Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[Ryzel]

I'm not sure exactly how far you would take this idea. Do I give as much love to my wife as she gives to me? Can we quantify it? And does expressing our emotions have enough to do with uncontrollable issues - like ADD, autism, social phobias, etc - that we shouldn't expect an equal exchange of emotions?

Because emotions are intangible they cannot be measured. Therefore the idea of an equal exchange is kind of pointless. What is not pointless however is that you actually do exchange emotions, as the price we put on them is our own business. I believe that it is our emotions that matter to us, and because of this it is of much lesser importance to us what other people feel as long as we are happy with it.

This really gets difficult to explain, I see that, but I hope I got my basic point across.

[Zahir]

I feel compelled to ask what is meant by "control?"

After all, leaders pretty much by definition exert control over others, not by any coertion but via charisma and manipulation. Nor does this only apply to despots like Mao-Zedong, Mussolini or Pappa Doc. Certainly FDR had those qualities, as did Abraham Lincoln. And without such leaders truly horrible things might have happened--the continuation of slavery, the nazi conquest of England, etc.

For that matter, military leaders must base their authority on (among other things) the use of force.

Just muddying the waters...

(Ryzel, I agree with you. That there is an exchange matters far more than measurings its extent. IMO)

[Romeo]

Water is of paramount importance to the human body. But too much will make you sick or even kill you. The same thing with oxygen. Anything taken in moderation is good for you. The definition of "moderation" changes depending on the item you're talking about, and the particular person involved. Arsenic is a good example. This is actually good for you in the right quantities - very very small quantities compared to other substances. But go a bit over that and you're worm food. Also, studies have shown that certain amounts of alchohol each day is good for you. Too much is definately NOT good. And "too much" is a subjective amount that depends on the person. Looking at the extreme, an alchoholic would be harmed so much from even the slightest amount of alchohol, that it immediately outweigh any benefits that it might provide to your heart.

Control works the same way. You need to moderate the amount used for each situation and for each person.

When kids are small, they need to be almost entirely controlled (as was mentioned above) since they don't know the consequences of their actions. And over time, you let go of some of that control to let them make decisions on their own. But I'm not ever going to entirely let go of total control over my kids until they leave the house. Until that time, I'm responsible for their actions (legally and, I feel, morally). I have two boys, by the way - one just turned 13, and the other is almost 8.

For example, say you let your kids choose when to do their homework, and let them do it at whatever quality level they think is appropriate. That seems like a harmless enough piece of control to let go. But this won't work for all kids. Whenever we let the homework control slip for my eldest, his grades immediately drop one or two letters. It's not that he puts off doing it - he gets right to it each day when he gets home (without urging). But he slacks off with writing down the details, doing a good job with the work, and remembering to turn it in. Now, I give him whatever possitive reinformcement I can to urge him to get better grades. But if I just let the reins loose, he's going to develop bad study habits which will have long term consequences that he at this time can't even guess at. (ones that I know by heart - I breezed through high school with all As, but never developed the study habits that I needed to do anything but struggle through college with Cs.) So I have a strict routine that he must follow in order to have any free time to himself. He must write down his assignments and get his assignment book signed by each teacher (so I can be sure that he's correctly recorded his assignments). When he does his homework, I check it to make sure it's complete and of acceptable quality, then it goes into his "take to school" folder. Anything he brings home goes into a different folder, so I can check it before it gets filed (or lost). This may seem like overkill to many people, but I can assure you that it's the proper amount of control to ensure he both performs his best in school, and develops the necessary study habits to get him through his college years (when I won't be there to provide this quality control). My younger son is much easier (inherently much more organized), so I don't have to apply the same level of control over him. So what's appropriate for one child, is not for another.

