On 1/2/2013 1:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:58:45 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

    On 1/2/2013 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

    On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:05:10 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

        On 1/2/2013 11:13 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

        On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 12:57:34 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

            On 02 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

            Chemotherapy Good or Evil?

            Better than nothing for most people having some disease.
            Worst than THC injection, plausibly for the same group of people.

            Here the Evil is only in the fact that minorities hides information 
            the majority, and this for the minority's interests.
            This leads to harmful consequences for the majority.


        I was thinking more of how chemotherapy is ambiguous as far as it being
        something which can enhance life by inevitably diminishing it, but 
sure, the
        politics of it is an issue also.

        If I had to get into a definition of good and evil I would go more 
toward a
        political direction - senseless inequality of power tends to lead to
        corruption and crime. Crime and corruption tends to lead to 
scapegoating or a
        misuse of sense. The combination of corrupt actions and distortion of 
truth to
        cover them up is probably as close to evil as I can think of.

        Anything that causes great net suffering of people can be considered 
        cancer, small pox, AIDS, tsunamis,...  I see no reason to limit it to
        social/political causes.

    Do you think that viruses and tsunamis are well served by the label 'Evil'?

    ?? I'm not interested in serving them.

Obviously. I meant 'Do you think that it serves us to label natural phenomena outside of our control as Evil'?

      Values are human values and each person has his own - although there is a 
lot of
    consistency.  I think society and individuals are well served by labeling 
    viruses and tsunamis as 'evil' because that means we should cooperate to 
    them.  And in fact we have: We eliminated small pox.  We created a tsunami 
    system.  Actions I count as good.

The action of mitigating damage is good, just as the intentional neglect of such actions are evil, but the non-human cause of the damage is neither good nor evil. If you get an electric shock, it does not mean that voltage is evil.

But getting a painful shock is. A small pox virus is just a bundle of molecules. But small pox, the disease, is an evil. Good and evil are human judgements - but that doesn't make them unimportant; in fact nothing gets value except from you valuing it. The social judgements of good and bad are derivative from individual values.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to