| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so question for all you who call this evil, what would it be if said character did nothing? Is sacrificing yourself really a good act, what happens to people who depend on you...if they die because you sacrificed yourself is it evil on your part? something like this can't be judged as absolute evil because there is no absolute good option here... what this is is a true neutral option because it cannot be judged fairly
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not the killing is direct shouldn't make any difference. It's a paladin's job to protect ALL innocents, not just the ones you see right in front of you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes you don't get the choice to protect everyone, sometimes the only thing you can do is minimalize losses. Paladins should remember they are not gods, they can't always do everything and save the day 100% . part of being a righteous pure soul is remembering humbleness
a paladins job is not to protect everyone but to protect as many people as they can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing through action and inaction are effectively equal, if you're fully aware of the consequences of that inaction. It still comes down to a conscious choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And then sometimes you're going to have a campaign where you as the hero are going to find yourself in a Torchwood situation and there is no third path.
IF it's a roleplaying campaign, you don't have to punish the character by using mechanics because the character will do a good job of punishing themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to point out that is a famous moral dilemma discussed for years. The tram problem.
The tram problem goes as follows: there is a tram traveling down a track towards a fork. One side of the fork has multiple people tied to it. The other side has one. The tram will hit the many people unless you pull a level to send it down the other fork.
The same situation could apply to people walking across the forks. Not tied down. So no third party has any blame.
There are also defined moral reasons to explain how people have been arguing this. I can't for the life of me remember the names. One says that any action or inaction is wrong as it results in death. Utilitarian morals I believe they are called, state that inaction is the wrong choice as action to shift the cart protects more human life.
I believe that when all other options are exhausted, one must approximate to the best of their ability which choice is the objectively better. Inaction or action.
In this case, slaughtering the family is a net good. While inaction is an objectively evil act.
It is not good to simply not kill anyone. It is evil to allow people to die when you had an option to save them where net life is saved
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not good to simply not kill anyone. It is evil to allow people to die when you had an option to save them where net life is saved
No, inaction as in apathy is very much neutral.
You have to be active to be both good and evil.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not good to simply not kill anyone. It is evil to allow people to die when you had an option to save them where net life is savedNo, inaction as in apathy is very much neutral.
You have to be active to be both good and evil.
I disagree. Choosing to be apathetic. Choosing not to take action when you know that inaction will result in death, is still an active choice. Therefore evil.
Apathy caused by not knowing that people will die is neutral. Apathy by choice knowing that people will die is evil
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not the killing is direct shouldn't make any difference. It's a paladin's job to protect ALL innocents, not just the ones you see right in front of you.
That's basically falling into a hostage taker's trap.
"I have five innocent people here. I swear that I'll kill all of them unless the police murder one of their own out here in the street in front of me."
Not killing a police officer doesn't make you responsible for what the hostage-taker does. It's on the hostage-taker.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not good to simply not kill anyone. It is evil to allow people to die when you had an option to save them where net life is savedNo, inaction as in apathy is very much neutral.
You have to be active to be both good and evil.I disagree. Choosing to be apathetic. Choosing not to take action when you know that inaction will result in death, is still an active choice. Therefore evil.
Apathy caused by not knowing that people will die is neutral. Apathy by choice knowing that people will die is evil
So - are you evil for not immediately selling all of your unnecessary worldly goods using them to send AIDs medication to Africa?
If you don't you're being selfish & evil - that medication would save lives!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not good to simply not kill anyone. It is evil to allow people to die when you had an option to save them where net life is savedNo, inaction as in apathy is very much neutral.
You have to be active to be both good and evil.I disagree. Choosing to be apathetic. Choosing not to take action when you know that inaction will result in death, is still an active choice. Therefore evil.
Apathy caused by not knowing that people will die is neutral. Apathy by choice knowing that people will die is evil
That would be far too damning. Are you responsible to help anyone who is hurt or suffering in this world? Everyone who walks past a victim is evil? Like, actively evil, with an evil agenda? What do they gain from it?
Also screw the tram problem because like all "ethical dilemmes", it is framed to stop any creative solution. Framing these ideas in fantasy setting becomes lot more flimsy. Stop the tram. Save everyone. Go back in time, stop the tram before it even began its journey.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I just thought of a plausible scenario in which killing a single family of innocent people would save many many more families.
