Someone did something “evil” to me and I got in big trouble and had to face my worst fear, then I decided to believe that she did what she did because she was misguided and thought she did the right thing and not because she’s evil. The woman couldn’t look at me for a few weeks but then she turned around completely and smiled and has been very nice to me since. We never discussed it and what she did and I never questioned her on why. Most people I know would not have forgiven such deed but I’m glad I did decide to look at it differently. By doing so everything healed for everyone very fast.
I feel like people can say evil dont exist so they can have justification in their evil acts, theirs no accountability so it makes it easier for them to do evil in peace.
You are right💯 nothing is right or wrong until you look at it in that way or until you put that importance on whatever you’re determining to be right or wrong. As a above so below, as within so without
A lot of people don’t understand that we literally individually create the things and scenes we see and live based on the beliefs we have and our thought patterns and feelings… whatever you feel becomes real✨💕
Respectfully, there people who (1.) who have committed heinous evil and (2.) they genuinely believe that they themselves are evil people. (3.) They are also genuinely HAPPY this way. #truth #itiswhatitis
Defending the concept of universals and realism against nominalism involves a deep understanding of how these philosophical frameworks impact our comprehension of moral values and metaphysics. Realism, supported by philosophers like Plato and Thomas Aquinas, posits that universals-abstract properties or qualities-exist independently of the objects in which they manifest. In contrast, nominalism, as argued by William of Ockham, claims that these universals are merely names we use to group similar objects, without any real existence beyond the mind's categorization. Realism asserts that universals such as "goodness" or "beauty" have an existence that transcends individual instances. When we recognize goodness in different actions or beauty in various forms, we are identifying the same underlying universal quality. This recognition is not merely a linguistic convenience but an acknowledgment of a real, abstract entity that exists beyond the particulars. Universals provide a stable foundation for understanding and communicating shared qualities across different entities. This perspective is crucial when addressing the nature of moral values, particularly the concepts of good and evil. Realism maintains that goodness is a universal that exists independently and objectively. Therefore, moral truths derived from this universal are also objective and not subject to individual interpretation or societal variation. Goodness, as a universal, provides a fixed reference point for evaluating actions and behaviors. In this context, the existence of evil can only be understood through the lens of universals. According to Aquinas, evil is not a substance in itself but rather a privation or absence of good. For evil to be recognized as such, there must be an understanding of what constitutes goodness. Without the universal of goodness, there would be no standard against which to measure or identify evil. Thus, the reality of universals is necessary for the conceptualization and existence of evil. Nominalism, on the other hand, struggles to provide a robust framework for moral values. If universals like goodness are merely names without independent existence, then moral values become subjective, contingent on individual or cultural perspectives. This leads to moral relativism, where the concepts of good and evil lose their objective grounding and can vary widely across different contexts. Defending the existence of universals and adopting a realist perspective is essential for maintaining the objectivity of moral values. The universal of goodness provides the necessary foundation for identifying and understanding evil as a privation of good. Without acknowledging the reality of universals, our grasp of moral truths becomes unstable, leading to a fragmented and relativistic view of ethics. The notion that there is no real evil, only "errors," inherently contradicts itself because errors can only be recognized as such in relation to the concept of correctness. For something to be deemed an error, there must be an underlying standard or idea of what constitutes a correct or proper action. This standard is rooted in the existence of universal values or truths. Without acknowledging these universals, it becomes impossible to define or recognize an error in the first place. For instance, when we say that a certain action is an error, we are implicitly referring to an expected correct action from which this error deviates. This expected correct action is derived from a universal concept of what is right or good. Thus, recognizing an error inherently involves recognizing a deviation from a universal standard of goodness or correctness. If we were to deny the existence of universals, as nominalism suggests, then we would lack the very criteria needed to judge any action as right or wrong, correct or erroneous. Errors cannot exist in a vacuum; they are identified and understood only in contrast to an ideal or correct state of affairs. Therefore, the argument that there is no real evil but only errors ultimately requires the acceptance of universals to make sense. Errors, like the concept of evil as a privation of good, depend on the recognition of universal standards of goodness and correctness. In summary, denying the existence of real evil by claiming there are only errors inadvertently supports the need for universal standards. These standards are essential for defining and understanding both errors and the concept of good, thus reinforcing the argument for the existence of universals and the realist perspective.
An error does not have to be something that goes against objective correctness, but rather an action/belief that contradicts another one held by the same individual. Regardless of how one defines right or wrong contradiction can and does exist within every individual regardless of subjective or objective truths. If anything, the concept of evil is objective and therefore a useless concept that veils the real causes of "evil acts" or errors: the misguided, conflicted state.
