No, but he’d have really poor taste. 
ethic, I subjectively define evil and wrong. Part of the definition of evil includes wrongness.
Did I just have it both ways?
I think evil is “that which is intended to damage, delay or contend against a thing which I hold to be ‘good’.” So I guess that puts me in the subjectivist camp.
[hijack]
OK, dammit; I keep seeing people address ethnicallynot as “ethic” (no “n”) for short. Am I just reading the intent of the nickname wrong, is the “n” being dropped because of all the participation in ethics/religion threads, or is there a back story I’m unaware of? Or am I becoming crotchety and anal-retentive in my dotage?
yer fren’,
xenophon41 (anallynot)
[/hijack]
The true Nature of Evil comes in ones ability to Think , Feel , and Act completely Indifferent. So fundamentally Evil or the state being there-of has its basis in an ability to not feel when an evil act is committed. To kill with no sorrow, steal with no remorse, and cause chaos with no forseeable emotion…
Not at all. It’s not the words wrong and evil that stood in contradiction. It was the words inherently and human creation. What is inherent is “by its own nature”, “of itself”.
There’s no question that what’s evil is by definition morally wrong. The question is if it’s wrong by itself or because we judge it to be. Take comedy as an example. What’s funny is not funny because it has some natural funniness characteristic. It is funny because we deem it to be funny. It’s not an inter-subjective quality everyone in a group can look at and say “hm yes, very humorous”. You may think something is hilarious and I may think it isn’t. And we’re not going to be surprised that we aren’t agreeing! Clearly, comedy is a construct of our inner world and not part of our corporeal (or natural) shpere.
So the question is which group does what is evil belong to: that which is because it is thus or that which is because we deem it to be so.
ETHIC
[Homer Simpson]Close, but you’re way off. :D[/Homer Simspon]
There’s two ways of looking at this. One is that the gun, by itself, still isn’t inherently evil, if we assume that a gun exists for defense purposes. (Or, more precisely, there’s nothing “evil” about the gun; it’s the shooting we’re concerned with.) What if a 70 pound woman shoots a 300 pound man trying to rape her? What if a cop shoots a robber and the circumstances justify it? The gun is still doing what it was intended to do. It’s only when it’s used outside of its purpose…i.e., shooting people for fun…that the use becomes evil.
The second way is that, if we assume using guns is ALWAYS evil, even in defense, the elements which make the gun still aren’t evil in and of themselves. Guns consist of copper, zinc, and whatever else…these go into everyday things such as telephones, cars, and that buckle on your belt holding your pants up. Nothing evil there.
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. I thought that we were saying “wrongness” is part of “evil” by definition, not because of some universal essence of “wrongness”.
The exact phrase used by Fallen Angel is this: “Knowledge of right and wrong doesn’t count in the definition of evil. It’s a basis for judging sane vs. insane, but there is a world of difference between evil and wrong actions, although evil actions are, inherently, wrong.”
This was in response to a poster saying that if Hitler thought what Hitler was doing good, then Hitler wasn’t evil. Fallen Angel disagreed with that definition of evil, but didn’t affirm the opposite (that evil was inherent in actions). Only that evil actions are necessarily wrong. Not something I think anyone would disagree with, frankly.
—Are you saying that there are no acts which are truly, intrinsically evil? None whatsoever?—
I think that evil is a judgement of human beings, not an intrinsic property of actions/results. Morality is not, as far as I can tell, an objectively existing characteristic: it instead arises from the value that moral beings (those who actually care about having one outcome or another) place on various things. However, mere value is not sufficient to call something a moral value: for this to be so, I would argue that it must also be generalized: made into a universal principle.
For example: “It is wrong to kill me” is not really a moral statement unless it invokes the implicit understanding of something like “It is wrong to kill sentient beings.” The first statement can be seen as a special rule I make for myself: merely declaring my wishes. The latter statement is an abstract: it does not rely upon anyone in particular’s wishes.
However, just because moral principles are abstract does not mean that they stand on their own. I still think all moral principles boil down to “if… then” statements, where the “if” is usually some statement of value. Whereever the discussion of what is right and what is wrong goes, I don’t think we can avoid the need to first have common values: without them the discussion becomes incoherent.
