Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

infestedgrowth t1_j1smxuz wrote

Reply to comment by Danix2400 in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 26, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Evil as a nature is itself, evil. The opposite of perceived good. So in itself, evil, can never be good. They are opposing ideologies, literal opposites. As long as you’re a good person with morals, evil will never be the answer. Evil may be the answer for an evil person, it may be the most logical/reasonable solution, but it’s still wrong.

2

bumharmony t1_j1undk3 wrote

So if a person assumed to be evil and a person assumed to be good did the same deed would the deed itself be affected by the person doing it or would the deed in itself be good or bad, or morally right/wrong?

1

infestedgrowth t1_j1v7foq wrote

I don’t believe a person is involuntarily evil or good, what you do is what I would consider evil or good. A good person can do something evil and they’re less of a good person. Just like an evil person can become good.

1

bumharmony t1_j1vglu6 wrote

Is it the deed or the essence of that person good? Becoming good refers to the latter. Right?

1

infestedgrowth t1_j1vgwnj wrote

Both but the essence of the person is fluid and can be changed by any number of personal experiences. Deeds themself are or are not, they can’t be fluid. It’s either a good thing you’re doing or bad. Really it depends on the motive of the person.

1

bumharmony t1_j1vui62 wrote

In the case of satan his persona seems to be fixed to be evil. So I was asking if satan can do good deeds and would it make any sense to call him evil then.

As far I remember satan is most importantly an accuser not doing so much evil deeds. So he is being his own advocate huh?

1