@@acceptingtheuniverse Your perspective on errors suggests that they are merely contradictions within an individual's beliefs or actions, rather than deviations from an objective standard of correctness. However, this view overlooks the necessity of an objective framework to define what constitutes an "error" or "correctness" in the first place. The very idea of an error implies a deviation from a norm or a standard, which presupposes the existence of an objective truth or a universal principle. In the absence of such universal principles, the concept of an "error" becomes meaningless, as there would be no standard to measure it against. The notion that an error is simply a contradiction within an individual's beliefs does not address the inherent need for a consistent and coherent framework that distinguishes right from wrong. Contradictions themselves are identified and understood within the context of an overarching logical structure, which points to the existence of universal truths. Furthermore, the dismissal of the concept of evil as merely objective and thus useless ignores the moral dimensions of human actions. Evil acts are not just errors or conflicts; they represent profound violations of moral laws that are recognized universally, regardless of individual beliefs. By acknowledging universal principles of good, we can understand evil as the absence or negation of these principles, similar to how darkness is the absence of light. If we were to accept your perspective as true, how would we deal with societies that engage in practices such as child sacrifice because, within their worldview, it is considered correct and does not contradict their beliefs? For them, such actions are not seen as errors. Without an objective standard, we would lack a basis to universally condemn and address such practices, demonstrating the necessity of universal moral principles to navigate and judge actions across diverse cultures and belief systems. Moreover, in the absence of universals, a revolutionary group that believes there is no objective good or evil, only individual interpretations of what is right or wrong, might seek to impose their beliefs globally through force. Such groups, convinced that their version of what is right is the ultimate truth, are willing to carry out revolutions to enforce their ideology. This mindset has historically led to catastrophic events like Nazism and Communism, where the belief in a subjective moral order justified horrific actions and widespread suffering. The recognition of universal moral principles serves as a safeguard against such radical ideologies and the chaos they bring, underscoring the critical importance of universals in maintaining a just and stable society.
@@acceptingtheuniverse If legislators operated under the premise that an error is merely something that contradicts an individual's personal beliefs, it would be impossible to establish a coherent legal system that judges actions as right or wrong. In a functioning legal system, laws are based on shared principles and values that reflect the collective understanding of justice, morality, and social order. These principles provide the objective standards necessary to determine the legality and morality of actions, enabling the consistent application of justice. For example, actions such as theft, assault, and murder are universally condemned and penalized, not because they conflict with individual beliefs, but because they violate the shared moral and ethical standards of society. If we were to abandon the concept of universal truths and base our legal judgments solely on individual interpretations, we would be left without a reliable framework to adjudicate disputes and enforce laws. This would lead to a fragmented and chaotic society where actions could not be consistently judged or penalized. The stability and functionality of any legal system depend on the acceptance of certain universal principles that transcend individual perspectives, providing a common ground for justice and order. The penal code of the United States, for instance, is built upon the recognition of fundamental rights and wrongs that are deemed essential for the well-being and security of its citizens. These laws are not arbitrary but are grounded in the collective understanding of what constitutes harm and injustice. Without this shared foundation, the law would lose its authority and efficacy, resulting in a society where personal beliefs dictate actions without any accountability or coherence.
@@acceptingtheuniversewell answered 👏 I think listening to you with an open mind is one of the best tools I have until my books arrive - that's where the magic happens - understanding a concept I never previously really considered. 😊
I teach my kids “there are no bad/evil people, there are only people who make bad/evil choices.” I agree with your video 💯 I always feel pity and forgiveness for those who commit murder or even shady presidents; not just the victims. Deep down, we are all innocent souls making choices in life.
I'd been able to get about 96% of the way there, yet something you said fairly early on in this video helped to ease me home on it. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I hate it when I see it so it’s an observation not a belief, but based on observer effect I guess you’re right anyway. If I just wouldn’t pay attention all this heinous stuff I’m seeing would stop existing
Each video there’s clear evidence of your thinking process and humilty… The objectiveness with your approach, matching with the Socratic method… it’s enlightening
I like the idea, as Aurelius said at the beginning of Book Two, that someone cannot hurt you because you are in *control* of yourself, and Jesus said that, too, or actually maybe Paul-anyway, I think this does not lead to saying each side of a given conflict is equally apportioned with virtue. There are many people in the world who eat animals, and those who don't. If it is wrong to eat animals, then the ones who do are more wrong. Same with hurting the innocent in the name of a certain gender's "rights. "
You went into this there, after I paused to write that, as I thought you might, but I still think the overwhelming sway of this kind of inquiry is a cheapening of any sense of virtue, at all.
Hilariously, Ryan Holiday talked about how people don't "like "when he talks about virtue, and it's like, Ryan. People just think you're *wrong* about your virtue, not uncalled-for.
If there's good theirs evil 😂, but for real when a person commits a crime and wants to destory others, what do you call that so that person is still morally good makes no sense.
Thank you sir once again for a perspicuous explanation of a difficult paradoxical concept to understand! I find the below parable a useful illustration of the subject: It is said that one day the Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him, saying all kind of rude words. The Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man, “Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?” The young man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, “It would belong to me, because I bought the gift.” The Buddha smiled and said, “That is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself.”
“What could be worse than to live with the fact you are a murderer?”. To be robbed of your ability to make any sort of decision, live any sort of experience, be any sort of person; aka being murdered
That's assuming that all there is to existence is our human life here on earth. The very atoms that make up your body do not disappear when you die, they merely shift in position as they always have since before your birth. You existed before your birth and will exist after your death and maybe it isnt "you" in the sense youre familiar, but rather "us" the entire universe
@@Maxx00panning back to a level of abstraction that is completely outside human experience simply isn’t helpful. “In a million years it won’t matter” is much the same. We are here, now, as human beings, and the life of a human being is what we concern ourselves with while living. Your line of reasoning is fundamentally inhuman, life-denying. “I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.”
