CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What IS True Evil?
Free your mind of all your culture and religion upbringing- think like you grew up on a deserted island. I mean is killing someone evil? What if they were a serial killer? Is having babies evil? What if your country is overpopulated and miserable?
I’ll let y’all mull that over awhile then I will give you the answer to it.
Evil isn't real. All humans are the product of naturalistic causes such as genes and environment. In a fucking technical reality of cause and effect physics where we accept that humans are just bioelectrical machines we can clearly see that good and evil are primitive unscientific concepts. They are based on the assumption that humans are responsible for their own thoughts and behaviour and that there is an objective standard for morality. Morality doesn't exist in nature accept in the minds of humans.
They are based on the assumption that humans are responsible for their own thoughts and behaviour and that there is an objective standard for morality.
Humans are not responsible for the kind of fundemental person they are, but the person they are is responsible for the decisions they make.
You obviously haven’t thought this through retard. If you determined the kind of person you are, that choice would rely on what kind of being is making the choice. There is an infinite regress down to a fundamental being, which is not choosen.
I can’t choose to be other than a person, but as a person I can choose between alternatives. The kind of person I am determines the kinds of choices I make, including the choic to change the kind of person I am. In other words, I can’t choose to be other than who I am, but who I am chooses a number of things. Who I am is who is accountable for the choices made by who I am.
You couldn’t understand this in our last go around, I doubt you’ll grasp it here tiny.
The kind of person I am determines the kinds of choices I make, including the choice to change the kind of person I am.
It's not really your choice though is it? You can't determine any of the factors that lead to the choice, you can't determine your intelligence or environment or temperament or pretty much anything that leads to the "decision"
I can’t choose to be other than who I am, but who I am chooses a number of things.
In other words you are not actually making choices, you are only doing what you will do based on what kind of person you are. You can't choose what those things are, you can only do them because that's what you are wired to do.
Who I am is who is accountable for the choices made by who I am.
You can't address the root cause of anti-social behaviour and abate the conditions that lead to it unless you address the causal factors that lead to it instead of saying "you did this because you chose to be evil". If the kind of person you are is not determined by who you are then you can't be responsible for the kind of things you do. Instead we need to look at what makes people certain ways, not unscientifically assume they do things due to free will. Otherwise you will never address the root cause of behaviour and improve behaviour and society will stay just as barbaric.
You think you are smart, you think I am stupid, this is just your arrogance speaking. You have no idea what either of us are talking about.
Your error is always the same. You fail to grasp the fact that lack of causality is lack of choice, not vice verse. You oversimplify my position and group it with something you think you’ve hear before, because you don’t understand. It’s a fundamental premise, a simple one. Until you grasp it, we have nothing to discuss.
Lack of causality means lack of effects, which means obviously there is no choices being made because a choice is an effect. But what you fail to understand is that either way choices don't exist. Because your brain cannot cause what effects it or effect what causes it to be effected in certain ways or effect how it is effected by the causes that effect it or cause the effects that effect what you cause.
What you fail to understand is what choice is. We analyze causes and weigh various perceived potential outcomes against our values. The experience of this process is called choice. Not only is causation included, but so is all of the other conditions that come with the existence of choice. All arguments against choice falsely assume required characteristics, namely causelessness.
You can't determine any of the factors that lead to the choice
So if I were drugged and forcibly flown out to a remote cliff, you are saying it would not be my choice if I jumped off it? How does this follow?
you can't determine your intelligence or environment or temperament or pretty much anything that leads to the "decision"
None of that is relevant to whether you actually make a decision. If I toss a coin, then it does not prohibit me making a decision about which side I think will face upwards just because I might be stupid. It might be a baking hot day, but that does not prohibit me making a decision to put more clothes on.
Amarel might be stupid, but there is no way on Earth he is more stupid than you are.
You obviously haven’t thought this through retard. If you determined the kind of person you are, that choice would rely on what kind of being is making the choice. And if you determined the choices you made that would require that you to determine what kind of person you are.
He is saying that since you cannot choose who you are fundamentally, nothing can be said to be a choice. I am saying that though we do not choose who we fundamentally are, we make a host of choices. The other issue is what it means to make choices.
where we accept that humans are just bioelectrical machines we can clearly see that good and evil are primitive unscientific concepts
Failure to accept the existence of experiential cognition is unscientific. Human morality is a product of human minds, which is exactly why it is objectively relevant to the existence of humans. Good an evil are emotionally charged expressions of benefit and detriment. Both of which are very real. Both of which require the emotional attachment that humans give them. In a very real sense, good and evil exists.
