Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar MichaelJ

I disagree with that first premise; I don't think evil implies some root causation outside the control of the individual. I view evil as a privation of some good. What is good is perfectly natural, and easy to discern: life, health, well-being, and so on. If any of these things are lacking to the individual, that is an evil, generally speaking. Intentionally bringing about such an act in oneself or another is a moral evil.

I think you may be misunderstanding my position on what exactly evil is. Describing it as a "possessive ether from satan" gives evil a positive existence in its own right, and that's simply not how I conceive of it. Evil is lack. It's not the antithesis to good or holiness, because the antithesis of something is itself a thing. Evil isn't a thing, but instead it is the lack of thingness, or some aspect thereof.

Avatar
gray 2y ago

So would you consider siege, blockading, or sanctioning a belligerent country in a time of war an evil since that deprives combatants and noncombatants of resources?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
MichaelJ 2y ago

Yes I would. If sanctions or blockades are used, they should be as targeted as possible. Destroying a belligerent government's ability to produce weapons or other war materiel would be an effective and moral use of siege tactics, but robbing the population of necessary food supplies, for instance, would be immoral.

Thread collapsed