This. This quote wins the internet!!! I love it. LMBO

Oh hey, on that subject, Porn is only evil if someone involved experiences psychological (exploitation) social (having a reputation as a certain s word or certain b word that is bothersome to the model) or physical harm. For example the model Asia Carerra has informed various sources that she never had a problem with the industry. Anything listed as extreme, or any use of the word prolapse... evil. What happened to Linda Lovelace, and Marilyn Chambers... evil.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:23, Wed 23 July 2014.

As I see it, the problem with Steelsmiter's definition is one of degree.

If there exists a moral continuum, whether it is objective or subjective, one end of that continuum should be labelled 'Good' and the other end should be labelled 'Evil'.

It seems to me that in Steelsmiter's world, there is no 'Good', only greater or lesser Evil.

Hence I think his definition is skewed.

There are a lot of acts that don't cause any harm, and a lot of accidents that aren't intended to cause harm of one of the various types I mentioned. People are capable of performing unharming acts and thus being good.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 105):

Nope. But can it truly be called debt bondage? Still, as I said, I draw the distinction by whether it was the individual's actions that lead to that result.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 106):



Exactly. YOU are making a classification. You are basing that classification on what you define as being moral.

It is not my intent to make you think that these are moral after all. It is my point to clarify that each of us has different definitions for what is moral, therefore, each of will classify an act based on our definitions.

Your definitions will always lead you where they have.

You simply need to realize that if I claim something is moral and you don't agree, it isn't that one of us is objectively wrong, it is that we are using different definitions of what is moral. We have each defined what is moral, and our definitions do not match.

---
The ability to classify something depends on two factors, understanding of what is being classified, and the definitions of the possible classifications.

This means that to classify an act as either "good" or "evil" we need to define what good and evil are, then we need to understand the act. Only then can we classify an act as either good or evil.

If we use different definitions however, our classifications will be different.

---
Even an objective standard must be defined, and a definition is by its very nature, subjective.

Have you read history? Like, at all? Even a little bit?

I don't 'need to realize' anything. Nothing I said is inaccurate.


Likely more than you, but history talks about countries and when it talks about individuals they're only the ones at the top.

No. An absence of evil is not good, it's an absence of opportunity.

Give us an example of a good (not less evil) act which causes no harm.


Also are you Catholic? Your "evil > EVIL" scale of morality is very depressing. I can't imagine why anyone would bother living if we all shared your definition.
This message was last edited by the user at 07:26, Thu 24 July 2014.

On the contrary, much of what you said is incorrect according to my definition of moral, good, and evil.

You speak as though your definition is the only possible definition, and that is what is false.

Accuracy can only be applied to a defined scope. Change the definition and you change the accuracy.

Why do you think the church redefined the words magic, witch, and sorcery?

As I see it, "good" and "evil" only exist in comparison to each other. Like "sane" and "insane" or "stupid" and "intelligent". The exact definitions will change depending on the individuals discussing it, or the culture, or whatever.

Imagine if there was a society somewhere which had no concept of the things that we normally call "evil". So, no killing/murder, no stealing, no calling people names, no burning their house down. Nothing like that. So everything they do, by our standards, would be considered "good". But to them, who have never even considered the possibility that one person might try to hit another over the head or stab them with a pointy object or whatever, their definition of "evil" might be what we call "less good". Because that's all it is. To them, "evil" might be leaving your rubbish lying around because that's messy and someone might slip on it or something. It's one of those "sliding scale" things, I suppose.

On another note, if killing/harming other life is "evil", then every living thing which has ever existed is evil, because all of it needs to consume organic matter to sustain itself (or at least take it over, in the case of viruses). I don't know if plants have nervous systems (and are thus able to feel pain), but herbivores (and omnivores) are still gonna be killing them in order to survive (except in the cases of those plants whose seeds have evolved to survive passage through a digestive tract and get plopped out the othe end into a nice big pile of fertiliser ;)).

Just because people can generally agree on what is "evil" doesn't mean everyone is "right" about it. I mean, look back in the "olden days" when they still had the death penalty (well, some countries even still use it now, don't they?). Those who made the laws were basically saying "Killing is bad - if you kill people that's a crime, so we're gonna kill you for it...ohh but it's okay if we do it, because we're in charge and we get to make up the rules, including the one which says it's okay for us to kill people", and thereby proving themselves to be about as bad as the people they were executing ;). Anyway, if you want someone to suffer, killing them would be the one thing you wouldn't do to them., wouldn't it?

