Since it’s our nature to commit evil acts, on what basis do we condemn or marginalise evil acts?
Many societies condone and even have encouraged inhumanity. Our modern Western society is probably unique since it largely does not. Should “evil” acts be seen as inherent and even tolerated acts in the human condition?
Evil is subjective, and what is or is not qualified as evil is largely pursuant to majority rule. In any case, to the extent where a majority would categorize a type of act as, “Evil,” and was in a position to prevent it, to whatever extent they could, I’m sure they would.
Say what?
why should they be prevented?
As most define evil as malevolence, then it’s our nature to be malevolent. It makes no sense to curb things that can and will occur.
Most “malevolent” acts take place because we hold a basic inclination to do them.
What about when people do good things?
Not only can the concept of evil exist, it does exist.
So when people fail to do what you want, which is to approve of everything you do and approve of your racism and not react negatively to it…
when we fail to do that…
you can think it is in our nature to do that…
My post already says why people think they should be prevented, and it’s because the majority (or whoever is in power) thinks they should be prevented. There’s really nothing more to it.
Or their basic inclinations were overridden by abuse or training. Most people who want others to perform violent acts - let alone evil ones - know that you need to train people, break their egos down, work them up to acts in steps from those that are not so different from their inclinations to ones that are far away from these, get them used to taking orders or being afraid of not doing what the authority wants. It seems to me the experts seem to think it requires work and manipulation to get these things done.
Why should the views of the majority matter? As anything is acceptable in life, anything should be allowed.
So when people fail to do what you want, which is to approve of everything you do and approve of your racism and not react negatively to it…
when we fail to do that…
you can think it is in our nature to do that…
[/quote]
Well, it’s the nature of people to have their own conceptions.
By observing human history, and the world around us, we see so-called malevolent acts occur all the time. It is possible to surmise that our nature causes this.
Because that’s also our nature? Is this a trick question?
Why “condemn” so called evil when such acts can happen?
Why not simply accept any action?
Maybe because many people believe condemning evil helps reduce evil?
Well, the possibility to commit horrendous, harmful acts does lie within our natures, Fuse. We might not want to believe this but it’s a fact.
If we don’t at least recognize this, we can be drawn into committing acts such as those deemed to be evil.
Knowing the full nature of our animal instincts can help us to keep them at bey or to transcend them.
That’s why the call to Know Thyself is paramount.
I think so-called horrendous acts are normal.
Outlining evil is futile, since who is to say what is needed or not?
I said the majority or whoever is in power. If you are in power your views matter, if your views do not matter, you can use force or the threat of force (whether explicit or implied) to make your views matter.
I think there is a fundamental contradiction in your positions. The above sentence lays it out.
Well, it’s the nature of people to have their own conceptions.
By observing human history, and the world around us, we see so-called malevolent acts occur all the time. It is possible to surmise that our nature causes this.
[/quote]
Sure. I think that is a reasonable conclusion. But you seem to not realize that people wanting to avoid these things, margninalize them condemn them, try to prevent them
could also be surmised to be reacting from their natures.
It seems to me, nearly always, you want people to NOT follow their natures while telling them that what you believe or what some people do is natural.
Do you see the contradiction?