Quote:
Originally Posted by creb
Evil is not something that is absolute across all individuals. It's based on your moral compass that is generally shaped by the society/environment you were raised/live in. Which is why the person you are quoting is fully correct in saying from his perspective, QB is evil, but from QB's perspective he's not.
99% of the QB isn't evil arguments fails to understand this very simple concept. People saying QB is evil are saying so from their perspective.
If it helps, I'll use an exaggerated example to make this crystal clear. Let's take a child rapist. The child rapist has a few screws loose and doesn't think anything he's doing to children is wrong. In fact, his screws are REALLY loose, and he thinks his abuse is actually helping children. From his perspective, he's a shining hero.
Now, from my perspective, he's evil. Do you understand what perspective has to do with labeling something evil or not?
|
You are correct-- we have discussed this already and you missed the earlier part of the discussion. The issue still stands that you have reasons why you believe someone is evil. I agree that mental sickness, etc is not an excuse for an individual not being evil, but it is a mitigating factor. In the case you used as an example, if a child predator is actually that delusional, I would argue that he isn't evil because he is simply insane and his mental facilities are so compromised that he cannot even conceive his actions as wrong. It would be like telling someone that you are a bad person for liking to eat persimmons, or cheese, or whatever.
As I said before, for someone to be evil in my book, there has to be
mens rea, or intent. I think you will agree with me.
The issue I have with deconstructor, is that there is NO evidence (and rather, evidence for quite the contrary) of QB having evil intent. However, he just wants to insist that QB is evil because of the acts he is doing. Claiming that QB has evil intent because his actions are evil is a logical fallacy and circular in argument. What I have issue with is not if someone's definition of evil doesn't correspond to my own, but rather the logic one uses to arrive to that conclusion is fundamentally flawed.
I asked him to consult the Churchill Dilemma. It is actually quite a similar situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle
Any further doubt would be removed by him gloating about Homura's state. Also, saying obviously impossible is 180 backtracking.
|
I didn't view it as gloating, but rather arrogance and condescension.