Explain this logically christians....

[strikeviperMKII]

What a way to expand a definition! I ask you to define evil and you forget to point out the basics.

You already know the basics.

You gave a poor explanation, so i asked you to check the dictionary definition and see if any of those fit. You accepted many definitions for a specific case and i have refuted them all. What you have to do is to give me a detailed explanation of what you understand as being evil. But so far you are just all talk.

I think I explained why your refutations were false. In no place within the definitions (which you gave) does it state that it must be contained within the single event or the direct object, or the subject or any other limits. If an action creates what the definitions state, then it is evil. How is not the issue.

 

[Koldo]

You already know the basics.

So it is safe to assume you agree with the basics defined in the dictionary but has some additional understanding of the term evil. So do explain in details your additional understanding.

I think I explained why your refutations were false. In no place within the definitions (which you gave) does it state that it must be contained within the single event or the direct object, or the subject or any other limits. If an action creates what the definitions state, then it is evil. How is not the issue.

You didn't explain anything....
But "How" IS the issue. How does the action ( or inaction ) of not helping an old person cross the street leads directly to any of the given definitions?

If you can't reply this question then it is not evil.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So it is safe to assume you agree with the basics defined in the dictionary but has some additional understanding of the term evil. So do explain in details your additional understanding.

I started to. You told me I was wrong. What is the point when you already know the answer? Why don't you tell me what the right answer is so I don't have to figure it out from you posts.

You didn't explain anything....
But "How" IS the issue. How does the action ( or inaction ) of not helping an old person cross the street leads directly to any of the given definitions?

If you can't reply this question then it is not evil.

Oh so now the truth comes out. It must directly lead to evil. So you do have your own definition. Not the one in the dictionary, because if I recall correctly, the word 'directly' wasn't in there.

 

[Koldo]

I started to. You told me I was wrong. What is the point when you already know the answer? Why don't you tell me what the right answer is so I don't have to figure it out from you posts.




Oh so now the truth comes out. It must directly lead to evil. So you do have your own definition. Not the one in the dictionary, because if I recall correctly, the word 'directly' wasn't in there.

Ha, now i know where you are coming from.

In general usage (maybe not in your usage), the word evil also implies the meaning of "intent". If there is no intent to cause any of those definitions then it is not evil.

Inaction to prevent the directly responsible agent for the evil can also be evil IF there is the intent of causing harm.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Ha, now i know where you are coming from.

In general usage (maybe not in your usage), the word evil also implies the meaning of "intent". If there is no intent to cause any of those definitions then it is not evil.

Inaction to prevent the directly responsible agent for the evil can also be evil IF there is the intent of causing harm.

Intent...well, I guess you could see it that way. But isn't the road to hell paved with good intentions? A person with good intent can still go evil things. Does that make the things not evil? I don't think so. That seems to be what you are suggesting.

 

[Koldo]

Intent...well, I guess you could see it that way. But isn't the road to hell paved with good intentions? A person with good intent can still go evil things. Does that make the things not evil? I don't think so. That seems to be what you are suggesting.

I see many cases where good intentions may lead to harm, however not a good intention leading to an intended harm. Do you have any example in mind for the latter case?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I see many cases where good intentions may lead to harm, however not a good intention leading to an intended harm. Do you have any example in mind for the latter case?

It doesn't matter whether someone intends harm or not. The harm is still evil. You dictionary states that.
A further note, if you intend good, you cannot intend harm at the same time. They are opposites. Either you intend one or you intend the other. Your argument does not make logical sense.

 

[Koldo]

It doesn't matter whether someone intends harm or not. The harm is still evil. You dictionary states that.
A further note, if you intend good, you cannot intend harm at the same time. They are opposites. Either you intend one or you intend the other. Your argument does not make logical sense.

I have already said that those definitions carry an implied meaning of "intent".
If i can not intend good and harm at the same time then good intentions can not result in evil.

 

[waitasec]

I have already said that those definitions carry an implied meaning of "intent".
If i can not intend good and harm at the same time then good intentions can not result in evil.

as per my question from yesterday, if we knowingly buy products from china, even though our intentions are not to promote sweat shops, it is our "selfish" intention that perpetuates the sweat shops, so does that not result in something evil... ultimately...? or would you just say it's ultimately selfish and not evil?

