Rather, ALL religions have ALWAYS pronounced evil to be a choice in every human being. — AlienFromEarth

Have you studied all religions for all of time?

What is the relationship between sinning and doing evil?

It seems to me that we’re going in loops because your view isn’t coherent and you’re being obtuse about it.

An intention really, is an organism that sets out to do something. — AlienFromEarth

If an organism is unconscious then in what sense can it “set out to do something”? Is the fact that a robot doesn’t have its own intentions not a consequence of it being unconscious?

It's a minute before midnight here, 59 minutes past midnight where you are. And he's still not banned! — Bitter Crank

@AlienFromEarth

I'm glad. I was in a bad mood yesterday. When I saw how upset he was, I knew I'd gone too far.

none

War cannot be used, as people fighting for war are fighting for survival — AlienFromEarth

Maybe true for those who defend themselves. Not for the attacker, whose purpose is only to dominate, exploit, get profit, and so on.

There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are — AlienFromEarth

BTW, there's no such a thing as "instinctual knowledge". An instinct is an innate behavior in response to certain stimuli. And knowledge refers to facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. It involves reasoning and it includes evaluation of good and evil. Instinct doesn't. It's just automatic reaction.

1)Good cannot be evil. Evil cannot be good. — AlienFromEarth

I agree.

2) Knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts. — AlienFromEarth

What acts? I suppose that the word "evil" or "bad" is missing, right?
Well, does knowing what is good for you prevent me from harming you? This in fact could be called a "conscious evil act".
Neither knowledge of evil prevents one from harming others.
So, it's not knowledge that prevents someone from doing harm. It's "personal ethics". It one's ethical level. It goes on a scale from immoral (unethical) to amoral (lacking etches) to moral (ethical)

3) If evil were a choice just anyone could make, the ability to commit evil would require a good person to somehow "unknow" what evil is — AlienFromEarth

This might happen but it's not usually the case. A good --I prefer "ethical"-- person can go easily astray and commit a bad action. But he will know, he will be aware that he did something bad. It is the evil ("unethical") person who usually manages to "unknow" what evil is, i.e. to hide, burry the evil nature of his acts. That's why most really unethical persons cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad". They are characterized by "no remorse". They are actually mentally ill. That's why when such a condition is established in courts, the culpable is sent usually to a mental clinic rather than in prison.

4) Committing evil cannot be considered a "mistake", as it is deliberate as the definition of evil above states. — AlienFromEarth

Certainly!

5) Survival cannot be a reason to commit evil, as evil directly threatens the survival and well-being of the offending evil-doer. — AlienFromEarth

Certainly!

6) Mental Illness cannot be used as a reason to commit evil either — AlienFromEarth

Certainly. I'm glad you brought the "mental" case! I mentioned already myself in (3) above. However, there are various degrees or levels of mental illnesses. They start from simply irrational behavior and go up to complete madness. At the lower levels the individual can still think rationally and recognize the evil of his actions. As he goes up on the scale, he loses any sense of moderation to finally get totally disconnected from reality. He acts automatically, totally compulsively, in a way that would resemble instinct. So, since reasoning in such a case is inexistent one cannot talk anymore about reasons to commit evil.

Conclusion: Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. — AlienFromEarth

I am afraid that I have to disagree in that. (What a pity, the last thing I'm commenting on! :smile:)
OK, we have agreed that evil cannot be committed by mistake but only on purpose (intention).
However, in the case of mental illness one cannot talk about intention, because intention involves aiming and planning and these involve reasoning and this is missing in most cases of mental illness.

I assume you have been exposed to basically the same information on the different religions as I have, therefore you know clear and well they do not share my sentiments on evil. — AlienFromEarth

I wouldn't make such assumptions.

You didn't answer my other question. How are sinning and evil related?

As an aside. Egoism

Also, you might look into the role of freewill in religion. See theological determinism.

