Evil and suffering.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

YOU are to blame. I sentence you to hang by the neck until dead.

[truthBtold]

YOU are to blame. I sentence you to hang by the neck until dead.

Judas?

[bennyboy]

You forgot chaotic and lawful.

True but broadly speaking I'd say those fall under either "good," "evil," (more correctly, "bad" or "harmful") or "neutral."

-100 geek points to you for failing to recognize the D&D reference.
For your education:



Here's a question: if someone has a strong social outlook and idealistic ideas, and consistently acts on them, are they evil? What, for example, about someone who stalks serial rapists and kills them in their sleep?

[Alex K]

Here's a question: if someone has a strong social outlook and idealistic ideas, and consistently acts on them, are they evil? What, for example, about someone who stalks serial rapists and kills them in their sleep?

I'll answer it thusly: I find the words good and evil useless and don't even try to apply it to anything. What you describe is an ethical dilemma. You can discuss it at length, adding simplistic labels like good and evil does not help at all.

[Zen Badger]

We think that the 9/11 bombers are evil for what they did. But millions think they are heros.

The allied bomber crews of WWII are regarded as brave heros by us but as evil baby killers by the people they were dropping bombs on.

Good and evil is all perspective.

[Mudhammam]

I believe that acts of murder and rape are evil but I'm not really into labeling people "good" or "evil" except in a practical sense and in the most extreme cases of harm and destruction. For example, was Hitler evil? I'd say so. But what does that really mean? In my opinion, it means his environment and state of mind was such that brought horrendous suffering to his fellow human being. He was evil to the degree that he was responsible for those he oppressed under Nazi Germany. I wouldn't say anyone is ultimately responsible, nor would I say anyone can be in-of-themselves evil. To me "evil" or "bad" are words that describe intentions, actions, and outcomes that (even incrementally) add to human (or in some cases animal) suffering. I also agree that it's all perspective but in this instance, given that it's a perspective largely derived from objective consequences (poverty or disease or psychological oppression have measurable affects that can spread and be detrimental to us all, etc.), I think it's no less significant than my "perspective" that you people are actually real or that consciousness isn't a supercomputer simulation.

[Ryantology]

If the universe is an intentional creation of a supreme being, evil and suffering are either a flaw resulting from shoddy work or a deliberate feature designed to bring joy to the creator.

[bennyboy]

Here's a question: if someone has a strong social outlook and idealistic ideas, and consistently acts on them, are they evil? What, for example, about someone who stalks serial rapists and kills them in their sleep?

I'll answer it thusly: I find the words good and evil useless and don't even try to apply it to anything. What you describe is an ethical dilemma. You can discuss it at length, adding simplistic labels like good and evil does not help at all.

Thusly? Are you being ironical, or did you mean to use that word?

Good and evil are perfectly useful words. My wife is good, and my crazy ex-girlfriends are evil bitches.

[Cato]

If the universe is an intentional creation of a supreme being, evil and suffering are either a flaw resulting from shoddy work or a deliberate feature designed to bring joy to the creator.

Indeed, God is the ultimate snuff porn magnate.

[Bob Kelso]

Good, evil, pleasure and suffering. These are subjective descriptive terms that rely upon perspective. Nothing more.