Here is an issue to ponder, offered just as a point of reference.

Consider the Salem Witch Trials, and subsequent hangings (or burnings, or drownings) of the convicted "witches".

If good is defined as what the society as a whole deems "good", and what a non-conforming individual does in opposition to that society being "evil"....

then were the so-called witches that were executed "evil", and were the collective residents of Salem, MA "good"??

Finally, is the collective judgement of society today irrevocably "good", as we judge ourselves to be well past the thinking of Salem residents circa 1600's??

The Salem residents, as a collective, no doubt believed that their actions were "good", as they witnessed the final death throes of the convicted "evil" ones.

What is the number one reason why Fayt gets out of bed in the morning?

What does he do for a living?

Any pets?

What is his "purpose"?

If he found himself in an amusement park, what ride would he try first?

What "level" of society is he?

High up, middle dude, low ground-scraping pauper?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't need to answer these, but they may help define him a bit.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Taiji, <snip> I do understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Let's take a hypothetical case of a rapist, who does the deed having deluded himself into thinking that "she's asking for it" and because of that delusion, feels no remorse. Regardless of his feelings on the subject, what he has done has subjected evil onto another person. I don't think that what that person is thinking at the moment really has much bearing on whether evil is being perpetrated or not. <snip>

I don't see where he's "subjected evil onto another person", from a purely clinical perspective, what he's done is forced another person into doing what he wanted them to do. The fact that it's of a sexual nature (in my opinion) doesn't make it worse, except that our society has tagged that kind of thing as especially egregious or "bad". But how is it specifically worse than physically forcing another person to do what you want them to in any other way? It's only because our society has proclaimed that type of behavior to be especially distasteful does it carry any special weight. And as we've already established, societies opinion is not only not concrete, it's always subject to change depending on what way the wind is blowing. So we get back to my assertion that since the guy truly in his heart felt like he wasn't doing anything wrong, then the declaration of that act as "evil" is entirely a judgement based on outside observation, and not founded in any particular fact.
Let's approach it from a different perspective. Let's say you're looking out a window and you see a woman being raped. You decide that it is an evil act. So you rush down to save her and you realize that she and the guy are actors making a movie. Is the act suddenly not "evil"? What if you had not gone down and had never known they were actors, you would have gone throuhg your entire life thinking you had witnessed an evil act, and beating yourself up because you didn't try to save the woman. When in reality it was all an act. See, everything in our lives is based on perception, our own individual perception of thiings we experience. Even though those two actors were making a movie, had you not discovered otherwise, you would have gone your entire life thinking it was real.

When I think about the reasoning behind evil men, I always think about this quote from "Tombstone":

Wyatt Earp: What makes a man like Ringo, Doc? What makes him do the things he does?
Doc Holliday: A man like Ringo has got a great big hole, right in the middle of himself. And he can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it.
Wyatt Earp: What does he want?
Doc Holliday: Revenge.
Wyatt Earp: For what?
Doc Holliday: Bein' born.

Or from Rambo:

"Why would God make a man like Rambo?"
"God didn't make Rambo, I did!"

I would have THOUGHT that because they were enacting the depiction of an EVIL ACT. If I see two actors, say the movie "In Cold Blood", committing a heinous, evil crime, like murdering an entire family, then the MOVIE is not evil but the act as it originally happened, which is what they are depicting, certainly is.

I simply don't buy your idea that because one morally bankrupt person has no remorse, and feels in no way responsible or wrong for performing an evil act, that the act is not evil. The name for that particular society is anarchy.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I don't see where he's "subjected evil onto another person", from a purely clinical perspective, what he's done is forced another person into doing what he wanted them to do. The fact that it's of a sexual nature (in my opinion) doesn't make it worse, except that our society has tagged that kind of thing as especially egregious or "bad". But how is it specifically worse than physically forcing another person to do what you want them to in any other way? It's only because our society has proclaimed that type of behavior to be especially distasteful does it carry any special weight. And as we've already established, societies opinion is not only not concrete, it's always subject to change depending on what way the wind is blowing. So we get back to my assertion that since the guy truly in his heart felt like he wasn't doing anything wrong, then the declaration of that act as "evil" is entirely a judgement based on outside observation, and not founded in any particular fact. Let's approach it from a different perspective. Let's say you're looking out a window and you see a woman being raped. You decide that it is an evil act. So you rush down to save her and you realize that she and the guy are actors making a movie. Is the act suddenly not "evil"? What if you had not gone down and had never known they were actors, you would have gone throuhg your entire life thinking you had witnessed an evil act, and beating yourself up because you didn't try to save the woman. When in reality it was all an act. See, everything in our lives is based on perception, our own individual perception of thiings we experience. Even though those two actors were making a movie, had you not discovered otherwise, you would have gone your entire life thinking it was real.

