When it comes to good and evil, or morality there can be no neutral. An evil act is an evil act regardless of the outcome! The outcomes of many of Hitler's evil acts were beneficial to Germany (in the short term at least)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If I eat a steak, that is a neutral act; it is not good it is not evil
If I torture a terrorist to suss out a WMD, it is an evil act with a good result (if you accept that torure is always an evil act)
SOME actions are always evil.
If you eat a steak, It's good for you, bad for the cow (providing you're not a health nut). You made my point- actions are good or evil- not people!
I would say people that make the decision to commit multiple evil acts is evil, tho.
OTOH, there is a point in these arguments where semantics outnumber practicalities; when it comes down to it, it is the individual who makes the decision HOW he is going to act at any given time
It's a valid point... I'm saying that there's no discernable cutoff point so to speak. Like 60/40 or maybe 75/25... It's a matter of having to judge each action individually.
Agreed.
Every act must be judged in it's own circumstances, but based upon an understanding of Good and Evil
My point exactly!
gotta forgive me...my brain has been off...maybe I'm the one playing semantics LOL