but is there an absolute evil and an absolute good?
No.
kuzi16:
what defines them?
The values of the person judging defines them.
kuzi16:
where do humans as a species stand in relation to that deffinition?
No other animals, as far as we can tell have values so therefore we define it as a individual for all species through are own feelings, experiences, and conclusions on "what the meaning of life" is.
you give your dog food every day. GIVE him food. he has become used to just getting it. your dog doesnt hunt anymore. its getting a handout. is your dog eveil? no your dog has just moved up the ladder a bit. its concerns dont include getting food. people are the same way.
i dont worry every day where my next meal will come from because i know. If its being handed to me and ive gotten used to that then im not worried. that doenst make me evil, it makes me animal.
Arguement quelched. Good show Matt.
Just for **** and giggles. What if we never gave out hand outs?
you give your dog food every day. GIVE him food. he has become used to just getting it. your dog doesnt hunt anymore. its getting a handout. is your dog eveil? no your dog has just moved up the ladder a bit. its concerns dont include getting food. people are the same way.
i dont worry every day where my next meal will come from because i know. If its being handed to me and ive gotten used to that then im not worried. that doenst make me evil, it makes me animal.
Arguement quelched. Good show Matt.
Just for **** and giggles. What if we never gave out hand outs?
it wouldnt be a hand out if he was a hunting dog and you fed him part of what you got in front of him.
you give your dog food every day. GIVE him food. he has become used to just getting it. your dog doesnt hunt anymore. its getting a handout. is your dog eveil? no your dog has just moved up the ladder a bit. its concerns dont include getting food. people are the same way.
i dont worry every day where my next meal will come from because i know. If its being handed to me and ive gotten used to that then im not worried. that doenst make me evil, it makes me animal.
Arguement quelched. Good show Matt.
Just for **** and giggles. What if we never gave out hand outs?
it wouldnt be a hand out if he was a hunting dog and you fed him part of what you got in front of him.
We went from good and evil to welfare ... this is why I don't like too serious of convos on the internet.
you give your dog food every day. GIVE him food. he has become used to just getting it. your dog doesnt hunt anymore. its getting a handout. is your dog eveil? no your dog has just moved up the ladder a bit. its concerns dont include getting food. people are the same way.
i dont worry every day where my next meal will come from because i know. If its being handed to me and ive gotten used to that then im not worried. that doenst make me evil, it makes me animal.
Arguement quelched. Good show Matt.
Just for **** and giggles. What if we never gave out hand outs?
it wouldnt be a hand out if he was a hunting dog and you fed him part of what you got in front of him.
We went from good and evil to welfare ... this is why I don't like too serious of convos on the internet.
I didnt look at this as welfare so much as the nature of man vs. "beast" in the argument over if man is evil because he acts like an animal at times.
I didnt look at this as welfare so much as the nature of man vs. "beast" in the argument over if man is evil because he acts like an animal at times.
That point prompts a question of my own. Are animals evil because they act on a baser nature than humans do?
If that is the case, then I can think of no stronger argument for man not being intrinsically evil. That is to say that I think there are fewer things on this planet less evil than animals, and most of those things have no real will to speak of. Point being that I don't think animals are evil due to the fact that they do what they have to in order to survive, there is no malice in there actions, just self-preservation.
Point being that I don't think animals are evil due to the fact that they do what they have to in order to survive, there is no malice in there actions, just self-preservation.
This is not quite true, my wife and I were talking about this question and she countered one of my points that went along the same lines as yours, her counter was monkeys. Some monkeys will gather in a group, and "talk" for a bit, then all of them will go out and kill one of the other monkeys.
Do they all need to go and kill the monkey to survive?
I was actually thinking of something along those lines myself a bit earlier. Maybe we can liken that sort of behavior to the social deviations we see in our own society.
Or perhaps for some reason the group of monkeys see that one monkey as a threat to their own security and ability to live as they have. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is, then the perception of a threat and the subsequent elimination thereof would, in my eyes, equate to doing what is necessary for the survival of the group. As for all of them being in on the killing, that is more than likely safety in numbers, less chance of one being injured if the whole group goes.
I'll concede the point because it was a good one, however, I don't believe that makes evil as one would still have to find malice in the action. Whether the act is malicious in nature is hard to say as we don't know why they did it, but only that they did it.
Comments
The values of the person judging defines them.
No other animals, as far as we can tell have values so therefore we define it as a individual for all species through are own feelings, experiences, and conclusions on "what the meaning of life" is.
If that is the case, then I can think of no stronger argument for man not being intrinsically evil. That is to say that I think there are fewer things on this planet less evil than animals, and most of those things have no real will to speak of. Point being that I don't think animals are evil due to the fact that they do what they have to in order to survive, there is no malice in there actions, just self-preservation.
Do they all need to go and kill the monkey to survive?
Or perhaps for some reason the group of monkeys see that one monkey as a threat to their own security and ability to live as they have. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is, then the perception of a threat and the subsequent elimination thereof would, in my eyes, equate to doing what is necessary for the survival of the group. As for all of them being in on the killing, that is more than likely safety in numbers, less chance of one being injured if the whole group goes.
I'll concede the point because it was a good one, however, I don't believe that makes evil as one would still have to find malice in the action. Whether the act is malicious in nature is hard to say as we don't know why they did it, but only that they did it.