Think of a Game of Thrones-style Medieval civil war, in which numerous noble families are fighting over a throne. The countryside is being ravaged by war, and two noble families have legitimate claim to the throne. As long as a single member of the rival royal family lives, supporters will flock to and rally around that family in order to put them on the throne; and the supporters have already risked and sacrificed too much already to come to terms and seek peace now. Further, the noble houses on the losing side of this war will face execution, exile, and dispossession of their lands and titles; they have no choice but to fight on to the bitter end for their own survival.
This war has already raged on for a few years, and has led to tens of thousands of innocent people being killed in raids and ten times that number dead because of starvation and being displaced off their lands. As long as the war rages on, many, many more will die. The only thing that will stop this is if peace and stability is returned to the land. But in order to do that, one of the two royal family's entire bloodline must be wiped out, down to the last crying infant in their crib, so that no one can claim a legitimate right to the throne.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that will stop this is if peace and stability is returned to the land. But in order to do that, one of the two royal family's entire bloodline must be wiped out, down to the last crying infant in their crib, so that no one can claim a legitimate right to the throne.
Solution: Kill all of the adults who have been pushing the war and are not innocents, and have all of the women who were not involved directly married off to the winner's allies and all of the children adopted by other families, therefore no longer being a member of the potential royal line. (This solution was actually used historically. Often the winning family would even adopt the kids themselves, making sure that they weren't killed, but pushed into lesser roles of responsibility within the house.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can all think of a scenario in which killing an innocent is the right choice. If your not original enough enjoy
** spoiler omitted **
From there it is just deciding where the line is
First of all what guarantee do I have that killing this innocent actually ends all evil in the world. Second of all, how do we qualify this? Is it all the evil that currently exists, or is it the potential for evil too? In the former case I'm merely stalling for the return of evil, in the latter I'm eliminating free will. Furthermore, the question of "thoughtlessly and instantaneously eliminating evil from the world" and the morality of it has already been explored in fiction, it's called Death Note and spoiler alert, the guy becomes a psychotic megalomaniac. Next consider all the people in the world who would qualify as evil but aren't causing active harm to others. If we're calling inaction evil then everyone in the world who's partaken in Bystander Syndrome is definitely a potential candidate for this, as are shady businessmen who constantly rip people off, thieves, serial adulterers. People who don't kill or attack people but are still considered evil by a world of objective morality.
And then, at the end of the day, even if I can live with all of that, to do all of this I have to personally cut down an innocent. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to tell this individual what's going on, and if he agrees to it, then I'll kill him, because he's willing to sacrifice himself. And if he isn't, I'm going to put my paladin armor back on, leave, and get to work.
I am entirely in agreement with BackHandOfFate, there is no such thing as a greater good, only a lesser evil. In this situation, yes, killing the innocent is in fact a lesser evil than allowing all the other evil in the world to exist. But I'm choosing neither. I choose to tell the innocent he has the option of self-sacrifice, then get to work eliminating the evil of the world myself, the right way. And that is how paladins get it done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Only evil actions can defeat me!" schemes seem really vulnerable to other villains anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that is how paladins get it done.Huzzah!
See that is where evil trips up. Evil masterminds can never defeat a Paladin. They try elaborate trips and traps that rely on the concept of subjective morality and shades of grey.
Paladins don't deal in shades of grey.
Black and white. Good and evil. A shining beacon that isn't afraid of you, isn't intimidated by you, doesn't doubt themselves, and sees the black and white instantly.
"Ahahahaha! Kill that innocent Paladin or I shall slaughter 30 other innocents!"
"No."
"What? But... If you don't then you're evil because you let me kill 30 innocents!"
"No. You're evil because you killed 30 innocents. I couldn't stop you, true, but I stopped you from turning me into an instrument of evil by slaying this innocent."
"What? But... You're supposed to be morally conflicted and paralyzed by the conundrum."
"It's not a conundrum villain. You want me to kill an innocent. No matter how you cut it, that is evil."
"But, allowing 30 innocents to die is..."
"On you actually. I don't want you to do it, I'll try to talk you out of it, I'll do everything in my power to prevent it that isn't evil. It's not evil to fail."