Let's go to a more serious subject - drug use. Both we and the school have gone through great pains to teach our kids about the negative effects of drug abuse. My eldest recites it all from heart, and I believe that he is very sincere when he says that he thinks the use of any illegal drug is very bad. As he gets older, we'll let him go out with his friends, and trust that when the situation comes up (and it definately will), he'll make the right decision and not use drugs. But if I ever find out that he has, I'm going to slap a mantle of control over him that would make prison seem like a birthday party. He'll definately scream at me that I'm evil and that I have no right to put those (figurative) control chains on him, but I feel it's my responsibility to do so. I'm his parent first, and then his friend. And as both I'd feel like I was doing him more harm than good to let him learn the consequences of drug use on his own. That's a life lesson best learned from the mistakes of others - not to be personally experienced. So in order to get him to better understand the severity of the long term consequences of drug use, I'm going to give him some severe short term consequences that will make him reconsider making that mistake again. (I'm talking loss of privileges for punishment - nothing physical.)

Anyway, that's all something that we could take years discussing the pros and cons of on its own dedicated discussion board. Everyone is different, and has different opinions on it, and I respect any actions that have been rationally and responsibly made - even if they don't resemble my own. Like I said, "moderation" must be redefined to fit each different situation and each different person. So I'm not trying to be quick to say that anyone else's approaches are wrong. I'm just giving some examples (and rambling on - I just love to ramble!). I'm sure at this point our fellow teenage members are probably plotting cyber attacks against me for my blasphemy. Parents of young children are giving a thoughtful, "hmmmm...". And parents of teenagers are either saying, "you go girl!" (well, "guy") or thanking their lucky stars that they feel comfortable giving their unconditional trust to their kids. I applaud them all!

But let me run off on a tangent, that does touch on this (yes, there is a point burried in here somewhere). The major theme behind the Spiderman comics is, "with great power comes great responsibility." Perhaps that is part of the puzzle. Can evil be described as the exercising of power without thought to the responsibility of those actions? I don't think that any power of control that I exercise over my children is evil, since I try to do so in a responsible manner. The villans in SRD's books wish to exercise power without needing to worry about the consequences to others - which is irresponsible. Any kind of power - of which control of others is just one type.

And reversing that a bit, is this what makes Covenant a hero? He is impressed with responsibility when he is summoned to the Land - both by the creator and by the Land's residents - but he is not given the power to stand up to this responsibility. At first he just tries to get through the experience unscathed. He doesn't believe that the responsibility is real, so he tries to pass it off onto others. He sees his only responsibility as being to himself, since the Land is only happening inside his own head. But in The Power that Preserves, he finally stands up to the real responsibility that was imposed on him - even though he is not sure that he has the power to do so. That, to me, is truely the action of a hero.

[duchess of malfi]

You are being a responsible parent. There is a large difference between being a responsible parent and being an abusive one. There is a big difference between helping your older son learn the skills to do his homework well and locking him in a garden shed in the dark because he brought home a B.
No one is saying, or has said that parents must abdicate their responsibilities and give up ALL control over their minor children. But if you have a normal and healthy child and insist on bathing your twelve year old like you would a three year old, or going to severe beatings as punishment because your teen talks back to you, or not letting your thirteen year old pick out a pair of pants (as long as they're not obscene ones AKA Chritina Agulerra), then you probably have some control issues! And if your child has grown enough that he/she is out of the house and you still try to manipulate and set all of the rules for that person's life then guess what? You have issues then, too.
I speak from personal experience here, as I am a product of an abusive home, and the person who abused me kept trying to control me long after I was grown, married, and had children of my own. There is a huge difference between setting reasonable rules (key word here is reasonable) and teaching responsibilities through having your child perform household tasks or making sure the homework is done correctly and abusive and controlling behavior. If you have never experienced the latter, then just be very very grateful to the powers that be!!!

[Romeo]

Duchess,

I agree. (and I'll keep it that short to counterbalance the length of my previous post) I wasn't trying to defend the decisions of parents - rather trying to make the point of power and responsibility (to which you added a great, although unfortunate, example of the other side of the fence).

I'm very sorry to hear about the control problems you had growing up (and still have?). It sounds like you've taken possitive lessons from it, though. There are many who think that such abuse gives them the right to use the same methods on their children, or just take it out on them. (people like Angus really do exist) You should feel proud that you made it (or are making it) through your ordeal, and stopped the chain of abuse instead of adding a link to it.

