alternative as taboo on its face. He circles the wagons around his cherished belief and strikes out aggressively--though name calling, in this instance--to ward off the perceived threat.[AbE] The name he chose is interesting. He tries to shame Phat for 'boot licking.' Rob asks us to believe that Phat's point of view can only be maintained by a person who neglects to think for himself and who adopts a subservient, kowtowing posture toward others.It seems Rob intends to recognize Phat as an individual who thinks for himself only when Phat manages to repeat, as the result of shaming if necessary, those things Rob wants to hear. An ironic outcome at best. [end AbE]It would be well now for Rob's intellect to have a dialogue with his emotions in the manner I suggested above._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html, AbE.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Once again, Rob, you neglect to pay attention.I never said Phat's comment threatened you or any deity personally. I suggested that something in it threatened your belief.In response you have offered a banal retort ('I'm rubber, you're glue') followed by a claim to objectivity and confidence that your behaviour has already shown to consist of thin stuff.In the process, you once again miss the point.I wouldn't mind the drama so much if it were good drama...____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : punct.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

So it is your personal belief that is threatened, as I suggested.Interesting. But earlier you told us yourself that you were evil.Now you tell us that saying such a thing is unjust, because you are really like Christ.So which is it?While you're flipping that coin for the umpteenth time, let me suggest an alternative you could try in the future. Instead of portraying yourself as Beelzebub or Jesus or the next worst/best thing in either case, how would it be to think of yourself as just a person?Less dramatic, I know. But more realistic. And reality is where you have to live most of your life.Your religion allows this, by the way. The extant evidence suggests Jesus of Nazareth rather liked real people.Being a person also helps you avoid shipwrecks. Your boat has been careening back and forth from Rob the Pond Scum to Rob the Christlike to Rob the Pond Scum to Rob the Christlike ever since you launched it. Stabilise that thing and it will make better headway._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The quote was 'More matter, with less art.'Today we would say 'Address the point and cut the drama.'___Edited by Archer Opterix, : title.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

One could as easily say: The second has the virtue of getting the spelling of 'empirically' right. Other than that, the statements are of equal value.Both are subjective impressions. The evidence for each is anecdotal. Neither can be demonstrated empirically._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You've been putting that funny sugar on your Wheaties again.Show me where I did.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

You conceded in another thread that reality is absolute. Don't forget that.Your desire to put your idea of morality on the same footing as ultimate reality (there) and the laws of physics (here) is plain. But the arguments in support of the idea have been feeble to non-existent. You make bare assertions. You do not demonstrate. The doughnut-versus-doughnut hole thing.I ate that one for breakfast a long time ago. But OK, I'll bite.Other than the fact that Rob likes it, what reason do I have to find the idea 'tremendous'? Or even a 'solution'?_______

Fallacy of false categories.This is dumb, Rob. You should have caught this.Reality is reality. It includes good and evil. It also includes light and dark, life and death, yin and yang, Elvis and Elvis impersonators.You have seen this before. You have not refuted it or even attempted to.And let's face it--as concepts go, this is rather basic.Insisting that 'darkness is only the absence of light, impersonators are only the absence of Elvis' doesn't change any of this. Reality would still include both the 'presence' and 'absence' states of whatever it is you're talking about.And there you are.Now I'll go back to your post and start Sentence 2. It's hard to expect much after a disastrous start like that, but we'll see._______

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.