(i think i might have derailed your debate....:sorry1

 

[Koldo]

as per my question from yesterday, if we knowingly buy products from china, even though our intentions are not to promote sweat shops, it is our "selfish" intention that perpetuates the sweat shops, so does that not result in something evil... ultimately...? or would you just say it's ultimately selfish and not evil?

(i think i might have derailed your debate....:sorry1

It is just selfish. Not evil.

( No, you haven't. )

 

[waitasec]

It is just selfish. Not evil.

( No, you haven't. )

i used to think that being selfish was evil...
but of course it depends on the situation...




(whew...i'm glad )

 

[Koldo]

i used to think that being selfish was evil...
but of course it depends on the situation...




(whew...i'm glad )

Just because something is not good, it doesn't necessarily mean it is evil, and vice-versa.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I have already said that those definitions carry an implied meaning of "intent".

They do not. You've put that in.

If i can not intend good and harm at the same time then good intentions can not result in evil.

Hardly. A good intent can very well lead to harm just as a harmful intent can lead to good. The intent is merely what you are trying to do. You can't try to do both good and evil at the same time. You can, however, try to do evil for a greater good, but this can be argued as trying to do an overall good. Of course, the opposite is also possible.
What we try to do is not always what happens, is my point.

 

[Koldo]

They do not. You've put that in.

Isn't every definition put in?

Hardly. A good intent can very well lead to harm just as a harmful intent can lead to good. The intent is merely what you are trying to do. You can't try to do both good and evil at the same time. You can, however, try to do evil for a greater good, but this can be argued as trying to do an overall good. Of course, the opposite is also possible.
What we try to do is not always what happens, is my point.

This part of your reply shows your complete disregard for the general usage of the term "evil", even when i fully explained it.

What we do by itself is irrelevant to define good or evil, it is our intent on doing certain actions [actions as the ones defined in the dictionary] that sets apart the evil and the good.

 

[waitasec]

They do not. You've put that in.



Hardly. A good intent can very well lead to harm just as a harmful intent can lead to good. The intent is merely what you are trying to do. You can't try to do both good and evil at the same time. You can, however, try to do evil for a greater good, but this can be argued as trying to do an overall good. Of course, the opposite is also possible.
What we try to do is not always what happens, is my point.

if one intends to do evil and commits an evil act, no matter the outcome, the person committed an evil act

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Isn't every definition put in?

True enough. But you say that it is put in the words, but it is not.

This part of your reply shows your complete disregard for the general usage of the term "evil", even when i fully explained it.

What we do by itself is irrelevant to define good or evil, it is our intent on doing certain actions [actions as the ones defined in the dictionary] that sets apart the evil and the good.

I disagree. It is not our intent at all that determines whether an action is good or evil. It is the consequences of that action that describe it as good or evil. Our intent shapes how we act, but intent is learned from previous consequences faced.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

if one intends to do evil and commits an evil act, no matter the outcome, the person committed an evil act

According to whom? The person doing the actions? The person(s) receiving those actions? Or the person(s) observing?

The answer is not the same in all three cases.

 

[Koldo]

True enough. But you say that it is put in the words, but it is not.

Implied in the words.

I disagree. It is not our intent at all that determines whether an action is good or evil. It is the consequences of that action that describe it as good or evil. Our intent shapes how we act, but intent is learned from previous consequences faced.

Let us get over it. By my definition of evil which happens to be the general use, do you see any evil in not helping an old person cross the street?

 

[waitasec]

According to whom? The person doing the actions? The person(s) receiving those actions? Or the person(s) observing?

The answer is not the same in all three cases.

according to the intent

 

[Copernicus]

According to whom? The person doing the actions? The person(s) receiving those actions? Or the person(s) observing?

The answer is not the same in all three cases.

I think that the concept of evil always implies malicious intent. A tsunami can cause great human suffering, but such catastrophic natural events are never described as evil. There must always be some actor who willfully intends unnecessary harm to others. People may disagree over whether the harm was necessary, so acts of violence in war are not always considered evil. But I think that malicious intent is always a necessary component of evil.