That and when he is doing evil, he gets a free pass because his motto is do as I say and n0ot as I do. God can use genocide all he wants and we are not to complain as that use is a good use. Never mind that God could just as easily cure but instead decides to do the satanic thing and kill. Regards DL
There could be a possible loophole if "evil" itself is not an extreme status, property, or measurement acknowledged by all developed population groups throughout time (i.e., only the majority of them). And "life" in biological context, of course, is devoted to what works or succeeds instead of morally wrong and right classifications. But let's ignore those to see where the other would go... If any current ones don't suffice, then there surely has been in history or will be in the future a vegan credo somewhere that deems carnivorous activity by humans to be a vile practice. [Our evolving big brains -- the road to "human"-- is contended to have required rich protein sources for our distant ancestors in order to get such jump-started; thus unavoidable evil conflicting with an ethical formula like that.] Also pacifist-like sects which do not tolerate homicide under any circumstances, and who don't shy from branding it wickedness. IOW, it's difficult to avoid "morally objectionable behavior" at some point if there is no universal standard for conduct that differing societies adhere to. Even if a person rigorously avoided ever venturing beyond the territory of their own tribe, then neighborhood subsets of mutable views allowed beneath the culture's overarching canon might still be encountered. Though the violations of them (personal or local offenses) might thereby not always carry enough legal or taboo weight to qualify for the magnitude of "evil". However, "unavoidable" doesn't collapse without rival options into "necessary" (that which arguments can uphold as a priori or a bedrock principle or characteristic essential for the very operation, identity, or existence of _X_, or to keep out inconsistency). Especially if what's "unavoidable" is an emergent inescapability arising from contingent circumstances, yet of probabilistically ubiquitous scope in the rate of occurrence / applicability. (Hopelessly widespread in terms of social territory and interactions, at least -- but not with respect to this subject matter pertaining to the whole nonhuman world.)
Interesting and nothing I would argue against. True that the evils of competition have a wide range. If I lose at a competition for resources or a job, it will not be that evil if there is a social safety net to catch me and reduce the evil, but if I happen to live where there are no safety nets then I and my family might go hungry or even starve to death. You made a good point on killing. The West mostly say they venerate life, and most of those countries do not have a death penalty, but some do. It is hard to say that you venerate life while taking it, like the U.S. does. Regards DL
Mod Note Genaro Torrest, this may be the Religion sub-section of this website, but we have a strict policy on preaching. From this site's rules: Propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising I21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion, proclaiming that one’s favoured political party is superior to the opposing party, or proclaiming that one group is morally superior to another. The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven, supposedly in the interests of achieving some important aim (e.g. world peace, governing the nation effectively, ensuring that people act morally). I22. Propaganda wars are similar to flame wars, except in that they ostensibly involve argument about a topic. They are typically characterised by zealots on both sides of the argument who have no intention of listening to the opposing point of view, let alone possibly changing their minds. The result is invariably that members become frustrated and spin-off complaints to the moderators become rife. I23. Propaganda can include material copied verbatim from other websites, books or articles, that demonstrates a clear bias for or against a particular belief. It does not include article which examine an issue objectively and rationally, looking at both sides of an argument. I24. Preaching is giving a sermon, often but not always of a religious nature, stating how people should or should not act, as if the sermon itself were self-evidently true. I25. Proselytising is attempting to convert others to one’s own beliefs, often with threats of adverse consequences if one refuses to convert. I26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis. I27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk. I28. The quoting of religious texts as unquestionable authorities to support an argument will in general be regarded as preaching, particularly if the discussion is not about how a religious group interprets the text in question. Quotes of large sections of a religious text will be removed as a matter of course; such texts are available elsewhere online and can easily be linked if appropriate. In other words, preaching and proselytising is strictly against this site's rules. If you continue to breach this site's rules in this fashion, you will be moderated.
For me, it's not a necessity to do evil and definitely a no! Good must prevail. We do have a choice over doing good and evil but we are all aware that evil is the merely cause of sufferings in life and must be avoided.
I did not see your argument to show how your claim can be true. Are you saying you have never competed for a job or resources and caused a loser to those competitions? If so, how did you get ahead in life? Regards DL
You have a tough job as every post from anyone tries to either teach, preach or learn. Pushing any points can likely be loosely classed as proselytising. Thanks for the reminder though. Regards DL
The argument "everything that might to an outsider look evil is in fact evil" is a facile one. Yes, surgeons can be seen as evil because they cut people open. Yes, storeowners can be seen as evil because they take your money. Yes, drivers can be seen as evil because sometimes they get ahead of you. But none of those things is really true when you look at the larger picture.
Which is what my whole argument is on the evils within evolution. If we do not see that bit of evil within the overall good, we likely would not hace created our social safety nets to help mitigate the harm done to the losers of the competitions. Regards DL