evil is willingness to knowingly cause harm to others for personal benefit.
good is willingness to make personal sacrifice for the benefit of others.

heres a simple honest very very logical opinion

human race gets smart (evo non-religious theory)
somebody makes up bible
we base our morals off the books teachings

Adam and Eve (religious "theory" < If I have to be politically correct)
God enstills consience, then to make it even clearer he gives us 10 commandments
then modern bible is finished then we base our morals off it.

if there was no such thing as the bible or religion we would have NO morals (eg: Animals)

all of our morals are originated in the christian religion.

[This message has been edited by 4-mulaGT (edited 12-22-2006).]

quote Originally posted by FieroRumor: What is the number one reason why Fayt gets out of bed in the morning? What does he do for a living? Any pets? What is his "purpose"? If he found himself in an amusement park, what ride would he try first? What "level" of society is he? High up, middle dude, low ground-scraping pauper?

i am not at liberty to answer these questions. sorry

What would you call willing to not only cross the line but to totaly ignore the line to save your way of life?

quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: What would you call willing to not only cross the line but to totaly ignore the line to save your way of life?

i guess i am missing the question.

quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: What would you call willing to not only cross the line but to totaly ignore the line to save your way of life?

there are greater and lesser evils, just as there are greater and lesser goods. there are times when it is necessary to tolerate, or even commit, a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil.

Keep coming back to this.. interesting discussion.

Got me to thinking about Frued's thoughts on the Id

"The id contains the drives that people have. These are the drives for pleasure. If humans have instincts, this is where they are. The id wants its wishes immediately and directly fulfilled. The id is governed by the pleasure principle, which suggests that all processes operate to achieve the maximum amount of pleasure. Also, the id is almost completely unconscious."

Is evil that dark place that lurks in all of us, the primitive savage?

Are you writing something in Terry Brooks' universe?

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Are you writing something in Terry Brooks' universe?

no- my own personal world i haev spent many years concocting.

Is your stuff in print and if so... what is it?

i am not at liberty to give out any more information than i already have.

Personally, I'm done with the topic. I had an interesting discussion with everyone but you. IMHO, you asked the questions and now you're steering the discussion to come up with an answer you approve of. I'm not playing that game.

Oh, and BTW, your "secrets" are getting a bit tiresome.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: i am not at liberty to give out any more information than i already have.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: i guess i am missing the question.

If you are attacked and instead of running and calling for help, instead of breaking an arm or leg, instead of doing just what you have to and get out alive. Instead you not only prevent the person from attacking you, you also prevent him from attacking anyone ever again. Willing to commit 100% without even thinking. Your not inherently evil until the right situation. Once you cross the line it simply goes away and then you are lost. Are you then evil by being ready to go that far at a moments notice.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I would have THOUGHT that because they were enacting the depiction of an EVIL ACT. If I see two actors, say the movie "In Cold Blood", committing a heinous, evil crime, like murdering an entire family, then the MOVIE is not evil but the act as it originally happened, which is what they are depicting, certainly is. I simply don't buy your idea that because one morally bankrupt person has no remorse, and feels in no way responsible or wrong for performing an evil act, that the act is not evil. The name for that particular society is anarchy. John Stricker

