From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/16/26 5:04 PM, Mike wrote:   
      
   > The problem is there is no single, universally accepted   
   > definition of evil. Different traditions define it in   
   > different ways, depending on what they think matters most.   
      
   The problem is that there are no windows to the soul.   
      
   We can see results -- the impact -- but it's very difficult   
   to work out the thoughts/motives of the person responsible   
   for the act.   
      
   > Some definitions focus on intent: evil is the deliberate   
   > choice to cause harm or suffering. Others emphasize action   
   > and outcome:   
      
   I actually see them as the same thing, only some people give   
   up on the idea of working out thoughts/motives and only   
   concentrate on actions.   
      
   > acts that seriously damage human well-being,   
   > regardless of motive.   
      
   Accidents, you mean.   
      
   Our legal system already does -- and always has -- wrestled   
   with the criminal mindset, intent. I see no reason to pretend   
   we can't do it now.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)