Is Evil Necessary To Counter Evil?

[PoliticalChic]

I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent, and not just a black and white description of an action itself. Seems like common sense. It is ~ of course, relative. Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly.

In the land of combating factions of sky pixies, if one deluded human thinks that an all loving God which they've got a solid faith in reveals to them to kill 5 of "the other guys" or else Satan wins something - that act is good and righteous if he's correct, evil from the perspective of the 5 murdered folks - - - and misguided if the guy is wrong, but has ACTUAL faith that he was correct and doing it for ultimate "good" according to his sky pixie.

1. "I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent,..."
Meaning what.....state that one intends to commit evil???
Evil is largely rationalized by the actor as revenge, response to victimhood, some sort of subjective self-righteousness.

2. "Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly."

It seems you have a self-delusion of being able to be clever. That's sort of like the cow that imagined it could jump over the moon.

We judge actions and events through the prism of our own culture...the most superior culture that world has ever seen.
And certainly not through the prism of some 7th century blood cult.


3. "In the land of combating factions of sky pixies..."
It's the earth pixie believers we have to fear, you dunce....the ones who promise earthly paradise, Utopia, worker's paradise, a thousand year Reich.....
These, what have slaughtered over 100 million men, women and children in recent memory:
Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism


Feel like a moron?
Oh....of course not....that would require the intelligence to analyze the above.

 

[G.T.]

I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent, and not just a black and white description of an action itself. Seems like common sense. It is ~ of course, relative. Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly.

In the land of combating factions of sky pixies, if one deluded human thinks that an all loving God which they've got a solid faith in reveals to them to kill 5 of "the other guys" or else Satan wins something - that act is good and righteous if he's correct, evil from the perspective of the 5 murdered folks - - - and misguided if the guy is wrong, but has ACTUAL faith that he was correct and doing it for ultimate "good" according to his sky pixie.

1. "I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent,..."
Meaning what.....state that one intends to commit evil???
Evil is largely rationalized by the actor as revenge, response to victimhood, some sort of subjective self-righteousness.

2. "Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly."

It seems you have a self-delusion of being able to be clever. That's sort of like the cow that imagined it could jump over the moon.

We judge actions and events through the prism of our own culture...the most superior culture that world has ever seen.
And certainly not through the prism of some 7th century blood cult.


3. "In the land of combating factions of sky pixies..."
It's the earth pixie believers we have to fear, you dunce....the ones who promise earthly paradise, Utopia, worker's paradise, a thousand year Reich.....
These, what have slaughtered over 100 million men, women and children in recent memory:
Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism


Feel like a moron?
Oh....of course not....that would require the intelligence to analyze the above.

No I feel fine ~ the post I made was not negated in any sense whatsoever and you have a hard time with hypotheticals as examples of a philosophy, it seems. That's fine, my post stands firm.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent, and not just a black and white description of an action itself. Seems like common sense. It is ~ of course, relative. Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly.

In the land of combating factions of sky pixies, if one deluded human thinks that an all loving God which they've got a solid faith in reveals to them to kill 5 of "the other guys" or else Satan wins something - that act is good and righteous if he's correct, evil from the perspective of the 5 murdered folks - - - and misguided if the guy is wrong, but has ACTUAL faith that he was correct and doing it for ultimate "good" according to his sky pixie.

1. "I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent,..."
Meaning what.....state that one intends to commit evil???
Evil is largely rationalized by the actor as revenge, response to victimhood, some sort of subjective self-righteousness.

2. "Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly."

It seems you have a self-delusion of being able to be clever. That's sort of like the cow that imagined it could jump over the moon.

We judge actions and events through the prism of our own culture...the most superior culture that world has ever seen.
And certainly not through the prism of some 7th century blood cult.


3. "In the land of combating factions of sky pixies..."
It's the earth pixie believers we have to fear, you dunce....the ones who promise earthly paradise, Utopia, worker's paradise, a thousand year Reich.....
These, what have slaughtered over 100 million men, women and children in recent memory:
Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism


Feel like a moron?
Oh....of course not....that would require the intelligence to analyze the above.

No I feel fine ~ the post I made was not negated in any sense whatsoever and you have a hard time with hypotheticals as examples of a philosophy, it seems. That's fine, my post stands firm.

Let's leave that conclusion up to readers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is that what God taught?

4. Lest I be accused of shortchanging the Judeo-Christian faith vis-à-vis this discussion, and suggesting that said faith was useless against macro evil such as 'slavery, genocide, communism, fascism and nazism,' or micro evil such as murder, rape, robbery, let me point out that the Bible, the wisdom of Western Civilization, makes clear how to stand up to evil….

and it's instructions are hardly different from the route 'reason' takes:

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Exodus 21:12-14

Leviticus 24:17 and 21

Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31

Deuteronomy 19:11-13



I've seen some of the more ignorant claim that the Ten Commandments forbids warfare itself, and killing that ensues.

