on 5/7/02 9:28 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:56 AM > Subject: Re: Religion and ethics > > >> Robert Seeberger wrote: >> >>> There is good in the world and there is evil. And while the world is > not >>> painted black and white, I do believe there is some responsibility to > to a >>> member of a civilisation to fight against evil. And perhaps against > those >>> who enable it. >> >> Define 'evil', define 'good'.... :o) I think that you'll find that it is > very >> much context dependent. > > Evil is the willful causing of harm to people or the delibrate refusal to > stop preventable harm. Good is the willful causing of benefit to people or > the delibrate stopping of harm. > > I'll agree that in many real life situations, the effects of actions are > uncertain. Actions may cause both harm and good, and reasonable people may > differ on the balance. > > What I am talking about is the existance of truth: some actions are good > and some are evil. It is evil to kidnap a young girl, torture rape and > kill her. It is good to run into a burning building, risking your life so > that many more may live. > > Do you also believe that good and evil are just a matter of opinion?
It is a matter of fact that different societies in different times and places have decided that different things are good or evil, and to different extents. So either good and evil are matters of opinion or most (all) of the people who ever lived were (are) unwittingly evildoers. I find the former view more useful than the latter, since it makes more room for discussion. And what is the matter with opinions? It is 'just a matter of opinion' that Shakespeare is a better writer than Sidney Sheldon (say) - so what? It is much better for people to argue about opinions than to blindly accept authority. -- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