[Fist and Faith]

Ryzel,
I think I understand your point. And I think it's astonishing how often these relationships that you would call evil occur. Why would someone marry a person who did not return love? I can't imagine, yet we see marriages like this all the time. Many turn into such a relationship over time, but some actually start that way.

Zahir,
Good point about leaders. If we want to live together in societies, as almost all humans do (and must, if we want to meet a mate and continue the species), there MUST be rules that limit individual freedoms to some degree. Anarchy is simply not a workable society. I guess evil leaders are those who are not subject to those rules themselves. They take my freedoms, but retain their own. This, unfortunately, happens in every society. There are always people who want to control others, and some of them find their way to positions of power no matter what type of government is supposed to be in place, where they take advantage of things.

Romeo,
If you have something to say, say it. Don't be so quiet. Great letter! Parenting is, of course, the most difficult topic when discussing control. I was talking to the father of a friend, and he was going on and on about his daughter making long-distance calls from her job. "That's stealing from your employer." True enough. But sheesh, she's 32 yo. You've taught her the best you were able. Now let it go, for crying out loud. You think you can still teach her right from wrong and tell her how to behave?

My kids are too young for me to discuss your methods of making sure his schoolwork gets done. My son is in 1st grade, and for now, I watch him do his homework every night. He simply wouldn't do it otherwise, because he has virtually no attention span. But doing this over the next several years, he'll learn how to get it done without dawdling, and how to do it right. At some point, I'll tell him, "You're on your own. You know how to do it. If you need help of any kind, just ask and you'll get it. If your grades turn bad, I'll ask the teachers why. If I find that you're not doing your homework, then we'll adopt Romeo's system. But I have no reason to distrust you now, so I won't go through all that now."

I'm entirely with you on drugs. If they want to risk ruining their lives when they're out of my house, that's their choice. I can't make that decision for them forever. But I sure as hell will for now.

I wonder about my children's sex lives. I plan to tell them the pros. Some of which I suppose they will understand even without hearing it from me. But still, I want them to have good, healthy sex lives, so I'll tell them the glories of it.

But I'm gonna impress the bad pretty seriously. I've taped many episodes of Life Goes On, because it wasn't just a one-episode "Oh, diseases are bad. Sex is risky." show. Episode after episode after episode showed one aspect after another of how incredibly much he suffered physically and emotionally. And I'll figure out a way to make them experience what it's like to have an infant too. They're going to know that I'm not raising their children, and I want them to know how much work it would be for them to do it while going to school, and probably having a weekend job too.

I know that I can't stop teens from having sex. It's among the strongest drives that human beings have, and preaching abstinence doesn't seem to be working in a very high percentage. (My brother is the result of teen pregnancy. When he was a teen, his girlfriend had an abortion. He is now almost done with school to be a minister, and his 17 yo daughter had a baby. Is it just my family, or is this pretty common?) So I have to try to make them very cautious, and take it very seriously during the teen years. But I also want to avoid seeming permissive - and certainly not encouraging - while, at the same time, letting them know that they're human beings who will often behave like human beings, and I won't hate them or be ashamed of them for having sex - even if a pregnancy results. But I'll always end with, "A pregnancy that YOU will take the responsibility for!"

[Zahir]

Hmmmm...actually, my point is not whether rules are a good idea per se, but about whether controlling someone else is by definition evil.

My own belief is that while certain actions can be broadly classified as evil--torturing innocents, for example--it is easier (and more productive) to understand motivations. Maybe that's because I can imagine situations where nearly any crime might be the most ethical act. In A Matter for Men (by David Gerrold), for example, some soldiers come across a child playing by herself in a garden. They blow her head off--and the hero has a nasty shock as he learns that was the right thing to do!!!

[pitchwife]

Foul already knew that he was ever-living, so I don't think that was a factor in his being evil. His goal is always to cause despair, hate, anger, and all those negative emotions. Even though he doesn't seem to need it to exist (he existed as the Creator was creating, after all), it may make him stronger in one way or another. Or maybe he just enjoys manipulating and hurting others.

Whether either of them needed power over others, or just enjoyed it, that is evil - knowingly taking rights away from others that you want for yourself.