What if a person causes you brain damage that results in you losing control over your actions and becoming a murderer later? Their actions have influenced you morally which was the criteria in this video for harming someone which is an insanely stupid definition by the way. Also what if I'm a psychopath who doesn't feel bad at all for murdering the children of a family? But the parents are so struck by grief that they become depressed, lie in bed all day while wasting away and then they kill themselves after a decade of suffering. All of reality just contradicts this stupid video, I don't care if Socrates was the one who said that stuff he was absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately, we do live in a time where mind control is just entertainment and a competition. Purposely hacking humans without their knowledge or vonsebt, to dismantle them and take over in order to play their character instead of training them or raising them to reach their highest potential. It is evil that needs to be erased from reality so we can live freely. Evil in reverse is live.
I'm Christian, but I think the Buddhists explain it the best. It's not evil; it's ignorance. And yet it's so easy to fall into anger against those committing egregious harm... I don't think recognition of evil is so deeply relative. It's somewhat relative, of course! But across cultures, if we spoke to each other truthfully and exhaustively, we would agree more than one expects about what constitutes harm.
What do you think about that elderly woman in French that has been raped by at least 50 men. All gathered by her husband so they could do so. She was married to him since she was 18 and has 3 sons with that man I can't help but feel but a lot of emotions and how evil it is
This is a tough one for me. I understand what another viewer wrote with regard to a child being harmed; however, even if you were egregiously harmed as a child you can reach a point, as an adult, where you can take back your liberty. You must work at it. You must actively seek peace. If you do, however, I really believe that you can have peace and be "unharmed" in your present state. For me anyway, as long as I kept wishing for vindication and justice, I had no peace. I was still allowing myself to be harmed because I was putting a condition on my happiness that was out of my control. I hope that makes some sort of sense.
Just because politicians and ideologues promote a partisan/Manichaen good/evil view doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist; that is a logical fallacy. Claiming that someone who is robbed or murdered is not "harmed" is trying to redefine words beyond any meaningful point. The Stoic view that only you are responsible for your mental well-being should not be misinterpreted in the way you do to claim no actions are wrong. Trying to redefine "evil" so it doesn't exist is an intellectually dishonest approach to the subject. Commonly "evil" means intentionally acting in ways beyond normal selfishness that causes severe damage to other people or society in general. Unless you take the Nihilistic/amoral position that anything is acceptable, then evil is real.
The word "evil" is aways used as a way to dehumanize others so you can justify your hate and potentially malicious acts against them. Those who we would ordinarily call "evil" are just as human as any of us, I met two psychopaths and although they are shady, both by some of their behaviors but also what they say, they are also human, which suffer, go to trouble, had cried, have vulnerabilities, hopes, desires and dreams. The idea that evil actually exists aways comes from our own ignorance of trying to comprenend them, why they do what they do, and for them it makes perfectly sense, we may not like It, but our arbitrary moral values are no superior than theirs. This is not being nihilistic, since ethics itself is objective and universal, but in order to be an ethical person, you would have to avoid telling yourself and other people how they should be, by recognizing what we are all doing and contemplating Nature, we naturally won't dehumanize others, we will value more actions in themselves instead of intentions or consequences, ethically universalizing our actions indirectly striving for the Good.
Saying evil doesn’t exists does not mean that there are things people do that actually detriment their human experience in this earth, as an inherently social species, us humans need to be in social settings to survive, making certain actions and attitudes inconvenient for those social settings or conditions we need to survive, that does not mean that those actions are inherently evil in the sense of something that is totally destructive, sadic, perverse and even demonic. For example with violence which is usually seen as evil. Violence is not inherently evil, is just another force that exists in nature, we see it all the time everywhere and history shows that violence has existed in every part and time of the earth's evolution, it is a force that is also necessary for survival most of the times, that does not mean that taking violence out of a context where is necessary cannot be problematic and unecessary, of course it does. There's a lot of nonsensical violence nowadays in human socities, there's so much inconvenient violence that fragments us and distract us, but still that does not mean its inherently evil.
I think that part of the definition of evil is a lack of conscience, regret and empathy for the victim. Often times even expending to sadism, taking pleasure in hurting others. Otherwise it is more accurate to desribe something as wrongdoing or immoral, but not evil in my opinion.
I get what you're saying, but the title is misleading. If someone harms a child. Whether you call them ignorant to the truth or misguided, an evil was commited/created. Therefore evil exists.
Been down that line of thinking. A path of non-obective views. Maliable by self. No universal absolutes. Take a look at history and today as what this view and belief system leads to. Doctors mutilating children, cause the children feel a certain way. And parents consenting to it. Centralized power hungry government imposing ideology without vote. Dictatorships. Wars. Censorship. I Respectfully disagree with you. Whether we like to admit it or not, really, we all know what is absolutely wrong. As philosophical as we like to get, to stop calling out those who intentionally cause absolute wrongs, evil, always leads to a degrading society when we let them. That is absolutely true.
Morality is incredibly subjective based on cultures, time periods, religious/spiritual beliefs, personal opinion, etc. Morality not being subjective is philosophy 101. However, certain truths do seem to permeate most cultures. Like do not murder it is wrong, or do not harm children. Certainly though, morality is subjective. We see examples of this in society every day.
