I seem to see that animals strongly want to live, moreso than a regular man, and they do not suffer in a large or long way.
Death and pain do exist, but death and pain is not evil.
Hedonists claim pain is evil and pleasure is good.
But, i am not a hedonist and i tire of that idea.
The problem of evil is not as big a problem as i thought.
Pain and death can’t be evil. Those who inflict pain and death on others may be evil.
Are you a freegan, or are you comfortable with potentially being evil?
I’m comfortable with being evil. 
I’ll drink to that, to wash down this ortolan I stuffed into a ball of foie gras.
Does that mean horseflies are evil?
Maybe. Although, usually, the ability to choose between alternative possibilities is also required when classifying some action as evil. Choosing an action which causes pain and death, when other options are available, makes the being evil.
Evil is intentional; all else is good or bad luck.
One person nukes a city on purpose.
One person nukes a city by accident.
Both acts cause identacle damage.
Therefor they are equally bad.
The idea that ignorance makes a person innocent, that is a big bullshit modern idea.
It protects people from the consequences of their actions.
The intention to nuke a city would be wrong to start with. The person setting off the nuke had the intention of destroying something,
Most of your fellow countrymen would beg to differ.
But then, I’m not “most of my fellow countrymen”. The gung-ho “whup ass” attitude toward enemies is IMHO just wrong-- just as evil as is the evil it seeks to demolish.
I’m not saying you are most of your fellow countrymen - obviously!!
The point is that one man’s evil is another man’s good.
As Hobbes said; “Good is that which pleaseth us; evil is that which pleaseth us not.”
Even with the same principles on board, exactly the same situation can be seen as evil or good by different men with the same moral code.
I see no depth of insight in Hobbes’ flippant statement. What pleases me may be evil; what does not please me may be good.
I see no depth of insight in Hobbes’ flippant statement. What pleases me may be evil; what does not please me may be good.
Check out this book: “Prufrock and Other Observations” by T. S. Eliot
IRR, A CONDITIONAL cries out here, as in, ‘to reasonable men’. To reasonable men, what pleases cannot be anything but what is good. It is simply unreasonable to suppose otherwise.
Maybe I misunderstand. But I don’t see reason as arbiter of truth about what may be good or evil.
One can do an evil deed with his own good reasons for doing so. “Collateral” damage in war is an example–the killing of civilians.
What else, besides reason, could be used to decide what is good and evil?
Empathy and compassion, both of which may appear as unreasonable.