Good and Evil

[Gary Childress]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice that has no explanation, no "because..." As long as there is "because", there is no evil, only mistakes. There is also malice to be found among the healthy and also honor to be found among thieves. And we all come to an end. Nothing is solved and our followers will repeat our journies.

[Age]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice that has no explanation, no "because..." As long as there is "because", there is no evil, only mistakes. There is also malice to be found among the healthy and also honor to be found among thieves. And we all come to an end. Nothing is solved and our followers will repeat our journies.

Do you see ANY positive/s to being alive, and living, "gary childress"?

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice that has no explanation, no "because..." As long as there is "because", there is no evil, only mistakes. There is also malice to be found among the healthy and also honor to be found among thieves. And we all come to an end. Nothing is solved and our followers will repeat our journies.

To state " "Evil" must ultimately be malice" is too loose [generate a lot of loose ends] and not efficient for the topic of morality.
The term "morality" itself and "ethics" are also a very loose terms.

To ensure 'morality' and 'ethics' are efficiently dealt with so that it can generate utility, it would be wiser to deal with 'morality' within a specific human-based constituted Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

Within the FSK we have to define 'what is morality' precisely.
Morality is defined as 'the management of 'evil' to enables its related good.


What is evil is that which is net-negative to the well-being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
All humans are "programmed" with the potential for evil and also an inhibitor/modulator to avoid evil.

To get a more comprehensive idea of what is evil we need to establish and agree upon what is the worst evil to be used as a STANDARD.
It is undeniable the worst evil is the act of the extermination of the human species, followed lesser by genocides of groups of people.
If we rate the above extermination and genocide at 100/100 evilness, we can estimate the degree of evilness for other lesser evils [malice, rapes, slavery, etc.]; surely the killing on one or two person cannot be equivalent to genocides of millions, thus can be rated with something like 80/100 degree of evilness or thereabout.

Thus, "Evil" cannot ultimately be malice. but 'what is evil' must be defined precisely within a morality FSK so that it can be managed efficiently for the sake of humanity in the future [too late at present].

[LuckyR]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice that has no explanation, no "because..." As long as there is "because", there is no evil, only mistakes. There is also malice to be found among the healthy and also honor to be found among thieves. And we all come to an end. Nothing is solved and our followers will repeat our journies.

By that logic every defendant at trial is not guilty because their lawyer has dreamed up an excuse, which should be taken at face value.

[Immanuel Can]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice that has no explanation, no "because..." As long as there is "because", there is no evil, only mistakes. There is also malice to be found among the healthy and also honor to be found among thieves. And we all come to an end. Nothing is solved and our followers will repeat our journies.

By that logic every defendant at trial is not guilty because their lawyer has dreamed up an excuse, which should be taken at face value.

Gary also apparently believes that "malice" is "evil," even while denying that "evil' can be anything at all.

[Gary Childress]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice that has no explanation, no "because..." As long as there is "because", there is no evil, only mistakes. There is also malice to be found among the healthy and also honor to be found among thieves. And we all come to an end. Nothing is solved and our followers will repeat our journies.

By that logic every defendant at trial is not guilty because their lawyer has dreamed up an excuse, which should be taken at face value.

Gary also apparently believes that "malice" is "evil," even while denying that "evil' can be anything at all.

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth that they themselves didn't say?

[Immanuel Can]

By that logic every defendant at trial is not guilty because their lawyer has dreamed up an excuse, which should be taken at face value.

Gary also apparently believes that "malice" is "evil," even while denying that "evil' can be anything at all.

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth that they themselves didn't say?

Not me. You think "malice" is a negative, of bad, or evil in some way, don't you? Your words certainly seem to indicate you do...if you don't, then nobody can even make sense of what you're arguing, because then you'd be recommending "malice."

But then you don't believe in an objective "evil," either, do you? If you've changed your mind and now do, feel free to explain that.

If you can't, I'm right.

Quit whining.

[Gary Childress]

Gary also apparently believes that "malice" is "evil," even while denying that "evil' can be anything at all.

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth that they themselves didn't say?