I've allways had a problem with Lord Foul's motivations. Why was his goal to cause dispair, hate, and all those negative emotions?

I believe that beings do things only if they are going to gain something from that action. Evil humans do evil deads in order to gain some benefits. The most basic instinct of an organizm is to survive, thrive, multiply, and strive for the survival of its offspring. All actions of an organizm are aimed in the end at fulfiling this basic instinct. Sometimes these actions are at the expense of other organizms, and our society has defined these kind of actions as evil.

Continuing along these lines, what did Lord Foul have to gain out of the suffering of the people of the Land? How did it contribute to his survival and thriving?

Evil seems to arise from a lack of love, of caring, of compassion. Once those are gone, all that's left is vanity, self-preservation, and cruelty.

I agree and disagree. Here is my question: All the german soldiers that served in the Nazi concentration camps and did terrible crimes, were they lacking love, caring and compassion to the members of thier family?

Can evil be described as the exercising of power without thought to the responsibility of those actions?

Very interesting posting Romeo, I have a 9 year old daughter and a 6 year old son. I'm still pondering these issues, and probably never figure it out completely. Sometimes when I tell my daughter to do something she'll answer: "no", and when I insist she will say: "You can't make me". I'm still dumbfounded every time she says that. Sometimes I answer "yes, I can't make you", and sometimes I tell her that I'll exercise my parent authority and make her do it. Some kids like to test, and continiously challenge the boundaries. It's our job to maintain the boundaries and teach the children to conform. But who sets the boundaries in the first place? Do we as parents have freedom to set any boundaries we wish? If I decide that I'm letting my child not do thier homework, won't I be getting 'love letters' from the teacher? So what is my responsibility in this case? To whom am I responsible, to my child or to the teacher?
Hmm, I think I'm starting to ramble too much, so I'll stop here.

-pitch

[Fist and Faith]

I've allways had a problem with Lord Foul's motivations. Why was his goal to cause dispair, hate, and all those negative emotions?

I believe that beings do things only if they are going to gain something from that action. Evil humans do evil deads in order to gain some benefits. The most basic instinct of an organizm is to survive, thrive, multiply, and strive for the survival of its offspring. All actions of an organizm are aimed in the end at fulfiling this basic instinct. Sometimes these actions are at the expense of other organizms, and our society has defined these kind of actions as evil.

Continuing along these lines, what did Lord Foul have to gain out of the suffering of the people of the Land? How did it contribute to his survival and thriving?

I don't think that Foul can die if he doesn't, but, though it may be debatable, I assume his power, his "life force", increases as despair, fear, hate, etc, increase. But what if that IS Foul's only way of "feeding"? Is it evil for him to thrive the only way he is able to thrive? Is it evil for a wasp to paralyze a spider and lay eggs into it, so that when they hatch, the babies can eat their way out of the living body? Or is it only evil for Foul to enjoy it so much?

The Ravers, though, don't seem to change or grow stronger. They seem to do what they do because they enjoy it. Which seems to be why some people in our world cause harm. Assuming no treatable mental disorder, I'd call those people evil. But what if the Ravers are more akin to forces of nature?

To whom am I responsible, to my child or to the teacher?

To your child. The question that has been debated forever is exactly what is best for our children. I believe the best we can do is to do what we believe is best.

[Zahir]

Pitchwife, I did a follow-up post to that very point. I suppose fundamentally my view is that people are dynamic rather than static, so that evil is a kind of direction. But--it is possible to stay so often and so near the pole of Greed/Cowardice that you simply stay there.

Lord Foul, imo, is an example of exactly that taken to the ultimate extreme. He is so totally given up to his own survival at any cost, his desires fullfilled without possibility of any thwarting, plus his total lack of any compassion or loyalt, drives him to fear and hatred of all else that lives. Everything else in the cosmos is a threat unless completely subject to his will. He is a being who embodies the sense that yes, we are all alone (the other side of the coin being that no, we are never alone--both equal but paradoxical truths).

Okay, shutting up now.

[Skyweir]

fascinating questions!

