/lit/ - Literature

>>12418605
Binary thinking makes you dumb. Stop being so dualistic. Ascribing "good" vs. "evil" characteristics to everything is indicative of mental illness and makes you morally annoying.

>>12418613

>>12418613
I appreciate your input.

Inaction cannot cause harm because inaction, by definition, is a lack of action. Ignoring an act of evil does not make one evil, it makes one cowardly, sociopathic, duplicitous, whatever. Your problem is defining evil as a sort of metaphysical entity which exists outside of human agency, that's retarded.

>>12418642
Inaction can perfectly cause harm, however. An poorly involved parent can destroy the life of their child as much as an abusive one. Not calling an ambulance when someone gets hurt is also a way to cause harm by not acting. A maintenance worker who doesn't cover up a dry well might be inviting someone to fall into it.

>>12418642
>>12418650
I also might add that only humans are capable of evil as we have the capability of conceiving it. Animals don't have morals, thus, there exists no good or evil in their mind and any "instance"of it is just us humans projecting ourselves onto them. Natural disasters aren't evil either; they have no consciousness to speak of and thus can't be associating with wrong doings..

>>12418653
Wait, so if I were to completely reject human moral system, I am not evil even if I commit evil acts?

>>12418687
not in your own eyes

>>12418650
>An poorly involved parent can destroy the life of their child as much as an abusive one.
A parent is a conceiver of a child and bears a moral responsibility to bring that child up. In such a case, being distant is not an act of inaction, but an act of actively avoiding this responsibility.
>Not calling an ambulance when someone gets hurt is also a way to cause harm by not acting.
In this example, harm (evil) was already done. As a bystander, you have a choice to become active and alleviate that evil by calling an ambulance, or to let it stay by ignoring it. In either case, you're not causing any evil yourself.

>>12418687
There is no such thing as evil
Time to grow up

Holy shit, is that the album cover to Behemoth's "The Apostasy"? Based.

>>12418711
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

try Buddhism

>>12418613
>morally annoying

>>12418713
Grow up, says the teenager.

>>12418687
I believe that what we deem as evil or good is conditioned by the environment. Morality is a democracy in a way, in that the more people that agree with your moral system the more righteous it is. I am kind of a relativist in the sense that I think that having morals is a human necessity, but which specific morals is more accidental than natural. Thus, the more people that accept your moral system the more powerful it becomes; I do think that certain moral systems are better than others, but that really depends on the environment.

>>12418711
So I take that your issue is more with the examples I have listed than with the principles I have outlined?
Either way, while I see your point on the first example, I can't really agree on the second one.
The causes for someone else's hurt can be human or accidental; if it's the latter then no evil was inflicted (falling down some stairs has no moral involvement). However, seeing someone injured on the ground and not helping them requires thought, requires boulesis as Aristotle would put it, and thus, a decision must be taken. If you choose not to help (inaction) then you are willingly prolonging that suffering, which is considered cruel and thus evil.

>>12418750
>If you choose not to help (inaction) then you are willingly prolonging that suffering, which is considered cruel and thus evil.
I agree, inaction would make you a cruel person. But not evil. Because in this case, my will is capable of ending the suffering, but it's not actively causing it. This is the difference. Cruely is merely an unwillingness to end evil, indifference to it. You can't equate it to evil without burdering all men on Earth with communal responsibility, which, in itself, an evil act of control.

>>12418605
The good is that which tends to existence, and the evil is that which tends to non-existence. Therefore, strength is good, and weakness is evil.

>>12419021
If weaknesses is evil then why do our bodies die

>>12418605
>fear is weakness
*tips*

>>12418605
I think that weakness attracts evil.

>>12419207
Care to argue how fear isn't a symptom of weakness?

>>12418605
evil is weakness