What exactly is evil?

[Dan From Smithville]

Weren't we talking about evil?

Anyway, I have to get to bed. Or the evils of poverty will haunt me.

 

[ajay0]

I use the following sayings as an intellectual framework for gauging right and wrong, or good and evil...

Self-awareness is yoga. ~ Nisargadatta

Evil is an extreme manifestation of human unconsciousness. ~ Eckhart Tole

Sin is never in action. It is always in reaction. ~ Swami Chinmayananda

If we are self-aware and mindful one tends to act intelligently, and if we are unconscious we tend to react impulsively. Unconsciousness here means living in past memories or future imagination under the influence of desire (craving-aversion).

All vices such as lust, greed, hatred leading to criminal acts , are but strong desires at their core.

When one lacks self-awareness or mindfulness, one will be unconsciously held under the grip of such strong emotional desires and act under its influence.

 

[Secret Chief]

I haven't maxed out yet.

Rabbits are famous for maxing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That makes it sound as though it is merely a synonym for bad...

Personally, i would add the word great or extensive or extreme or massive or overwhelming or drastic or radical or serious between the words "causes" and "harm".

I think it kinda is...

But if it more appeals to your preferences, we can have things that are mildly evil or things that are greatly, extensively, extremely, massively, overwhelmingly, drastically, radically, seriously evil.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a word that is used very often but what exactly is evil?

A label reserved for actions / decisions, usually with malicious intent, of which the consequences are an avoidable increase in suffering in the broadest sense of the word.

People sometimes refer to it as some kind of entity, as a thing that exists in and of itself. I think that's wrong.

 

[wellwisher]

It is a word that is used very often but what exactly is evil?

Evil is connected to the symbolic tree of knowledge of good and evil or law. Law creates an effect in the brain, similar to a magnet. A magnet has two poles; north and south, which are always found in pairs.

Science has never isolated a magnetic monopole, which would be just a North Pole without a South Pole or a South Pole without a North Pole. These always come in pairs. If we find one, the other, like a conjoined twin, is always nearby, even if we cannot see it. For example standing on the North Pole ,we cannot see the South Pole, but it is there.

In the case of law; knowledge of good and evil, creates a psychological effect, where if we define evil, we will also define its other pole called good, and vice versa; one implies the other. If we say love is good, then hate even if hidden, will also appear, since there is no monopole in law or in magnets. Conversely, if we see and define evil, then even if hidden, the opposing good will also appear. For example, from the evil of slavery came the quest for liberty. This co-join polarization is why, we can find something new that is beneficial and is defined as good, but and in a short time, others will discover a way to exploit it and reveal the down-side or bad, since one always implies the other.

The tree of life was different, in that the magnetic dipole effect is not part of this neural schema. Natural instinct is neutral. This is more analogous to the electrostatic force where we have both positive and negative charges. However, in this case each charge can be isolated, apart from the other. We can isolate an electron or a proton from a hydrogen atom. As an example, say a natural animal finds a food supply that is beneficial; positive charge. If too many others critter were to find the same food source, they would strip the land naked and all would have none. In this case, two or more similar positive charges will repel; territorial. This is not good or evil, but the repulsion is beneficial to all. While male and female are sort of like opposite charges that attract and become beneficial making atoms; hydrogen. From attractions we get chemistry and life.

Water through hydrogen bonding can separate the EM force, which is composed of electrostatic and magnetic forces, into separated electrostatic and magnetic forces, due to hydrogen bonding having both polar and covalent bonding character. It can run the spectrum of parallel effects from law to life; co-joined to separated. This tells us water has a connection to consciousness. Science has given us a way to understand this ancient truth of religion.

In terms of hydrogen bonding the polar or electrostatic setting of hydrogen bonding has higher entropy, while the magnetic or covalent setting has lower entropy. Life follows the natural push toward higher complexity; 2nd law, while law follows a push away from the 2nd law; lower complexity by oversimplifying with its one size fits all. Life is a more like a complex integration of differences that work as whole. Law would try to segregate this.

 

[PureX]

How do you decide from all of that. What if the chosen choice is based on popular misconception and that carries the day rather than some more rational "whatever"?

What if they are. Humans are fallible.

So a decision that benefits the collective, but may leave individuals wanting and lost is good even if it isn't so good for those individuals?

The individuals are part of the collective. To benefit the collective is to benefit the individuals within it.

So good can be evil to some so long as the body politic is generally OK? That doesn't sound like good so much as a political position.

Of course it doesn't sound good to you, you grew up in a capitalist dog-eat-dog culture that has raised selfishness to a high virtue.