I first want to say - Turiya I think your dad is 'evil' (((hug))) or at least a very nasty individual ..

I dont agree that 'evil' is an opinion .. it seems to be a condition ..

I associate evil with a complete lack of conscience .. 'evil' knows no bounds .. cares not what is 'right' .. or the impact of actions on those around them ..

I'm gonna go out on a limb here - been a long time since I took philosophy .. so I might not get it right .. I propose 2 kinds of 'evil' .. a moral evil .. which is a subjective test .. and a philosophical evil .. which is not determined on a subjective test .. but is akin to an 'ill' ..

ie: deforrestation may be found to be an ill .. to the environment ..

.. some could also find it morally distasteful .. or inject some relative subjective disapproval ..

whereas .. violent behaviour against another .. maybe morally reprehensible .. and a social ill .. as it detrimentally affects society having members of it that do not comply with accepted behavioural codes ..

There's not much between the 2 evils .. apart from the subjective assessment element .. but they are both not choice ..

Lord Foul is evil .. his actions are morally reprehensible .. and he is as FMI says .. an ill to the environment .. as his existence and presence does not accord with the environment ..

Kasreyn is evil on both counts imho ..

I think there must be degrees of evilness .. depending on a persons level of connection with 'right' and 'wrong'

Someone who can commit horrendous acts of unspeakable awfulness .. has got to be disconnected from their inherent sense of humanity ..

I think people are at all different levels of how in touch they are with this human quality .. 'humanity'

I think 'evil' is a divergence .. and in some cases a total divergence from 'humanity' ..

So what is 'humanity' and what is a conscience?

evil is the anti-thesis of these 2 concepts imho .. but I cant state that definitively .. cos I dont know enough about it ..

I have seen and known evil in my life time .. and I dont understand it ..

sometimes you can feel it .. and you are wary of it .. sometimes it is well masked .. and it is not so easily perceived .. as in Eremis ..

intereting discussion ..

I gotta go think some

[Fist and Faith]

Lord Foul is evil .. his actions are morally reprehensible .. and he is as FMI says .. an ill to the environment .. as his existence and presence does not accord with the environment ..

This smacks of that discussion down in Hile Troy's Think Tank. Can we define "ill to the environment" in such a way that Foul is, but humanity is not? (Not the Land's humanity, of course, but us.)

[pitchwife]

Zahir, I like your idea that there is a continuum between evil and virtue where individual lives roam to and fro. Yet I think that this is not a quality one can attribute to a person, rather to a specific behaviour or action.

My view is that Fear and Desire are immutable parts of the world. Taking either one to an extreme usually results in evil.

I'm not sure I understand this completely. Fear and desire are basic drives that originate in the limbic brain. Fear involves a quick hit-and-run process in the brain, the amygdala, (the brain system that processes fear), receives signals of potential danger and begins to set off a series of reactions: quickening of the heart beat, etc., designed for self preservation. How can this be evil?

I think that a behavior qualifies as evil only if it is processed by the rational brain, and there is a decision to carry out the behavior.

I don't think that Foul can die if he doesn't, but, though it may be debatable, I assume his power, his "life force", increases as despair, fear, hate, etc, increase. But what if that IS Foul's only way of "feeding"? Is it evil for him to thrive the only way he is able to thrive? Is it evil for a wasp to paralyze a spider and lay eggs into it, so that when they hatch, the babies can eat their way out of the living body? Or is it only evil for Foul to enjoy it so much?

Yes! Yes! I also thought of this. But I have to say that although there is nothing in the books to contradict it, there is nothing to substantiate it either. Since the books are written from the POV of the habitants of the land, Foul's actions are perceived as evil, but maybe if viewed from Foul's POV it would be perceived merely as survial?

-pitch

[hamako]

I think you can analyse the nature of evil until the cows come home, but I beleive that the definition for me is very simple. Evil is the wanton cause of another's unhappiness. Regardless of scale, action etc. If you actively seek to make someone truly miserable, you're evil. Plain simple. The other motivations for the actions involved are secondary or parallel. I think ulitmately it boils down to making others unhappy. Whether that unhappiness gives you an emotionally higher power base (ie "I can now make you do things..") or whether it just gives you a kick, I think it's not much different.