Failure to accept the existence of experiential cognition is unscientific.
"Experiential cognition" exists, but it is not real for the same reason that when you imagine a purple walrus sunbathing on your roof it is not real, even though the fact that you are imagining it is real. When you imagine something or perceive something subjectively, it is not an accurate representation of reality. The fact that being incorrect exists doesn't make incorrect correct.
Human morality is a product of human minds, which is exactly why it is objectively relevant to the existence of humans.
The existence of God is a product of human minds, which is exactly why it is objectively relevant to the existence of humans. You are a subjective moron.
Good an evil are emotionally charged expressions of benefit and detriment. Both of which are very real.
Yes but benefit and detriment are subjective. Something can only be beneficial or detrimental when you have a certain goal or priority in mind, there is no objective standard of benefit and detriment, what benefits you could be a detriment to others and vice versa. Benefit and detriment are not real on any objective tangible level, they are little more than imaginary. The objective reality of the universe doesn't care what you think is beneficial or detrimental.
In a very real sense, good and evil exists.
In a very imaginary sense good and evil is a subjective contrivance of the human brain. It is not that any of this shit is real, it is the perception of it that is real.
”Experiential cognition" exists, but it is not real for the same reason that when you imagine a purple walrus sunbathing on your roof it is not real
You are confusing the material for the real. If a thing exists, even non-materially, it is real.
When you imagine something or perceive something subjectively, it is not an accurate representation of reality.
You are confusing incomplete with inaccurate.
The fact that being incorrect exists doesn't make incorrect correct.
No, but the fact that being incorrect exists, makes being incorrect a real condition, as you’ve demonstrated.
The existence of God is a product of human minds, which is exactly why it is objectively relevant to the existence of humans. You are a subjective moron.
Just as a pink walrus is not in the same category as traffic on the freeway, god is not in the same category as morality. But if you keep practicing, you may understand subtle differences one day.
Yes but benefit and detriment are subjective.
All perceptions are subjective. Some subjective perceptions correlate to objective truths.
Something can only be beneficial or detrimental when you have a certain goal or priority in mind, there is no objective standard of benefit and detriment, what benefits you could be a detriment to others and vice versa.
Here you are mistaking the existence of context for a lack of objective truth. The food that is beneficial for me may not be beneficial for you, but this doesn’t make all dietary choices equally beneficial. It’s not mere opinion.
The objective reality of the universe doesn't care what you think is beneficiis a subjective contrivance of the human brainal or detrimental.
If the universe cares, then it would be the universes subjective opinion. But it’s not needed for things to actually be detrimental for me.
is a subjective contrivance of the human brain
Reason is a contrivance of the human brain, created, utilized and experienced subjectively. It’s real too.
You are confusing the material for the real. If a thing exists, even non-materially, it is real
It is real in the sense that you imagining it is real but it is not real in the sense that it is real. You imagining it is real, but it is not objectively real as anything other than a concept in your head.When you say "this is detrimental" you are incorrect, because it is not detrimental in and of itself, that is your reaction to whatever is making you say that. The reaction is real, but the statement you are making is not objective and is not true. Good and Evil don't exist, people thinking they exist exists.
You are confusing incomplete with inaccurate
It's both incomplete and inaccurate to varying degrees depending on what subjective bullshit you're talking about.
the fact that being incorrect exists, makes being incorrect a real condition
In other words the thing you think is real isn't real but you thinking it is real is real.
Just as a pink walrus is not in the same category as traffic on the freeway, god is not in the same category as morality.
I already know that an imaginary entity is not the same as an imaginary set of subjective moral values, that doesn't change the fact that neither of them exist outside of human imagination.
Some subjective perspectives correlate to objective truths.
True, but they are still subjective. When you have an emotional reaction to something the reaction is real, but the assertions it causes you to make such as "this is bad" are not accurate or objective.
The food that is beneficial for me may not be beneficial for you, but this doesn’t make all dietary choices equally beneficial. It’s not mere opinion.
