»God is everything - Literally«
|
|||
 Quote: a distraction as I didn't say anything about the 4 being followers of Gods word ? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsGod is everything - Literally |
|
|||
 knnknn: Quote: a distraction as I didn't say anything about the 4 being followers of Gods word ? Just answer the question as if the Bible reference was not there posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK: Not killing ANYthing is not possible. A least some cells have to die when you eat, or build a house. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knnknn: OK: Not killing ANYthing is not possible. A least some cells have to die when you eat, or build a house. The question was "how many of them are Evil?" or are you considering a career in politics? in which case your answer is appropriate. 
posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 He already answered the question. Probably none of them. The executioner does not make the descision to kill the person and generally we decide morality on intention rather than action. The first two are insane. The last one depends on the war. Sometimes killing can be done in self defence and most wars can be seen as some form of self defence. Especially for the soldier who will be court martialled if they do not fight. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: He already answered the question. Probably none of them. I can't see where that was. Pawnatron: 1 and 2 are insane fatpie42: The first two are insane. Are you saying then, that Insane people are not Evil? posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
People with mental problems which they cannot control are not responsible for their actions. Morality is normally judged by intentions and since their intentions are confused it does not make sense to simply call them 'evil'. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Morality is normally judged by intentions Nicely put. It was one of those questions where the answer is not as important as the why. The thing they all have in common is that they kill without malice . The act can't be Evil if the intent is not. (oh and incidentally the one I missed off was "A Lion Kills for Food") posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: The thing they all have in common is that they kill without malice . The act can't be Evil if the intent is not. Well, since we talk here in categories of Good/Evil: WHAT IF they are so evil that they decide to get crazy first to have no consciousness of the evilness of their actions? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knnknn: WHAT IF they are so evil that they decide to get crazy first to have no consciousness of the evilness of their actions? I think you've been spending too much time with Zero
-- ignoring the "willing yourself to be crazy" part... You say it as if evil is a state of being (they are Evil) rather than a measure of their actions (they've done Evil Deeds). If this is the case, the only way a person could be judged as Evil (before they start their evil-doing) must be based on some perceived reverse of morality - ie their morality is the reverse of the norm. Someone who comits crime because their morality is different from Society is called a Sociopath. And we already decided Sociopaths are not Evil. 
There is of course a better definition of Evil - someone who obtains pleasure from rejecting or ignoring their own morality - this one wasn't on my list
i.e. (in the form of my list) Someone who understands and accepts that it's wrong to kill, but enjoys doing it (most likely because it's wrong). This kind of person often get's incorrectly labelled a psychopath. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2
Goto page Previous
1, 2
 Register Log in |
The time now is 12 February 2012, 19:07 php B.B. |