@@chrissyp9003 Philosophy 101 discusses the matter. It does not impose that morality is subjective. Morality can be subjective. It can also be objective. If certain acts are accepted in a society. Does that make them moral?
@@diesel8869Within that society yes “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. For instance, Israelites and Palestinians both believe they are acting morally. Some Church members believe homosexuality is immoral and others absolutely don’t.
3:20 you say action of murder does make murderer „morally worse” but doubt existence of Evil. It’s a contradiction. What you practice here is called relativism. Nietzsche fought this type of thinking tooth and nail
01:21 🤔 Socrates posited the belief that there is no inherent evil, suggesting that all harmful actions ultimately harm the doer rather than the victim. 03:25 🧠 Wrongful actions stem from misunderstanding and misguidance rather than inherent malice, challenging the notion of absolute good and evil. 06:38 💬 Engaging in dialogue with those holding opposing views can lead to a deeper understanding and a more empathetic perspective, diminishing polarisation and hostility. 12:48 ⚖ Responding to wrongdoing with anger or violence only perpetuates the cycle of harm, as justice is inherent in the consequences of one's actions rather than seeking retaliation
There is a mix of two fallacies that gather this conclusion: One is the inexact limit fallacy, this fallacy will make you think that when the ambiguous middle of the axis (in this case good and evil) is big and inexact, the middle don´t exist and therefore, the two sides of the edges divided by the middle nether. The other is the Nirvana fallacy, which is thinking that if a perfect solution does not exist, the problem in question is unsolvable and therefore neglectible. Good and Bad are imperfect concepts that where created by imperfect creatures (us humans), there are a big grey in morality and is hard to draw a line to when evil or good starts, but if you really look at the end of the two axis, is clearly that good and evil exist (despite the imperfection in both concepts). The sole idea that you can think of evil as simply "a result of confusion" is an evidence of what lucky and good person you are. But the reality is that evil exist and can harm you guiltlessly.
I feel as though every single person is seeing their own version of the "truth," "good," "evil" via their unique lens of the world. This lens can be shaped by innumerable variables. I feel like those who polarize issues are failing themselves because they are not digging deep enough to appreciate other's view points and how those perspectives have been shaped. Without understanding of one another, hatred can follow polarization.
Evil and good does exist but under the layer of this duality is unity where all is one. A difficult thing to wrap the mind around. To make the play/matrix/simulation/game work unity must trick the individualised person into thinking there is good/evil or there will be no contrast which the game needs to work. It would be like drawing on paper with a white pen...you won't see it. You need contrast to observe the unity as the individual. You need evil to see good. The paradoxes of life.
You've actually presented a compelling case for why good and evil do not inherently exist; they are not standalone entities but rather reflections of our actions. What we label as 'good' or 'evil' entirely depends on individual behaviors and the outcomes they produce. Your analogy of needing contrast to perceive unity within the 'game' reinforces this view: good and evil are constructs we use to interpret and categorize our experiences for a better understanding of the world around us. So, these concepts do not exist independently but are continually defined and redefined by our actions and their perceived impact within our social and moral contexts.
Your logic may have a flaw. Evil occurs in human nature the moment a person chooses to obey the ego and violate their conscience. That is called an evil action. Evil is a choice. It is not a constant.
Um vídeo sobre nanoparticulas de ouro em cremes seria um excelente tópico para um vídeo. Será que é perigoso, bom para a pele, incluindo as dos jovens adultos ou inconclusivo?
Sometimes are no other choices than distance cause pple are not necessarily Wilkins to be honest ! If my son comes back and understand they only kidnapped my son...! And how much my love life suffered ! The only way is silence surrender and cooping by being the best you can
Socrates said there was no evil because he never met my aunt. 😂
That's actually hilarious 🤭 Now I'm hoping to hear stories... LOLLLL
@@clarepellerin Let's just say the family called her the Devil's Nanny behind her back 😆
Someone did something “evil” to me and I got in big trouble and had to face my worst fear, then I decided to believe that she did what she did because she was misguided and thought she did the right thing and not because she’s evil. The woman couldn’t look at me for a few weeks but then she turned around completely and smiled and has been very nice to me since. We never discussed it and what she did and I never questioned her on why.
Most people I know would not have forgiven such deed but I’m glad I did decide to look at it differently. By doing so everything healed for everyone very fast.
she was happy because she realised she will not get any trouble for what she did to you. Maybe?
I feel like people can say evil dont exist so they can have justification in their evil acts, theirs no accountability so it makes it easier for them to do evil in peace.
You are right💯 nothing is right or wrong until you look at it in that way or until you put that importance on whatever you’re determining to be right or wrong. As a above so below, as within so without
A lot of people don’t understand that we literally individually create the things and scenes we see and live based on the beliefs we have and our thought patterns and feelings… whatever you feel becomes real✨💕
socrates did NOT say that there is no evil, he said instead: 'No evil can happen to a good man either in this life or in death”
Socrates also said "no one knowingly does evil" and "all evil is the result of ignorance"
and since we all give ourselves excuses and do not see when we do evil then all bets are off i guess
Evil is the privation of good. God is goodness himself.
