[Serious] The Good

[brewer]

---

Good does not always need intent/motivations/morals, evil more often does. 

Why is that? 

The premise that loss of function is evil is just silly.

Please give the argument by which you decided this. 

What if we restated it by saying that one way to be evil is to deprive someone (unjustly) of function, would that be OK?

Because the counter of good is not always evil.

Loss of function does not always include intent. It could be thru an unavoidable accident or ones own innocent unknowing action. While this would be bad for the individual it would not be the result of evil.