Good vs. Evil

People that do "bad" things have reasons for doing them. Its usually because they are mad at somthing, like the world. They are mad because they dont understand the bad things that have been forced upon them. They dont think about why the bad thing or things have happened to them because the memory hurts too much to think about. The anger they take out on other things just causes more confusion and other bad things to happen. If people forgive and forget their misfortunes, they can go on and do good things. I dont know this for sure, but i think its probobly true.

People who do bad things are sometimes just that way because it feels right, whats wrong to you is not necessarily the same for me, nurture verses nature.

I feel that genocide is in order this whole planet is fucked up we should all die and reincarnate again like we did centuries ago, back then we had technology that far surpasses today's mediocre standards and inevitably destroyed ourselves.

Then again this is entirely based upon the theory that we actually exist then again thought is physically manifested we are but a twinkle in the creators eye a tear which sooner or later has to hit the ground.

I was about to open a thread like this one!
Basically, I believe that there is no real 'evil' or 'bad' in the world, because no one does bad just for the sake of doing bad.
Even if a person kills someone, that is not 'evil'. A act will not become bad until the person himself thinks it to be.
So, if a person kills someone, because that someone killed his parents, then although it will not be justified in any way whatsoever, it cannot be considered 'evil' so to say.

So if a person kills anyone for whatever reason, if he himself feels that he did wrong, then it will be wrong or evil, and vice versa. However, the problem is that the court cannot know the feelings of the person, and thus wheather the act is 'evil' or not, in society it will still be punished equally.

Try killing someone, see how you feel then.

Well, if someone killed my mother, I would kill him and not feel a pinge of guilt, although my actions would not be justified.
A person who conciously(unlike a madman) kills someone, 'just for the sake of killing someone', now that can be considered as evil

You make strong assumptions, you cannot know what you would feel after the fact, the best evidence you can have to base off of is from those who have killed under any circumstance including revenge of murder.

The concensus tends to lie in contradiction to your assumption, especially as more time passes.

Lefty's right.
You can say a lot of stuff about how you'd react, and then when it happens, you pulling the trigger on someone like that right in their face and watching them get blown away and die - that'll be causing some post-traumatic stress disorder because then you killed a man, and your mother's dead, too.

The question, was the revenge justified regardless of your reaction to it?
The fact that I have to ask is hinting some relativity to this good-evil business. I don't know if it is or not, I don't think anyone gets accomplished if you go after this "eye for an eye" bullshit -

That's why I'm against capital punishment for the most part. Unless you got a guy that's mentally disturbed and would kill people constantly if released, because he's just messed up, I don't think the government nor the citizens should play God. Christians and others rant about how God will judge - and yet they think having authority over another's life is not judgment.

But that's my two cents.
Plus, innocent people are sitting on death row which makes the entire thing worse - killing people and condemning them wrongfully, makes you really see the difference between the human and God - God doesn't make mistakes, supposedly since he's divine, and humans err. That's what they were made to do.

Could you ever be scared of someone who gives to charitie all the time but you dont know why? Is it possible to do good for the sake of doing something good? If you can some how apply all the quiestions of evil into a quistion of good, then - without resorting to the whole good is good and evil is bad - then you could see that the the answers either negate each other or allow an ' on the other hand ' argument.

'If people forgive and forget their misfortunes, they can go on and do good things. I dont know this for sure, but i think its probobly true.'>>

'To forgive is to live'
I truly believe that no matter how harsh a crime, that forgiveness is the key to life for the victim. Without forgiving, the victim remains a victim, forever haunted by the what ever happened. Every individual has there own personal limit when it comes to forgiveness. The person capable of ultimate forgiveness would be one who can, for example, forgive their father who raped them. Such an individual knows that for them to walk on the path of their destiny they must listen to their heart, and if a heart is continually poisoned by the repercussions of hate, vengeance, utter pain, bitterness and disgust as a result of the crime, there is no way the heart can feel pure again. In order for them to move on, they must be strong enough and wise enough to forgive. Otherwise the world becomes an incredibly dark and skewed place where love cannot exist.

I admire and would bow my head to individuals capable of such immense forgiveness.

I myself, when I think about it, would shoot dead - point blank – someone if they killed someone I loved dearly. Though after writting that I do feel a little repulsed at myself and I question why I would do that. Because I don't believe in capital punishment – its too easy a way out of this world. Hmmm.. I think I might prefer the idea of locking the bastard up for life and injecting them with some fatal virus, like AIDS, so they can suffer as they experience their body deteriorate a slow and painful death.

Here's my question about all this good and evil. Who decides what is good and what is evil? If the decision lies with the individual whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, then there is no good or evil. Problem with this being, in everything, there are absolutes. 1+1=2. This is truth right? If there is truth and falsity, right and wrong, in the world, then why would this not apply to actions, to good and evil? Things that are true are true and things that are false are false. Whether you and I disagree has no affect on it. The truth remains. A rock does not stop being a rock because I say it is a tree.

The thing iz, in reality there is no 'gud' or 'bad', there is just 'is'. If you injure your toe, it's not 'good' or 'bad', it just 'is'. The world of duality, of opposites is created by the mind, it is our brain which gives them existance. Again, all this the rational mind wil disregard as balderish, but try 'feeling' it with your soul, then u will begin the understand

What I feel in my soul is different then what you feel, though I appreciate very much your belief in a soul, since it is something too often left out of these discussions. I suppose the difference in out perception of good and bad or the lack thereof is that i believe in God and Satan. These are good and bad. I'm coming at it from a completely different angle. Everything is either good or bad. Or, let me rephrase, everything was once good and is now comparitivily bad. God is good, Satan is bad. Our mind blends the two, it doesnt create the difference.

"A rock does not stop being a rock because I say it is a tree."

This is not true. Like Angel was saying, the existance of the rock simply is, however, the word rock, can easily be replaced by the word tree. Effectivelly making a rock a tree, if you were to teach a child or foreigner (for language) what a rock is you can tell them it is a tree instead. Rock is but a title. And just in case you don't like playing with a version of semantics, I know at least a tree can become a rock, we have a whole forrest of those. A completely pulverized rock could possibly be absorbed by a growing tree, like many substances and nutrients, and actually become a tree. And then there is the fact that everything appears to be made of the same stuff, only looking and acting different.

"What I feel in my soul is different then what you feel"

This may be true, but probably isn't, the point being, there is no way of knowing and claiming otherwise is pure assumptive speculation.

I meant, if a person looks at a thing and says, "Hey look, a rock." and another person looks at the same thing and says, "Hey look, a tree." the thing does not change it's being because two different people think it is something different. it is the same thing it was whether the people saw it or not. I'm not talking about language variations. Also, i was talking about rocks and trees as random examples, as they are when the person is looking at them, not as they once were or may become.