Evil relative?

Evil relative? [+ favourites]

Well let's think here. Humans are sapposed to be the only moral beings on the earth. That is to say, we can tell the difference between right and wrong. Now I find this funny because it seems to me no one knows what is right, or wrong and thats why there are so many oppinions. but what if all evil was corrected, and every one was nice to each other and we lived in harmony? What is every one fed the poor and hungery, would evil be earased? No, just redefined. If this was the case, the person who gave the least would be evil. Evil can't be earased, only renamed. It is like a figure in the light. No matter how bright the light, there is always a shaddow. Evil is relative.

"don't worry, be happy, otherwise people will worry about you"

Not only is that exactly right, it further progresses to mean that, as has often been speculated, that not only is evil relative, it is also necessary (for good to relate relatively), and as by the definition of things deemed good, that which is necessary is both right and good by default.

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
[  Edited by Ironwood at   ]

necessary for him to deem us damned or saved?

i agree, now at least, with that...

quote:

---

that not only is evil relative, it is also necessary (for good to relative relatively)

---

"as i see it the only "variable" in the equation is THOUGHT. you are capable of changing this and this alone."

Evil, or mental and physical anguish caused by natural or human means, will always be relative to each individual's point of view so long as evil, as defined, exists. However, if God, or whatever, created the world without evil as defined, then there would be no way to call anything evil...nothing...not even relatively.

There would be no physical or moral evil.

Not even relatively speaking.

In a world without evil "God" has either gotten rid of the evil act, has gotten rid of the perception of evil, or has gotten rid of both the evil act and the perception of evil. In any case, as was established, there would be no relative evil.

Who the fuck is God to get rid of something that is relative to each person, to begin with?

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."

The question has nothing to do with God at all, Astarte. It has to do with a universal thing called evil. Since it is universal, it doesn't change no matter how you look at it. So, if you get rid of this universal thing, then you get rid of any way of looking at it.

So, if the world came into being because of God, Big Bang, Cosmic Strings, it doesn't matter, if any one of these created the world without evil, then we would have no way of determining evil.

Because evil is relative, you're the one who was using God as the medium. It will always exist because some people will feel negative feelings towards something that another is doing, while others have no problem with it. So how can you even discuss evil not existing when it's relative to begin with? Of course it exists, if negative feels of anger, pain, hurt and such are associated with human nature, they stem from what we could encompass as "evil" because obviously, it's not "good" or it wouldn't provoke such emotions to begin with!

Like you, for instance, I think you're an asshole. So between good and evil, you're evil. If, God forbid, you have a significant other that thinks you're the greatest thing on Earth, you're good. Two people, two different perspectives on the same idea.

If you're so haughty about learning, go read Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth. That ought to shut some of this nonsense up.

"Milk, almonds and pistachios."