[elucidate]

Originally Posted by taylor

Right. The serial killer just doesn't care. Their conscience isn't there if it ever was. A lot of humans don't have that empathetic part of their psyche and for many more it gets deadened early on. What about someone like Jeffrey Dahmer who claims to have felt intense remorse for what he did even as he was doing it. Is Dahmer evil but a true sociopath serial killer without a conscience is innocent? Most people think the sociopath is "pure evil", but if violating conscience is what defines evil then this really doesn't make sense.

It's more the actions that are considered evil.

I personally don't think of sociopaths as evil so much as they are the sharks of the human world. They are at the top of the foodchain and let nothing get in the way of what they want and where they want to get.

It is society labeling a group of people to make themselves feel more comfortable. True, the sociopath is merely living out it's true nature, so that in itself isn't evil. It is a way that people can feel some sort of small comfort in casting out people who do horrible things to other people who didn't deserve it, and who's families are forced to suffer the consequences of their 'indulgences'. They can't understand it, so instead they call them evil as a way of seperating them from decent people.

What about things that people disagree about morally? Is killing ok?

Most people would say if their family or Self were threatened by an intruder or someone with a weapon who was unstable, then killing them might be the only option, and maybe the best option if they are seriously dangerous.

What about in war?

Whether we like it or not, humans are warlike. It's in our nature and it's a part of our history as humans. There can be no war without death so whilst it is considered ugly and horrific, it's also considered necessary by many.

Can we lie?

Lying is so acceptable these days it's not even considered evil, just normal.

What if it's a white lie?

Depends on who you ask. Different people will have different standards as to what is ok.

Is polygamy ok?

Is that being married to more than one person? I forget?

What about romantic relationships with the very young?

On this forum that issue has been covered before, and most open minded individuals will concede that it can be acceptable, as long as both parties are consenting...depending on how young you are talking about.

What about homosexuality?

Again, depending on who you interview. Ask some hardcore christians if it's ok and you'll get a lecture about how homosexuals are the devil and are going to hell for sure.

What about orgys?

I don't think anyone considers them evil.

What about rock and roll?

Historically, this was considered the devil's music, but that didn't stop them, and most people didn't end up becoming serial killers and doing what the music told them to do played backwards subliminally.

Genital mutilation? You get the idea.

I personally think that is an archaic practise in cruelty, but cruel is not evil.

In one society something is evil and in another that same thing is good. This looks an awful lot like people projecting an artificial standard onto nature. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Sure, it's cultural and everyone has their own ideas on what is acceptable and what isn't. The Greeks thought pedophilia was just dandy for ages...not to mention homosexuality.

Plenty of animals kill purely for entertainment when conditions are conducive. My cat for example.

Yes true. I did think of cats after I posted. Cats can be evil.