"Is it better to suffer evil or to do it?"

[henry quirk]

Rephrased: Better to be predator or prey?

Predator, of course.

[bobevenson]

He just cast another vote for evil, my friends.

[henry quirk]

Damned straight.

[bobevenson]

Damned straight.

Well, I've got to admit you have most of the world on your side.

[henry quirk]

HA!

Most of the seven billion millin' about are 'prey'.

[Arising_uk]

Predators and prey have nothing to do with evil. This view is just the self-justification of the psychopath.

[henry quirk]

'Evil' is in the eye of the beholder (just like 'good').

There is no absolute arbiter in this.

But: if 'psychopath' is how you assess me, then 'psychopath' I am.

Could be worse...

[Arising_uk]

'Evil' is in the eye of the beholder (just like 'good').

There is no absolute arbiter in this.

But: if 'psychopath' is how you assess me, then 'psychopath' I am.

Could be worse...

Actually it couldn't but I was not naming you just pointing out that predator and prey are not evil this is a human construct misapplied to nature and such an application is a self-justification of the psychopath. If you want to know if you may be one then this may help http://personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php or just goggle "self test psychopathy" there's loads.

[henry quirk]

If I read you right, A_uk, you say the predator-prey transaction is a human construct, yes?

And I'm guessin', then, you believe the good-evil transaction is 'real' (not a construct), yes?

How do you arrive at such an (forgive me) ass-backward position?

Demonstrably: there are predators in the world and there is prey in the world.

Cheetah chases gazelle is archetypical of this fact.

The transaction between the two is independent of what you or I think, or, how we might assess.

Evil and good, however, is circumstance-defined and utterly subjective.

Cutting a man's throat to save a child might be considered 'good'; cutting a man's throat for the five bucks in his pocket might be considered 'evil'.

*Seems to me: good and evil are the constructs, each defined by the, for example, bringer of violence and the receiver of violence.

The violent man may have -- he believes -- good reasons for cutting the other guy's throat. The other guy (probably) will disagree with the violent man's reasonings and judge the violent man as 'wrong'.


Anyway, if the choice is between doing evil, or, suffering evil, who in his or her right mind chooses to be the victim?

Kind of a silly question anyway...living isn't such a black and white exercise.









*feeding the poor is usually considered a 'good'...an argument can be made that feeding the poor in perpetuity leads to a dependence of (otherwise capable) folks on the generosity of others...this learned or enforced dependence could be considered 'evil' (though certainly the dependent folks wouldn't see it that way)...again: circumstance and perspective define 'good' and 'evil'

[jackles]

henry it depends on how you view the field of existance.evil can be difined as acting selfish.good can be difined as acting unselfishly.so the field of existance relates its self to the individual to how selfish you are as an existance.selfish existance is evil existance.national selfishness is group evil.which is why the rich that are not helpful are although law abiding in this existance might fall foul in terms of eternal existance.like jesus said its hard to please two opposing forces.ya either selfish or not.hitler identified himself as german in terms of existance and was willing to gibe his life for that cause which was national selfishness.so was seen as nationaly good by the germans on a purely selfish basis.but was in world or planitary terms evil.relative to this the usa and its allies where less evil in world terms and therefor won ww2.

[The Voice of Time]

Entirely completely depend on what there is talk about...

It's kinda evil to steal a 1000 euros from the pockets of your grandfather, but if the alternative is to be beaten up to near-death by your local loan shark then I'd steal the 1000 euros. A lot of variables would of course have to be enforced first, such as my grandfather's very certain "no" on some principle (anything from "you have to deal with your own problems" to "I don't like your face") in the case I should ask.

1000 euros seems like a small price to pay in your karma as to nearly dying. Also in the case of choosing yourself or somebody else to die, the mere choice is so unfathomable that one may die simply from not answering, and in that case... have you gotten both answers or none? Have you chosen evil onto yourself or the other or both or none? It seems to be simultaneously both and none. So sometimes the third option of simply not choosing can be the better choice, and that is a choice yes because depending on circumstances it might lead to anything happening.

[jackles]

evil still then can be difined in terms of selfish action.examples rape murder theft conceite the list is obvious.its comes under vice.virtue being good and its also common scence to see the difference.on a group level by politics the line can be made more indistict.its local selfishness v nonlocal unselfishness .the nonlocal has its reward in the nonlocal..and the local has it punishment in the nonlocal.

[Arising_uk]

If I read you right, A_uk, you say the predator-prey transaction is a human construct, yes?

Nope, I consider its application to human relations a construct of the psychopath to justify their behaviour. I consider it a correct description of the behaviour between certain species.

And I'm guessin', then, you believe the good-evil transaction is 'real' (not a construct), yes?

Nope, I think it a human construct to describe behaviour thats considered immoral by whichever society.

How do you arrive at such an (forgive me) ass-backward position?

I don't.

Demonstrably: there are predators in the world and there is prey in the world.

Cheetah chases gazelle is archetypical of this fact.

The transaction between the two is independent of what you or I think, or, how we might assess.

I agree but its between species and based-upon sustenance requirements. It's why I think it incorrect, in the main, to apply it intra-species and especially between humans.

Evil and good, however, is circumstance-defined and utterly subjective.

Which is why we have ethics.

Cutting a man's throat to save a child might be considered 'good'; cutting a man's throat for the five bucks in his pocket might be considered 'evil'.

*Seems to me: good and evil are the constructs, each defined by the, for example, bringer of violence and the receiver of violence.

The violent man may have -- he believes -- good reasons for cutting the other guy's throat. The other guy (probably) will disagree with the violent man's reasonings and judge the violent man as 'wrong'.

Personally I think Ethics a mix of all the positions and the judgement is by society.

Anyway, if the choice is between doing evil, or, suffering evil, who in his or her right mind chooses to be the victim?

Who in their right mind chooses either? Do good.

Kind of a silly question anyway...living isn't such a black and white exercise.

Agreed. Look for the positive intention behind any behaviour if you wish to change that behaviour.

[henry quirk]

A_uk,

Sorry for misunderstanding (part of) your position.

#

"judgement is by society"

Screw that noise.

#

"Do good"

Again: eye of the beholder.

[Arising_uk]

#

"judgement is by society"

Screw that noise.

#

Maybe but if you are going to claim no objective standards and only subjective ones then you are at the others judgement.

"Do good"

Again: eye of the beholder.

A beholder who appears to be able to recognise 'evil'?