Dear examinator,

Thanks for removing my ignorance as to the difference between common law and criminal law. I thought police could arrest people for common law offenses.

Please elucidate further. I thought that vilification is different from incitement. I thought vilification merely meant to speak of in a disparaging manner. That puts nobody in danger by itself, and I don't believe it should be a crime. I thought an example of incitement would be to put a person or persons into immediate danger by encouraging individuals or a mob to attack that person. I thought that sort of thing would be included in our criminal code and is different from vilification although vilification could be included in incitement.

Dear examinator,

You said; "The idea that the police could get involved in common law say a libel suit has horrendous implications"

Indeed, but where it does get interesting is in the area of criminal defamation.

From the EFA website;

"Criminal liability arises from publications that affect the community, such as those that have a tendency to endanger the public peace, and penalties in most jurisdictions include imprisonment. Generally, proceedings for criminal defamation are commenced by law enforcement authorities. (In most jurisdictions, a private prosecution concerning criminal defamation requires the prior consent of, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General, or a court order.)"

Dear Davidf, Csteele

I am not able to contribute to this discussion as fully as I would like. My offerings, thus far, are more simple musings than solid opinion. Such as:

Are we just the result of chemicals, electronics and (apparently) 90% + microbes?

Rather ego deflating, that question. No wonder others prefer to think we have souls - which is tempting. However, to go further and claim that we are born sinners - as many religions are want to do and as Davidf has assiduously (and quite rightly) avoided, is taking the idea of evil to an extreme that doesn't hold to scrutiny. At some point in time Hitler and Stalin were babes in arms - I doubt they thought much further than their next meal and how fascinating the world was.

My opinion then? I don't believe in pure evil as some kind of entity or characteristic. I find the word itself misleading. Davidf started this topic by stating 'evil' is something we don't like - I don't like custard apples, but they are not 'evil'. For myself it is actions taken by humans than result in harm to others - this may be deliberate such as vengeance (even psychopaths believe they have valid reasons for what they do) or through mishap. Entire populations have concerted to do 'evil'. War results in 'evil'.

I no longer wish my ex dead, although I really did at that time in my life. I accept my desires as based on the circumstances I was in back then. I know I am not evil. But Pol Pot would probably say the same thing if he could.

Not sure when I will next be posting, but it is reassuring to read your intelligent and thoughtful posts.

Thank you.

Dear Fractelle,

Evil isn't a take it or leave it option. You are human. Those without evil might be considered angels but can they be considered human? And if not are they poorer for it?

If programmed only for good then one becomes little more than a traffic light. Creating order from chaos, preventing injury and death therefore it can be said tirelessly combating evil. All admirable qualities but oh so sterile.

Jesus was wise enough to say none are good but the Father, however biblical writers were also wise enough to have God doing evil, especially in the Hebrew bible, and it shows. Just compare God depicted then to how he is portrayed in the New Testament. He has gone from an interesting complex character to an insipid bit player.

Probably for me the most formative book on this theme was Gulliver's Travels, notably the story of the Houhnhnms and the Yahoos. Have you read it?

A definition of humanity;
1. Humans considered as a group; the human race.
2. The condition or quality of being human.
3. The quality of being humane; benevolence.
4. A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.

This mirrors the definition of Christianity that davidf and I were discussing earlier. I won't speak for him but the argument could be made that the human race doesn't deserve definitions 3 and 4.

But language can be other than just absolutely precise as some would have it, often it conveys the hopes and preferences of our species and that on the whole, that hope is for a better world, a world where good prevails, or a least less evil.

To your question “Are we just the result of chemicals, electronics and (apparently) 90% + microbes? “

Scientists claim that all the atoms we are made up of at the age of seven are fully replaced by the age of 35. If you are going to think of a soul perhaps you might think of what continues through this process that allows us to maintain ourselves as entities despite the complete replacement of our physical form.

Dear Fractelle,

Just a quick additional point if I may.

Please don't confuse evil with sinning even though the bible does. Sinning really means doing wrong by God, disobedience or worshipping other Gods.

Things tend to be a little clearer and the idea of evil within us a little less confronting when we are prepared to keep the two separate.

I tend to take the biblical story on this as a literary device to show how we all are capable of evil. What the gatekeepers of our religions have done with this notion shouldn't negate the message which I am happy to accept because it is confirmed by my experiences of the human race.

Dear davidf,

I feel we have stated our positions on evil thought or the lack thereof clearly and certainly in my case I may be in danger of cementing myself into a position more for the sake of the argument than what I truly believe so I'm happy to go and ruminate a little further on our exchange. Thank you.

Unlike you I do like moral sanctions. I loved the thought of the mothers and wives of England boycotting sugar in their tea in support of the anti-slavery movement.

I can recognise how they can be used punitively but in many cases they are the precursors to our laws.

As to Matthew 5:28 having been in love to the extent that I felt a physical pain in my heart I'm a little more forgiving in the anatomical references made by the New Testament writer.

I have been reflecting on (please forgive the stereotyping) a gloominess that seems to be a particularly Jewish affliction which may help to explain why Jews are so over represented in the comedic ranks.

I understand there is an official “Day of Laughter” called Purim where people dress up an act silly even though the story is about the impending annihilation of the Jewish people.

I have been asking myself whether my optimism regarding the human race is purely because I haven't been fully exposed to its horrors thus leaving me naïve?

I played my Vietnamese English student (a doctor) Hans Rosling's TED talk on global health and wealth statistics. Hans has the habit of increasing his speed of delivery when excited and combined with his accent makes it a good test.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

This was very inspirational to me when I first viewed it and it has lost none of its magic three years later. We were able to discuss Vietnam's dramatic climb in life expectancy (unaffected by the war years) and reduction in family size.

To realise how many people have been lifted from wretched lives and deaths in the last half of the 20th century still blows me away.

Blind optimism?