Some other questions to consider oneself is..."Who is doing the most harm? What is the reality of it? Is any one else affected?"
Respectfully, there people who (1.) who have committed heinous evil and (2.) they genuinely believe that they themselves are evil people. (3.) They are also genuinely HAPPY this way. #truth #itiswhatitis
Defending the concept of universals and realism against nominalism involves a deep understanding of how these philosophical frameworks impact our comprehension of moral values and metaphysics. Realism, supported by philosophers like Plato and Thomas Aquinas, posits that universals-abstract properties or qualities-exist independently of the objects in which they manifest. In contrast, nominalism, as argued by William of Ockham, claims that these universals are merely names we use to group similar objects, without any real existence beyond the mind's categorization.
Realism asserts that universals such as "goodness" or "beauty" have an existence that transcends individual instances. When we recognize goodness in different actions or beauty in various forms, we are identifying the same underlying universal quality. This recognition is not merely a linguistic convenience but an acknowledgment of a real, abstract entity that exists beyond the particulars. Universals provide a stable foundation for understanding and communicating shared qualities across different entities.
This perspective is crucial when addressing the nature of moral values, particularly the concepts of good and evil. Realism maintains that goodness is a universal that exists independently and objectively. Therefore, moral truths derived from this universal are also objective and not subject to individual interpretation or societal variation. Goodness, as a universal, provides a fixed reference point for evaluating actions and behaviors.
In this context, the existence of evil can only be understood through the lens of universals. According to Aquinas, evil is not a substance in itself but rather a privation or absence of good. For evil to be recognized as such, there must be an understanding of what constitutes goodness. Without the universal of goodness, there would be no standard against which to measure or identify evil. Thus, the reality of universals is necessary for the conceptualization and existence of evil.
Nominalism, on the other hand, struggles to provide a robust framework for moral values. If universals like goodness are merely names without independent existence, then moral values become subjective, contingent on individual or cultural perspectives. This leads to moral relativism, where the concepts of good and evil lose their objective grounding and can vary widely across different contexts.
Defending the existence of universals and adopting a realist perspective is essential for maintaining the objectivity of moral values. The universal of goodness provides the necessary foundation for identifying and understanding evil as a privation of good. Without acknowledging the reality of universals, our grasp of moral truths becomes unstable, leading to a fragmented and relativistic view of ethics.
The notion that there is no real evil, only "errors," inherently contradicts itself because errors can only be recognized as such in relation to the concept of correctness. For something to be deemed an error, there must be an underlying standard or idea of what constitutes a correct or proper action. This standard is rooted in the existence of universal values or truths. Without acknowledging these universals, it becomes impossible to define or recognize an error in the first place.
For instance, when we say that a certain action is an error, we are implicitly referring to an expected correct action from which this error deviates. This expected correct action is derived from a universal concept of what is right or good. Thus, recognizing an error inherently involves recognizing a deviation from a universal standard of goodness or correctness.
If we were to deny the existence of universals, as nominalism suggests, then we would lack the very criteria needed to judge any action as right or wrong, correct or erroneous. Errors cannot exist in a vacuum; they are identified and understood only in contrast to an ideal or correct state of affairs. Therefore, the argument that there is no real evil but only errors ultimately requires the acceptance of universals to make sense. Errors, like the concept of evil as a privation of good, depend on the recognition of universal standards of goodness and correctness.
In summary, denying the existence of real evil by claiming there are only errors inadvertently supports the need for universal standards. These standards are essential for defining and understanding both errors and the concept of good, thus reinforcing the argument for the existence of universals and the realist perspective.
An error does not have to be something that goes against objective correctness, but rather an action/belief that contradicts another one held by the same individual. Regardless of how one defines right or wrong contradiction can and does exist within every individual regardless of subjective or objective truths. If anything, the concept of evil is objective and therefore a useless concept that veils the real causes of "evil acts" or errors: the misguided, conflicted state.
@@acceptingtheuniverse Your perspective on errors suggests that they are merely contradictions within an individual's beliefs or actions, rather than deviations from an objective standard of correctness. However, this view overlooks the necessity of an objective framework to define what constitutes an "error" or "correctness" in the first place. The very idea of an error implies a deviation from a norm or a standard, which presupposes the existence of an objective truth or a universal principle.
In the absence of such universal principles, the concept of an "error" becomes meaningless, as there would be no standard to measure it against. The notion that an error is simply a contradiction within an individual's beliefs does not address the inherent need for a consistent and coherent framework that distinguishes right from wrong. Contradictions themselves are identified and understood within the context of an overarching logical structure, which points to the existence of universal truths.
Furthermore, the dismissal of the concept of evil as merely objective and thus useless ignores the moral dimensions of human actions. Evil acts are not just errors or conflicts; they represent profound violations of moral laws that are recognized universally, regardless of individual beliefs. By acknowledging universal principles of good, we can understand evil as the absence or negation of these principles, similar to how darkness is the absence of light.
If we were to accept your perspective as true, how would we deal with societies that engage in practices such as child sacrifice because, within their worldview, it is considered correct and does not contradict their beliefs? For them, such actions are not seen as errors. Without an objective standard, we would lack a basis to universally condemn and address such practices, demonstrating the necessity of universal moral principles to navigate and judge actions across diverse cultures and belief systems.
