[Serious] The Good

[Belacqua]

---

Why is that? 


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.

I think I asked you why you say good may not involve intention, but evil usually does. 

Your answer appears to be:

Because the counter of good is not always evil.

I'm not seeing the relevance of this response yet. What is a "counter" in this case? 

Also I asked why loss of function doesn't always indicate evil. Your answer here was clearer to me:

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.

So I think you're going here on the definition of evil as involving intention. I agree that seems like a sensible definition. 

It's interesting to me that the people who disagree with you have a system and definitions that are unlike what most of us use, it seems. If I'm reading them right, good is what leads to flourishing and evil is what blocks flourishing. 

If you put aside our standard definition of evil for a moment, in order to contemplate their system, does it seem at all useful to you? For example I'm thinking that some unintentional act I commit, which nonetheless leads to other people's loss of function, would be evil despite my lack of intent. The extent to which I'm guilty, then, might be a tricky question, but wouldn't claim that the resultant loss of function wasn't evil. 

This is in line with what Yonadev was saying earlier -- that all human acts are a mixture, none is purely good.