How Do You Know What Is Evil? (moral, homosexuality, abomination)

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Mister_T

Pah made a good point in this post. How do we know who is right and who is wrong?

I classify evil as intentional harm and wrong doing both mental and physical.

In another thread I said that things such as incest and homosexuality were not evil.
While I wouldn't participate in these activities, I certainley don't consider them "evil"
I was then essentially told I was evil and so was my "spirit." Even though thinking otherwise went against my spirit, moral fiber, concious, whatever you want to call it.

Am I wrong?

My question is how would you guys gauge evil? How would you measure evil? Would you base evil on what religious texts defines as evil? Would you use your feelings and intuition? Or would you use something different? Would you ever consider love and compassion evil? Is evil relative to the individual?

I'm interested to hear from theists and non-theists

I think that ethics is similar to aesthetics. Making a judgment about what is right or wrong is similar to making a judgment about what is beautiful or ugly. Now, there is wide agreement about what is ugly and what is beautiful. And there's large areas of disagreement. Part of the reason for disagreement is that some (most? almost all?) people have an untutored sense of beauty. One has to learn to appreciate art. You need to learn from a master.

It's the same with ethics. We can thrash about with our own untutored perceptions of right and wrong or we can submit our ethical thinking to a tutor who can guide us in the art of making moral judgments.

[Willamena]

There's a tutored sense of beauty?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I think that ethics is similar to aesthetics. Making a judgment about what is right or wrong is similar to making a judgment about what is beautiful or ugly. Now, there is wide agreement about what is ugly and what is beautiful. And there's large areas of disagreement.

Agreed on both counts.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Part of the reason for disagreement is that some (most? almost all?) people have an untutored sense of beauty. One has to learn to appreciate art.

The question is whether the "tutored" sense of beauty is actually objectively better than the untutored sense of beauty. Or whether it is simply one taste arbitrarily elevated above others by those in power.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

You need to learn from a master.

There are certain masters whom I love and others not so much. The same thing with folk (untrained) art.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

wrong, in the past especially the old testament you must be a virgin until marriage, or you will be stoned to death.

And what about before the Jewish scriptures were written?

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

were same sex marraiges always accepted? or was a taboo in the past? so what was natural in the past?

Again, you are simply taking the position that you hold and calling it "natural" and then using the label "natural" to justify the position that you hold. Circular reasoning.

What is "natural" is not defined by what is socially accepted. If it occurs in nature, then it is natural.

[crystalonyx]

The constructs of what is "evil" or a sin are largely culturally driven, and are not "set in stone" so to speak. It's man's laws that must be obeyed, or there will be consequences.

[Charity]

I believe that we are born with some type of warning system, it's called our conscience. I think we know whether something is good, bad (evil). The real evil is when we know it's bad but we do it anyway.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by lilithu

And what about before the Jewish scriptures were written?

I dunno, what information do you have and what is your source?

What is "natural" is not defined by what is socially accepted. If it occurs in nature, then it is natural.

so socially accepted idealogies are planned? and not a result of how nature takes it course?

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Again, you are simply taking the position that you hold and calling it "natural" and then using the label "natural" to justify the position that you hold. Circular reasoning.

ok, so same sex marriages were planned? and not a result of nature taking its course?

or isn't as a matter of fact a deviation for what is natural. Phisiologicall speaking