Evil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gallantry

Education and career choice has little to do with good and evil.

---

But what if you choose to be an executioner?

If Hitler killed the Jews purely because he thought that the mass murders of their race was for the betterment of the world, then yes we cannot say that he was in fact evil. But I do not believe that is the case. I feel that he used the Jews as a way to gain power.

I think the only way you can define evil is the will to exert harm on someone or something else knowing that it is wrong.

I'll go as far as to say that it doesn't matter if someone does something and you believe they have the right or wrong intent for doing it. The real question is do you do what you feel is right?
How can one judge the gravity of the doer of an objective wrong when no one knows the intent of the the "evil doer," his state of mind (is he mentally ill, does he have a low iq), does he percieve that what he's doing is really the right thing?
Which leads me to my next topic. Who is innocent? Who has not done something with "evil" intentions. Just because a subjective sin is more objectively blatant than another sin, what decides which sin is worse? If one thinks evil things: with a passionate heart; with sincere pondering of murder in his head-- what makes him so different than the blatant murderer? Fear?
Is that what decides values? Those who fear doing a certain action are more upright than the sociopath who actually carries it out?
Nay, intent decides what is wrong and what is not; what is a sin and what is not. It is our duty to be the judges of ourselves. And do the right thing. The "right thing" is a subjective thing, a loving thing, a mutual thing... Would I have another do this thing that I am about to do...to me? Leave it at that, people. Don't make it any more confusing for yourselves.

"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just things people do. Some things I wish they wouldn't do and some things I wish they'd do a little more, but that's all any man's got a right to say."

As usual, John Steinbeck says it much better than I ever could. Perhaps that's why he has a Nobel Prize for literature and I don't.

Cuppajoe - I strongly disagree with that statement. Although virtue may not be seen with pure objectivity does not mean it does not necessarily exist.
One of the best virtues we as individual people can exercise in this imperfect world is forgiveness

I believe Steinbeck would qualify forgiveness as one of those things that he wishes people would do more often, rather than virtue. In context, 'sin' and 'virtue' refer to things that are objectively sinful and virtuous, specifically those dictated by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Union Jack

I did a longer post on this board about this topic, check the "Why do I have to Die post."

But I will summarise here...

There is no ultimate, overriding "good and evil" which governs our existance.
There is an accepted cultural norm which defines actions as good or evil.
Good and evil are interpretations of an action, they do not define the action.
Example, Hitler and the Jews...
Hitler fully belives that what he is doing is "good" and for the betterment of society and humanity.
Thus, the act is innocent.
I look at his act, and based upon my internal value system, come to the conclusion that what he did seems evil to me.
I THINK his act is evil.

My thinking so does not define his act as evil, it is merely my impression that it was, this does not make it so.

---

Which means there really is no such thing as "good" or "evil" just our (open to endless revision) interpretations. How can that be? Subjective "good" and "evil" paints us into an uncomfortable corner where we lose all prerogative to make judgments about the nature of a particular action or behavior. That is a powerless position because it gives you no moral grounds for any discrimination between "good" and "evil" and "right" and "wrong." We thus become incapable of solving conflicts between people and cultures. Yikes.
You actually are going to define Hitler's actions based on his (supposed) mindset? Huh? Intention decides interpretation? What about the emotional stability or rational mindset of he who is deciding what his actions mean?

And, as per your comment about "value system" well what is that? Where did that come from? In the Nazi "value system" the extermination of Jews was a postive thing - who (aside from anti-semitics) is going to go along with that?