Subject:
|
Re: No evil people
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Nov 2001 17:29:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
364 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Watson writes:
> IMO all those people performed evil acts.
>
> How do you define an 'evil person'?
Candidate definition: Someone who consistently performs evil acts, knowing
that under objective morality they are evil.
> How do you define evil?
Well, I guess I'd want to hear your definition, since you presumably have
one since you agreed with me on the candidate evildoers. I may well agree
with it.
> Can someone perform evil acts & not be an evil person.
Accidentally, or if they show remorse, atonement and compensate the victims
andchange their ways later.
> Is an 'evil person' always evil?
I'm thinking not. But I'm not sure I'd care to try to rehabilitate Stalin
and make him into a good person. (somehow reminds me of 1984...) I'd rather
he just suffered the consequences of his acts and let him sort it out
himself what to do.
> Where they born evil?
I'm thinking only rarely, if ever. Nurture not nature?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: No evil people
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GM87Jw.Iry@lugnet.com... (...) IMO all those people performed evil acts. How do you define an 'evil person'? How do you define evil? Can someone perform evil acts & not be an evil (...) (23 years ago, 3-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
