The definition is a precise one not a narrow one. When evil is discussed it is in relation to mans inhumanity to man. Things such as
natural disasters and terminal illnesses are very traumatic but they are not evil which is why they are not discussed in those terms
So you cannot discuss earthquakes or hurricanes or cancer or malaria or any thing like that as they do not fall within the definition
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:15 pm
The definition is a precise one not a narrow one. When evil is discussed it is in relation to mans inhumanity to man.
So it's a tautology?
To call it "precise" rather than "narrow" is to ignore the fact that it is, in fact - narrow.
You can invent your own but it would be superfluous and therefore a waste of time
Only morally unjustifiable acts perpetrated by humans on humans will be accepted
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:25 pm
You can invent your own but it would be superfluous and therefore a waste of time
Only morally unjustifiable acts perpetrated by humans on humans will be accepted
OK, but by my standards of morality (which are clearly higher than yours) your definition is far too narrow, it results in saving far fewer human lives than is actually possible!
Your CHOICE to pick a narrow definition when a broader one is possible is morally unjustifiable! You CHOOSE to save 10 lives when you could have saved 100! You KILLED 90 more people than necessary! Therefore you are also evil?
What now?
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sat Nov 03, 2018 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"do you understand why Prevention is Better than Cure [firefighting]."
I understand you would straightjacket the world to safeguard it from nutjobs (instead of just sensibly straighjacketing the nutjobs).
#
"Do you understand why it is more effective to solve any problem by getting get of its ultimate root cause?"
In context: the root is the nutjob, not the text that may set him off.
#
"Do you deal with weeds by cutting them or pulling them out with the roots?"
Ideas are not weeds...there's no 'Roundup' for ideas.
#
"Note my maxim: I believe ALL evil acts and violence in the World must be addressed and resolved ASAP."
Note mine: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.
#
"If we get rid of Islam, the result is we will get rid of one major type of evil acts, i.e. Islamic-driven-evil-acts."
No. gettin' rid of Islam deprives sane, peaceable Muslims of their religion, and sends the insane, un-peaceable types in search of some other catalyst.
#
"We will then deal with root cause of these other evil and violent acts."
And what you'll find is ANYTHING has the potential to set off nutjobs. Insisting the root of evil is information, and not the person, leads to sterility (cuz if EVERYTHING has the potental to inspire evil then EVERYTHING must be restricted/regulated).
#
The point is the authorities are very focused in taking specific measures to ensure the ideology of Nazism is not made active politically and they have been very successful in it.
In the U.S. no such efforts are made, and there's no significant Nazi movement here.
Why?
Cuz we beat their ass. We didn't debate the ideas. We didn't look to suppress the ideology. We just beat their ass when they moved into the land of 'or else'. We made 'Nazism', as anything other than 'dead end', untenable.
You want Islamists neutered? Then let's beat their asses up one side and down the other. They can keep the Koran, let's take their lives, over and over and over till, like Nazism, Wahhabism becomes untenable.
TimeSeeker wrote:
Your CHOICE to pick a narrow definition when a broader one is possible is morally unjustifiable! You CHOOSE to save
10 lives when you could have saved 100 ! You KILLED 90 more people than necessary ! Therefore you are also evil ?
No because if I did kill 90 more people it would be unintentional so therefore could not be classed as evil
It would be evil if it was intentional where the intention was to kill but such a scenario would never arise
However I would do absolutely everything to save those 90 people regardless of any definition because that is the morally justifiable thing to do
It should therefore be a given that lives would be saved without having to consult the dictionary to see what it was they were being saved from
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:51 pm
No because if I did kill 90 more people it would be unintentional so therefore could not be classed as evil
It would be evil if it was intentional where the intention was to kill but such a scenario would never arise
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:51 pm
However I would do absolutely everything to save those 90 people regardless of any definition because that is the morally justifiable thing to do
It should therefore be a given that lives would be saved without having to consult the dictionary to see what it was they were being saved from
Right. So if we cure malaria we will save 1 million people a year from dying. If we cure "terrorism" - we will save what? 10000?
That IS the choice you are making by focusing on terrorism instead of malaria.
TimeSeeker wrote:
So if we cure malaria we will save 1 million people a year from dying . If we cure terrorism - we will save what ? 10000 ?
That IS the choice you are making by focusing on terrorism instead of malaria
We can focus on both but this thread is about evil and malaria does not come under that definition
When we find a cure for malaria we are still left with the problem of evil as it pertains to terrorism
Also you cannot cure terrorism unless you eradicate free will
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:13 pm
We can focus on both but this thread is about evil and malaria does not come under that definition
Well, no we can't focus on both! We have a limited number of problem-solvers, who have limited time/attention and limited funding. We have finite resources and finite impact.
And just like you allow your attention to be hijacked by lesser evils (terrorism), so to the rest of humans.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:13 pm
When we find a cure for malaria we are still left with the problem of evil as it pertains to terrorism
Also you cannot cure terrorism unless you eradicate free will
Maybe. Maybe not. When we have improved everybody's life to the point where they have nothing to worry about - would they still resort to terrorism?
The question you haven't seem to asked is: why do people resort to terrorism?
That's easy: because they are stuck in a political system that doesn't seem to address OR hear their immediate needs. So they send a loud message. It seems to work - so they keep doing it. It's the easy option.
surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:40 pm
How exactly are you going to bring about Utopia because that is the state when no one has to worry about anything anymore
We seem to be going in the right direction? So if we stay on this course... Maybe speed things up a little?
Like I said - intentional harm is not even on my radar. it bothers you way more than it bothers me...
I could even go a little further and say: I appreciate terrorism. How else would we recognise that people are angry and we are letting them down while we are stuck in our ivory towers? It's a rude reality check...