Re: defining good and evil

["Nathan Clifford" <chlorophyll at hotbot_com>]

--

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 16:22:40   brian abbott wrote:
>>Good: anything that improves the human >>condition
>>Evil: anything that detracts from the human >>condition
...
>Let me know if I'm reading too much into your >above assertion.

The challenge was to define good with out evil and vice versa. The idea being that one can't exist with out the other, and that if one is eternal than the other must be. Under the above definitions Evil can exist with out good only so long as there is a human condition that can be detracted from, once we are back to the stone age and life is a daily struggle to survive, the ability to do evil is so greatly restricted as to be nonexistent. On the other hand it is conceivable for the human condition to improve with out others detracting from it, hurricanes, plagues and other natural disasters are neither moral or immoral, they simply are.


HotBot - Search smarter.
http://www.hotbot.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: protagoras, moral sensibilities, very little otr
• Next by Date: RE: has the list limped to the side of the wrong road?
• Prev by thread: Re: defining good and evil
• Next by thread: Jack's Gospel Number
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread