@dybmh just feeding off? What about causing or willing?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Attempt at a WLHP definition of evil personhood. Thoughts?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
"Do not practice what you hate."
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I agree with "causing"; that is a better word choice, thank you. I don't agree with "willing".
Willing, to me, is purely cerebral. It's not magical; nothing happens just because someone "wills" it or "wishes" it to happen. From my point of view, if a person enjoys imagining people being harmed, that is totally up to them, I do not consider it evil. They're just thoughts. Even speaking about them or wriiting about harming others and enjoying that, I would not consider that evil either.
However ,I do think thinking malicious thoughts is self-destructive. And I believe in the God of Abraham. I think that malicious thoughts may be considered a crime, I'm not 100% sure. If so, I would leave that to God to decide what to do about it. I would not label it evil until they crossed the line between thoughts/words to actions. They might talk about it, but when it came time to commit the act, something inside them prevents it.
"Causing misfortune to another purely for pleasure = evil?" Yes, I think that's a good definition for evil.
"Willing misfortune to another purely for pleasure = evil?" No, i do not think that's a good definition for evil.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
How would this stop any hate crime which involves murder where the murderer targets those outside their cultural identity. They would love to kill those "other" people. They would hate to see their own kind murdered.
Well, back to the drawing board.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If we all work together, I'm confident we can get this figured out. Did you see my post about the AI virtual sandbox?
Well if morality is objective is this a problem? Like if murder is wrong then it's wrong no matter what the individual wants. So like, "violates the will of another against objective moral standards"???? Idk lol
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It's only a problem if morality is over simplified. For what you've written above, the word "murder" presumes a specific moral judgement.
Here's whow I would do it. When evaluating right/wrong actions there are 5 qualities which need to be known:
Who
What
Where/when ( aka context )
How
Why
This is the basis of civilized justice systems. Granted, it's impossible to fully know all of these things. And, there will always be a web of causation which influences a criminal in spite of their free-will choices. It is impossible to fully know all of these causes, some of which may be individuals who themselves are complicit or negligent.
This produces an imperfect justice system. It will always be imperfect. There cannot be a perfect human justice system. And all of this can be applied to moral constructs as well. One can setup hypotheticals where all 5 attributes of judgement are known, but in real life they will never be fully known. And so, there is an acceptance of the inevitable. Some criminals are going to punished unfairly. Innocent people will sometimes get convicted. And the guilty will sometimes go unpunished. Some laws are going to over-reach and infringe on liberties. Some laws that are needed will never get written. But it's still good to try.
Generally speaking, I would rather err on the side of caution and NOT punish the innocent, and not excessively punish the guilty. Since I believe in God, I can leave the loose ends to a divine justice system which I consider to be perfect. Erring on the side of acution also includes writing laws that perhaps extend too far into individual freedoms to prevent harming the innocent. That includes the guilty who is also partially innocent because they, themself, is always influenced towards crime by factors outside of their control.
Does that help?
Last edited:
Yeah, but what is the guarantee they will keep themselves contained?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No guaraantee, it would be an option for those who want to self-actualize as "evil". It's an olive-branch to those who are simply, let's say, wired differently. They are non-conforming, for lack of better words. They still would be punished for the crimes they commit in the real world, but they would be granted a truly free experience where they can be themself. This idea can be further expanded to full God-level capabilities in their own solo-matrix. Those who desire apotheosis can finally have it; they can create their own universes, and play with all of that. Scrap it, start over? Sure. Take any form? Sure. Complete omnipotence? Why not?
I think those who are truly evil, like I said, would probably choose to live maybe all of their life or perhaps the majority of their life in that solo-matrix-virtual-reality. I see no problems with this.
The rest of humanity might play with it a little. Even those who are naturally benevolent might find themself drawn to it so they could create their own utopia. They could be the tri-omni god, or perhaps an angel. They could perform virtual miracles, and faith healings. They could become the world-savior.
These "benevolent" archetypes, imo, are kinda-sorta harmful as well when they are not moderated. If those extreme cases end up spending most of their lives, or even all of their lives plugged into their own private virtual world, I say, so be it. At least they won't be conjuring up demons, projecting evil on people, in the real world, just so they can be "holier-than-thou".