OK, I accept that this is simplistic, but I think evil is simplistic, just as is happiness.

[Skyweir]

yeah you're probably right .. and i think evil is an absence of feeling .. of remorse .. of a sense of morality ..

[hamako]

totally agree,

we've got a strident example of it right now in Iraq. Has anybody seen the state of that guy's palaces? There's an example of lack of morality and conscience.

[Fist and Faith]

I think you can analyse the nature of evil until the cows come home, but I beleive that the definition for me is very simple. Evil is the wanton cause of another's unhappiness. Regardless of scale, action etc. If you actively seek to make someone truly miserable, you're evil. Plain simple. The other motivations for the actions involved are secondary or parallel. I think ulitmately it boils down to making others unhappy. Whether that unhappiness gives you an emotionally higher power base (ie "I can now make you do things..") or whether it just gives you a kick, I think it's not much different.

OK, I accept that this is simplistic, but I think evil is simplistic, just as is happiness.

I'm not sure whether we disagree or not. I agree with what I think you're saying - that it doesn't matter whether you just enjoy making others unhappy, or you actually gain in some way by it. You're evil either way. But there must be intent. That's why the wasp/spider situation I mentioned doesn't contain evil. Nature is a @#%*ing brutal place, but there's no evil in it because there's no thought of "I'm going to hurt you," or even, "that was fun," only "I'm going to do this because it's how I live."

But I'm not sure if you only label something/one as evil if a certain level of harm occurs. You said, "If you actively seek to make someone truly miserable, you're evil." I don't think that the United States government often intends to make its citizens truly miserable. But it almost always intends to gain power and money by taking rights and money away from its citizens, without compensation of any sort. That is evil. Same with the parenting ideas I've been talking about. Controlling/dominating, even if only a little bit, is harm.

And it's clearly evil to swindle a family out of all its possessions. But is it evil to steal a dollar from them? It's still taking from someone what they worked for and you did not. Assuming it doesn't significantly hurt the family's financial situation, is it merely wrong, but not evil? And if that's the case, where's the line dividing wrong and evil?

Maybe acts can't be good or evil, only right of wrong. Maybe a person is good or evil, depending on the pattern of right and wrong acts they do. Something like that?

I'm not trying to sound like I've got it all figured out. I'm exploring these things as I'm presenting these questions. And I also know that it really doesn't matter. Yes, I like to classify and quantify things. ("99 red balloons go by") It's fun. And maybe I'll learn something unexpected in the process. But when it comes right down to it, I accept things in a sort of Taoist/Zen way, and I know what I should and should not do, whether I can put a name to it or not.

[Skyweir]

it is clear that this is an exploration .. and you have raised some really excellent and interesting points F&F!!

I think Hamako's definition of 'the wanton of someone elses unhappiness' caters for that presence of 'intent' you suggest is requisite in 'evilness'

But I'm not sure if you only label something/one as evil if a certain level of harm occurs.

I see your point .. I think .. Are you suggesting that a 'harm test' cant work because harm can be caused unintentionally by persons and even by natural elements? And that this would not form the foundation of an 'evil act'?

Ofcourse you are right .. but if evil is the wanton cause .. blah blah .. then it is a deliberate seeking anothers misery. Natural elements dont deliberate .. and haphazard harms also lack deliberateness.

Maybe acts can't be good or evil, only right of wrong. Maybe a person is good or evil, depending on the pattern of right and wrong acts they do. Something like that?

again that is an interesting distinction and brings me back to the contrast between view points .. a subjective view point as opposed to an objective view point.

I think a 'wrong' to me .. is as you say .. 'on a sliding scale'/levels or degree's .. a lesser negative behaviour .. I think you are right there must be degrees of 'wrongness' and 'evilness' .. depending on the culpability involved maybe .. I dont really know .. but its very interesting!

As for your other question ..

Can we define "ill to the environment" in such a way that Foul is, but humanity is not?

again you are right .. but some human activity can be an 'ill' .. to the environment .. for sure!! So are not both 'ills'?

