Dear davidf,

I'm finding it interesting that as I am getting older I am softening my stance on religion while you seem to be hardening yours, although that might just be a perception.

I was wondering if I might be allowed to a different approach to the question of evil, hardly definative but exploratory none the less?

Could we not think of evil as occuring when something is lacking? Take StG's monster, a universal trait of psychopathic killers is a complete lack of empathy for the suffering of their victims. While we might view a cat playing with a wounded mouse, or crows picking the eyes from weakened lambs, as distasteful, we generally don't attribute evil to either species nor is there an expectation of empathy, even though there are many examples of cross species empathy in the animal kingdom.

We may even think of the psychopath less as evil and more as a malfunctioning or incomplete human being.

But I prefer to look for evil elsewhere. Christ described it in a more religious way than many of us might be comfortable with when he said we are all sinners. But in my opinion he went directly to the heart of the matter. We all have the capacity to do what any rational person would deem to be evil. Our propensity to engage individually or participate with others in such acts is directly proportional to what we are prepared to give up of our individuality or autonomy.

Cont..

Cont...

Kosovo was a prime example with neighbor slaughtering fellow neighbor even after decades of living in peaceful co-existence, Rwanda another.

We accept that people can be one-eyed and uncritical about their immediate family or their football team even though in some way these result in a minor diluting of ones natural dose of empathy for others. But concepts of nationalism and religion are far more dangerous if only because of their size. Ultimately however the military must be regarded as institution most requiring the largest sacrifice of our autonomy and the results speak for themselves, see the example of Colonel Humphrey Gilbert in your previous post.

To me the real evil of Hitler's Germany was not the man himself but that such a high proportion of Germans were prepared to idolise him and vow unquestioning allegiance and support for his actions.

Of course this evil is deemed to be relative for while many in western society view a bomb in a market place in Baghdad as an evil act far fewer would be prepared to label the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings even as non-justifiable. Is this because the second was perpetrated by the military?

We must careful about what we as citizens are prepared to give up of ourselves to our nationalism, our leaders, our religions and our military because often what we are left with is inadequate, under the right circumstances, to restrain the capacity for horrific acts which dwells within us.

We can all probably see the potential for evil in runner's blind adherence, but perhaps the difference lies between those who follow Christ himself and those who follow his example. My proposition is the first creates a lack while the second can not help but promote a positive.

Dear George,

You are right. I am not concerned with supernatural forces.

I apply “de gustibus non est disputantum”. Although we may try to make more of it I think that's all there is.

I don’t believe in any objective or absolute morality. We each have an implicit morality determined by a combination of what we are taught, the views of our society and our individual predilections. Morality in society has developed as a set of implicit rules that have been found to work as a means of living together in a reasonable manner.

Hitler for many of us is a symbol of evil. Yet he was loved by many of the German people. I believe he expressed the mood of the people he ruled much more than most rulers do. I don’t believe it is reasonable to think of him as a symbol of evil. He is only regarded so because he ordered things that many of us don’t like.

I also think Alexander, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan. Napoleon and other successful and would be conquerers are evil, as I think it is a low ambition to subject and kill people. Other people have different views of the foregoing. Babies are sometimes named Attila in Hungary.

Stripped of philosophic dressing good in human behaviour is the behaviour we approve of or like or are taught that it is proper to like and evil in human behaviour is the behaviour we disapprove of or dislike or are taught that it is proper to dislike.

Tsunamis, volcanoes, floods and other manifestations of nature are neither good nor evil but are the consequence of forces that follow the same laws that any other physical phenomena follow.

God is a human creation and is no more good or evil than Hamlet, Mickey Mouse or any other human creation. Of course the Bible pictures God as doing evil, so he may be classed along with Iago as an fictional character depicted as behaving in an evil manner.

Dear George,

You are right. I don’t bother with supernatural forces.

To me “de gustibus non est disputantum” seems reasonable. Although we may try to make more of it I think that's all there is.

I don’t believe in an objective morality. We each have an implicit morality determined by a combination of what we are taught, the views of our society and our individual predilections. Morality in society has developed as a set of implicit rules that have been found to work as a means of living together in a reasonable manner.

Hitler for many is a symbol of evil. Yet many German people loved him. I believe he expressed the mood of the people he ruled much more than most rulers do. He is only regarded as evil because he ordered things that many of us don’t like.

I think Alexander, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan. Napoleon and other successful and would be conquerers are evil, as I think it is a low ambition to subject and kill people. Other people have different views. Babies are still named Attila in Hungary.

Stripped of philosophic and religious dressing good in human behaviour is the behaviour we approve of, like or are taught that it is proper to like and evil in human behaviour is the behaviour we disapprove of, dislike or are taught that it is proper to dislike.

Tsunamis, volcanoes, floods and other manifestations of nature are neither good nor evil but are the consequence of forces that follow the same laws that any other physical phenomena follow.

God is no more good or evil than Hamlet, Mickey Mouse or any other human creation. Of course the Bible pictures God as doing evil, so he may be classed along with Iago as a fictional character depicted as behaving in an evil manner.

Dear Mikhail_Silverwood,

It is abuse rather than argument to accuse one who differs from you as lacking intelligence.

Dear csteele,

Your perception is accurate. I will write more to you.

MS that was a bit strange, you value only your view and your right to state it.
And claim a lack of intelligence for the rest of us.
Have you ever considered your self confidence may be miss placed?

Dear csteele,

I ask, "How can I lead a good life?"

That is a question that I ask and am not completely satisfied with any answer I have come up with. Eventually I will die, and that will be the end of it for me.

I got an email yesterday that made me very happy. It was from one of my granddaughters. She asked for my mailing address as she wanted to write letters rather than exchange emails. I felt very good as I hope I can leave her with memories of a grandfather who loved her.

StG described a psychopath, and you defined evil in terms of a psychopath who was lacking something. However, I would rather consider the question of living a good life. I don't think Christianity is useful in answering that question. You cited Jesus as saying that we are all sinners. That is one thing I find very wrong with Christianity. It inculcates a morbid sense of guilt. I read St. Augustine's "Confessions" and was impressed by the intelligence with which he described time and space. However, he was riddled with guilt due to having stolen pears from an orchard while a teenager. It seems more reasonable to ask what good we can do rather than wallow in guilt for our failings.

If we have done wrong try to make up for it by either compensating in some way the person you have wronged and try to change your behaviour.

The Christian way seems completely unreasonable. Believe on Jesus, and your sins are washed away. How does believing in mumbojumbo make up for wrong? How does it help the person you have wronged?

Our sins are with us. We cannot transfer them to another entity, but we can try to make up for them.

Rather than concern myself with definitions of evil based on psychopaths, Hiroshima, Hitler and other distant entities I would rather try to live a life that is good for me and good for those around me