Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When and how do you think you acquire the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong? Is it solely a learned thing? In my opinion the conscience is a function of the spirit, and therefore innate, though I think awareness of it and understanding of it must develop over time. Can the awareness of good and evil exist without guilt if you have done something wrong, however much it is denied or overruled? I've got to go out for a while but wanted to pose the question before I left. "Read "Mere Christianity" by C S Lewis - very insightful book, even if you are not into all stuff like this - a very thought provoking book indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When and how do you think you acquire the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong? Is it solely a learned thing? In my opinion the conscience is a function of the spirit, and therefore innate, though I think awareness of it and understanding of it must develop over time. Can the awareness of good and evil exist without guilt if you have done something wrong, however much it is denied or overruled? I've got to go out for a while but wanted to pose the question before I left. "I think you acquire the awareness of what is right and wrong initially at around 4 years old but continue to learn as you grow. At 4 you know if you take your brother's sweets your mum will be mad and so will he. You might not be aware that taking sweets off a supermarket shelf and eating them is wrong. I think it is learned. Conscience might be a function of the spirit but how it reacts and what to is learned I my opinion. I think good and evil are different to right and wrong because good and evil are intents and right and wrong are actions. I think its possible to have good or evil intent without conscience but not to knowingly carry out what you believe to be a right or wrong action without conscience. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When and how do you think you acquire the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong? Is it solely a learned thing? In my opinion the conscience is a function of the spirit, and therefore innate, though I think awareness of it and understanding of it must develop over time. Can the awareness of good and evil exist without guilt if you have done something wrong, however much it is denied or overruled? I've got to go out for a while but wanted to pose the question before I left.
Read "Mere Christianity" by C S Lewis - very insightful book, even if you are not into all stuff like this - a very thought provoking book indeed."It was one of my Ex's favourite books, he loved CSL. Can't remember if I finished it or not as I found him quite hard work......will go check. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Bookmarked to respond later."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When and how do you think you acquire the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong? Is it solely a learned thing? In my opinion the conscience is a function of the spirit, and therefore innate, though I think awareness of it and understanding of it must develop over time. Can the awareness of good and evil exist without guilt if you have done something wrong, however much it is denied or overruled? I've got to go out for a while but wanted to pose the question before I left.
I think you acquire the awareness of what is right and wrong initially at around 4 years old but continue to learn as you grow. At 4 you know if you take your brother's sweets your mum will be mad and so will he. You might not be aware that taking sweets off a supermarket shelf and eating them is wrong. I think it is learned.
Conscience might be a function of the spirit but how it reacts and what to is learned I my opinion.
I think good and evil are different to right and wrong because good and evil are intents and right and wrong are actions. I think its possible to have good or evil intent without conscience but not to knowingly carry out what you believe to be a right or wrong action without conscience. "Interesting. I would say you can have good and evil actions and right and wrong intents too? But I see what you were saying - you can do something 'wrong' without knowing it is wrong and stay 'innocent', have no awareness of guilt, but if you know it's wrong, you become 'guilty'. Yes? I think one can have false guilt too btw, if someone tells you something is bad and you believe them you might feel guilt when it is nothing of the kind. I think that false guilt comes more from the mind than the spirit, though the spirit can certainly be damaged and not fully functional. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you acquire the awareness of what is right and wrong initially at around 4 years old but continue to learn as you grow. At 4 you know if you take your brother's sweets your mum will be mad and so will he. You might not be aware that taking sweets off a supermarket shelf and eating them is wrong. I think it is learned. Conscience might be a function of the spirit but how it reacts and what to is learned I my opinion. I think good and evil are different to right and wrong because good and evil are intents and right and wrong are actions. I think its possible to have good or evil intent without conscience but not to knowingly carry out what you believe to be a right or wrong action without conscience. Interesting. I would say you can have good and evil actions and right and wrong intents too? But I see what you were saying - you can do something 'wrong' without knowing it is wrong and stay 'innocent', have no awareness of guilt, but if you know it's wrong, you become 'guilty'. Yes? I think one can have false guilt too btw, if someone tells you something is bad and you believe them you might feel guilt when it is nothing of the kind. I think that false guilt comes more from the mind than the spirit, though the spirit can certainly be damaged and not fully functional." It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you acquire the awareness of what is right and wrong initially at around 4 years old but continue to learn as you grow. At 4 you know if you take your brother's sweets your mum will be mad and so will he. You might not be aware that taking sweets off a supermarket shelf and eating them is wrong. I think it is learned. Conscience might be a function of the spirit but how it reacts and what to is learned I my opinion. I think good and evil are different to right and wrong because good and evil are intents and right and