Talk:Evil/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Universality -> approaches; Not 4 divisions.

(1) There is no 'universality' regarding evil. There are various philosophical 'approaches'.

(2) There are not just four divisions to the approaches - there are at least five, and we should be hesitant in declaring a specific number, certainly without citation. As mentioned before, moral pluralism has a long-standing and important role to play in the discussion of good and evil. An example of value-pluralism is the idea that the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable. Hence, moral decisions often require radical preferences with no rational calculus to determine which alternative is to be selected. moral pluralism differs from moral relativism in that pluralism accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. Plato indicates moral pluralism in Statesman when he writes that although the aim may be "to promote not a part of virtue but the whole", it is often the case that the different parts of virtue "may be at war with one another". (20040302 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

(2*) As stated here and struck, the notion of 'four major divisions' is weak. cf. Meta-ethics which has a list of (what are known as moral ontologies) that recognise three major ontological categories, which are then divided into many different sections - this is far better enumerated on the original article Regardless, the section only partly addressed meta-ethics, which misses out on the vast domain of ethical philosophy. (20040302 (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

Evil defined

This page is for discussing potential changes to the article, not personal opinions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article defines evil as: "It is generally seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personal moral evil commonly associated with the word, or impersonal natural evil (as in the case of natural disasters or illnesses), and in religious thought, the form of the demonic or supernatural/eternal.[1] ." This however is a very narrow and above all subjective definition of "Evil". One could also state: "Their loss, your gain". However, does that reality make you "Evil". In this sense "Evil" is above all in the eye off the beholder. Many things that are labeled "Evil", when looking closer and better at it turn out to be a reaction to something else. Mostly something that got the chance to get totally out of hand because before it was continuously labeled as "Good". The so-called "Evil" than just is a necessity to bring things back into proportion and balance again, as to restore natural harmony (Whether we like that or not). As a body that attacks a disease and destroys it. From this perspective Tabula Rasa can be the best that can happen. As a necessary "Evil" it can actually be the real Good, needed to destroy the real Evil. The real Evil that has been able to flee because as it suits a real wolf in sheep's clothing it had dressed itself as the "Good". Peace and health sound nice in the short run, but in the long run they cause an overpopulation that destroys the balance of nature and thus destroys life on earth and humanity itself. If I would have to define "Ëvil" than it would hold long run aspects into account because they effect many more generations and species than just our own. Evil would than have to be defined as "against the universal laws of nature". It is interesting to realize that this is actually also indirectly claimed in the Bible in the book of Genesis. Where Adam is kicked out of paradise because he believes he still needs his own wisdom and places it above the Divine laws that were already incorporated in the nature of Paradise called earth. Maybe in those early days the people who wrote Genesis thought more about the consequences of their actions than we do nowadays.83.98.229.18 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

About Osama bin Laden quote

Osama bin Laden found it moral to kill all Christians and Jews because he saw Islam as under attack by Western and US influence, accusing the US and Israel of forming a Crusader-Zionist alliance to destroy Islam, and considering US troops in Saudi Arabia infidels in the land of Islam's two holiest sites. He therefore considered non-Muslims and Shiite Muslims evil people intent on destroying Islamic purity and therefore heretic.[38]

There seems to be something missing here, I read the source and there is no mentioning that Osama bin Laden said that it is moral to kill Christians and Jews, and if he said, why did not he kill the Christian reporter who was interviewing him?

It seems that some people will never change, they will continue using the Wikipedia as another one of their propaganda machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorberino (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Page doesn't lead to philosophy

Almost every Wikipedia article leads to Philosophy by clicking the first link, as seen here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy

This page does not, it loops between evil and good. If anyone can think of how to rewrite this page or good's page so that it doesn't loop, please do. ButterPanda (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)