I'm not sure if decide is the correct term here. You get to voice your opinion, but if your opinion isn't the popular one then you are **** out of luck.

If you are deciding with the benefit of the collective as the first priority, your devision will align with the majority.

I don't think having an opinion or needs that are not fully represented by the majority constitutes betrayal of the group or corruption of the minority to parasite status.

I don't either, if they are grounded in the priority of the collective well being.

The collective in this country is for capitalism. Your turn.

And it's destroying us because it promotes greed, selfishness, and unrestrained social parasitism. We are not a collective. We're a bunch of individuals all trying to get what WE need and want at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What if they are. Humans are fallible.

The individuals are part of the collective. To benefit the collective is to benefit the individuals within it.

But humans are fallible. You could be wrong with this entire colony of ants model.

Of course it doesn't sound good to you, you grew up in a capitalist dog-eat-dog culture that has raised selfishness to a high virtue.

And you grew up where that sanitized and insulated you from the culture that you now surf to make your claims?

If you are deciding with the benefit of the collective as the first priority, your devision will align with the majority.

There is nothing guaranteeing the collective isn't evil to begin with and deciding with it in mind might be the most evil choice. Once again, the collective in this country holds the view you see as evil.

I don't either, if they are grounded in the priority of the collective well being.

Then you do.

And it's destroying us because it promotes greed, selfishness, and unrestrained social parasitism. We are not a collective. We're a bunch of individuals all trying to get what WE need and want at the expense of everyone else.

That's not the point. You claim that anyone going against the hive mind is toxic and betraying the collective. Here I see that you don't even agree with your own claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rabbits are famous for maxing.

Attempting anyway. Reaching the max is beyond even our great skills.

 

[The Hammer]

As a socially dependent species. "Evil" tends to be that which we deem as anti-social: theft of another's property, harming another person not for defense of self or others, lying, hostility, manipulation etc.

 

[sun rise]

Are cats evil?
How do you think mice would answer?

It's situational ethics, of course

 

[wellwisher]

As a socially dependent species. "Evil" tends to be that which we deem as anti-social: theft of another's property, harming another person not for defense of self or others, lying, hostility, manipulation etc.

The problem with law is it can also become subjective. For example, in politics in America, if you do not go along with Biden and the radical Left's agenda, you will be defined as evil, and can be targeted like a criminal; MAGA, even when 20/20 hindsight repeatedly says that you were right based on facts; COVID. This the problem with man made laws. Those in power can make laws, that define good and evil, for their own narrow benefit, instead of having to use only objective criteria that apply to all; ends justify the means can benefit by shady law with a good and evil inversion.

Free speech is not evil unless free speech makes it harder to do evil; expose the truth. If the opposite is needed you refine it backwards in favor of zombie group think. But since good and evil are like two poles of a magnet, and evil implies a co-joined good, the good will appear side-by-side, even if suppressed, so we can become more objective, based on new data that will appear, relative to fundamental moral law; oppressive versus liberating. Then a correction appears, until power tries to reverse this, again. This is why law is flawed.

The US has immigration laws on the books as defined by Congress from the past. Now breaking that law was defined as good until the objective data started to show the shady side of the consequences; overwhelmed. Now even the Democrats can see good and evil in a more objective way. Before they had no clue, but assumed their leaders knew better on terms of compassionate good and evil. This was a good exercise in objectivity, so law could again become more practical and objective.

Law is connected to the subjectivity of language which can be used to can alter the intent of the law. In the case of immigration, immigrants were lumped, with both legal and illegal immigrants defined as one thing. so the empathy for one; legal, had to spill over to the empathy for the other. This led to mental confusion.

As a newly hatched example of this language game, if you go into a store we have shoppers and shop lifters. Most can tell the difference, until recently, when the Left made shoplifting, not a crime, in Liberal cites. Now both shoppers and shop lifter deserve the same respect. If you buy that, the classic law of stealing evil, will need to escalate until some on the Left can become objective and help restore the differences blurred by the latest Liberal word game. Word games are important to shady lawyers and the far Left. Law is too easy to mess up and needs to be updated with objective word criteria based on classic law.

 

[Father Heathen]

The problem with law is it can also become subjective. For example, in politics in America, if you do not go along with Biden and the radical Left's agenda, you will be defined as evil, and can be targeted like a criminal; MAGA, even when 20/20 hindsight repeatedly says that you were right based on facts; COVID. This the problem with man made laws. Those in power can make laws, that define good and evil, for their own narrow benefit, instead of having to use only objective criteria that apply to all; ends justify the means can benefit by shady law with a good and evil inversion.