"But the real world doesn't work like that!"
"My real world does. Now, I warn you. If you kill those innocents then I will find you and I will end you. You can walk away right now or prepare to face my unbridled and unrelenting wrath."
Pure black-and-white morality carries so many unfortunate implications for me that I'm not sure where to begin.
I can understand those implications, but only when you see the paladin imposing them on you. That's the big difference, if you kill that innocent kid to wipe out all evil, a well-played paladin is going to understand, even if he doesn't agree. The well-played paladin understands that while he lives in a world of black and white, other people don't, and it should only color his actions, not how he perceives the actions of others. The well-played paladin strives to be an example of purity in his actions and choices, but not enforce them on others whose motivations do justify their actions (unless of course they go too far, to the point of actually being Evil).
But I totally get not liking the implications of the black and white mentality in a world filled with people who play Lawful Stupid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Evil masterminds can never defeat a Paladin.
I'm interested in this "Undefeatable by Evil" class feature Paladins seem to have. What level is it acquired at? Is it (Ex), (Su), or (Sp)? What sort of action does it require?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only unfortunate if you move into the black frequently enough that you fear those who carry the light with them.
Pure black-and-white morality carries so many unfortunate implications for me that I'm not sure where to begin.
That kind of reasoning was used, and is still being used, by many different tyrants and monsters. Even in fantasy, people who use it are either justifying horrifying agendas with it or are insane and feel as if they must destroy everything that doesn't fit their narrow definition of "right."
The problem with black-and-white morality is that it doesn't allow for empathy. You are either good or bad. If you are bad, you are irredeemable. If you are good, then you are infallible. There's no nuance, no allowance for mistakes.
It's only unfortunate if you move into the black frequently enough that you fear those who carry the light with them.
Pure black-and-white morality carries so many unfortunate implications for me that I'm not sure where to begin.That kind of reasoning was used, and is still being used, by many different tyrants and monsters. Even in fantasy, people who use it are either justifying horrifying agendas with it or are insane and feel as if they must destroy everything that doesn't fit their narrow definition of "right."
The problem with black-and-white morality is that it doesn't allow for empathy. You are either good or bad. If you are bad, you are irredeemable. If you are good, then you are infallible. There's no nuance, no allowance for mistakes.
That isn't true.
You can have empathy AND be black and white. You can understand why someone would do something evil because they convinced themselves that it was the only way or that it was justified. You also understand that they were wrong and need to understand their mistake and atone for it.
Someone who does something evil, who realizes it was evil, who is sorry for doing it is redeemable. Irredeemable people are those who do evil, refuse to acknowledge it as evil (or don't care), and aren't sorry about it.
Take the idea of the person who killed an innocent to save a bunch of other innocents.
Did they do something evil? Yes. They killed an innocent. Do they feel bad about it? Most sane beings would. Do they admit that killing the innocent was evil? If so, then yes, they are 100% redeemable.
Where the irredeemable part comes in is:
Did they do something evil? If they say, "No. I did it to save people so it's fine!"
Then there might be a problem.
Do they feel bad about it? If they say, "Nope! I sleep perfectly fine!"
Then there is a problem.
Do they admit it was evil? If they say, "No. If I have to kill an innocent to save a dozen other...
It is true.
There are no shades of grey, no degrees. Either something is good, or it is evil. All evil is equal: a robber, a murderer, and tyrant are all equally evil, because evil is black. There is no such thing as "lesser evil" or "greater evil." If there is, then you are introducing shades of grey into the equation, and it is black-and-white morality no longer.
It is true.
There are no shades of grey, no degrees. Either something is good, or it is evil. All evil is equal: a robber, a murderer, and tyrant are all equally evil, because evil is black. There is no such thing as "lesser evil" or "greater evil." If there is, then you are introducing shades of grey into the equation, and it is black-and-white morality no longer.
Except this discussion is solely about life or death of innocents. It has nothing to do with lesser crimes. Moral relativism has no place in a discussion about weather an innocent person deserves to be killed for the benefit of others. Killing someone who doesn't deserve it is evil. We're not talking about pickpocketing, or carjacking, or someone who steals to feed his family. We're talking straight up Murder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is true.