Moreover, in the absence of universals, a revolutionary group that believes there is no objective good or evil, only individual interpretations of what is right or wrong, might seek to impose their beliefs globally through force. Such groups, convinced that their version of what is right is the ultimate truth, are willing to carry out revolutions to enforce their ideology. This mindset has historically led to catastrophic events like Nazism and Communism, where the belief in a subjective moral order justified horrific actions and widespread suffering. The recognition of universal moral principles serves as a safeguard against such radical ideologies and the chaos they bring, underscoring the critical importance of universals in maintaining a just and stable society.
@@acceptingtheuniverse If legislators operated under the premise that an error is merely something that contradicts an individual's personal beliefs, it would be impossible to establish a coherent legal system that judges actions as right or wrong.
In a functioning legal system, laws are based on shared principles and values that reflect the collective understanding of justice, morality, and social order. These principles provide the objective standards necessary to determine the legality and morality of actions, enabling the consistent application of justice. For example, actions such as theft, assault, and murder are universally condemned and penalized, not because they conflict with individual beliefs, but because they violate the shared moral and ethical standards of society.
If we were to abandon the concept of universal truths and base our legal judgments solely on individual interpretations, we would be left without a reliable framework to adjudicate disputes and enforce laws. This would lead to a fragmented and chaotic society where actions could not be consistently judged or penalized. The stability and functionality of any legal system depend on the acceptance of certain universal principles that transcend individual perspectives, providing a common ground for justice and order.
The penal code of the United States, for instance, is built upon the recognition of fundamental rights and wrongs that are deemed essential for the well-being and security of its citizens. These laws are not arbitrary but are grounded in the collective understanding of what constitutes harm and injustice. Without this shared foundation, the law would lose its authority and efficacy, resulting in a society where personal beliefs dictate actions without any accountability or coherence.
@@acceptingtheuniversewell answered 👏 I think listening to you with an open mind is one of the best tools I have until my books arrive - that's where the magic happens - understanding a concept I never previously really considered. 😊
I teach my kids “there are no bad/evil people, there are only people who make bad/evil choices.” I agree with your video 💯
I always feel pity and forgiveness for those who commit murder or even shady presidents; not just the victims. Deep down, we are all innocent souls making choices in life.
I'd been able to get about 96% of the way there, yet something you said fairly early on in this video helped to ease me home on it.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
The irony of people hating evil and then giving power to this priori by believing in it is rich
I hate it when I see it so it’s an observation not a belief, but based on observer effect I guess you’re right anyway. If I just wouldn’t pay attention all this heinous stuff I’m seeing would stop existing
Well this certainly was food for thought!
Each video there’s clear evidence of your thinking process and humilty… The objectiveness with your approach, matching with the Socratic method… it’s enlightening
I love this background 😍 where are you?
I like the idea, as Aurelius said at the beginning of Book Two, that someone cannot hurt you because you are in *control* of yourself, and Jesus said that, too, or actually maybe Paul-anyway, I think this does not lead to saying each side of a given conflict is equally apportioned with virtue. There are many people in the world who eat animals, and those who don't. If it is wrong to eat animals, then the ones who do are more wrong. Same with hurting the innocent in the name of a certain gender's "rights. "
You went into this there, after I paused to write that, as I thought you might, but I still think the overwhelming sway of this kind of inquiry is a cheapening of any sense of virtue, at all.
Hilariously, Ryan Holiday talked about how people don't "like "when he talks about virtue, and it's like, Ryan. People just think you're *wrong* about your virtue, not uncalled-for.
What ai do you use for the face?
None, that's just how he looks. He's profoundly beautiful as which reflects his tranquil mind and timeless wisdom.
No. You’re so wrong this time. Evil totally does exist.
It exist and don't exist at the same time
If there's good theirs evil 😂, but for real when a person commits a crime and wants to destory others, what do you call that so that person is still morally good makes no sense.
Thank you sir once again for a perspicuous explanation of a difficult paradoxical concept to understand!
I find the below parable a useful illustration of the subject:
It is said that one day the Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him, saying all kind of rude words.
The Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead he asked the young man, “Tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?”
The young man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, “It would belong to me, because I bought the gift.”
The Buddha smiled and said, “That is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself.”
“What could be worse than to live with the fact you are a murderer?”. To be robbed of your ability to make any sort of decision, live any sort of experience, be any sort of person; aka being murdered
That's assuming that all there is to existence is our human life here on earth. The very atoms that make up your body do not disappear when you die, they merely shift in position as they always have since before your birth. You existed before your birth and will exist after your death and maybe it isnt "you" in the sense youre familiar, but rather "us" the entire universe
@@Maxx00panning back to a level of abstraction that is completely outside human experience simply isn’t helpful. “In a million years it won’t matter” is much the same. We are here, now, as human beings, and the life of a human being is what we concern ourselves with while living. Your line of reasoning is fundamentally inhuman, life-denying. “I beseech you, my brothers, remain faithful to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes! Poison-mixers are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying and poisoned themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so let them go.”
Death is death, regret is suffering over the rest of your life.
There is such a thing as objective evil. Although, I accept the nuance in the examples that you're citing.
