Why is it always the "simple" people who believe that "Good" & "Evil" exist in the world? Why is it always socialists/liberals/neo-democrats that believe there is no such thing as "Evil", just "cultural" differences that require understanding? I've asked this question of friends for ever it seems, and they usully respond by saying "you don't understand, it's not that simple". I often use Edmond Burke to reply. The truth is, there is "Evil" in the world, and those that accomodate it are evil.

>Good and Evil< Because the differences between people are cultural. And your belief in liberty, defines how you react to those differences. Is circumcision "evil"? What about female circumcision? And since I don't believe in it, does it mean I should go around the world and try to stop it? Is it "evil" for America to consume a majority of the worlds resources and her citizens to become extremely obese, while daily people in the world starve to death?

THese aren't as hard as they look: "Is circumcision "evil"?" Is it harmful? I beleive the jury of medical opinion is out on the question of how helpful, but it's been decided not harmful. It would be evil, however, to do this to an adult against his will. " What about female circumcision?" Harmful. To harm others for personal pleasure is evil. " And since I don't believe in it, does it mean I should go around the world and try to stop it?" It is Evil, Stopping it is good. "Is it "evil" for America to consume a majority of the worlds resources and her citizens to become extremely obese, while daily people in the world starve to death?" A false question, and so it does not deserve to be answered. It is in the "when did you stop beating your wife category", that is, it assumes certain things in the question. In this case, we have a few assumptions: "for America to consume a majority of the worlds resources" this is only true in a very narrow definition of resources as "things that Americans consume". There are plenty of things that other people consume more of. But, we are wealthy, and pay people more for oil, which we consume, than camel dung, which we do not but others do. Therefore, oil is counted here as a resource but camle dung is not. Oxygen is also a resource- and China and India both consume more than the US. Manual Labor is a resource, and many nations consume more per capita than we do. Do we consume more of the world's monetary value? A very different question. second false assumption- false use of "and". It implies a direct connection which is not true. Use of resources does not make people fat. Poor diets make people fat. Corn oil produces more calories per unit of resources invested, and it therefore follows that if we switched our agricultural resources to produce more fish and whole grains, and less corn oil, we could be thinner while consuming more resources. The use of "while" implies a causal connection which does not exist. Even if the US devoted itself to shipping every gram of food above sustenance level to starving nations, we would not prevent starvation. Starvation, other than a s a result of unforseen disaster, is caused by a population growing beyond its sustainable numbers, and is a natural phenomenon in animals. Animals go through a well documented cycle in which populations rise, overwhelm the habitat, starve, crash, and rise again. The Kaibab Deer story is a well known textbook example: http://websites.aero.net/cyoung/research/kaibab/story2.html Only in societies where humans have learned to limit their reproduction to sustainable levels can an influx of food prevent hunger- otherwise, all you will do is allow the population to rise further, and crash harder. It is entirely unethical to feed 10 million starving children unless you have a plan in place for feeding their 30 million starving childen 15 years later.

I agree that some of the definitions can be arguable. However, to doubt the existence of Evil because we cannot agree precisely on its definition would be akin to doubting the existence of Art, Beauty, Libertarianism, or the New York Mets, merely because we disagree over the exact meaning of the definition. If we started from areas of core consensus, I think we could agree alot about evil. For example, the intentional Killing of a random school age child for personal pleasure, Evil, agree or disagree?

I think the problem of communication lies where people use "evil" as a noun rather than an adjective. It's much like asking does "red" exist? "Red" does exist, but never separate from fire trucks, apples, or other red things. Same with evil.

Forget the false question, false assumption BS. I think its safe to say, that we both agree that people do "evil" things to each other. Within America, we have the Bill of Rights, Laws or a rifle to protect ourselfs or settle the dispute. So lets take the female circumcision "evil". You agree its evil, I agree its evil. Now, within the US, its safe to say its a no brainer, we put a stop to it. But lets take Canada or Mexico. Any nation for that matter. And for whatever reason, they practice this because of thier religious beliefs. As individuals, we both oppose it. My question to you, is how would you want our Nation to respond to that Nation? I await your response.

it's very curious and disturbing the relation US have with "good and evil" questions... never forget that where there is good , evil is not so far. for sgtObvious, don't be offended. I understood the arguments inside your topic but this is your title "Libyans don't want to be Arabs anymore. " . so it's confusing a little. Do you think i could be "evil" according to the standard of US morale ??

"never forget that where there is good , evil is not so far." ???? Are you implying that we are better off with neother good nor evil, becuase the two are "linked". Do you read books in the dark, because where there is light, there must be shadow, so why bother turning on the lamp? If someone in great danger needed your help, would you refuse an act of good because "there must be evil"? That is a sad and nihilistic philosophy.

A response to evil must be weighed and judged. What are the likely outcomes? Is it within our capability? Will there be negative consequences? I am skilled in the repair of damaged buildings. It would be a Good thing for me to travel to a wartorn piece of misery like Afghanistan and Iraq and show the people there proper engineering, within the range of their technology (bricks are very simple) and give them all the help I could. The negative consequences on my family, friends, and colleages outweigh this. (Besides, I have war damaged buildings here) If the US were to use force to end female circumcision- first, could we? Would it deplete our strength and leave us less able to do other tasks of greater value? What would be the backlash? If the answers are Yes, No, Negligible, than yes, of course we should. Otherwise it requires a thorough think- just how much CAN we do? We are mortal. One thing we cannot do is excuse it- it's their custom, so we can't intervene. Bull. If people are suffering, Fruck their "custom." Cultural relativism is a misguided philosophy. Slavery is a custom in the Sudan. This is OK with you?

Doing for people who can't do for themselves is good. Doing for people who won't do for themselves is evil.