There are no shades of grey, no degrees. Either something is good, or it is evil. All evil is equal: a robber, a murderer, and tyrant are all equally evil, because evil is black. There is no such thing as "lesser evil" or "greater evil." If there is, then you are introducing shades of grey into the equation, and it is black-and-white morality no longer.You're confusing good and evil being binary to the reaction to various actions being binary.
All evil IS evil. That doesn't mean that different crimes don't deserve different punishments. That is a fallacy.
This. Just because act A is more evil than act B doesn't inherently keep act B from being evil. Because act A exists in no way makes act B a good act even in an attempt to stop A.
It is true.
There are no shades of grey, no degrees. Either something is good, or it is evil. All evil is equal: a robber, a murderer, and tyrant are all equally evil, because evil is black. There is no such thing as "lesser evil" or "greater evil." If there is, then you are introducing shades of grey into the equation, and it is black-and-white morality no longer.You're confusing good and evil being binary to the reaction to various actions being binary.
All evil IS evil. That doesn't mean that different crimes don't deserve different punishments. That is a fallacy.
Why do different crimes deserve different punishments? I thought that all evil IS evil? Motivation does not matter. Degree does not matter.
Either an act is evil or it is not. If you start introducing degrees of evil, then you are introducing moral relativism, and that is evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"For the greater good" is one of the absolutely most characteristic catchphrases of the Lawful Evil alignment. "Can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" is another. Concepts like "net loss of life" is bread and butter to Lawful Evil. And when you question such a character, they will bring up stupid black and white situations like the tram problem.
See, Lawful is all about the group before the individual. And more specifically, the vaguely defined, not personally known group of, say, an organization, a city, or a country. Or a race.
And Evil, because these are the people who consider killing a way to improve the situation, even killing innocents. Not in self-defense, not even of declared enemies, but innocents. As soon as that becomes okay to you, you have that little E on your character sheet.
But it takes a while to get there. Sometimes, rarely, there is no way out that you can see. You may have to do awful things to save people. And you will be doing an evil act if you do. But as has repeatedly been stated, a single act does not force an alignment change. But once you start rationalizing it (the hallmark of Evil), spouting nonsense like "I did it for the greater good", you're done.
Why do different crimes deserve different punishments? I thought that all evil IS evil? Motivation does not matter. Degree does not matter.Either an act is evil or it is not. If you start introducing degrees of evil, then you are introducing moral relativism, and that is evil.
The reason you use different punishments is to change behavior. It is to rehabilitate. It is to redeem.
You don't hand out the punishment for murder to theft because of a number of factors. The least of which is the threat to life. After all, if every theif thinks they'll be killed if arrested then they are less likely to surrender than fight to the death.
That endangers themselves and law enforcement.
Why redeem evil? It is evil. It will inevitably take advantage of your kindness to stab you in the back.
Evil is evil. It can only ever be evil. There is no redemption to one who believes in black-and-white morality. You walk a straight and narrow path, and if you deviate from it, you can never return.
If a person kills an innocent, then they are now and forever evil. Nothing they do can ever absolve them of that. Their motivation does not matter. Their circumstance does not matter. All that matters is that they did the deed. All they will ever be from that point on is a murderer.
Why redeem evil? It is evil. It will inevitably take advantage of your kindness to stab you in the back.
Evil is evil. It can only ever be evil. There is no redemption to one who believes in black-and-white morality. You walk a straight and narrow path, and if you deviate from it, you can never return.
If a person kills an innocent, then they are now and forever evil. Nothing they do can ever absolve them of that. Their motivation does not matter. Their circumstance does not matter. All that matters is that they did the deed. All they will ever be from that point on is a murderer.
I think you are still having trouble with separating the 'act' from the person. Evil acts are indeed evil. Evil people are evil at that point in time. But that can change. When it comes to actions that decide life or death, Good and evil does not change.
So... "Greater Good" from the heroes... no one mentions Mouse Guard?
The very essence of the guard is summed up by <spoiler>* when talking about <spoiler>** in Chapter Six: "<snip>... is a true guard. He would rather we defend the greater good."