What if a person causes you brain damage that results in you losing control over your actions and becoming a murderer later? Their actions have influenced you morally which was the criteria in this video for harming someone which is an insanely stupid definition by the way. Also what if I'm a psychopath who doesn't feel bad at all for murdering the children of a family? But the parents are so struck by grief that they become depressed, lie in bed all day while wasting away and then they kill themselves after a decade of suffering. All of reality just contradicts this stupid video, I don't care if Socrates was the one who said that stuff he was absolutely wrong.
All “evil” is the result of ignorance to one’s true nature.
Unfortunately, we do live in a time where mind control is just entertainment and a competition. Purposely hacking humans without their knowledge or vonsebt, to dismantle them and take over in order to play their character instead of training them or raising them to reach their highest potential.
It is evil that needs to be erased from reality so we can live freely. Evil in reverse is live.
I'm Christian, but I think the Buddhists explain it the best. It's not evil; it's ignorance. And yet it's so easy to fall into anger against those committing egregious harm... I don't think recognition of evil is so deeply relative. It's somewhat relative, of course! But across cultures, if we spoke to each other truthfully and exhaustively, we would agree more than one expects about what constitutes harm.
Budhist is a very new thing , Those people gathered it from Vedas and published under their names
What do you think about that elderly woman in French that has been raped by at least 50 men. All gathered by her husband so they could do so. She was married to him since she was 18 and has 3 sons with that man
I can't help but feel but a lot of emotions and how evil it is
The moral hypocrisy among humans is the realest.
Have you read A Course in Miracles? One of its main elements is the understanding that all attack is self attack.
If people can't be trusted why call some government ?
Be pragmatic instead of a moralist. Morals aren’t real.
I do not know, but isn't rape evil?
Evil does exist because Satan exists. Although we can choose to not be evil. We will not ever be perfect here in this life although .
Read the road less travelled and People of the lie by M.Scott Peck.
Wow wow wow! Fts
❤
So Hitler…..
Evil is relative - I like talking about it on my channels. People like true crime
This is a tough one for me. I understand what another viewer wrote with regard to a child being harmed; however, even if you were egregiously harmed as a child you can reach a point, as an adult, where you can take back your liberty. You must work at it. You must actively seek peace. If you do, however, I really believe that you can have peace and be "unharmed" in your present state. For me anyway, as long as I kept wishing for vindication and justice, I had no peace. I was still allowing myself to be harmed because I was putting a condition on my happiness that was out of my control. I hope that makes some sort of sense.
❤
Just because politicians and ideologues promote a partisan/Manichaen good/evil view doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist; that is a logical fallacy. Claiming that someone who is robbed or murdered is not "harmed" is trying to redefine words beyond any meaningful point. The Stoic view that only you are responsible for your mental well-being should not be misinterpreted in the way you do to claim no actions are wrong. Trying to redefine "evil" so it doesn't exist is an intellectually dishonest approach to the subject. Commonly "evil" means intentionally acting in ways beyond normal selfishness that causes severe damage to other people or society in general. Unless you take the Nihilistic/amoral position that anything is acceptable, then evil is real.
Duality is an illusion.
@@alexiosdesiusAn approximation, often useful, that at times is an illusion.
The word "evil" is aways used as a way to dehumanize others so you can justify your hate and potentially malicious acts against them.
Those who we would ordinarily call "evil" are just as human as any of us, I met two psychopaths and although they are shady, both by some of their behaviors but also what they say, they are also human, which suffer, go to trouble, had cried, have vulnerabilities, hopes, desires and dreams.
The idea that evil actually exists aways comes from our own ignorance of trying to comprenend them, why they do what they do, and for them it makes perfectly sense, we may not like It, but our arbitrary moral values are no superior than theirs. This is not being nihilistic, since ethics itself is objective and universal, but in order to be an ethical person, you would have to avoid telling yourself and other people how they should be, by recognizing what we are all doing and contemplating Nature, we naturally won't dehumanize others, we will value more actions in themselves instead of intentions or consequences, ethically universalizing our actions indirectly striving for the Good.
Saying evil doesn’t exists does not mean that there are things people do that actually detriment their human experience in this earth, as an inherently social species, us humans need to be in social settings to survive, making certain actions and attitudes inconvenient for those social settings or conditions we need to survive, that does not mean that those actions are inherently evil in the sense of something that is totally destructive, sadic, perverse and even demonic. For example with violence which is usually seen as evil. Violence is not inherently evil, is just another force that exists in nature, we see it all the time everywhere and history shows that violence has existed in every part and time of the earth's evolution, it is a force that is also necessary for survival most of the times, that does not mean that taking violence out of a context where is necessary cannot be problematic and unecessary, of course it does. There's a lot of nonsensical violence nowadays in human socities, there's so much inconvenient violence that fragments us and distract us, but still that does not mean its inherently evil.
Good is a point of view. It’s subjective to convenience. What’s convenient isn’t universally agreed upon.
Spiritual delusion
I think that part of the definition of evil is a lack of conscience, regret and empathy for the victim. Often times even expending to sadism, taking pleasure in hurting others. Otherwise it is more accurate to desribe something as wrongdoing or immoral, but not evil in my opinion.