Not me. You think "malice" is a negative, of bad, or evil in some way, don't you? Your words certainly seem to indicate you do...if you don't, then nobody can even make sense of what you're arguing, because then you'd be recommending "malice."

But then you don't believe in an objective "evil," either, do you? If you've changed your mind and now do, feel free to explain that.

If you can't, I'm right.

Quit whining.

I'll quit "whining" when you learn to read.

[Immanuel Can]

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth that they themselves didn't say?

Not me. You think "malice" is a negative, of bad, or evil in some way, don't you? Your words certainly seem to indicate you do...if you don't, then nobody can even make sense of what you're arguing, because then you'd be recommending "malice."

But then you don't believe in an objective "evil," either, do you? If you've changed your mind and now do, feel free to explain that.

If you can't, I'm right.

Quit whining.

I'll quit "whining" when you learn to read.

Hey, answer the question. If you can't, then I'm not the one with the reading problem.

[Gary Childress]

Gary also apparently believes that "malice" is "evil," even while denying that "evil' can be anything at all.

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth that they themselves didn't say?

Not me. You think "malice" is a negative, of bad, or evil in some way, don't you? Your words certainly seem to indicate you do...if you don't, then nobody can even make sense of what you're arguing, because then you'd be recommending "malice."

But then you don't believe in an objective "evil," either, do you? If you've changed your mind and now do, feel free to explain that.

If you can't, I'm right.

Quit whining.

OK. So you think malice is not evil I take it? Perhaps if one has malice against the right people, then it's OK?

[Immanuel Can]

Now who's putting words in someone's mouth that they themselves didn't say?

Not me. You think "malice" is a negative, of bad, or evil in some way, don't you? Your words certainly seem to indicate you do...if you don't, then nobody can even make sense of what you're arguing, because then you'd be recommending "malice."

But then you don't believe in an objective "evil," either, do you? If you've changed your mind and now do, feel free to explain that.

If you can't, I'm right.

Quit whining.

OK. So you think malice is not evil I take it?

Now you're having real trouble reading.

No, what I said is that YOU say that. But that you also don't believe in evil.

Set me straight: which is it. Is "malice" not evil, and is "evil" not anything; or is "malice" evil, and "evil" is real? It has to be one of the two.

[Gary Childress]

Not me. You think "malice" is a negative, of bad, or evil in some way, don't you? Your words certainly seem to indicate you do...if you don't, then nobody can even make sense of what you're arguing, because then you'd be recommending "malice."

But then you don't believe in an objective "evil," either, do you? If you've changed your mind and now do, feel free to explain that.

If you can't, I'm right.

Quit whining.

OK. So you think malice is not evil I take it?

Now you're having real trouble reading.

No, what I said is that YOU say that. But that you also don't believe in evil.

Set me straight: which is it. Is "malice" not evil, and is "evil" not anything; or is "malice" evil, and "evil" is real? It has to be one of the two.

I am not saying Malice is evil. I don't think that "evil" exists. Instead, what you think of as "evil" seems to basically be malice. Malice is malice. "Evil" is a theological word.

[Immanuel Can]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice...

I am not saying Malice is evil. I don't think that "evil" exists.

Can you explain both of your quotations above, then?

How is it that "evil" must be "malice," but you don't think "malice" is "evil"?

[Gary Childress]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice...

I am not saying Malice is evil. I don't think that "evil" exists.

Can you explain both of your quotations above, then?

How is it that "evil" must be "malice," but you don't think "malice" is "evil"?

What our ancestors referred to as "evil" seems to mostly be malice. Apologies I wasn't more clear in my introduction.

[Immanuel Can]

"Evil" must ultimately be malice...

I am not saying Malice is evil. I don't think that "evil" exists.

Can you explain both of your quotations above, then?

How is it that "evil" must be "malice," but you don't think "malice" is "evil"?

What our ancestors referred to as "evil" seems to mostly be malice. Apologies I wasn't more clear in my introduction.

Okay. Well, I guess you'd be telling our ancestors, then, that they were imagining things: that "malice" isn't "evil" after all.