- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 33,000
- Reaction score
- 13,973
- Location
- FL - Daytona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
1. I confess to the sin of not reading the whole thread before responding.
2. I am excused because there is no quoted post so who knows what I'm jumping into.
3. "Evil" implies a moral decision, as well as objective or quasi-objective morality*
4. "Evil" never means merely ignorant. It means a decision that defies the morality from #3, an act, non-act, or otherwise defined thing that fits the bill.
5. The bill involves concepts of maliciousnes, sadism, intentionality, etc. It is the infliction of some form intentional discomfiture without purpose other than maliciousness (perhaps without purpose too, therefore banal).
I fail to see how an objective measurement such as diversity, in any thing, can be "evil" absent a creator.
I fail to see how diversity, subjectively, can be "evil" without intent such as described above, unless it is something akin to intentionally deporting Jews to Germany in 1944.
_____
* social contract, whether implied or explicit.
* evil necessarily assumes an intention or a reckless and wilful failure to consider consequences in which evil inheres.
The allowance of there being diversity cannot possibly be evil by definition. The possibility of confrontation does not make diversity bad; it is a negative reflection on humanity in its current form.
If you knew better, then you wouldn't do 'evil', therefore it's ignorance.
Diversity based on genetics, circumstances and choice is a necessary evil, so that there can be variability within a system.
What can appear as moral ambiguity is often the truth.