If something is harmful to you and healthy for me, that is an objective scientific fact. What would be subjective is if I called it "good" and you called it "bad"
In fact, that would be equally subjective if we both agreed it was bad and where both sickened by it. It's a scientific fact that it has the effect that it has, but it is not a scientific fact that it is good or bad. When you say something is good or bad that is primitive and not technical or scientific language.
the universes subjective opinion.
The universe doesn't have a subjective opinion, it just is what it is.
Reason is a contrivance of the human brain
There is an objective standard for reason. Reason is your ability to determine what is true and logical. Logic directly correlates to the nature of reality. Good/evil are completely conceptual, they are the same as an imaginary pink unicorn in my closet snorting MDMA out of my underpants. Reason is your ability to figure out the workings of OBJECTIVE FUCKING REALITY. See the difference?
Good/evil=arbitrary behavioural preferences made up by humans
Reason/logic= the ability to understand things and recognise patterns.
When you say "this is detrimental" you are incorrect, because it is not detrimental in and of itself, that is your reaction to whatever is making you say that
Detriment is always contextual, just as health is always contextual. Nothing is detrimental if not detrimental to something.
It's both incomplete and inaccurate to varying degrees depending on what subjective bullshit you're talking about.
It’s always incomplete. To say it is always inaccurate is a self-contradiction.
In other words the thing you think is real isn't real but you thinking it is real is real.
Depends on what one is thinking. In your case, yes.
I already know that an imaginary entity is not the same as an imaginary set of subjective moral values, that doesn't change the fact that neither of them exist outside of human imagination
You don’t understand the nature of values.
.
True, but they are still subjective. When you have an emotional reaction to something the reaction is real, but the assertions it causes you to make such as "this is bad" are not accurate or objective.
The assertion it causes may or may not be accurate depending on what that assertion is. You really are coming right along though.
If something is harmful to you and healthy for me, that is an objective scientific fact. What would be subjective is if I called it "good" and you called it "bad"
It would be subjective and accurate or subjective and inaccurate, depending. Poison is bad for you. Actually. Objectively. You simply dislike the word.
When you say something is good or bad that is primitive and not technical or scientific language.
Language need not be modern or scientific to be true or accurate. It is merely an inaccurate subjective opinion that primitive language is bad.
There is an objective standard for reason.
Determined trough subjective experience.
Reason is your ability to determine what is true and logical. Logic directly correlates to the nature of reality
If subjective perception is to be trusted.
Good/evil are completely conceptual
Like many concepts they correlate to existing conditions and natures.
Good/evil=arbitrary behavioural preferences made up by humans
No, good and evil is not arbitrary. Just as people have different food preferences, but what is healthy is not arbitrary. People like healthy and unhealthy foods. They believe unhealthy foods to be healthy. But the benefit of a good is not arbitrary, nor is it arbitrarily determined. For a Fact Machine, you have a lot of incorrect opinions.
To say it is always inaccurate is a self-contradiction.
He didn't say ALWAYS he said to varying degrees depending on what it is. You are the type of person who enjoys the smell of their own farts.
In your case, yes.
Little bopeep let out a meep when I stuck my wee wee into her (bleep)
You don’t understand the nature of values.
Nature doesn't have values.
Poison is bad for you. Actually. Objectively
What you are trying to say is objectively true, but "bad" is not a technical way to say it. It doesn't mean "bad" is objective, it just means that It's a lot easier to just say "bad" than technically describing the physical process that occurs when you ingest poison.
It is merely an inaccurate subjective opinion that primitive language is bad.
It's not a subjective opinion that it is bad. It's pointing out the fact that primitive language is not technical or scientific. I am a transexual walrus and I am smarter than you.
Determined trough subjective experience.
Just the opposite I'm afraid, reason is when your subjective interpretation aligns with reality. The opposite of reason is when your subjectivity aligns with it's own subjectivity.
If subjective perception is to be trusted.
It must be opposite day. Logic and reason are the only way to escape subjectivity.
Like many concepts they correlate to existing conditions and natures.
The theory of flat earth correlates to geology so it must be valid.
No, good and evil is not arbitrary. Just as people have different food preferences, but what is healthy is not arbitrary.
Nice analogy too bad it doesn't prove anything. Good and evil is arbitrary because if I kill you and eat your brains I will get good DHA and omega three.
