Nature of Mysterious Benefactor

[Ysh]

It is all matter of the perspective.

If a bee "becomes mean", it dies. Wasp does not, wasp can be mean any amount of times. So, the predisposition to evil is not a matter of the perspective, it's factual.

You think having ability for doing harm is evil?

[Hasta]

Being able to inflict harm is not evil, per se, but it sure increases the capacity for evil. If someone can not harm others in any way, he may be "theoretically evil" all he wants, it does not matter, objectively.

[Ysh]

Being able to inflict harm is not evil, per se, but it sure increases the capacity for evil. If someone can not harm others in any way, he may be "theoretically evil" all he wants, it does not matter, objectively.

Word ''objectively'' is nonsense in discussing about evil.

[Hasta]

Evil can only be perceived through it's effect. Therefore, one who is "evil" with no effect whatsoever is objectively not evil.

[Ysh]

Evil can only be perceived through it's effect. Therefore, one who is "evil" with no effect whatsoever is objectively not evil.

Must evil be perceived for it to be so? Is it impossible for a man to be evil through his inactions, you think?

You seem as man with interesting morality opinion.

[Hasta]

Is it impossible for a man to be evil through his inactions, you think?

If his inactions have an effect, those inactions may be deemed evil by others and/or the man himself. In other words, one can not be objectively evil or good, because any effect can be both benefical and malevolent, depending on the perspective and morality; but one can objectively be neither if his actions/inactions don't affect anyone in the slightest, including himself. Therefore, with increased potential for actions, the potential for evil (and good) increases proportionally.

In our example with "wasps and bees", a wasp have greater potential because it can act ("be mean") multiple times; and since "being mean" is an act of evilness, I conclude that a wasp is, factually, more predisposed to evil. You can, ofcourse, argue that shifting the perspective around one can perceive wasp's greater potential as the predisposition to good, but that would turn an act of "being mean" into an act of "being good", and for that a bee's potential is greater, which creates an obvious logical paradox.

[Ysh]

Is it impossible for a man to be evil through his inactions, you think?

One can objectively be neither if his actions/inactions don't affect anyone in the slightest, including himself.

If the man has potential to affect himself or some other then no matter what he will do he is affecting those things. Either he will do some action and affect them, obviously. Or he will do nothing and they will be denied the effects this man could have done. In either case this man's doing or lack thereof will affect what will happen. There is no such thing as perfect neutral party, I think.

In our example with "wasps and bees", a wasp have greater potential because it can act ("be mean") multiple times; and since "being mean" is an act of evilness, I conclude that a wasp is, factually, more predisposed to evil. You can, ofcourse, argue that shifting the perspective around one can perceive wasp's greater potential as the predisposition to good, but that would turn an act of "being mean" into an act of "being good", and for that a bee's potential is greater, which creates an obvious logical paradox.

You seem to draw conclusion here that bee is inherently more good than wasp. I can not draw this conclusion from doing a follow of your words. Maybe this one paradox is not obvious to me, you can explain?

[jorb]

I approve of this thread.

[Burinn]

What the fuck are you even talking about Ysh

I approve of this thread.

Oh no.

[Agness130]

What the fuck are you even talking about Ysh

I approve of this thread.

Oh no.

You are meaningless player in the politics of the great forum

USER WAS BANNED 1 DAY FOR CONSTANT MISBEHAVIOR