Oh you abyssmaly thick bastard. <facepalm> I'll use your OWN words this time. This is how it SHOULD read:Phil wrote: If the individual in question appears to like to eat/kill/rape whatever it is that it is acting upon, it would behove the other individuals in the scenario to not take it personally and fear the individual as “evil”…objectively, as a survival mechanism, it seems true that it would be helpful to not view through the “lens of evil” that shez projects for his argument.
All the semantics in the world doesn’t change the fact that for the most basic survival of self and species, those individuals should view the original acting individual as not beneficial, to be avoided or removed from their reality. That, in itself, may be viewed as “evil” to that actor…but again, verbal acrobatics doesn’t change the fact that anti-life views or choices exist, outside of those actor...which is external to the other individuals as well.
THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT. I'm pretty sure everyone ELSE gets that! You seem to be the only person who needs THAT bit spelled out for them. It doesn't TAKE authoritarian dictation to indicate that there are elements and behaviors that are unacceptable, but that does not make them objectively a moral issue, as morality is subjective, hence my contest of the concept of 'evil'.If the individual in question appears to like to eat/kill/rape whatever it is that it is acting upon [...] those individuals should view the original acting individual as not beneficial, to be avoided or removed from their reality.
I point to animalistic behaviors to indicate that they ARE a part of functioning species, but do NOT misconstrue those statements as "If animals do it its okay". Quite the opposite, I'm saying that "If animals do it, it is a natural aspect of a living organism or intersocial system, but animalistic behaviors and such are NOT necessarily something that humans can support or agree with". FURTHER, I'm suggesting by way of indicating backward (QUITE backward IMO) societies that believe in and engage in atrocities and barbarism would have no PROBLEM supporting rape, etc., and would find THOSE acts perfectly 'moral', which is a clear indication that PEOPLE cannot always be trusted to have the best interests of themselves or the masses.
HENCE one CANNOT OBJECTIVELY use the term 'evil', as it is bandied about with such liberality that it becomes completely useless.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/eJQHakkViPo?t=9m22s[/youtube]
Start at 9:22 to get my point on this, but the whole dialogue is pretty sound IMO.