Evil or misled

[Denny Crane!]

Asume for the sake of arguement that there is an abstract concept of evil and good, for the sake of this topic they do not require defintition or debate.

How do you (or the metaphysical deity of your choice) judge a person? Is it by action or intent?

If a very bad person like Polpot or Stalin really believed what they were doing was for the good of mankind or because they were insane are they forever damned for there actions? If they sat in judgement before a god who knew they had potential to be a good being but physical or mental problems prevented this action would he judge them as harshly. Consider the idea of reincarnation, if a person lives an evil life and in turn an exemplary life than how would you judge him?

Peter

[Darth Wong]

Asume for the sake of arguement that there is an abstract concept of evil and good, for the sake of this topic they do not require defintition or debate.

How do you (or the metaphysical deity of your choice) judge a person? Is it by action or intent?

There are two propositions conjoined into one here:

1) The "accident" defense, ie- you didn't mean it to turn out the way it did.

2) The "moral relativist" defense, ie- you meant it to turn out the way it did, but you believed it was right.

I support the first defense (with caveats, since failure to take reasonable precautions is negligent), but not the second. It doesn't matter if someone thinks an act of mass-murder is somehow good from his point of view. But of course, any absolute moral code is unworkable unless it is based only on objectively verifiable forms of harm, as opposed to relying on personal beliefs which cannot be assumed to be universal.

[Kanaric]

Well I think, for example, if Saddam were brought up in a nice family in a stable country he would of been at least moderately ok. Though their are always mental disorders that some people have.

If I believed in hell I would fell sorry for these people, actually. Like Stalin, obviously he had some kind of problem that he needed pills or something for. Same with Saddam, if he grew up in a nice stable society like the modern US he probably would of been ok. Maybe a corporate ******* or something like that but not as crazy.

[Denny Crane!]

Well I think, for example, if Saddam were brought up in a nice family in a stable country he would of been at least moderately ok. Though their are always mental disorders that some people have.

If I believed in hell I would fell sorry for these people, actually. Like Stalin, obviously he had some kind of problem that he needed pills or something for. Same with Saddam, if he grew up in a nice stable society like the modern US he probably would of been ok. Maybe a corporate ******* or something like that but not as crazy.

So would God judge him, based on the conclusion that if he grew up in USA he would have been stable. Would God judge Stalin if, like you say, he had a medical disorder therefore is not responsible for his actions.

There are two propositions conjoined into one here:

1) The "accident" defense, ie- you didn't mean it to turn out the way it did.

Or rather you were incapable of moderating your own actions due to a physical problem ie. mental problem.

2) The "moral relativist" defense, ie- you meant it to turn out the way it did, but you believed it was right.

I support the first defense (with caveats, since failure to take reasonable precautions is negligent), but not the second. It doesn't matter if someone thinks an act of mass-murder is somehow good from his point of view. But of course, any absolute moral code is unworkable unless it is based only on objectively verifiable forms of harm, as opposed to relying on personal beliefs which cannot be assumed to be universal.

Kind of but not quite. I mean would you judge a person who meant it to turn out that way and fundamentally believed that mankinds survival depended on it.

Peter

Merged double post, please use the edit button whenever you want to add something-Valus

[Darth Wong]

Or rather you were incapable of moderating your own actions due to a physical problem ie. mental problem.

Yes, I suppose the insanity defense so long as the person truly is insane, by which we mean the classical example where someone thinks he's cutting bread and he's actually cutting a throat. I don't support the insanity defense as it is often used in court trials today where "depression" is considered an acceptable defense for murdering people.

Kind of but not quite. I mean would you judge a person who meant it to turn out that way and fundamentally believed that mankinds survival depended on it.

Of course I would, unless that "fundamental belief" actually had a logical, objective basis. Osama Bin Laden may feel that he's saving humanity from decadent western secularism and restoring the One True Faith of Islam which will save all of humanity, but that's no excuse for his behaviour.

[humvee2800]

pretty much anything that doesnt follow human morales people know too be wrong but they try too fool themselves by putting themselves under the facade that what there doing is for the good of all.

sort of like the knights in the crusades

[carl-the-conqueror]

if somone in his own stable state of mid showed remorse then s/he isnt evil.

[Denny Crane!]

if somone in his own stable state of mid showed remorse then s/he isnt evil.

Even if he has killed a million?

Peter

[Muizer]

Asume for the sake of arguement that there is an abstract concept of evil and good, for the sake of this topic they do not require defintition or debate.

How do you (or the metaphysical deity of your choice) judge a person? Is it by action or intent?

I would expect people to act on good intentions and to the best of their abilities. If someone does something out of good intentions, but had reasonable indications in advance that things wouldn't quite work out the way he intended I would hold that against him. Good intentions don't excuse poor judgement.