Also, whatever poster said that they felt evil was the acceptance of society’s moral code and intentionally doing wrong anyway. I think that’s a very good start.
Of specific interest to the OP:
I started a thread on this very subject not too long ago (earlier this month, actually): The Correct Place for Moral Valuation
Evil is now defined as the inherent inability of this board to load properly and thus ending in a triple post by YOURS TRULY…:mad: UUHHHGGGG!!!
xeno, wow, I honestly never noticed it. 
Sorry, ethnicallynot.
Erislover: I stand corrected. Yes, evil is inherently wrong. My criticism was based on a misinterpretation of FallenAngel’s phrasing. I erroneously interpreted his statement to mean that “what is evil is by its very nature wrong”. Your interpretation, **erislover **, is the right one: what is evil is by the very definition of evil wrong. The enclosure of inherent between commas threw me off. As did sloppy reading. 
I apologize.
Nonetheless, the opinionFallenAngel is voicing in conjunction with his statement speaks for the fact that he is indeed postulating that evil is a form of highly inter-subjective “wrong”.
FallenAngel claims that it doesn’t matter what intent you had when committing an act. Either it is or it isn’t inherently wrong. He says:
So it doesn’t matter what Hitler thought at the time he committed his heinous acts because, whether he knew it or not, his actions were evil. This can only be the case if “evil” is an objective (or rather inter-subjective) quality of an event or thing. Therefore, FallenAngel can’t go about also claiming the opposite, namely that evil is a human creation (or a construct of our inner world).
Maybe I’m splitting hairs here about what FallenAngel said or didn’t say. What I really want to express is that intent does matter. That’s why I proposed my thought experiment. If there is no way I could have known the consequences of my actions, am I committing a evil act? My answer is a definite “no”. Do you disagree?
Just call me ETHIC. I prefer it anyway…
(A nickname for the nick ;)… )
Fox_Moxin wrote, in the OP:
It’s whatever shows a positive result from a detect evil spell, or whatever gets hedged out by a protection from evil spell.
Duh!
Moderator’s Note: I cleaned up assorted double and triple posts.
Obviously, you’re all very wicked people to have made those multiple postings in the first place.
All right. I’ve posted three long line-by-line counter arguments here today, and they’ve gotten eaten each time. I’ll just send out the general thoughts and see if it goes up this time.
Evil is indeed objective, not inter-subjective. Evil, and I realize this is an IMHO philosophical debate rather than a quantifiable fact, is the intitiation of force. Initiating force is the only litmus test I have, or believe I need, for evil. Intent is relevant, self-opinion of right and wrong is not. Intent must be present for the intiated action to count as force. Swinging your shoe in order to save your life, even if that results in someone else’s inadvertant death (as in the tortured example above), is not evil. There was no intent to initiate force.
Evil is indeed a solely human construct. Animals act forcefully, but they act solely out of instinct and, therefore, without choosing to inflict harm. They are defending, out of instinct alone, their territory or procuring a meal. They don’t conceive of harm and therefore cannot rationally choose not to do what they do.
Humans always have a choice. We do not run by pure instinct, but by a combination of instinct and reason. When we choose to initiate force against another person or their property, we act evilly.
Quite simple. Evil is theft, of life, limb, property, or innocence.
-
intervention by a third party - by the police or a bystander
-
incompetence - you fail to successfully complete the crime because of your own bad planning or inadequacy
-
impossibility - eg you try to shoot someone without realising that they’ve already (previously) removed the bullets from your gun so your attempt could never have worked, although you didn’t realise this
I havent figured out how the quote thing here works so i didnt quote that, but it IS a quote.
My question is why should these three be differentiated from murder in law? In these threee you did everything possible but where stopped somehow. Had you not been stopped by a police officer, they would be dead, had you not been an idiot andtried to shoot the man with a mirror around the corner, he would be dead, and had you not had someone else steal yoru bullets, he would be dead. the intent is there. the only difference is he didnt succeed. shouldnt the punishment be the same in these cases whether he succeeded or not?
Alright, ethic, looks like you were right after all. According to Fallen Angel evil is somehow a human-defined objective property of actions.