It looks to me like you're mixing things that aren't really relevent to one another as they pertain to this topic. My assertion is that the definition of an 'evil act" is purely a matter of OPINION. What you consider an "evil act" and what someone else (not me because I don't think there is such a thing) may consider evil are never going to be the same. That (to me) in and of itself makes the existance of a truly "evil" act impossible, since it's all about OPINION. Someone used the Salem Witch Trials as an example earlier. Who was "evil" in that situation? Or was the burning of innocent people at the stake not "evil"? Even though the poeple of that time honestly believed they were doing the "right", or "Christian" thing. As heinous as that act was, I would think it absolutely would qualify. So who was "evil"? And if you can't assign that label to that situation, then where is the line that you can? Where does the air in your kitchen become the air in your living room?
As for the anarchy, you're somehow trying to associate societal judgements and punishments (which themselves are based on entirely arbitrary, often naive, and even more often fear-based standards) but those things can't be used as a means to define "evil" because they are so arbitrary.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: 1. BE OPEN-MINDED!!! Proof, not opinion. Your argument needs proof to be a fact- so if you do not have proof to show that your opinion is a fact then I recommend you leave this discussion before a moderator deletes your from the forum or thread by the least for you not being open-minded. 2. Reasonable arguments. Do not throw in the idea that because you are catholic you are right. We all come from different backgrounds and don’t be a pompous fool to think that because you come from that background that you know where that background even comes from. How much about the REAL history do you know not of what you are told- but for this example at play can you read Hebrew? Or by that matter Greek?

I'm sorry, but something about your "rules" has me a little confused.
.
.
.
.
[edit]
Sigh, OK, I WAS going to let this go at the above statement but I will play.

1) You asked for a definition of Good vs Evil and yet you asked for PROOF and no opinions. To that let me simply offer you GOOD LUCK! The reason is that Good vs Evil is a philosophical question and hence, there is NO proof. Theology may not be your cup of tea but it DOES offer one opinion on the essential nature of good vs evil. If your rude comment above can be interpreted as saying that you have heard all the theological arguements you care to hear, or at least all the Catholic ones you care to hear, fine. You could have worded it better. MUCH BETTER.

2) I am not Catholic

3) I DO, however, like to think I have an open mind. I violently disagree with 84Bill's ravings about the nature of natural freedom and yet I do him the courtesy of reading his opinion...before I mock him mercilessly I am happy to listen to other perspectives on this topic, whether I agree with them or not, at least many of the fundamental values Catholics have (thou shalt not kill, don't do your neighbor's wife, yada yada) reasonate with me as being core elements of GOOD, and as such, merit my attention.

4) "reasonable arguements" does not even make sense. If you mean, reasoned arguements then you have to follow the speakers logic to make that judgement. Many philosophers, a lot smarter than either of us, have had trouble with this when an inherent debate between the nature of good vs evil is the topic. If you have a chance to feed your family to keep them from starving to death by killing someone else is killing that person wrong or is letting your family die wrong? Show me the "proof" of the choice as being evil or good. Like I said, GOOD LUCK!

5)Berkeley, for example, could never reconcile his search for "bedrock", that which is known without question to be true, because he could never divorce himself from his own faith. The existence of God, he conceded, he could not question. Hence, he failed. If THIS is the angle you were going for in your "rules" then again, you could have worded it better. I have faith in God but I have never been afraid to question his existence in a philosophical discussion. That does not mean, however, that I necessarily exclude a discussion of good vs evil that assumes the existence of God as unworthy due to the lack of "proof". WHY? Well, that brings us to :

6) What is "proof"? This I gotta hear.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 12-23-2006).]

I have to agree with 84Bill and Lurker. It's generally accepted throughout humanity that selflessness is good and selfishness is bad. But different societies disagree on the details.

That's where things start getting subjective. Since good vs evil is really a "society vs self" type of thing, society (or more specifically, the collective subconscious) defines it. That definition can change greatly from one society to the next, and even during different time periods of the same society.

