*Wonders what /)eathkillers been smoking* :D

I think there is a little truth in all four queries.

I lean towards #2, for its effect. I would only submit that "good" doesn't exist relative to evil. "good" is much as we think and strive to do it as much as evil is. Just as both are opposites, neither is absolute.

I believe that people made up the concepts of "Good" and "evil" simply so that the people who were in power could keep a tighter leash on the citizens. It gives them perfect excuses to war, arrest and generally do what they want.
And though some people do things which others may very well classify "evil" it is all really up to your standards.

Different people find different things "evil"
While a person may find a simple prank which is humerous and the suffering of another evil another may find it really good.
I believe the general defenition of evil is measured up to ruthlessness, someone who is willing to do anything to get where/what they want is likely to be classified as an evil person.

Just my opinion [img]tongue.gif[/img]

In my way of thinking - Good & Evil are both very subjective concepts. And therefore can be bended at will, opportunity or time of day. They exist only to help someone to put his cosmic bewilderment into words. Being good ain't hard. With your own definition of "good", of course. If you want hardness, then try to do "what needs to be done" - and see how soon you are considered evil. I'ts good that we receive training from an early age on - beliving in santa , tooth fairy and such , so we can belive in justice, truth, mercy, law when we grow up.

Neuro

Did you ever wonder why chaos always beats order ?
Because chaos is better organized [img]smile.gif[/img]

i'm getting really tired of relativism, there is right and wrong. It's not culturally defined. It's not for you to decide, it just is.
I'll give you an example
Killing is wrong, it doesn't matter why you killed it's always wrong(when did Rage become a legal defense because the last time i checked getting angry and killing someone was still illegal)

Indeed. Says you...

Ah now here we come to a disagreement, You say that it is always wrong to kill...
So therefor one can assume that you do not support the death penalty?
If killing is wrong do you disagree with giving the American snipers the death penalty?

For some reason I would doubt that you would feel the same way if someone were to take the life of a family member... Its interesting how alot of people say that they hold their beliefs so close to heart when they would probably get rid of them at the first chance of power or revenge.

"I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws"

It won't go away - even If you are tired of it (unless you write your own mod, that is [img]smile.gif[/img] )

As for killing being always wrong and rage ==> killing. Ummm. Now,sorry, but I really can't be bothered with making a stand to oppose such a statement.

Neuro

<font color="#33cc33">Ahhh but Killing is not "always" wrong, it is only wrong when it is carried out capriciously or with out proper authorization....well at least as far as our legal systems are concerned. </font>

I'm going with the big name on this issue - Plato. :D

Well, I actually do agree with him in so far as I am a rationalist, so I'm not just name dropping and needlessly quoting. Honestly. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If there is a "Good" it exists as a concept outside our normal understanding of substance and form. All things that are good share some common characteristics of the form of the Good, the ultimate concept. Therefore there are such things as good actions, but you need to be properly trained in order to recognise them. You need to be able to see the form of the Good and therefore recognise it in actions that are good. All actions that do not contain the form of Good are not good, however I don't believe in a strict concept of evil personally.

Right, thats a kind of summary, I hope.

Heres a sort of related question though - are you Consequentialist or Deontological. Consequentialist means that the good of an action is defined through its consequences. There are no essentially good actions when abstracted from their results. Deontological states that there are actions that are good, these must be undertaken no matter what the circumstances. For example it might always be bad to lie, or always bad to kill. Any thoughts?