wrong are actions. I think its possible to have good or evil intent without conscience but not to knowingly carry out what you believe to be a right or wrong action without conscience. Interesting. I would say you can have good and evil actions and right and wrong intents too? But I see what you were saying - you can do something 'wrong' without knowing it is wrong and stay 'innocent', have no awareness of guilt, but if you know it's wrong, you become 'guilty'. Yes? I think one can have false guilt too btw, if someone tells you something is bad and you believe them you might feel guilt when it is nothing of the kind. I think that false guilt comes more from the mind than the spirit, though the spirit can certainly be damaged and not fully functional. It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. " Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think you acquire the awareness of what is right and wrong initially at around 4 years old but continue to learn as you grow. At 4 you know if you take your brother's sweets your mum will be mad and so will he. You might not be aware that taking sweets off a supermarket shelf and eating them is wrong. I think it is learned. Conscience might be a function of the spirit but how it reacts and what to is learned I my opinion. I think good and evil are different to right and wrong because good and evil are intents and right and wrong are actions. I think its possible to have good or evil intent without conscience but not to knowingly carry out what you believe to be a right or wrong action without conscience. Interesting. I would say you can have good and evil actions and right and wrong intents too? But I see what you were saying - you can do something 'wrong' without knowing it is wrong and stay 'innocent', have no awareness of guilt, but if you know it's wrong, you become 'guilty'. Yes? I think one can have false guilt too btw, if someone tells you something is bad and you believe them you might feel guilt when it is nothing of the kind. I think that false guilt comes more from the mind than the spirit, though the spirit can certainly be damaged and not fully functional. It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not." By our morals and laws. That's why I think good and evil are different to right and wrong. I can't articulate this well. I'm thinking of honour killings. The people who carry them out consider themselves to be acting morally correctly and until recently they could be fairly confident that in certain countries the law would leave them alone. You and I think its morally reprehensible and its certainly illegal. I suppose what I'm saying but not illustrating very well is that wrong and right even morals depend very much on where you live, the time you live and who you live with but good and evil applies universally and regardless of your point in history. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not. By our morals and laws. That's why I think good and evil are different to right and wrong. I can't articulate this well. I'm thinking of honour killings. The people who carry them out consider themselves to be acting morally correctly and until recently they could be fairly confident that in certain countries the law would leave them alone. You and I think its morally reprehensible and its certainly illegal. I suppose what I'm saying but not illustrating very well is that wrong and right even morals depend very much on where you live, the time you live and who you live with but good and evil applies universally and regardless of your point in history." I see exactly what you mean but I still contend that where we are in history and culture determines what we consider to be evil. I think there are some things that could be universally considered inherently wrong that would, therefore, be cast as evil. Torturing babies might fall into that category. I'm struggling to think of enough things as I keep finding instances where it has been 'justified' or accepted throughout history and in different cultures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not. By our morals and laws. That's why I think good and evil are different to right and wrong. I can't articulate this well. I'm thinking of honour killings. The people who carry them out consider themselves to be acting morally correctly and until recently they could be fairly confident that in certain countries the law would leave them alone. You and I think its morally reprehensible and its certainly illegal. I suppose what I'm saying but not illustrating very well is that wrong and right even morals depend very much on where you live, the time you live and who you live with but good and evil applies universally and regardless of your point in history. I see exactly what you mean but I still contend that where we are in history and culture determines what we consider to be evil. I think there are some things that could be universally considered inherently wrong that would, therefore, be cast as evil. Torturing babies might fall into that category. I'm struggling to think of enough things as I keep finding instances where it has been 'justified' or accepted throughout history and in different cultures. " I think it probably depends on how you think of good and evil  . To me they're unchanging, enduring and universal and not influenced by history, morals, culture etc but l understand what you're saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not. By our morals and laws. That's why I think good and evil are different to right and wrong. I can't articulate this well. I'm thinking of honour killings. The people who carry them out consider themselves to be acting morally correctly and until recently they could be fairly confident that in certain countries the law would leave them alone. You and I think its morally reprehensible and its certainly illegal. I suppose what I'm saying but not illustrating very well is that wrong and right even morals depend very much on where you live, the time you live and who you live with but good and evil applies universally and regardless of your point in history. I see exactly what you mean but I still contend that where we are in history and culture determines what we consider to be evil. I think there are some things that could be universally considered inherently wrong that would, therefore, be cast as evil. Torturing babies might fall into that category. I'm struggling to think of enough things as I keep finding instances where it has been 'justified' or accepted throughout history and in different cultures. I think it probably depends on how you think of good and evil . To me they're unchanging, enduring and universal and not influenced by history, morals, culture etc but l understand what you're saying. "What would be an evil act? