Evil

[gloomy-optimist]

(Question for all): Say, hypothetically, that we could remove the word "evil" from every language in the world. What word would you use in its place, and why?

Corrupt. Astray. And I like Quin's word: broken.

 

[Norton]

Not quite, try to remove the word altruistic for a moment and have only selfishness instead, then you will see that everything one does is for oneself, even if it is not donating blood or donating blood.

Not donating blood is selfish because [thousands different factors could be inserted here], while donating blood is selfish because of [another thousands of different factors could be inserted here].
The only reason to take one over the other is because one can see more potential personal gains from one.

I raised the point of logic because, in a way, it obviates the need to bring "selfishness" into the discussion. That is, whether an act is selfish or not, relates only to the motivations of an individual, not the true, larger meaning of an act. So, as you say, both giving blood and not giving blood can be selfish. But, using the word "selfish" tells us nothing about the greater meaning of an act or deed for society, i.e., whether it is good or evil or in the spectrum there between. Note that the word "selfish," Ayn Rand notwithstanding, is usually pejorative. So, in the case where giving blood is motivated by selfishness, this does not negate the "goodness" of the act for society.

 

[vSv]

I raised the point of logic because, in a way, it obviates the need to bring "selfishness" into the discussion. That is, whether an act is selfish or not, relates only to the motivations of an individual, not the true, larger meaning of an act. So, as you say, both giving blood and not giving blood can be selfish. But, using the word "selfish" tells us nothing about the greater meaning of an act or deed for society, i.e., whether it is good or evil or in the spectrum there between. Note that the word "selfish," Ayn Rand notwithstanding, is usually pejorative. So, in the case where giving blood is motivated by selfishness, this does not negate the "goodness" of the act for society.

I don't consider things as "evil" or "good" because I don't believe in such things as absolutes or to be objective, I believe that they are only subjective and relative only to a certain degree between animals, humans and possibly other lifeforms that can consider things in such ways.

But of course, things can be considered "good" for society, but that too is only subjective as it may or may not be "good" for 100% of humans and therefore not an "objective good".

It's really hard to find something that would be universally good as there are people that thinks it's good when other peopel starve for example because they can make money from it, or gain power and such things which they crave.

 

[daydreamer]

I realized today that there is really nothing that makes humans today any better than the humans of the past. We're still just as gullible and prone to fallacious thinking as we were thousands of years ago. People still crave violence, and we're still largely selfish and insensitive brutes.

When you go out into your community, or when you are looking into the mirror, you are seeing the whole of human history. You're seeing The Inquisition, The Holocaust, slavery, and rape, among other things. Of course, you're also seeing the good things of humanity as well, but does good actually outweigh bad? (I think so).

The only thing that is different is our life circumstances. What do you think?

Unfortunately, this is true. But you also see many wonderful things. A loving family, love, compassion, friendship, chivalry, kindness, trust, bonds between others, and more.

Also small things make life wonderful also like when a stranger offers to help you even though they get nothing in return. That happened to me before and it felt wonderful, the world isn't filled with just bad people, no, in fact, I believe the world is filled with mostly good people.