Also in St Augustine's confessions, this prayer... "Lord, make me chaste—but not yet."

the problem with it being "religious" metaphysics is that no religion in history as ever attempted to truly separate good from bad in human beings. Rather, ALL religions have ALWAYS pronounced evil to be a choice in every human being. That is precisely what I am arguing against. — AlienFromEarth

All religions that I have read about do not agree with my views. I assume you have been exposed to basically the same information on the different religions as I have, therefore you know clear and well they do not share my sentiments on evil. — AlienFromEarth

I don’t have in mind religion in the way that you may be thinking about it ( the major faith groups and their doctrines of good and evil as understood in the most general and generic way). What I have in mind is a movement in philosophy dating back 400 years, commonly referred to as Rationalism. Yes, this is philosophy but it espouses a metaphysics that is theological in nature. Rationalism believes we were born with the ability to discern good from evil. We use our logical faculties to achieve this differentiation. Sounds a lot like your view. All we have to add is that in some people this innate capacity is faulty or missing ( or as you say they ‘lack consciousness’). So it sounds to me like your view is a variation on the Rationalist theme.

I’m not saying your thinking is identical with Descartes, Spinoza or Leibnitz, but it belongs within that era.

Also in St Augustine's confessions, this prayer... "Lord, make me chaste—but not yet." — Bitter Crank

Where have I heard that before? :chin:

Also, I haven't the patience at this point to do any great googling for you, but I suggest you look into "evil" in other cultures and whether those cultures have anything to say about your type of evil (as a moral/theological matter). Buddhists make up around 6% of the world population. What does Buddhism say about evil?

The Western need to re-interpret non-Western faiths (read Christian and non-Christian) into its own religious terms does great injustice to non-Christian religions. "Evil" as such may be far less of an issue for the rest of the world than it is for you.

Do you mean absolute evil? Is your use of evil related to nouxio actions for the person taking the action, or it is refered to a gratuite hurt over anything? Perhaps to both actions into different situations, but yes. In case you are talking about actions only producing certain satisfaction by their gratuite commitment over anything, then yes those are actions that must be avoided. However absolute "evil," or noxious is beyond our capacity, due to our limitation as tiny animals.

none

Evil doesn't exist as more than a description of things made by humans, who are free to dictate to others what their description means and what prompted or justified its use. Treatment of good and evil as objective truths is nonsense as is to attempt to dictate the rules these truths operate under. Your extensive list of assertions are all baseless, you seem intent on giving them an authority they're not entitled to. Your ideas have as much legitimacy as the rules written in a book like Harry Potter for a fictional world, mere productions of your imagination, hope you at least have some reason for bothering with it.

none

You could call a teapot evil, I wouldn't know how to "defeat" your argument but what I'd do in that or this circumstance, would be to tell you that your assertion lacks any utility or truth value and is uninteresting. I'm comfortable with my assertions coming from me, don't feel undermined by acknowledging them as assertions either.

Your logic can't be judged, some of your premises seem absurd, such as that humans can be consciousness, (did you mean conscienceless? that would make a lot more sense). Your logic can't be judged because "pure evil" is just some nonsense term you made up. It's like if I made a thread talking about "hyper evil" and saying certain crimes are hyper evil and some aren't, without defining what hyper evil was, totally meaningless. Meaninglessness isn't bad in some contexts, it's just pretty bad in philosophy.

none

Nothing is a Greater Evil encircled by Good, a Greater Good is a blue mirror that comes naturally when the encircling good cubes itself. Evil is any process against a greater good, in which the blue mirror would say no. A belief in Pure Evil is a intollerable process, against a greater good which can never be.

Nothing is a Greater Evil encircled by Good, a Greater Good is a blue mirror that comes naturally when the encircling good cubes itself — ghostlycutter

Who colored the mirror blue? Inquiring minds want to know.

Basic courtesy dictates that you respond to someone you has replied to your topic and in fact in length ...
(Re:¨https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/598900, 6 days ago)