Couldn't agree more.
I conducted an internet trial of MT, where I charged her with mass murder by denying medical care and medicine to TB victims, instead, allowing them to die in clean surroundings.
Alas, I could only get her convicted of manslaughter.
I agree with a lot of what you've written, but I think you miss out on the biggest motivator of all - simply our DNA. The inherent selfishness of all animals through their DNA is a survival mechanism, and most human desires can be broken down into human and learned constructs based on those traits.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
I couldn't claim to know the answer to that! I simply analysed the question from the definition given in the first post, that of being either "selfish" or "self-centred".
Perhaps I would be inclined to think of being evil as deliberately acting against what you know or believe to be for the greater good.
I quite agree that DNA is a very important motivator, but I would still be inclined to put it in the context of being one of the factors causing you to view something as pleasurable or painful. I only gave a brief allusion to it in my examples because I don't know enough about the specific genes that affect one's decisions and I was aware that my post was already becoming too long to embark on a nature/nurture debate!
Incidentally, I think the question is pretty nonsensical.
To demonstrate why, let's try this, and see where it takes us....
Are women inherently evil?
That is a reasonable definition.
Genes determine whether something would be pleasurable, so DNA is more fundamental than pleasure and pain. The same is true of both nature and nurture.I quite agree that DNA is a very important motivator, but I would still be inclined to put it in the context of being one of the factors causing you to view something as pleasurable or painful. I only gave a brief allusion to it in my examples because I don't know enough about the specific genes that affect one's decisions and I was aware that my post was already becoming too long to embark on a nature/nurture debate!
I believe that any discussion that leads to a greater understanding of Earthlings is not nonsensical.
Women are not evil by any definition of evil that I know, but there may be ways to define evil that would make women evil. If you know such a definition, then please post it.Are women inherently evil?
Hardly worth asking.
Coercing man to act in a manner desirable to the woman but against his innate needs and nature.
That covers most women, and I'm sure I can net the rest easily enough.
I think the problem isn't so much the definition of evil as a word, but as an action. Which action is evil and why? Then all you need is universal approval of it.
Piece of cake.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Maybe you think so, but it is a man's best course to agree with women in all matters. I realize that may seem rather extreme and contrary to what many people have been taught; but the fundamental way that women control the world is to try to give men the impression that man rule the world.
Reducing the question to the evilness of women gives us a comparison by which to judge. It comes down to, are women more or less evil than men? Obviously any answer to that would have to be so general that it would be useless, unless the definition of evil was predicated on the idea that it applied only to women.
Similarly, any question of the evilness of all humans requires either an external yardstick by which to measure the human propensity for evil - as opposed to the evilness of lions, Martians, the spirits of our dead ancestors - or it needs a definition of evil that is specific to humans. And if it's specific to humans, then by definition humans are evil - but that tells us nothing because by definition of what evil is, we'd have to be.
Last edited by MarkBastable; 08-07-2009 at 01:33 PM.
Chicken
This is really a hard question to answer in point of fact. Man evolutionarily speaking seems a very self centered person and all he does even acts of charity is not out of benevolence or altruism or philanthropy for that matter.
Every act of religious duty is motivated or instigated by a desire of securing a place in heaven, another world of luxury or sumptuousness or anything we do in the name of social welfare or philanthropy is out of the motive to earn popularity.
Then why is not man’s act is selfish
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
The battle between good and evil is in the human heart. There are no black and white. Some decisions on what to do may need to be made in seconds and often they are based on basic instincts.
People had to be selfish in order to survive from the beginning of times. I believe, that mother will sacrifice her life to save the child-- also the matter of survival.
I would understand why Russian solgiers were raping German women, after 4 year of war, seeing crematories and such in concentration camps in 1945. Raping is evil. But when US government sending young boys to kill innocent people and making them criminals...this is a coldhearted evil for someones personal gaines.