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When and how do you think you acquire the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong? Is it solely a learned thing? In my opinion the conscience is a function of the spirit, and therefore innate, though I think awareness of it and understanding of it must develop over time. Can the awareness of good and evil exist without guilt if you have done something wrong, however much it is denied or overruled? I've got to go out for a while but wanted to pose the question before I left. "Born with the warrior gene and partially picked up by life events | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not. By our morals and laws. That's why I think good and evil are different to right and wrong. I can't articulate this well. I'm thinking of honour killings. The people who carry them out consider themselves to be acting morally correctly and until recently they could be fairly confident that in certain countries the law would leave them alone. You and I think its morally reprehensible and its certainly illegal. I suppose what I'm saying but not illustrating very well is that wrong and right even morals depend very much on where you live, the time you live and who you live with but good and evil applies universally and regardless of your point in history. I see exactly what you mean but I still contend that where we are in history and culture determines what we consider to be evil. I think there are some things that could be universally considered inherently wrong that would, therefore, be cast as evil. Torturing babies might fall into that category. I'm struggling to think of enough things as I keep finding instances where it has been 'justified' or accepted throughout history and in different cultures. I think it probably depends on how you think of good and evil . To me they're unchanging, enduring and universal and not influenced by history, morals, culture etc but l understand what you're saying.
What would be an evil act?
"The holocaust. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Good evening by the way | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not. By our morals and laws. That's why I think good and evil are different to right and wrong. I can't articulate this well. I'm thinking of honour killings. The people who carry them out consider themselves to be acting morally correctly and until recently they could be fairly confident that in certain countries the law would leave them alone. You and I think its morally reprehensible and its certainly illegal. I suppose what I'm saying but not illustrating very well is that wrong and right even morals depend very much on where you live, the time you live and who you live with but good and evil applies universally and regardless of your point in history. I see exactly what you mean but I still contend that where we are in history and culture determines what we consider to be evil. I think there are some things that could be universally considered inherently wrong that would, therefore, be cast as evil. Torturing babies might fall into that category. I'm struggling to think of enough things as I keep finding instances where it has been 'justified' or accepted throughout history and in different cultures. I think it probably depends on how you think of good and evil . To me they're unchanging, enduring and universal and not influenced by history, morals, culture etc but l understand what you're saying.
What would be an evil act?
The holocaust."I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? " No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil." It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. " It’s not really a “human” concept is it? If people had no exposure to rights and wrongs, they’d act on instinct and what they felt they had to do, humans are pure until they are raised in a society. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In my view all ideas of right and wrong are based on what is socially functional. Human beings cannot live together without certain ground rules and someone is said to behave wrongly when they offend against those norms. Said norms change over time and place and little or nothing is seen as universally "wrong". People are called "evil" if they offend particularly grievously against societal norms. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. It’s not really a “human” concept is it? If people had no exposure to rights and wrongs, they’d act on instinct and what they felt they had to do, humans are pure until they are raised in a society." It is a human label. If that instinct is to kill others then all is well until it is conceptualised as not being ok anymore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. " I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. It’s not really a “human” concept is it? If people had no exposure to rights and wrongs, they’d act on instinct and what they felt they had to do, humans are pure until they are raised in a society. It is a human label. If that instinct is to kill others then all is well until it is conceptualised as not being ok anymore. " In that respect then yes, you’re right. Like many things, It’s nothing until we label it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans" How? What would be the evil that is not human? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans How? What would be the evil that is not human?" I think it's the name we give to all the horrors that existence throws our way over which we have no control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans" Evil is an abstract concept relating to human actions. How could it possibly exist if humans didn't exist. When dinosaurs roamed the earth nothing anything did could be called evil could it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans How? What would be the evil that is not human? I think it's the name we give to all the horrors that existence throws our way over which we have no control." I accept the naming but I don't see horrendous weather (as we saw last year across the world) or cancer as evil. