From: theirony2013@gmail.com
On 2026-01-16 13:01, JTEM wrote:
> On 1/16/26 3:24 PM, Mike wrote:
>> On 2026-01-16 12:03, JTEM wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Calling evil something that can simply be
>>> > "defeated" assumes it is a single, concrete
>>> > thing.
>>>
>>> I have to agree that this doesn't make sense at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> What if any criteria does something have to meet
>>> to qualify as evil?
>>>
>>> I think that...
>>>
>>> #1. Intent.
>>>
>>> You had to intend to do whatever it is that we want
>>> to call evil. Obviously hitting a patch of black
>>> ice and skidding into a young family on the sidewalk
>>> is bad but, did you even know they were there? Did
>>> you even know there was black ice present?
>>
>> I disagree:
>>
>> I think evil is less about intent and more about
>> the experience it creates. Hitting a patch of black
>> ice and skidding into a family is clearly horrific
>> for those involved. Even if the driver did not
>> intend harm, the event still causes fear, pain, and
>> suffering.
>>
>> Evil, in this sense, is measured by the depth of
>> impact on the victim. Intent can amplify evil, but
>> the core of it lies in the experience of harm and
>> distress itself. Accidents can feel evil, even if no
>> one “meant” them.
>>
>>>
>>> #2. Knowledge.
>>>
>>> You had to know the harmful nature of the act and
>>> wanted that harm to result, or at least never cared
>>> either way.
>>
>> Evil involves a combination of intent, knowledge, and
>> impact. An act intended to harm can be morally wrong
>> even if it accidentally benefits the victim, because
>> the actor aimed for harm. Knowledge matters too: if
>> someone knew, or reasonably should have known, that
>> their action could cause suffering, they bear moral
>> responsibility. Ultimately, the experience of the
>> victim shapes the perception of evil, but intent and
>> awareness influence how blame is assigned.
>>
>>>
>>> NOTE: Back when we had journalism, the standard was
>>> "Known or should have known." Saying "I didn't know"
>>> was never a defense if it was deemed reasonable to
>>> assume that the information was readily obtainable, or
>>> needed to be obtained FIRST regardless of how difficult
>>> it would be to secure it.
>>
>>>
>>> #3. Results/Potential
>>>
>>> If I sit in the grass, take careful aim then shoot
>>> someone in the head just as a Thrill Kill that would
>>> likely meet anyone's definition of evil. But what if
>>> I miss? What if you never even knew that I shot at
>>> you? Nobody was harmed, right? So was it evil?
>>>
>>> I would believe "Yes."
>>
>> Attempted harm without actual impact shows intent, not
>> experience of evil. Shooting and missing may reveal a
>> malicious mindset, but if no one suffers or even knows,
>> the event causes no real harm. Evil, understood as
>> experienced suffering, does not exist in this case. At
>> most, it reflects moral guilt or dangerous character,
>> not evil as it is lived or felt by a victim.
>
> That sounds like the Protestant concept of evil and sin,
> where it all comes from Satan. It's external, according
> to them... "The devil made me do it!"
>
> I don't think evil in the result but the person.
>
> I avoided saying it but I do not believe that "Evil" is
> a force. I think it can only be describing people or
> perhaps the conscious decisions of people.
>
> Lightening can strike a tree, the tree can fall on a
> baby carriage but that doesn't make the lightening or
> the tree evil. It anyone did anything wrong -- and there
> is by no means any guarantee that someone had to do
> anything wrong -- it was taking a baby out for a stroll
> when there was a potential for lightening...
>
> But they wouldn't necessarily know that.
I think evil is just an experience, only a sensation,
same as 'knowing'.
>
>
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
