Without religion, good and evil would still exist, but the lines would be more indistinct. I think that which helps others would be considered good, and if something is harmful to another person that would be evil. The hardest part would be deciding which actions fit into one of these categories.
I disagree, I think that the actual concept of 'good' and 'evil', mainly evil, would not exist outside of religion. If you are not a religionist or someone who is of faith of some sort, then you just do not see evil like they do. I used to be religious and and not now and don't see evil.
I believe that people are self satisfying even to grotesque ends. Thus I truly do not believe in evil. But my concept of evil, the picture that comes to my mind is derived specifically from religion and not any type of built in knowledge such as right and wrong. Evil, in my opinion, is a purely religious concept.
QUOTE |
I used to be religious and not now and don't see evil. |
Konquererz said:
QUOTE |
Evil, in my opinion, is a purely religious concept. |
You have both pointed out that without religion we know the difference between right and wrong. Well of course we do, we are human and have lent that to our religious and social structures. But wrong doesn't mean evil. A child that strikes another child in the faces is wrong, but not evil. Making wrong choices and having warped views can be different and even very wrong but not evil. Evil is something given to someones own point of view, thus creating a different version of evil for everyone.
The KKK sincerely believes themselves to be right and even righteous in their cause. They don't believe Hitler was evil, but someone who was righteous in his purging of non-whites. One can be sincerely wrong with out being evil.
Take into account Hitler once again. Historians and psychologists have long suggested that Hitler had both a psychological problem and a drug problem. If this is the case, then does that change your opinion about Hitler? If he was drugged out or psychologically unstable, then could he be considered evil? I don't believe so.
I believe that people are the product of their social upbringing and childhood. That does not remove blame from people, but merely says that their beliefs and opinions don't necessarily reflect their fault while their actions obviously do. If a boy is sexually abused as a child, is it his fault that he grows up with thoughts that lean towards violence and rape? No. It is his fault for the crimes he commits, but the reason he did it is not that he is evil, but because of his upbringing. Again, I don't condone not holding him responsible for his actions, but merely saying that there is a foundation for the reason people do things that is not evil but uniquely human.
Evil is a construct of religion, not humanity. Being wrong doesn't imply evil, and most of the time, there is a perfectly human reason why someone thinks a certain way, no matter how devious and diabolical it may seem. In my opinion, evil is something used to aspire something other worldly at fault instead of something so human. Truly, its much easier to say that Hitler was evil rather than saying that he was human but had very wrong opinions caused by something that happened to him.
QUOTE (konquererz @ 10-Jun 06, 3:27 PM) |
...But wrong doesn't mean evil. ...One can be sincerely wrong with out being evil. ...merely saying that there is a foundation for the reason people do things that is not evil but uniquely human. ...Being wrong doesn't imply evil, and most of the time, there is a perfectly human reason why someone thinks a certain way, no matter how devious and diabolical it may seem. In my opinion, evil is something used to aspire something other worldly at fault instead of something so human. |
QUOTE |
...Evil is something given to someones own point of view, thus creating a different version of evil for everyone. |
QUOTE |
Evil, in my opinion, is a purely religious concept. |