Evil

[GenericAthiest]

Does Evil exist? What is Evil?

[Aoi Magi]

Evil is anything that is not in favor of the survival of us and our species.
ex: Politicians, Priests, Psychopaths...

[Longhorn]

Oh look, more morality threads ._.

'Evil', like 'good' is subjective. The rule of thumb is basically that we take what is beneficial to humans, society, our species in general and call that 'good' and we take what is harmful to us and we call it 'bad' or immoral. But such labels apply only to us. There is no objective morality, and the fact that we argue whether genital mutilation or raping women is good or bad only proves that. As far as I'm concerned, the only morality I conform to is my own and that of my society, and it evolves and changes over time. Hence why the good book isn't that 'good' at all.

[GenericAthiest]

Oh look, more morality threads ._.

'Evil', like 'good' is subjective. The rule of thumb is basically that we take what is beneficial to humans, society, our species in general and call that 'good' and we take what is harmful to us and we call it 'bad' or immoral. But such labels apply only to us. There is no objective morality, and the fact that we argue whether genital mutilation or raping women is good or bad only proves that. As far as I'm concerned, the only morality I conform to is my own and that of my society, and it evolves and changes over time. Hence why the good book isn't that 'good' at all.

It's also interesting how some people will say that there is only "evil" within human species when their is just much behavior that people call "evil" in other parts of the animal world, yet human beings are the only ones who are "sinners".

[Aoi Magi]

It's also interesting how some people will say that there is only "evil" within human species when their is just much behavior that people call "evil" in other parts of the animal world, yet human beings are the only ones who are "sinners".

Not quite. Only a specific portion of humanity(sadly, they belong to the same species), following a specific inconsistent belief system, is termed as sinners. Most other belief and non-belief systems don't have that concept.

[Chad32]

There are some actions I consider evil. Mostly those that harm others while only helping one or a few people. Someone who kills people so he can use their skins for upholstery.

I don't believe there is some embodiment of evil that wants to spread evil across the world because it hates goodness.

Good and evil are subjective concepts that can be anchored in objective things. The simplest idea of this is that if you wouldn't like it done to you, you shouldn't do it to others. It's the cornerstone of empathy, which all social creatures need.

[Neo-Scholastic]

'Evil', like 'good' is subjective. The rule of thumb is basically that we take what is beneficial to humans, society, our species in general and call that 'good' and we take what is harmful to us and we call it 'bad' or immoral.

Both you and Magi answer only to immediately retract it. First you say that good and evil are subjective and then you qualify it by asserting that some things (objectively I assume) are beneficial or harmful. When you identify a benefit or harm you make a value judgement. Why does collective survival trump self-preservation? All death and suffering is personal and cannot be added.

[GenericAthiest]

Evil is anything that is not in favor of the survival of us and our species.
ex: Politicians, Priests, Psychopaths...

It's also interesting how some people will say that there is only "evil" within human species when their is just much behavior that people call "evil" in other parts of the animal world, yet human beings are the only ones who are "sinners".

Not quite. Only a specific portion of humanity(sadly, they belong to the same species), following a specific inconsistent belief system, is termed as sinners. Most other belief and non-belief systems don't have that concept.

Are you fucking stupid? I said "some people' do this.

[Longhorn]

'Evil', like 'good' is subjective. The rule of thumb is basically that we take what is beneficial to humans, society, our species in general and call that 'good' and we take what is harmful to us and we call it 'bad' or immoral.

Both you and Magi answer only to immediately retract it. First you say that good and evil are subjective and then you qualify it by asserting that some things (objectively I assume) are beneficial or harmful. When you identify a benefit or harm you make a value judgement. Why does collective survival trump self-preservation? All death and suffering is personal and cannot be added.

The fact that some things are detrimental to our species' survival is objective, but that doesn't constitute or equal our concept of evil, which is subjective. In the past things that were detrimental to our continued existence as a species were not regarded immoral and vice versa. In my previous post I was referring to the modern view of morality in most of the world, not in general at all points in time. And like I said it is a general rule of thumb, because you will find plenty exceptions on this board alone.

Collective survival trumps self preservation because collective survival is what we are ultimately 'programmed' to do. From an evolutionary standpoint the survival of the species is more important than the survival of a single individual. From a moral standpoint, opinions differ. See? Subjectivity.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I just love how you atheists deny the concept of Natural Law then turn around and tacitly call on it by calling it programming. Stop trying to hide your moral nihilism.