I'd just like to say I'm sorry. My last post was evil. i did it to illustrate a point. Anyone of any particular belief system has their own perogative to make any choice about it they want. It was the kind of attitude behind the inquisition, witch hunts, and other things that people in this thread have rationalized as 'they thought they were good' or 'they lacked hindsight'. There's no excuse for my last post likewise.


That's not entirely accurate, the absence of evil can be good. It also can be the absence of opportunity. The two aren't mutually exclusive, so it can be either, or, or both.


See, now we're getting somewhere. Up to this point everyone's assumed that there is no good in my definition, rather that the statement "causing one of various types of harms is evil, but here's a bunch of things that are acceptable" is all there is to it. Right. So examples:

Rescuing a cat from a tree
Having consensual sex that is in no way exploitative with someone free of any STDs, who is in relative financial stability, provided both you and they are not in a position to bring psychological damage to a significant other who is not partaking in the act
Donating to charity (or being a philanthropist)
volunteering
Returning a lost item to an individual, without regard for its contents if it is a container such as a wallet

That's not "good" it's just "not evil".


"Rescuing" a cat from a tree is normally a fallacy. It's rare a "rescued" cat is unable to get down on its own, ergo rarely is anything achieved apart from undue stress forced upon the cat: evil.


I assume by "volunteering" you mean working for a charitable cause? Otherwise I volunteer to help finish cake all the time... :P But more seriously, are examples of volunteers using the need of people against them. Is volunteering still a good act when the intention is to use it to facilitate an act of evil?


Even so, by your definition the only way a person can live a "good" life is not to live one at all.

Perhaps something I say will provide one person insight and be helpful.
Perhaps something I say will be disagreeable and rub someone the wrong way.

So is what I have to say good or evil?

Is it a matter of intent?  If I am intending to be helpful or am I just a self righteous, pompous fool trying to coerce others to my way of thinking?

How do you know my intent?  Even if I declare it, I could be lying.

So how can one judge what is evil and what is good?

People are different.  I think it is mostly a matter of personal perception and that perception can vary by situation.

Is killing evil?  A serial nut job shooting up a school vs a policeman killing said nut job?

Is generosity good? Or is it evil because you've now contributed to their dependency on handouts? 

Giving the shirt off your back? Generosity to the point that your own children are hungry?

Someone who has a farm that feeds the hungry could be seen as good.  Building housing to shelter the homeless is seen as good.  Creating business and jobs for people is seen as good.  All these things require land.  Destroying forests, displacing animals.  Extinct and endangered plants and animals.  Evil?

Perhaps every action has an equal and opposite reaction?  Maybe there is no good without evil?

Stress, no matter the circumstance will be inflicted on the cat. By your own definition you used many times above, it is evil.



So spouses who are not in financial stability are evil when they have sex, spouses that carry STD's because of circumstances outside their control(medical personnel) are evil, and conselsual polygamy also becomes evil right there as well. Right on.

So basicly, reproduction of the human race, for most of its circumstances, is evil. Good to know.



So, the charity has no bearing on this. Good to know. Since I can proudly tell the police that clearly while the charity was funding terrorists I as a philanthropist by way of donating to the charity was doing a clearly good thing and thus should be immune from any kind of prosecution.



So, SS officers and troops that volunteered for service to oversee the extermination of Jews during World War II were actually doing a good thing. Shocking news to me.



I'll be sure to remember that when I return the detonator to the suicide bomber.


It seems not you yourself is immune to your own arguments. Any other examples you would care to provide so we can pick your brain for the clear examples of "good"?

All this makes me wonder how you all would answer the big question in "Those who walk away" A story I read in middle school english class. Or was it highschool.... maybe high school.

We can adjust our beliefs to match what we experience or we can adjust our definitions to justify our beliefs despite our experience.

To learn and grow, we must gain understanding. The best way to gain understanding is to question not only our beliefs, but our reasons for believing the things we believe. Another good way to gain understanding is to refine our definitions to maximize clarity and the usefulness of the definitions.

But we must always be aware that what we are doing is manipulating ourselves, or we will fail to notice the reality of the world. If we fail to learn about the reality of the world, then we can not grow beyond ourselves, like a seed that can't escape its shell. If we can't grow beyond ourselves, then we are at the mercy of those who have.

I was going to follow up my 'evil but no good' observation when Steelsmiter made a rebuttal, but others have beaten me to it. As I suspected, it seems very difficult to find a genuinely and wholly 'good' act when faced by his all-encompassing definition of evil.