I get what you're saying, but the title is misleading. If someone harms a child. Whether you call them ignorant to the truth or misguided, an evil was commited/created. Therefore evil exists.
Everything is a catalyst for change, you can label it evil or good, but nothing is absolutely good neither is there absolute evil...
Been down that line of thinking. A path of non-obective views. Maliable by self. No universal absolutes. Take a look at history and today as what this view and belief system leads to. Doctors mutilating children, cause the children feel a certain way. And parents consenting to it. Centralized power hungry government imposing ideology without vote. Dictatorships. Wars. Censorship. I Respectfully disagree with you. Whether we like to admit it or not, really, we all know what is absolutely wrong. As philosophical as we like to get, to stop calling out those who intentionally cause absolute wrongs, evil, always leads to a degrading society when we let them. That is absolutely true.
Morality is incredibly subjective based on cultures, time periods, religious/spiritual beliefs, personal opinion, etc.
Morality not being subjective is philosophy 101. However, certain truths do seem to permeate most cultures. Like do not murder it is wrong, or do not harm children.
Certainly though, morality is subjective. We see examples of this in society every day.
@@chrissyp9003 Philosophy 101 discusses the matter. It does not impose that morality is subjective.
Morality can be subjective. It can also be objective.
If certain acts are accepted in a society. Does that make them moral?
@@diesel8869Within that society yes “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
For instance, Israelites and Palestinians both believe they are acting morally. Some
Church members believe homosexuality is immoral and others absolutely don’t.
3:20 you say action of murder does make murderer „morally worse” but doubt existence of Evil. It’s a contradiction. What you practice here is called relativism. Nietzsche fought this type of thinking tooth and nail
01:21 🤔 Socrates posited the belief that there is no inherent evil, suggesting that all harmful actions ultimately harm the doer rather than the victim.
03:25 🧠 Wrongful actions stem from misunderstanding and misguidance rather than inherent malice, challenging the notion of absolute good and evil.
06:38 💬 Engaging in dialogue with those holding opposing views can lead to a deeper understanding and a more empathetic perspective, diminishing polarisation and hostility.
12:48 ⚖ Responding to wrongdoing with anger or violence only perpetuates the cycle of harm, as justice is inherent in the consequences of one's actions rather than seeking retaliation
Evil exists. There is something lurking close to us, that whispers in our ears to do wrong.
It's your ego.
Its all just energy and its all in your head
There is a mix of two fallacies that gather this conclusion: One is the inexact limit fallacy, this fallacy will make you think that when the ambiguous middle of the axis (in this case good and evil) is big and inexact, the middle don´t exist and therefore, the two sides of the edges divided by the middle nether. The other is the Nirvana fallacy, which is thinking that if a perfect solution does not exist, the problem in question is unsolvable and therefore neglectible.
Good and Bad are imperfect concepts that where created by imperfect creatures (us humans), there are a big grey in morality and is hard to draw a line to when evil or good starts, but if you really look at the end of the two axis, is clearly that good and evil exist (despite the imperfection in both concepts).
The sole idea that you can think of evil as simply "a result of confusion" is an evidence of what lucky and good person you are. But the reality is that evil exist and can harm you guiltlessly.
Instead of saying good and evil exist, I find it much better to say that there is actually virtue and malice.
1040 subs really deserves millions
Now it's 56k. Growing quick, obvious reasons
@@afkhoso YO😯
I feel as though every single person is seeing their own version of the "truth," "good," "evil" via their unique lens of the world. This lens can be shaped by innumerable variables. I feel like those who polarize issues are failing themselves because they are not digging deep enough to appreciate other's view points and how those perspectives have been shaped. Without understanding of one another, hatred can follow polarization.
Evil and good does exist but under the layer of this duality is unity where all is one.
A difficult thing to wrap the mind around.
To make the play/matrix/simulation/game work unity must trick the individualised person into thinking there is good/evil or there will be no contrast which the game needs to work.
It would be like drawing on paper with a white pen...you won't see it. You need contrast to observe the unity as the individual. You need evil to see good. The paradoxes of life.
You've actually presented a compelling case for why good and evil do not inherently exist; they are not standalone entities but rather reflections of our actions.
What we label as 'good' or 'evil' entirely depends on individual behaviors and the outcomes they produce.
Your analogy of needing contrast to perceive unity within the 'game' reinforces this view: good and evil are constructs we use to interpret and categorize our experiences for a better understanding of the world around us.
So, these concepts do not exist independently but are continually defined and redefined by our actions and their perceived impact within our social and moral contexts.
Your logic may have a flaw. Evil occurs in human nature the moment a person chooses to obey the ego and violate their conscience. That is called an evil action. Evil is a choice. It is not a constant.
Dang. Im a big fan of the channel. But Satan is evil. There is evil in this world.
Um vídeo sobre nanoparticulas de ouro em cremes seria um excelente tópico para um vídeo. Será que é perigoso, bom para a pele, incluindo as dos jovens adultos ou inconclusivo?
Sometimes are no other choices than distance cause pple are not necessarily Wilkins to be honest !
If my son comes back and understand they only kidnapped my son...! And how much my love life suffered !
The only way is silence surrender and cooping by being the best you can
Deliver me from the evil one
there are no evil people, every criminal believes they can justify their crime
Do they believe that or you assume that