Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
Thanks Tree2Thanks

Thread: Does Evil Exist?

  1. #31
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    People who commit acts of evil, don't believe they are doing anything wrong. 100% of the time, they believe that the situation called for drastic measures.
    That is an ignorant generalization/oversimplification.

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    32,994
    Thanks
    16224

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    So, sociopaths are incapable of doing something that is inherently good, even something that is inherently good for himself? You are seriously misunderstanding what you say.

    Furthermore, there is no moral judgment for people who cannot exercise free will. Moral judgment ALWAYS presupposes free will so that one can only be judged inasmuch as a choice could be freely exercised.
    I understand exactly what I say. Define "inherently good". Do sociopaths perform good deeds? Yes. Ted Bundy worked a rape victim crisis hotline in the 70's. John Wayne Gacy performed as a clown at children's hospitals. Even Jeffery Dahmer gave blood regularly. Did that make them "good" people? No. They were sociopaths. Ted Bundy was a serial rapist. John Way Gacy killed, and buried 33 boys. And Jeffery Dahmer? Well, he was a cannibal. None of these were "good", "healthy" men. And, at no point were they ever "good", "healthy" men. They had personality disorders. They were always sociopaths.

    That's how sociopaths work. The very stupidity of your question demonstrates that it is you that has no understanding of which you speak. You want to pretend that there is some "good person" hiding inside the monster. There isn't. Under a sociopath...is just a sociopath. Now, here's the thing. Can you teach a sociopath to mimic the behaviours of a "good person"? Sure. But he will never be capable of the empathy, or the emotional connections necessary to make those mimicked behaviours real.

    Which brings us to the question of what is "inherently good"? Is it just public behaviour that makes a person good, or is it motivation? Because if it is just public behaviour, then, sure. A sociopath can be a "good" person. But if it is just public behaviour, then you are admitting that "good", and "evil" are nothing more than societal labels.

  3. #33
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I understand exactly what I say. Define "inherently good". Do sociopaths perform good deeds? Yes. Ted Bundy worked a rape victim crisis hotline in the 70's. John Wayne Gacy performed as a clown at children's hospitals. Even Jeffery Dahmer gave blood regularly. Did that make them "good" people? No. They were sociopaths. Ted Bundy was a serial rapist. John Way Gacy killed, and buried 33 boys. And Jeffery Dahmer? Well, he was a cannibal. None of these were "good", "healthy" men. And, at no point were they ever "good", "healthy" men. They had personality disorders. They were always sociopaths.

    That's how sociopaths work. The very stupidity of your question demonstrates that it is you that has no understanding of which you speak. You want to pretend that there is some "good person" hiding inside the monster. There isn't. Under a sociopath...is just a sociopath. Now, here's the thing. Can you teach a sociopath to mimic the behaviours of a "good person"? Sure. But he will never be capable of the empathy, or the emotional connections necessary to make those mimicked behaviours real.

    Which brings us to the question of what is "inherently good"? Is it just public behaviour that makes a person good, or is it motivation? Because if it is just public behaviour, then, sure. A sociopath can be a "good" person. But if it is just public behaviour, then you are admitting that "good", and "evil" are nothing more than societal labels.
    https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com...the-good-will/

    The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other candidates for an intrinsic good have problems, Kant argues. Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for ill purposes, Kant argues, and therefore cannot be intrinsically good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good despite all encroachments. Misfortune may render someone incapable of achieving her goals, for instance, but the goodness of her will remains.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    32,994
    Thanks
    16224

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com...the-good-will/

    The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other candidates for an intrinsic good have problems, Kant argues. Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for ill purposes, Kant argues, and therefore cannot be intrinsically good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good despite all encroachments. Misfortune may render someone incapable of achieving her goals, for instance, but the goodness of her will remains.
    Well, that's absolutely fascinating...

    ...now would you like to circle back around to what I actually posted?

  5. #35
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Well, that's absolutely fascinating...

    ...now would you like to circle back around to what I actually posted?
    You asked what an inherent good is, did you not?

    It's right there.

    https://kantphilosophy.wordpress.com...the-good-will/

    Goodness cannot arise from acting on impulse or natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty. It can only arise from conceiving of one’s actions in a certain way. A shopkeeper, Kant says, might do what is in accord with duty and not overcharge a child. Kant argues, “it is not sufficient to do that which should be morally good that it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law.” (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Akademie pagination 390) There is a clear moral difference between the shopkeeper that does it for his own advantage to keep from offending other customers and the shopkeeper who does it from duty and the principle of honesty.(Ibid., 398) Likewise, in another of Kant’s carefully studied examples, the kind act of the person who overcomes a natural lack of sympathy for other people out of respect for duty has moral worth, whereas the same kind act of the person who naturally takes pleasure in spreading joy does not. A person’s moral worth cannot be dependent upon what nature endowed them with accidentally. The selfishly motivated shopkeeper and the naturally kind person both act on equally subjective and accidental grounds. What matters to morality is that the actor think about their actions in the right manner.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Does "evil" exist?
    By Mr. Knight in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 21st April 2009, 09:36 PM
  2. Do good and evil men really exist?
    By Leo in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 26th March 2009, 06:31 AM
  3. Does Israel have a right to exist?
    By jojo in forum World Politics
    Replies: 187
    Last Post: 11th May 2008, 11:26 AM
  4. Al-Qaida does not exist
    By cansouth in forum World Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 30th May 2006, 09:21 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed