Strata: Down but not out?

[Wellsy]

Evil is a point of view.

Besides, you act as though just because its your veiw of evil, its correct. How someone judges what is evil or not is relative to that person.

Meh, I don't know about that. Statements like that just seem way too cliche. I mean, if what is "evil" is merely relative, why do we lock up pedophiles and child killers?
What is relative is a person's "gray area," (or grey area, depending on how you want to spell it) - things that might be subject to more interpretation or extenuating circumstances. There are, however, certain baselines that decent people can agree on. Killing a child? Slaughtering a family? Rape? All evil, no matter you try to cut it. Since there are commonly agreed upon baselines, it's hard to argue that morality is purely subjective. Not like anyone cares, but that's what I think.

And anyways, Strata is a douchebag, for sure.

[Winnipeg]

I disagree... I think anything can be considered a grey area. What if there is a terribly contageous disease, and the only way to stop it from spreading is to kill whoever has it? Then killling a child could be for the good of a nation. It's all about circumstance.
What you're talking about is Society's evils. Here's the thing though... the human mind is made up of three parts. Ego, Superego and Id. Society is represented by the Superego, so to one part of the mind, you are right. However, the Id is essentially the opposite. It represents primal and animalistic needs and urges. Violence, sex, eating, survival etc. The ego is the part of the mind that is neutral, and thus has to decide between the two.
So with that knowledge, one can safely say that everything is a grey area, because your mind constantly has 2 forces to decide between, neither of which are good or evil. So some of your decisions are bound to clash with the views of society, but in your mind may not be evil.

[fwacho]

I disagree... I think anything can be considered a grey area. What if there is a terribly contageous disease, and the only way to stop it from spreading is to kill whoever has it? Then killling a child could be for the good of a nation. It's all about circumstance.
What you're talking about is Society's evils..... So some of your decisions are bound to clash with the views of society, but in your mind may not be evil.

Interesting points. I don't agree with everything he said but I can understand why he says it, and it is said for good reason.

The grey area (yes I learned my colours in england) will always exist but each person must call somethign black or white before they make their decision. (yes some of you will say some decisions are the choice of the lesse of two evils and thus grey)

I would propose that evil is simply the choosing the lesser choice. (what the lesser choice is many will debate on) an devil perosn is one who continually chooses the lesser choice for lesser benefits (usally personally recieved immediately, as opposed to long-range benefits for all)

our conscience suggest what we should do but our own selfish desires suggest another course. theoretically, somethign that benefits more people, for a longer period of time, with less damge to others will be the sociological good thign to do (aka starting charity to get homeless into homes) where as choices that benefit less poeple (often only the self) for less time with more adverse effects are considered by society to be evil. (robbery)

in short: self-centeredness=evil
other-centeredness= good.
simply apply these (and many other) principles in each differnt decision to decide what would be good and what would be evil.

[Winnipeg]

Again, I think that's your point of view... Some may argue that it's more important to do what's best for your friends instead of for society, because they don't know half the people they'd be helping. So the "better" moral choice is entirely a personal opinion.

[Zero_X]

if ur action's help to improve someone's way of life then it can be seen as good, but if ur action's help to destroy someone else's way of life it is seen to be evil. either option above can be over ruled by the other, i.e. take the legend of Robbin Hood robbed from the rich (Evil) and gave to the poor (good), in this example the good over rules the evil. star wars ep3 anakin in the hope to save padme from death (Good) turns to the dark side which leads him to do things that are evil, hence the evil he does over rules his good intentions.

[Forerunner]

Strata is not evil but he will do evil things. Period.

[Sarcasm]

Evil is a point of view.

Besides, you act as though just because its your veiw of evil, its correct. How someone judges what is evil or not is relative to that person.

Meh, I don't know about that. Statements like that just seem way too cliche. I mean, if what is "evil" is merely relative, why do we lock up pedophiles and child killers?
What is relative is a person's "gray area," (or grey area, depending on how you want to spell it) - things that might be subject to more interpretation or extenuating circumstances. There are, however, certain baselines that decent people can agree on. Killing a child? Slaughtering a family? Rape? All evil, no matter you try to cut it. Since there are commonly agreed upon baselines, it's hard to argue that morality is purely subjective. Not like anyone cares, but that's what I think.

And anyways, Strata is a douchebag, for sure.

All this things are not evil, But are simply done by a person who is sick and needs help. And most of these people own their sickness to some other event in their life...

[DSOK]

Strata is not evil but he will do evil things. Period.

Again, I ask what evil is if not merely this?

[Burning_Flame]

Point of view.

[DSOK]

Point of view.

What, you mean that evil is a point of view? Or that this is just your own poorly thought out viewpoint?

From Merrian-Webster:

evil: 1a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

Especially when dealing in worlds of fantasy, many ingenuous people, seem to think that to be evil must imply some devotion to an ideal of wickedness--through active malice engaged in for no profit, demon-worship, or what have you. This point of view is fundamentally indefensible. For one thing, it demands that any evil man must believe that he himself is evil. This is actually a tremendous rarity. Take the famous serial killer, Ted Bundy. While he knew that he was dangerous and had committed horrific acts, his prison psychiatrist was shocked that Bundy earnestly believed that he had no choice but to kill. The murderer felt that this brutality was a fundamental element of his nature, something that could not be denied. Intellectually, he knew that he should be kept away from society, but he could not blame himself--could not think of himself as a bad person. In his own mind, Ted Bundy was just a victim of unfortunate circumstances. Does this fact make him not evil? No.

Incidentally, Bundy and Strata both share all the characteristics of a classic psychopath; they are almost perfect models of evil behavior.

[Burning_Flame]

Well do you think "evil" people really think of them selves as evil?
Some may think of themself as the good guys, and the people who we see as the heros, they would see as the evil people. Its all point of view.

[DSOK]

Well do you think "evil" people really think of them selves as evil?
Some may think of themself as the good guys, and the people who we see as the heros, they would see as the evil people. Its all point of view.

Sure, viewpoints can differ, but you miss the crucial point that one side can simply be right and the other side wrong. An evil man's solipsistic attitudes have no bearing on the nature of his evil.

[Winnipeg]

Consider suicide bombers. Not only are they considering themselves as heroes, an entire cultural considers them to be heroes as well. So, that justifies the US killing hundreds of civilians in a country that's uninvolved. Neither side is good or evil.

And how's this for a dilema, should a murderer be killed for his crimes? Is that good or evil?

You can't say there's a universal truth, because not only do morals change from person to person, but also from nation to nation.

[DSOK]

Consider suicide bombers. Not only are they considering themselves as heroes, an entire cultural considers them to be heroes as well. So, that justifies the US killing hundreds of civilians in a country that's uninvolved. Neither side is good or evil.

No, the suicide bombers are evil. If you cannot see that, then you have no understanding of morality.

[Burning_Flame]

But the fact is they think they are good and that we are evil. For the last time its point of view.