Human's can co-exist with their environments .. and they are part of this natural world .. they do have a rightful place here .. yet Foul's presence in the Land is not natural .. and he does not have a rightful place there!

He seeks the destruction of that world .. clearly for his own self-gain .. to liberate himself from its bounds!

Human existence doesnt wantonly seek the destruction of this world .. yet some human activities do reek destruction upon it! Some actions are most assuredly an 'ill' and an 'evil' both imho.

this is an interesting topic ..

[Zahir]

Okay, here's what I mean by the whole "Fear and Desire" thing.

In this universe, we are different from one another. And by that, I don't just mean us as individual people, but everything that exists. Because we are different, we either like (Desire) things or dislike (Fear) them.

Take any act of evil, and you will find it motivated by either fear or desire. Desire for sex, for money (or more accurately, what money can buy), for prestige, etc. Or fear of losing our position, our marriage, our reputation, our worldly goods. Feeling either one is not wrong. In fact, feeling both is inevitable unless you meditate long enough and hard enough to evaporate into your navel.

Just as doing some evil is inevitable. Let us take the war in Iraq. For the sake of argument (and I'm not saying this is the correct or incorrect view) let us say it is a totally justified action. Still, lots of folks will be hurt, maimed, even killed whose only offence is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We know this. But we shoot anyway. We drop the bombs. We fire the missiles. However noble the goal, war always means slaughtered and ruined lives of innocents.

Nor is it just war. Cure a disease and you cause overpopulation which leads to famine. Punish the guilty and you put his loved ones through agony, as well as placing a stigma on them forever (think how you would feel if John Wayne Gacy was your brother, Charles Manson your uncle!).

Because--we are different. We are seperate. If we weren't, none of this would even be possible.

At this point folks usually accuse me of being a nihilist, or a cynic. Not at all! There is just as much hope--or capacity for it--as despair in this world. We will always have fear and desire, but that doesn't mean we need be greedy cowards. More, we still have Compassion and Loyalty.

I am a mystic by orientation. Mystic traditions--East and West--agree that Fear and Desire are the source of all evil. They also note that their anodyne is Compassion and Loyalty.

Wow. I do go on don't I?[/u]

[Fist and Faith]

Sky, You're making me blush with your compliments!

But I'm not sure if you only label something/one as evil if a certain level of harm occurs.

I see your point .. I think .. Are you suggesting that a 'harm test' cant work because harm can be caused unintentionally by persons and even by natural elements? And that this would not form the foundation of an 'evil act'?

Actually, I was asking if hamako thinks someone is evil only if they "actively seek to make someone truly miserable," or if you can still be evil if you seek only to do lesser degrees of harm. Just wondering about hamako's definition.

I think a 'wrong' to me .. is as you say .. 'on a sliding scale'/levels or degree's .. a lesser negative behaviour .. I think you are right there must be degrees of 'wrongness' and 'evilness' .. depending on the culpability involved maybe .. I dont really know .. but its very interesting!

Kinda hard to nail down, isn't it!

Human's can co-exist with their environments .. and they are part of this natural world .. they do have a rightful place here .. yet Foul's presence in the Land is not natural .. and he does not have a rightful place there!

Thanks for bringing up something from TCTC again. lol But I wouldn't be concerned with Foul's alien nature if he was trying to help the Land. If he were a champion, the people of the Land might say, "He is not from here, but this is his rightful place." (Hmm, reminds me of the opening of Dune: "Do not be deceived by the fact that he was born on Caladan and lived his first fifteen years there. Arrakis, the planet known as Dune, is forever his place.")

Human existence doesnt wantonly seek the destruction of this world .. yet some human activities do reek destruction upon it! Some actions are most assuredly an 'ill' and an 'evil' both imho.

That's a good point. Foul always intends harm to the environment (and everything else), whereas only some humans always intend it. So, for what it's worth, I guess Foul is more evil than humanity in general. Small consolation for the environment, but I guess it makes me feel better about us.

this is an interesting topic ..

Ain't it though? My thanks to hamako for getting it started!

And now I have to go see what you just wrote at The Fravashi District!