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans How? What would be the evil that is not human? I think it's the name we give to all the horrors that existence throws our way over which we have no control. I accept the naming but I don't see horrendous weather (as we saw last year across the world) or cancer as evil. " I agree. It really doesn't seem right to say "cancer is evil" or "hurricanes are evil". We generally only say something is evil if it was consciously caused by a human actor. If someone injected bubonic plague into someone we would say their act was evil, but we wouldn't say the plague itself was evil. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans How? What would be the evil that is not human? I think it's the name we give to all the horrors that existence throws our way over which we have no control. I accept the naming but I don't see horrendous weather (as we saw last year across the world) or cancer as evil. " As I said I think that's where our difference lays. I guess if you ask 100 people what evil and good are you'll probably get 80 different answers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What would be an evil act? The holocaust. I would agree but... it's also political/ideological and took a lot of people along with that. Are the people who participated all evil? No not to my mind. I don't think of people as evil. It's people who committed the act. If the act is evil and people had intent when committing it why doesn't that make them evil? Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. " I disagree, in my view it is a spiritual reality as well as a description of the antithesis of good, which some would say was the absence of it. I would not call people evil generally, they can merely express evil intent or actions etc. The holocaust was a prime example of the expression of evil. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Evil doesn't exist except as a human concept. I think that's where we differ. I think evil does exist apart from humans How? What would be the evil that is not human? I think it's the name we give to all the horrors that existence throws our way over which we have no control. I accept the naming but I don't see horrendous weather (as we saw last year across the world) or cancer as evil. I agree. It really doesn't seem right to say "cancer is evil" or "hurricanes are evil". We generally only say something is evil if it was consciously caused by a human actor. If someone injected bubonic plague into someone we would say their act was evil, but we wouldn't say the plague itself was evil. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There was an interesting documentary I saw a few years ago. It provided scientific evidence of serial killers not producing certain chemicals/signals in the brain showing empathy in team environments. Thus they showed no remorse when killing. Maybe there's a more scientific reason for "evil"?" Or maybe that is simply a physical expression of it?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meant to say welcome back Frisky "I've been 'away' sorry guys! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's a complicated thing to even try and think about. For me I tend to think of good and evil as abstract concepts that apply universally. So if I kill someone who is trying to kill my children its a wrong action with good intent. If I kill someone because I hate them its a wrong action with evil intent. Would I be guilty in both instances? I don't know. Well, even legally the first would be 'justifiable homicide'. Morally, that's the difference between killing and murder. The first can be morally acceptable, the second not. By our morals and laws. That's why I think good and evil are different to right and wrong. I can't articulate this well. I'm thinking of honour killings. The people who carry them out consider themselves to be acting morally correctly and until recently they could be fairly confident that in certain countries the law would leave them alone. You and I think its morally reprehensible and its certainly illegal. I suppose what I'm saying but not illustrating very well is that wrong and right even morals depend very much on where you live, the time you live and who you live with but good and evil applies universally and regardless of your point in history. I see exactly what you mean but I still contend that where we are in history and culture determines what we consider to be evil. I think there are some things that could be universally considered inherently wrong that would, therefore, be cast as evil. Torturing babies might fall into that category. I'm struggling to think of enough things as I keep finding instances where it has been 'justified' or accepted throughout history and in different cultures. I think it probably depends on how you think of good and evil . To me they're unchanging, enduring and universal and not influenced by history, morals, culture etc but l understand what you're saying. "Yes, I would agree, we may move the goalposts up and down, but we all agree the concepts exist. The CS Lewis arguments were interesting - there is 'something else' we are aware of, other than that which we are taught, something innate which can overrule even instinct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meant to say welcome back Frisky
I've been 'away' sorry guys! "Good gig? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Meant to say welcome back Frisky
I've been 'away' sorry guys!
Good gig?"Two 'gigs', both blinders thanks!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really dislike the term evil. It's a biblical description for something that runs counter to someone's intuitive religious values. The work of satan and all that shite. Study what has been written by head doctors who examine the worst kind of criminals to try to understand their behaviours and belief systems. Without exception, what distinguishes the psychopath from the ordinary Joe is an absence of empathy. The absence of that emotional safety valve - the ability to recognise and recoil from doing harm to others - enables them to inflict cruelty without any comprehension. The absence of empathy often can be traced to the experience of their early years, the absence of any caring or loving feelings towards them and often being on the end of cruelty or abuse. Behaviour can be explained. Evil explains nothing, other pulling a religious veil over things that seem irrational. " Some people can use it as such for sure, but I see no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater personally. Funnily enough your description reminded me of my own - without any checks and balances, unspeakable cruelty can result. The psychopath is certainly damaged in mind, will, emotion and spirit I would say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