Of course, it doesn't.

It forbids 'murder:' the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Definition of MURDER



So…..if any sort of death is imagined to be 'evil,' then the question in the title is answered: some sort of 'evil' is necessary to combat evil.

"Trump Admin. Takes Federal Death Penalty to Supreme Court

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate the federal death penalty.

...asking justices to permit the execution of men who, the government says, have committed "crimes of staggering brutality."

It further insisted that continued delay would "undermine [the] retributive and deterrent functions of the death penalty," an argument that the Court's conservatives have made in past.

It was this same concern for swift and certain justice that animated Attorney General William Barr's reinstatement of the federal death penalty in July. He instructed the Bureau of Prisons to prepare to execute five convicted murderers."

Trump Admin. Takes Federal Death Penalty to Supreme Court - Washington Free Beacon

 

[luchitociencia]

I agree with G.T.

Intent.

Sometimes you do evil without intention or worst, without knowing it.

Sometimes you combat evil with evil, with good intentions and also with evil intentions.

The key word ruling why an evil action can be justified is by the intent at the moment of performing it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I agree with G.T.

Intent.

Sometimes you do evil without intention or worst, without knowing it.

Sometimes you combat evil with evil, with good intentions and also with evil intentions.

The key word ruling why an evil action can be justified is by the intent at the moment of performing it.

The destruction of evil is not an evil action.

 

[rylah]

I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent, and not just a black and white description of an action itself. Seems like common sense. It is ~ of course, relative. Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly.

In the land of combating factions of sky pixies, if one deluded human thinks that an all loving God which they've got a solid faith in reveals to them to kill 5 of "the other guys" or else Satan wins something - that act is good and righteous if he's correct, evil from the perspective of the 5 murdered folks - - - and misguided if the guy is wrong, but has ACTUAL faith that he was correct and doing it for ultimate "good" according to his sky pixie.

1. "I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent,..."
Meaning what.....state that one intends to commit evil???
Evil is largely rationalized by the actor as revenge, response to victimhood, some sort of subjective self-righteousness.

2. "Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly."

It seems you have a self-delusion of being able to be clever. That's sort of like the cow that imagined it could jump over the moon.

We judge actions and events through the prism of our own culture...the most superior culture that world has ever seen.
And certainly not through the prism of some 7th century blood cult.


3. "In the land of combating factions of sky pixies..."
It's the earth pixie believers we have to fear, you dunce....the ones who promise earthly paradise, Utopia, worker's paradise, a thousand year Reich.....
These, what have slaughtered over 100 million men, women and children in recent memory:
Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism


Feel like a moron?
Oh....of course not....that would require the intelligence to analyze the above.

War is not evil, it's cruelty.
When evil fights evil, the result is merely triumph of evil.

A war can be a just act, depending on the purpose - evil or righteous.
Cruelty can be a purpose - then it's total evil.
.
So does countering evil requires cruelty?

It's important to understand that war is not a court room.
Innocents are going to be killed - not because You've opened a case and sentenced the person.

In war one fights to subdue an enemy,
that You shoot someone is not because he's evil, but because he's an enemy.
He can not want to do anything with it, even be a super-saint, or protests his own govt.

But the purpose of war is to win, not to judge.
So if You say "I don't kill innocents" the meaning is that You've decided that the one You're killing is evil. And who are You to say that?

There's another term - 'non-involved'.
Which raises another question regarding the necessity to shoot the same soldier - is it merely because he's participating with or without a gun, or because there's a war for victory, between two states or armies?

It's a wholly different thing - the involvement is not the reason, but because one has to do what is required to win.

Rabbi Kook ztz"l said regarding the cruelty of wars - it's a function of the level of cruelty of Your enemy.

I don't know much about the nature of US-Japan war, but the case of Dresden was a necessary cruelty provoked by carpet bombing London purposefully to kill as many civilians as possible, leaving no other option but to respond with the same cruelty and if necessary more - it was undoubtedly cruel but the purpose was righteous.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent, and not just a black and white description of an action itself. Seems like common sense. It is ~ of course, relative. Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly.

In the land of combating factions of sky pixies, if one deluded human thinks that an all loving God which they've got a solid faith in reveals to them to kill 5 of "the other guys" or else Satan wins something - that act is good and righteous if he's correct, evil from the perspective of the 5 murdered folks - - - and misguided if the guy is wrong, but has ACTUAL faith that he was correct and doing it for ultimate "good" according to his sky pixie.

1. "I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent,..."
Meaning what.....state that one intends to commit evil???
Evil is largely rationalized by the actor as revenge, response to victimhood, some sort of subjective self-righteousness.

2. "Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly."

It seems you have a self-delusion of being able to be clever. That's sort of like the cow that imagined it could jump over the moon.

We judge actions and events through the prism of our own culture...the most superior culture that world has ever seen.
And certainly not through the prism of some 7th century blood cult.