This, then, is how the phrase is to be used, and it's proper context: placing the good of others over the good of yourself. Whatever is best for you is to be set aside for whatever is best for the most other folk: those whom you seem to serve. This is a lawful and good mindset - not a chaotic or even neutral one, to be sure; and certainly can be reflected in certain lawful neutral tenets (though not as described in Mouse Guard, with it's individualistic-based tendencies and respect for the local authorities and the local people and the duty focused around allowing them dignity and freedom rather than imposing a law or order of their own design)***.
Why redeem evil? It is evil. It will inevitably take advantage of your kindness to stab you in the back.
Evil is evil. It can only ever be evil. There is no redemption to one who believes in black-and-white morality. You walk a straight and narrow path, and if you deviate from it, you can never return.
If a person kills an innocent, then they are now and forever evil. Nothing they do can ever absolve them of that. Their motivation does not matter. Their circumstance does not matter. All that matters is that they did the deed. All they will ever be from that point on is a murderer.
Well you redeem evil because doing so destroys evil and births good.
You don't understand black and white morality if you think redemption isn't possible. Just as good can fall to evil, evil can ascend to good.
All black and white morality means is that evil is evil and good is good.
Where you seem to not understand is that ACTIONS are good or evil. People can choose to change. Acts aren't mutable.
I do understand. Black-and-white morality is about absolutes. It is binary, an either-or way of looking at the world. Things are clearly categorized. There is no ambiguity. Evil is evil. There is no little evil. There is no big evil. There is only evil. If you look at it any other way, it is not black-and-white any more.
If some acts are "more" evil than others, then that necessitates that moral absolutism is the way the world works. That some evil acts are a lighter shade of grey than others. But if you believe that, then you cannot believe that "evil is evil," because then evil can be defined in more than one way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why redeem evil? It is evil. It will inevitably take advantage of your kindness to stab you in the back.
Evil is evil. It can only ever be evil. There is no redemption to one who believes in black-and-white morality. You walk a straight and narrow path, and if you deviate from it, you can never return.
If a person kills an innocent, then they are now and forever evil. Nothing they do can ever absolve them of that. Their motivation does not matter. Their circumstance does not matter. All that matters is that they did the deed. All they will ever be from that point on is a murderer.
Well you redeem evil because doing so destroys evil and births good.
You don't understand black and white morality if you think redemption isn't possible. Just as good can fall to evil, evil can ascend to good.
All black and white morality means is that evil is evil and good is good.
Where you seem to not understand is that ACTIONS are good or evil. People can choose to change. Acts aren't mutable.
I do understand. Black-and-white morality is about absolutes. It is binary, an either-or way of looking at the world. Things are clearly categorized. There is no ambiguity. Evil is evil. There is no little evil. There is no big evil. There is only evil. If you look at it any other way, it is not black-and-white any more.
If some acts are "more" evil than others, then that necessitates that moral absolutism is the way the world works. That some evil acts are a lighter shade of grey than others. But if you believe that, then you cannot believe that "evil is evil," because then evil can be defined in more than one way.
I am not sure you do. Think of it this way: they are saying that an act which is evil cannot be NOT evil. There are still different sizes of evil, but it does not change that they are evil, and not neutral or good. They're not actually arguing that there are not DEGREES of evil, just that evil cannot be well, not-evil.
A good analogy could be French fries. For example, you can have a small, medium, or super-sized bag of French fries served to you at McDonald's. Yet, B&W morality states that they're ALL French fries.
...just in different sizes, but that they are French fries does not change. It's part of the nature of fries too, that there can be a bunch of them or just a few.
Gray morality though, is like the dieter who looks at the different sizes available to them at McDonald's. They consider that because it is a SMALL sack of French fries after all, and that since the fries are made out of potatoes, you really could consider them a vegetable and therefore healthy.
DM ruled it was good so it's good. That's the end of it.
I am not sure you do. Think of it this way: they are saying that an act which is evil cannot be NOT evil. There are still different sizes of evil, but it does not change that they are evil, and not neutral or good. They're not actually arguing that there are not DEGREES of evil, just that evil cannot be well,...Why redeem evil? It is evil. It will inevitably take advantage of your kindness to stab you in the back.
Evil is evil. It can only ever be evil. There is no redemption to one who believes in black-and-white morality. You walk a straight and narrow path, and if you deviate from it, you can never return.
