Quote:
Originally Posted by yesman065
You didn't cover squat and you didn't answer my question again! - as usual!!!
Here is your definition since you want to play this game:
EVIL In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behavior and reasoning of human beings — those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction. Evil is sometimes defined as the absence of a good which could and should be present;...
|
So evil is defined by bad and good - which are also subjective terms. After all, all those Jesuits were clearly bad. Therefore Jesuits were evil according to Dominicans who massacred them in the name of god.
This idea of evil, bad, good, void of conscience, etc ... it is all subjective. Why is it subjective? Because it is only defined by perspective - personal bias - rather than by fact. You have arbitrarily defined Saddam as evil. If true, then Saddam also defined himself as evil. Oh. He did not? He used you definition.
And that is the point. There is no good or evil. Cut the concept is used to hype the brown shirts even into a Children's Crusade and the sacking of Constantinople. So tell me how 'good' people did that. Only possible if there is no good and evil; only a world of perspectives.
Using your definition, we now justify the Spanish Inquistions. After all, nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Therefore it was god’s will? We can rationalize anything using your definitions of ‘evil’.
And again: by framing someone as evil then justified ... well that is how Hitler justified the rape of Poland. Clearly the Poles were also evil.