Free speech is not evil unless free speech makes it harder to do evil; expose the truth. If the opposite is needed you refine it backwards in favor of zombie group think. But since good and evil are like two poles of a magnet, and evil implies a co-joined good, the good will appear side-by-side, even if suppressed, so we can become more objective, based on new data that will appear, relative to fundamental moral law; oppressive versus liberating. Then a correction appears, until power tries to reverse this, again. This is why law is flawed.

The US has immigration laws on the books as defined by Congress from the past. Now breaking that law was defined as good until the objective data started to show the shady side of the consequences; overwhelmed. Now even the Democrats can see good and evil in a more objective way. Before they had no clue, but assumed their leaders knew better on terms of compassionate good and evil. This was a good exercise in objectivity, so law could again become more practical and objective.

Law is connected to the subjectivity of language which can be used to can alter the intent of the law. In the case of immigration, immigrants were lumped, with both legal and illegal immigrants defined as one thing. so the empathy for one; legal, had to spill over to the empathy for the other. This led to mental confusion.

As a newly hatched example of this language game, if you go into a store we have shoppers and shop lifters. Most can tell the difference, until recently, when the Left made shoplifting, not a crime, in Liberal cites. Now both shoppers and shop lifter deserve the same respect. If you buy that, the classic law of stealing evil, will need to escalate until some on the Left can become objective and help restore the differences blurred by the latest Liberal word game. Word games are important to shady lawyers and the far Left. Law is too easy to mess up and needs to be updated with objective word criteria based on classic law.

This post gave me a headache so I let ChatGPT handle it:
"
The post you've shared highlights concerns about the subjectivity of law, particularly in the context of politics and immigration in the United States. While it raises valid points about the potential for bias and manipulation, it also seems to oversimplify complex issues. Here's a breakdown of the main arguments and potential counterpoints:

1. Subjectivity of Law:
   • Claim: The post argues that laws can become subjective, especially in politics, and those who don't align with certain agendas may be targeted.
   • Counterpoint: While it's true that interpretation of laws can vary, the legal system typically operates within a framework that includes checks and balances. The judiciary, for instance, plays a role in interpreting laws and ensuring their constitutionality.
2. Free Speech and Moral Objectivity:
   • Claim: Free speech is not considered evil unless it hinders the exposure of truth; the post emphasizes the interplay between good and evil.
   • Counterpoint: The concept of free speech is complex and often debated. While it's crucial for open discourse, restrictions on speech are sometimes necessary to prevent harm or the spread of misinformation.
3. Immigration Laws and Objectivity:
   • Claim: Immigration laws were initially defined as good until objective data revealed negative consequences.
   • Counterpoint: Immigration policies often involve a balancing act between humanitarian concerns and national interests. It's not uncommon for laws to be revisited and updated based on evolving circumstances.
4. Language and Law:
   • Claim: The post suggests that language can be manipulated to alter the intent of the law.
   • Counterpoint: Legal interpretation does involve language, but it also relies on legal precedent, legislative intent, and judicial decisions to ensure consistency and fairness.
5. Shoplifting and Law:
   • Claim: Recent changes in categorizing shoplifting in liberal cities are presented as a language game that blurs distinctions.
   • Counterpoint: Legal changes may reflect evolving societal views and priorities. Whether a specific act is categorized as a crime can depend on various factors, including societal attitudes and the need for criminal justice reform.

In conclusion, the post raises valid concerns about the potential subjectivity and flaws in the legal system. However, it's essential to acknowledge the complexity of legal issues and the ongoing efforts to strike a balance between justice, objectivity, and societal values. The legal system is designed to adapt, and debates surrounding its intricacies are inherent to a democratic society."

 

[The Hammer]

The problem with law is it can also become subjective. For example, in politics in America, if you do not go along with Biden and the radical Left's agenda, you will be defined as evil, and can be targeted like a criminal; MAGA, even when 20/20 hindsight repeatedly says that you were right based on facts; COVID. This the problem with man made laws. Those in power can make laws, that define good and evil, for their own narrow benefit, instead of having to use only objective criteria that apply to all; ends justify the means can benefit by shady law with a good and evil inversion.

Free speech is not evil unless free speech makes it harder to do evil; expose the truth. If the opposite is needed you refine it backwards in favor of zombie group think. But since good and evil are like two poles of a magnet, and evil implies a co-joined good, the good will appear side-by-side, even if suppressed, so we can become more objective, based on new data that will appear, relative to fundamental moral law; oppressive versus liberating. Then a correction appears, until power tries to reverse this, again. This is why law is flawed.

