I would like to point out that I am talking about evil in a purely human context. Yes, evil changes depending upon the views of society and the individual. However, this does not mean evil does not exist. Reality itself is changed depending on the individual viewpoint. For instance, a person who suffers from arachnophobia will see the spider in the room as large, threatening and dominant, whilst a person without this phobia may not notice the spider at all. The two different peoples situation has changed due to their different perspectives on reality. In this case, the spider is subjective. The spider still exists, but is viewed completely differently by the two people in the room. In the same way evil is ever changing, but to say that this changing nature means evil is non-existent would be false.
Another point I would like to make is that there are no evil people. Actions are evil or good, but as no-one commits only evil or only good actions, no-one can be considered rightly be considered good or evil without missing out a side to their nature. This means that people must be considered not as evil, but as a person who commits more evil acts that good. This is far less like a whitewash than just labeling people good or evil.
Ledo said that Hitler and Stalin considered themselves to be doing good. That is true, but if we left people to self-convict there would be very few people in our jails! In the end they harmed many people with a conscious will. This means they can not rightly be considered 'good'.
Under my definition of evil,
any direct or indirect action which leads to the intentional harming, both emotionally and physically, of another consciousness
Means that nature can not commit evil because, as atheists would be the first to point out, nature does not have a consciousness hence e is unable to harm anyone intentionally
Another point I would like to make is that there are no evil people. Actions are evil or good, but as no-one commits only evil or only good actions, no-one can be considered rightly be considered good or evil without missing out a side to their nature. This means that people must be considered not as evil, but as a person who commits more evil acts that good. This is far less like a whitewash than just labeling people good or evil.
Ledo said that Hitler and Stalin considered themselves to be doing good. That is true, but if we left people to self-convict there would be very few people in our jails! In the end they harmed many people with a conscious will. This means they can not rightly be considered 'good'.
Under my definition of evil,
any direct or indirect action which leads to the intentional harming, both emotionally and physically, of another consciousness
Means that nature can not commit evil because, as atheists would be the first to point out, nature does not have a consciousness hence e is unable to harm anyone intentionally