There is far too much evil in your world, Steelsmiter.

I believe I'm good, but you define most of my thoughts and deeds as 'evil' or, at best, 'acceptably evil'. Does that mean your moral code is itself evil, because it harms my self-esteem by making me feel despicable? ;)

Are your thoughts damaging to your psyche? I'm only responsible for what I say, not what you think. In any case, if your thoughts aren't damaging to your psyche I don't see what makes them evil. In any case, what people aren't getting is that evil that's basically acceptable ends up being more or less neutral. The act itself may not be moral, but the acceptance of the act tends to make it less of an impact.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:37, Thu 24 July 2014.

I can't speak for others, but when I am posting on this thread, I am not posting as to the ultimate good or evil in any metaphysical context, but in classification of persons as "good" or "evil," or "lawful" or "chaotic" in a roleplaying context as to alignment.

A character in an RPG who plays a cleric in a historical witch hunt could actually have a "lawful good" alignment, even though we would classify him differently according to our understanding.  But according to him (and perhaps his deity), he is being lawful and doing good, so there would be no alignment violation there.  (It may really be evil, but that doesn't matter.)

I believe something like that was written about in the Paladin's Guide long ago to justify how a lawful good paladin could still engage in an inquisition or killing others on behalf of his liege.  That kind of thing, but it's been a few years.

Alright, so a post about generalized alignment may be in order then:

Generally speaking if someone limits his harms to those which are acceptable, he's probably not evil. I'm still on the fence whether I'd call him good, it depends on whether he really goes all out with it.

I believe most here are confusing Nature with Evil.  It is the human intent behind some acts which I can regard as Evil as that concept is a human construct and can be found across all cultures in all times.  If you are looking for a Universal Good and Evil I don't believe you will find one.

Examples:

Signing a law - Not Evil.  Signing a law to wipe out people based on color, race, or religion - Evil.

Killing a man threatening your family - Not Evil.  Killing a man just for snoring - Evil.

I could go on but I won't.  It is the purpose and intent which makes an action Evil and it is the same thing with Good.  There are acts committed with the intent to improve another's well-being and those I would consider Good.  Now, both Evil and Good have unintended consequences which may to Good or Evil outcomes but the intent under which those acts were committed, to me, indicate their Good or Evil status.

On a side note: I once had dinner with a family friend who had defended a rather notorious serial killer in court.  He said that this encounter completely changed his views on Evil since he really didn't believe Evil existed.  He recounted how the man calmly, meticulously, and with a smile, recounted the atrocities he had committed on his victims.  The man was not insane and was quite charming and soft-spoken but my friend said you could feel the pleasure this man felt in his recounting.  That convinced him that Evil was real.

As I said before, I know Evil and Good when I see it.  Another's definition means nothing.

Now, as for RPGs, there are, or can be, actual physical embodiments of Good and Evil, Law and Chaos.  In those realms I have no problem laying down a rule system regarding what actions are Good and Evil.  Especially for those classes or roles that revolve around those concepts such as Paladins, Clerics, etc.

If you are creating a definition of morals, you are attempting to influence what I think.

By your definition, my thoughts about wiping the smarmy smile off my tight-fisted boss's face are inherently evil.

So possibly your continuum ranges from evil to neutral?

I am in no way suggesting anyone follow them, that is why the above statement is irrevocably wrong. I don't mean 'not moral' in this case, I mean incorrect. I honestly could care less whether people follow it. I don't follow it. I've merely accepted that I might be good, but I'm more likely neutral. I believe I have caused some measure of psychological or social harm to others, and possibly financial harm to my mother and myself (the degree depends on one's stance on willing contributions I guess, although admittedly some familial contributions have been begrudging).


No, my definition does not include anything other than action. If you act on it, that's inherently evil. Your thoughts don't cause harm to another. They might cause harm to you, and at that point, you are within your rights and ability to let them go. Not doing so is the only evil here.


Only for people who do nothing less evil than causing one of the harms. I'd measure that most adventurers do tend to return possessions to their owners without regards to the actual content of the item, or perhaps rescue kittens from trees, or more heroically, people from burning buildings. Any number of logical extensions of things I included earlier that were good. It's not difficult to extrapolate.

In RPG's, 'good' is whatever the game's GM says it is.

For the definition of 'evil', see the above and extrapolate.

It's a good idea to make sure that you can work with the GM's definitions at the outset.