who's more evil?

[Ry]

Ry puts it well, though i would not go as far as saying there is no 'evil'. Just that they are not all absolute.

Saying all my interpretations of bad and good are absolute, would be quite arrogant. Though like anyone, we try to show why our interpretations are more 'right' than others.

Being arrogant is bad imo, but being too humble is as well.

Exactly. There does not have to be some universal objective standard to measure it all with and it does not have to be absolute.

Man is the measure of all things. Techniquly there are no colors or sounds either without people and animals creating them in their minds. Evil and good are by products of minds in the environment.

There are no rainbows until one looks at one, its just water and light, only being can recognize it through the filter of their senses as a rainbow. Rainbows still exist.

what is right is conditional so you can make rules that cover every condition. Murder is wrong is most situations but we can think of some where it is not. Stealing is usually wrong but we can think of situations where it isnt. etc. To say there is no evil is to say there are no judgments of evil about anything and that is bullshit. You can argue about WHAT is evil but you can not argue THAT there is evil. That's like saying there is no sorrow. Different things make us sad but no one denies the existence of sorrow.

[Crim]

I have acknowledged this, and I am asking your oppinion.

You dont take polls on facts after all.

[Iconoclast]

Reviving topic. Relativism is wrong. I'm not a relativist. Relativism says X is as valid as Y. I say that neither X nor Y are (objectively) valid.

Man is not the measure of all things; man is merely another organism, albeit one that wears suits and ties. A cat and a human both have no value except for what they are, for instance.

Intelligence is one factor of this. I agree that it is possible to know things. However, perception is also somewhat illusory; colors, for example, as perceieved by organisms are not of their true nature as they are really frequencies of light that are distinguished by the cones in our eyes and translated to what we see as colors in the occipital lobe.

People often mistake survival as having some sort of objective value, and that things that inhibit survival (like African religion (and most things from Africa), as you mention) are wrong. They're not objectively wrong, just "wrong" in the context of how it perpetuates survival. Survival, of course, being a natural biological drive as it is a successful way of perpetuating genetic material.

[Impulse]

There is no such thing as evil, the only thing evil in the world is doing something you know is rong and doing it anyway without reason.(Being forced to do things is a diffrent story.)

[Iconoclast]

There is no such thing as evil, the only thing evil in the world is doing something you know is rong and doing it anyway without reason.(Being forced to do things is a diffrent story.)

That's stupid.

But then I saw your avatar and realized the extent.

[Crim]

Your basically bringing up the idea that nothing is important. This is ultimately true not a signle goddam thing in this world is important and therefore it makes no difference if I was to go out and shoot people in the head. But then you take from that very arguement the counter statement. If everything has such little value, then shouldn't all things be cherished?

In response I say, all things are equally unimportant as they are simultaneously extremely important.

Do you see what I am saying?




As for good and evil, that is indeed a non realistic topic, and I am asking for your opinion and perception on the issue.

[Iconoclast]

Your basically bringing up the idea that nothing is important. This is ultimately true not a signle goddam thing in this world is important and therefore it makes no difference if I was to go out and shoot people in the head. But then you take from that very arguement the counter statement. If everything has such little value, then shouldn't all things be cherished?

In response I say, all things are equally unimportant as they are simultaneously extremely important.

Do you see what I am saying?




As for good and evil, that is indeed a non realistic topic, and I am asking for your opinion and perception on the issue.

Nothing is objectively important. Meaning all importance and salience is assigned by entities.

[Crim]

You choose to view the world in utter lacking of signifance, and this is your own free will. Some one else may veiw every single little minutely important. Then there are some who view certain things as important and some things as the opposite, this is undoubtably the proponderant stand point.

I personally say that all things are imeasurably important while they are also equally unimportant.

[Iconoclast]

You choose to view the world in utter lacking of signifance, and this is your own free will. Some one else may veiw every single little minutely important. Then there are some who view certain things as important and some things as the opposite, this is undoubtably the proponderant stand point.

I personally say that all things are imeasurably important while they are also equally unimportant.

So you are agreeing with me, right? That all importance is subjective.

[Crim]

Exactly, it is what you make it.

When I ask who is more evil, I am not asking who is in fact more evil, but who in your own perception is more likely to commit an unsavory act.

This whole question is unquestionably a perceptual one, due to ones own opinion. People trying to argue with me that evil is a nontangable noun and is a perceptual ideal are ultimately agreeing with me, yet they are playing the conversation as if it where an arguement.

Again I may just be taking this the wrong way.