There's nothing wrong with being edgy. Can you justify your evil thoughts and actions?
I can't justify the existence of evil at all
So it follows that I can't justify my own evil thoughts and actions
Sure, I can point to causes and effects, but that doesn't make them just. It just made them unavoidably unjust, which is way worse than pretending to be personally accountable for the existence of evil, because it makes it a permanent, universal fact that is outside of your control.
>>28946527
Can't control evil itself, that is
You, as a self-modulating entity, can obviously control your own evil actions within limits, depending on how you define "control".
I am shit like what the fuck? I am SHIT
>>28946419
>nothing wrong
>needing to justify
WEW LAD
>>28946419
emotions are just a mental disorder
have a "nice" day :3
>>28946938
no they aren't. mammals evolved a limbic system for the specific purpose of feeling emotions.
>>28946981
>confusing the nervous systems primary functions for survival with OMG DAT BE EBIL "morals"
>>28946419
There's no evil and good.
Moral was invented so people share the same ideas.
People are selfish and don't care about each others, except for their brethren.
Someone who gives a lot for charity isn't good, he just does it because he get pleasure in that.
Someone who murder children isn't evil, he does it because he likes doing it.
Well, we can also talk about the egoism/altruism duality, but I'm too lazy for that.
>>28947121
>the duality
get into it senpai
i got sum weed
>>28947121
>Someone who murder children isn't evil, he does it because he likes doing it.
i dont disagree, but thats not a justification for why it isnt evil.
>>28946419
edgy =/= evil
>>28947445
how do you prove that it "is" evil though?
>>28947505
i honestly cant.
but do you think that if some child was raised with absolutely no "moral" guidelines, good or bad, do you think he would know or even feel bad if they ever killed a person?
>>28947555
it all depends on how that child determines what is or isn't benefit and progress
if that persons goal is to overall improve the situation of the entirety of the species living conditions than possibly they would regret it, that is unless the killed person was against that progress, than it would probably be seen as a must do
>>28947616
and what if said person did not have a justification for killing?
lets just say he simply didnt like the other guy, or he just wanted to steal his belongings
>>28947505
I would define an "evil" action as one that causes those affected by it to suffer more "negative" consequences (which I define as causing a dissonant, destructive or repulsive reaction instead of a harmonious, creative, synergistic or attractive reaction) than positive within whatever timeframe or scope you're viewing the situation, and that the actor themselves has prior knowledge or can predict that their actions will cause exactly that.
Of course, as you expand the scope to larger and larger causal chains, any single parent action will usually invariably become more "neutral", as unforeseen consequences lead to both "good" and "bad" things happening regardless of whether or not the original thing was good or bad, but I'm sure whoever is acting "evil" already has a predefined scope that they're working with when they act, otherwise their actions aren't predictive at all and might as well be random or instinctual.
But, I would say that going off on the dissonance definition, killing children is pretty fucking evil. You have families being ripped apart (destruction) and you have children being forced to endure the pain of dying (dissonance). Now you can easily say that this, to the guy himself, is a positive experience, but he is acting while knowing full well that it isn't a positive experience for others involved, which by makes the entire situation dissonant.
It's probably imperfect but it's how I look at it. It's easy to get detached from the viscerality and the experiential obviousness of negative perception when you get really abstract- and maybe for some it really isn't there, but at some point it just reduces down to "things feel bad" and it's as absurd as anything else.
>>28947708
well you would have to explain how you cannot like something unconditionally, as in without giving it any thought and being pure impulse
it's entirely possible to live without having a "goal" per se as well except just to exist
>>28947903
good reply but ultimately it just sounds like someone who wants avoid the reality of life and death being together as one, and instead, wishes for life to supersede all things while seeing death as a negative experience because you associate it with pain through conditioning
wether or not it is suppose to be that way(life and death) can be argue'd by anybody literally, wether it not it isn't true doesn't seem to be, otherwise why would it be possible to be a probability?