3. "In the land of combating factions of sky pixies..."
It's the earth pixie believers we have to fear, you dunce....the ones who promise earthly paradise, Utopia, worker's paradise, a thousand year Reich.....
These, what have slaughtered over 100 million men, women and children in recent memory:
Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism


Feel like a moron?
Oh....of course not....that would require the intelligence to analyze the above.

War is not evil, it's cruelty.
When evil fights evil, the result is merely triumph of evil.

A war can be a just act, depending on the purpose - evil or righteous.
Cruelty can be a purpose - then it's total evil.
.
So does countering evil requires cruelty?

It's important to understand that war is not a court room.
Innocents are going to be killed - not because You've opened a case and sentenced the person.

In war one fights to subdue an enemy,
that You shoot someone is not because he's evil, but because he's an enemy.
He can not want to do anything with it, even be a super-saint, or protests his own govt.

But the purpose of war is to win, not to judge.
So if You say "I don't kill innocents" the meaning is that You've decided that the one You're killing is evil. And who are You to say that?

There's another term - 'non-involved'.
Which raises another question regarding the necessity to shoot the same soldier - is it merely because he's participating with or without a gun, or because there's a war for victory, between two states or armies?

It's a wholly different thing - the involvement is not the reason, but because one has to do what is required to win.

Rabbi Kook ztz"l said regarding the cruelty of wars - it's a function of the level of cruelty of Your enemy.

I don't know much about the nature of US-Japan war, but the case of Dresden was a necessary cruelty provoked by carpet bombing London purposefully to kill as many civilians as possible, leaving no other option but to respond with the same cruelty and if necessary more - it was undoubtedly cruel but the purpose was righteous.

"War is not evil, it's cruelty."


I checked the post to which you've linked,.....and it does not mention 'war.'

Yet.....that is your entire 'response.'


It appears you've made an error.

 

[rylah]

I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent, and not just a black and white description of an action itself. Seems like common sense. It is ~ of course, relative. Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly.

In the land of combating factions of sky pixies, if one deluded human thinks that an all loving God which they've got a solid faith in reveals to them to kill 5 of "the other guys" or else Satan wins something - that act is good and righteous if he's correct, evil from the perspective of the 5 murdered folks - - - and misguided if the guy is wrong, but has ACTUAL faith that he was correct and doing it for ultimate "good" according to his sky pixie.

1. "I think that evil's distinction from good has to involve intent,..."
Meaning what.....state that one intends to commit evil???
Evil is largely rationalized by the actor as revenge, response to victimhood, some sort of subjective self-righteousness.

2. "Saying "universal" and "Western" in the same sentence is an oxymoron ~ if it's "Western," then its .......apparently NOT "universal," unless you're practiced in the redundant art of redundancy, redundantly."

It seems you have a self-delusion of being able to be clever. That's sort of like the cow that imagined it could jump over the moon.

We judge actions and events through the prism of our own culture...the most superior culture that world has ever seen.
And certainly not through the prism of some 7th century blood cult.


3. "In the land of combating factions of sky pixies..."
It's the earth pixie believers we have to fear, you dunce....the ones who promise earthly paradise, Utopia, worker's paradise, a thousand year Reich.....
These, what have slaughtered over 100 million men, women and children in recent memory:
Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism


Feel like a moron?
Oh....of course not....that would require the intelligence to analyze the above.

War is not evil, it's cruelty.
When evil fights evil, the result is merely triumph of evil.

A war can be a just act, depending on the purpose - evil or righteous.
Cruelty can be a purpose - then it's total evil.
.
So does countering evil requires cruelty?

It's important to understand that war is not a court room.
Innocents are going to be killed - not because You've opened a case and sentenced the person.

In war one fights to subdue an enemy,
that You shoot someone is not because he's evil, but because he's an enemy.
He can not want to do anything with it, even be a super-saint, or protests his own govt.

But the purpose of war is to win, not to judge.
So if You say "I don't kill innocents" the meaning is that You've decided that the one You're killing is evil. And who are You to say that?

There's another term - 'non-involved'.
Which raises another question regarding the necessity to shoot the same soldier - is it merely because he's participating with or without a gun, or because there's a war for victory, between two states or armies?

It's a wholly different thing - the involvement is not the reason, but because one has to do what is required to win.

Rabbi Kook ztz"l said regarding the cruelty of wars - it's a function of the level of cruelty of Your enemy.

I don't know much about the nature of US-Japan war, but the case of Dresden was a necessary cruelty provoked by carpet bombing London purposefully to kill as many civilians as possible, leaving no other option but to respond with the same cruelty and if necessary more - it was undoubtedly cruel but the purpose was righteous.

"War is not evil, it's cruelty."


I checked the post to which you've linked,.....and it does not mention 'war.'

Yet.....that is your entire 'response.'


It appears you've made an error.

Yes an error, thank You.
The intention was to answer Your opening post.