If your subjective experience aligns with the objective truth then you are not experiencing it subjectively, you are perceiving an the objective reality. But let's not make this argument too semantic.
Maybe you would learn something if you would have a real debate but instead you pick one little side-irrelevance to nit pick about and ignore everything I'm saying.
Objective is that which actually is. Subjective is what is perceived (including emotions and opinions). Subjective does not mean inaccurate. When you perceive a thing that exists, your subjective experience correlated to objective reality.
The truth is that genes do not determine morality you pretentious fuckwit. Culture and life experience shape a persons view of morality more than genes.
There clearly seems to be variation among the species of morality.
That is one of the most bizarre and dishonest understatements I have ever heard. Some people think having sex with toddlers and then throwing them into a fire is morally acceptable. For centuries, people with your particular mental illness thought hunting scared defenceless girls through woods with dogs and then burning them to death at the stake was morally acceptable.
Morality IS a personal whim because it is conceptual. Even if god exists it is still conceptual. The existence of god wouldn't negate the fact that god is creating social constructs when he constructs his moral doctrine. It's just god's personal whim, but God doesn't exist so it's man's personal whim.
true evil is easily seen. true evil is when not only ones physically being is attacked but there whole soul mind and belief system. true evil is when one is demonically attacked. yet true evil is also those who are persecuted by such as Islamic state, true evil is the death and starvation of children in a world where this could be prevented true evil is when the downtrodden are kept down true evil is those who profess to love you yet actively become involved in your downfull true evil is the sexually and physically abuse of children and adults unable to defend themselves. true evil is turning a blind eye and having no feeling towards others
I agree with peterjoseph that true evil doesn't exist, for similar reasons.
However, if I had to give a different answer I would say that true immorality is to think something is morally wrong but to do it anyway.
I think murder is wrong, so if I murder someone I would say that is bad. If someone doesn't think murder is wrong, and murders someone, I wouldn't say that is bad.
Time for me to chime in here. As I expected, the Christian responders can’t clear their mind even for a moment from that brainwashing- man that’s some heavy shit. If u can blank slate the mind of all earthly knowledge- evil is what causes suffering both in magnitude and numbers. THATS IT! So if you fight against birth control then you are evil. If you suppress progressive science - you are evil. If you fight the right for terminally ill to end their life peacefully- you are evil. If you are a fat cat banker that finagles people out of hard earned money and indebt them at high interest (rape) - yes you are evil.
Notice this reflects most things organized religion does as part of doctrine. Evil that would not be if people had no religion. A completely neutral animal will not go out of their way to interfere with your life in any way except maybe to feed themselves
Free your mind of all your culture and religion upbringing- think like you grew up on a deserted island. I mean is killing someone evil?
I cannot do that because abandoning what I believe is utter foolishness. To deny that would mean that I would make my own meaning on what is good, and bad and that is called relativism or subjective morality. It has no logical basis or foundation on which it adheres to which results into actually no worth, value, or dignity.
To answer the question though. True evil is rebellion against Jesus Christ that is true evil.
If you do not have any concept of good and evil, that means that your only moral compass can be personal whim. You say that you don't believe in good and evil, but what that really means is that evil is simply whatever you are averse to, and good is simply whatever you are attracted to. You may not call it these things, but the fact that you are a discerning creature is solid proof that you must have some sense of good and evil.
Definition of evil
"morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked"
Definition of moral
"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical"
Definition of ethics
"the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation"
Definition of right
"conforming to facts or truth : correct"
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what is TRUE, This is The True Good.
So if God is always good, and God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, what is morally evil?
Forsaking The Truth, and bowing down to these useless idols, false gods, and created things. To embrace wickedness is to prefer the lie over The Truth.
Make no mistake though, God has no opposite, equal, or anything comparable. It is God who created good and the evil, and God stands alone, singular as The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and there is no other. Morality has to do with our relationship with God.
What is morally good ? To LOVE THE TRUTH.
What is morally evil? To forsake the love of truth and embrace delusion.
Loving others comes very naturally from loving God, as those who are honest about the truth come to realize how by condemning others, they condemn themselves because they are just as guilty.
Condemnation comes from the devil, but conviction comes from The Holy Spirit, that Spirit of Truth. Conviction leads to repentance, the turning away from wickedness and turning towards righteousness. The Righteous One is God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.