Define your society, and by doing so you will have defined your good and evil.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 12-23-2006).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Personally, I'm done with the topic. I had an interesting discussion with everyone but you. IMHO, you asked the questions and now you're steering the discussion to come up with an answer you approve of. I'm not playing that game. Oh, and BTW, your "secrets" are getting a bit tiresome. John Stricker

i am not trying to steer the discussion i apologize for making it seem that way- when it comes to my "secrets". i have my reasons- i am not going to let a piece of my work out to be stolen that i have been working on for the past 9 years- it is very difficult in this world to have smthing original. and i would like to able to do this the best i can- by not letting all the secrets of the universe out (the one i am workign on- i am not declaring my hollyness ) does a writer for a tv show or a movie have the mental compasity to not let the secrets of the story out for good reason? this is why. i guess i don't understand why you are missing that.

i've stayed out of this thread to this point because i found the premise to be fatuous and sophomoric... and popping in today, i'm sorry to see that my initial impression has been borne out.

i think the people here who have an actual interest in good and evil and how those concepts work in the world have done yeoman's work in trying to steer this topic away from superficial word games and sloppy thinking, toward something meaningful. that faytmorgan has drawn this out, for some thin purpose - i shudder to consider what ill-conceived work of fiction he's actually contemplating - is just deplorable.

that criticism made, i have two random comments:

first, while i have little opportunity to agree with toddster, i will take this one. the idea that an invited opinion on the nature of good and evil must meet some arbitrary and juvenile measure of "proof" is absurd.

second, while i also tend to believe, along with blacktree, that "It's generally accepted throughout humanity that selflessness is good and selfishness is bad," i have to wonder if there aren't any objectvists around.

delete

[This message has been edited by Uaana (edited 12-23-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Uaana: BTW last post wasn't directed, just showing "evils" face

i notice that every one of your scenarios featured a woman - usually young - as victim.

you must watch a lot of horror movies.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: I have been writing a book and I have come to a point where I need a conflict a villain no not a villin the protein but an adversary of my “hero”. Then I ran into a problem I truly cannot say I understand with all my philosophy and theology – what good is and what evil is. Why is he/she/it evil? Why do they choose or born to be this way or do these things etcetera? What is evil to start we understand good for the things we find pleasurable but in other thoughts we find that these pleasurable things can be of ways of evil that being like sex. A very touchy subject matter to most Americans a little more open-minded are the Europeans on the subject but just the same. That being said for example if we go toward the all too common Christian route an example of good and evil per say.

Hopefully your book will not be full of the same barely intelligible prose as the above paragraph.

quote BE OPEN-MINDED!!! Proof, not opinion. Your argument needs proof to be a fact- so if you do not have proof to show that your opinion is a fact then I recommend you leave this discussion before a moderator deletes your from the forum or thread by the least for you not being open-minded.

Opinions can not be facts. If I am of the opinion that the sky is purple, it does not become so no matter what "proof" I might offer.

Opinions are subjective....facts are objective and not open to debate.

------------------
Who is John Galt?

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: facts are objective and not open to debate.

Though that's never stopped some of us here from tearing them facts a new one!

Wow, Foggie beat me to it..I should want a million dollars just to try to decipher your manuscript!! Not trying to be nasty, but well....ease of reading something makes the difference between getting past the first page or not
Evil. My feelings are this.Being evil is consciously doing something which will hurt somebody or something.Either physically or mentally. Or both, and KNOWING and recognising the act as exactly that. But it is equally as hard to actually define the difference between Evil and Insanity. I think insanity is commiting that same act, and NOT realising it is Evil, or bad.It is the difference between not knowing, and not caring.
Nick
Edited because I was the pot calling the kettle black..my post was almost unintellligible..sorry

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 12-23-2006).]

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Opinions can not be facts. If I am of the opinion that the sky is purple, it does not become so no matter what "proof" I might offer. Opinions are subjective....facts are objective and not open to debate.

it was a poor description on my part- i wrote it wtihout checking for errors as i usually do on these forums because when it comes to just writing it here- i don't care- when i find that this is going to be somthing in a more published form then i care to take the time to be more descriptive. put to help you understand- it was a misunderstanding that i was saying that opinions are facts and if you are not going to give fact that you can leave. i can see how one could take it that way. i did not intend that- poeple like to contend that their opinions are actually facts when they are not- and i did not want that childish nature to be in this thread for the benifite of teh topic.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: mu target audience is not the audience. i write for myself. not for others.

then why bother to engage everyone here in this nonsense? is PFF really your idea of a creative writing circle?