guys I just love talking about economics let me tell you why

[Apostata]

Evil does not exist.

Even in Hitler's eyes, what he was doing, was an act of good.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Oh god..
Well I am pretty sure evil exists. And shocked, that you take relativism as proof that some kind of things simply doesnt exists! Or do you mean objectively? Quip again and nothing new.

[Wolfang]

Obviously evil exists from a personal view, Hitler was, for me, and for you, and is considered by most of the world's population as evil.

But evil is still a personal view. Try telling a nazi Hitler was evil for what he'd done and he'd be a shocked as you were when I said evil didn't exist.

[Apostata]

Still dont get how this thing can contribute into debate as it brings nothing new, we are aware of subjectional degree of words evil and good. But still, to make anything beyond this statement, we have to decide objectional "shape" of good and evil by rational means ( For humanity its pretty easily done by classification of harmful and benefical things ), we done that.
We can agree that Good is bound to benefit,prosper,unharmful state, dont we?
We can agree in opposite way about the Evil dont we?
So whats your point? telling us that Timmy likes oranges and Bobby apples? So Timmy's greater good is to receive orange but Bobby's not! What a splendid news.
Kant's imperativ in full length on you.

[Wolfang]

My point is that whatever you do, there will always be people who think that what you did is bad or good.

[JustasJ]

My point is that whatever you do, there will always be people who think that what you did is bad or good.

I just ate 200g of chocolate(Marabou with pieces of Daim in it). Is this action good or evil then?

[Fratari]

I just ate 200g of chocolate(Marabou with pieces of Daim in it). Is this action good or evil then?

Good: You enjoyed the chocolate didn't you?

Evil: You're gonna get fat now, and fat is bad.

[Wolfang]

You payed money for a chocolate instead of donating to Afrika.

[JustasJ]

Good: You enjoyed the chocolate didn't you?

Evil: You're gonna get fat now, and fat is bad.

Of course I did. And I will not get fat from that little I lose 2 kilos a month now, since Swedish food is not as caloric as Lithuanian one and I moved to Sweden from Lithuania

You payed money for a chocolate instead of donating to Afrika.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcdtVD8X1-A

[loftar]

How is that proof of us not being evil?

That is precisely what it is, but maybe you're mistaking it for an attempt to prove us as inherently good? The two are not each others' antitheses. You ascribed it as something evil in our disposition; what I tried to explain is that it is neither good nor evil, but simply part of a mechanism removed from the moral dimension. It is neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral.

There can be no true altruism

This seems to be a common source of confusion. There can, indeed, be no "true altruism" if you, by "true altruism", mean acting in someone else's interest rather than your own. That is precisely what I explained. Let me repeat it, just in case you overlooked it: It is true that humans are egoistic (and that's a fact, not a generalization) and put their own well-being above everything else, but that is precisely the reason why we care about others, too.

This "true altruism" of yours is a completely meaningless concept. If not acting in favor of our own well-being, what would exist to motivate us, at all? Consider, if you will, an entire society of "true altruists": everyone would want to act in the interest of others, but since noone has any interest of one's own for anyone to act in, there is no action left for anyone to take. Such a society would stand completely still. An egoist would be required to move it.

Acting in one's own self-interest, on the other hand, can only seldomly be described as evil (of course, the mechanism as such is, again, neither good nor evil). Consider, for instance, an act of barter: The tailor and the baker exchange a piece of clothing for some loaves of bread. The tailor has or can make all the clothes he wants, so this particular piece of clothing is not worth a lot for him, while the same thing can be said for the baker and his bread. On the other hand, the baker values the clothing higher than the tailor does, and the tailor values the bread higher than the baker does, so both walk away richer from the exchange than they were previously. Both act in their own selfish interest -- both win out. This is, fundamentally, how wealth is created.

The numeric value of money often confuses people erroneously -- they think that, since one man exchanges, say, 20 units of currency for a loaf of bread that costs 20 units of currency, the buyer and seller walk away after having exchanged things of exactly equal value -- neither win, and neither lose. The notion is, of course, ridiculous; why would anyone go out of his way to exchange something for something else of equal value? They wouldn't; to the buyer, the bread is worth more to him than those 20 units of currency, and for the seller, it is worth less. Values are subjective. Both win out. (Incidentally, this was one of Adam Smith's most fundamental mistakes in "the wealth of nations" when he formulated the labor-theory of value, and Marx copied it from him and built his entire "Das Kapital" upon it. No wonder Marxism fails to explain anything.)

[Avu]

That is precisely what it is, but maybe you're mistaking it for an attempt to prove us as inherently good? The two are not each others' antitheses. You ascribed it as something evil in our disposition; what I tried to explain is that it is neither good nor evil, but simply part of a mechanism removed from the moral dimension. It is neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral.

As the only specie we know of that can make moral judgments to simply be amoral in my eyes is not enough. We're no better than any other animal in that regard. What good is our so called progress in that light? We exist simply to exist when we could be more? Guess I'm advocating here that failed potential is a crime and should be considered evil.

This "true altruism" of yours is a completely meaningless concept. If not acting in favor of our own well-being, what would exist to motivate us, at all? Consider, if you will, an entire society of "true altruists": everyone would want to act in the interest of others, but since noone has any interest of one's own for anyone to act in, there is no action left for anyone to take. Such a society would stand completely still. An egoist would be required to move it.

Furthering human kind as a race? There are objective goals out there that can be considered morally good. Striking a balance with nature, educating everyone, adjusting population increase to what can be sustained and balancing wealth (and you could still have individual drive and ambition and coming up with bright ideas that would create wealth if the bulk of those money went to research of medicines for example or working towards education just as long as the benefactors name would be known to all, there is no moral reason however to accumulate wealth for the sake of wealth like in our current society). And I'm not saying an altruist should completely ignore his own desires as long as that's not what his entire life sums out to be.