If a person kills an innocent, then they are now and forever evil. Nothing they do can ever absolve them of that. Their motivation does not matter. Their circumstance does not matter. All that matters is that they did the deed. All they will ever be from that point on is a murderer.
Well you redeem evil because doing so destroys evil and births good.
You don't understand black and white morality if you think redemption isn't possible. Just as good can fall to evil, evil can ascend to good.
All black and white morality means is that evil is evil and good is good.
Where you seem to not understand is that ACTIONS are good or evil. People can choose to change. Acts aren't mutable.
I do understand. Black-and-white morality is about absolutes. It is binary, an either-or way of looking at the world. Things are clearly categorized. There is no ambiguity. Evil is evil. There is no little evil. There is no big evil. There is only evil. If you look at it any other way, it is not black-and-white any more.
If some acts are "more" evil than others, then that necessitates that moral absolutism is the way the world works. That some evil acts are a lighter shade of grey than others. But if you believe that, then you cannot believe that "evil is evil," because then evil can be defined in more than one way.
Evil can never be not-evil. That to me is the problematic part of all this. That one little absolute statement. It does not require you to think, or question. It is evil, so condemn it. This act is good, so don't think about it.
People who think in black-and-white never think about morality, because why would they have to? Evil is evil, and good is good. Just do these things, and don't do those things. Oh, those people who do those things? They do them because they are evil.
It is the product of our animal brains, the part of use that is most brutish and nasty and clanlike. They are not like us, therefore they are evil. It is a philosophy that is responsible for so much evil in the world that I cannot help but see it as evil myself.
I do understand. Black-and-white morality is about absolutes. It is binary, an either-or way of looking at the world. Things are clearly categorized. There is no ambiguity. Evil is evil. There is no little evil. There is no big evil. There is only evil. If you look at it any other way, it is not black-and-white any more.If some acts are "more" evil than others, then that necessitates that moral absolutism is the way the world works. That some evil acts are a lighter shade of grey than others. But if you believe that, then you cannot believe that "evil is evil," because then evil can be defined in more than one way.
No, you don't understand. Clearly.
You can have different flavors of evil just like you can have different flavors of kool-aid. That is still black and white because cherry kool-aid is kool-aid just like grape kool-aid is kool-aid.
"Shades of Grey" morality would be you saying grape kool-aid isn't kool-aid because cherry kool-aid is kool-aid.
So, here we go:
Killing an innocent is evil. It doesn't matter the circumstances. If you kill an innocent it is ALWAYS an evil act.
That is black and white morality.
Killing an innocent is evil, unless you are killing the innocent to save more innocents in which case killing the innocent is good.
That is shades of grey morality.
In short.
You can say two things are evil in black and white. You can even say X is more evil than Y. You just can't say X is evil save for under Z circumstance which makes X okay.
But that's my problem. You've defined killing an innocent as an evil act. What about killing in that circumstance makes it suddenly taboo, while killing under other circumstances okay? Killing is clearly a grey act, since doing it in some circumstances is okay, while doing it in other circumstances is evil. By adding that qualifier to the act of killing, you introduce shades of grey into a black-and-white system. Is killing evil, or is it good? You just can't that killing is evil save for under the circumstance that the victim is not innocent which makes killing okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil can never be not-evil. That to me is the problematic part of all this. That one little absolute statement. It does not require you to think, or question. It is evil, so condemn it. This act is good, so don't think about it.
People who think in black-and-white never think about morality, because why would they have to? Evil is evil, and good is good. Just do these things, and don't do those things. Oh, those people who do those things? They do them because they are evil.
It is the product of our animal brains, the part of use that is most brutish and nasty and clanlike. They are not like us, therefore they are evil. It is a philosophy that is responsible for so much evil in the world that I cannot help but see it as evil myself.
Ventnor, I think you are still missing the multiple posts addressing that portion of your argument. You need to separate the act from the person. Multiple times it has been stated that good people can do evil things and that evil people can do good things.
You act as if we don't have any reason behind why we view an act as evil and instead paint opposing viewpoints as blind and unthinking when it is actually you who are forcing oversimplication into a complex topic. For someone who accuses others of being 'moral absolutists' you sure are making a lot of rigid assumptions about the way other people think.