The US has immigration laws on the books as defined by Congress from the past. Now breaking that law was defined as good until the objective data started to show the shady side of the consequences; overwhelmed. Now even the Democrats can see good and evil in a more objective way. Before they had no clue, but assumed their leaders knew better on terms of compassionate good and evil. This was a good exercise in objectivity, so law could again become more practical and objective.

Law is connected to the subjectivity of language which can be used to can alter the intent of the law. In the case of immigration, immigrants were lumped, with both legal and illegal immigrants defined as one thing. so the empathy for one; legal, had to spill over to the empathy for the other. This led to mental confusion.

As a newly hatched example of this language game, if you go into a store we have shoppers and shop lifters. Most can tell the difference, until recently, when the Left made shoplifting, not a crime, in Liberal cites. Now both shoppers and shop lifter deserve the same respect. If you buy that, the classic law of stealing evil, will need to escalate until some on the Left can become objective and help restore the differences blurred by the latest Liberal word game. Word games are important to shady lawyers and the far Left. Law is too easy to mess up and needs to be updated with objective word criteria based on classic law.

I said nothing about law. So, I'm not reading the rest of your diatribe

 

[PureX]

This post gave me a headache so I let ChatGPT handle it:
"
The post you've shared highlights concerns about the subjectivity of law, particularly in the context of politics and immigration in the United States. While it raises valid points about the potential for bias and manipulation, it also seems to oversimplify complex issues. Here's a breakdown of the main arguments and potential counterpoints:

1. Subjectivity of Law:
   • Claim: The post argues that laws can become subjective, especially in politics, and those who don't align with certain agendas may be targeted.
   • Counterpoint: While it's true that interpretation of laws can vary, the legal system typically operates within a framework that includes checks and balances. The judiciary, for instance, plays a role in interpreting laws and ensuring their constitutionality.
2. Free Speech and Moral Objectivity:
   • Claim: Free speech is not considered evil unless it hinders the exposure of truth; the post emphasizes the interplay between good and evil.
   • Counterpoint: The concept of free speech is complex and often debated. While it's crucial for open discourse, restrictions on speech are sometimes necessary to prevent harm or the spread of misinformation.
3. Immigration Laws and Objectivity:
   • Claim: Immigration laws were initially defined as good until objective data revealed negative consequences.
   • Counterpoint: Immigration policies often involve a balancing act between humanitarian concerns and national interests. It's not uncommon for laws to be revisited and updated based on evolving circumstances.
4. Language and Law:
   • Claim: The post suggests that language can be manipulated to alter the intent of the law.
   • Counterpoint: Legal interpretation does involve language, but it also relies on legal precedent, legislative intent, and judicial decisions to ensure consistency and fairness.
5. Shoplifting and Law:
   • Claim: Recent changes in categorizing shoplifting in liberal cities are presented as a language game that blurs distinctions.
   • Counterpoint: Legal changes may reflect evolving societal views and priorities. Whether a specific act is categorized as a crime can depend on various factors, including societal attitudes and the need for criminal justice reform.

In conclusion, the post raises valid concerns about the potential subjectivity and flaws in the legal system. However, it's essential to acknowledge the complexity of legal issues and the ongoing efforts to strike a balance between justice, objectivity, and societal values. The legal system is designed to adapt, and debates surrounding its intricacies are inherent to a democratic society."

Wow, now that's a thoughtful and well considered response. Great job @Father Heathen!

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem with law is it can also become subjective. For example, in politics in America, if you do not go along with Biden and the radical Left's agenda, you will be defined as evil,

Gee. What could possibly explain that?

Also: what "radical left"?

Further yet, since you are so big in freedom of expression, try this one for size: "No time for apologists of Trump is a matter of basic decency."

All the best.

 

[Father Heathen]

Also: what "radical left"?

MAGA code for right of center.

 

[LuisDantas]

MAGA code for right of center.

True. But at some point we have to point out that the Emperor has no clothes - and, for that matter, isn't an Emperor at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wow, now that's a thoughtful and well considered response. Great job @Father Heathen!

I know. ChatGPT has superhuman patience.

 

[PureX]

I know. ChatGPT has superhuman patience.

Acknowledged. But still he had to read the post input the pertinent claims, and share the results. I certainly wouldn't have bothered. The minute I read the bit about the evil left and satanic Joe Biden or whatever it was, I'm gone.