DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

 

 

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

 

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

 

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.

 

We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.

KennyK

What is the root to all evil..?

104 posts in this topic
Those whom can convince the public that your opponent is of the origin of pure evil, an evil who can be of no reason, and you've started a war. Nature with her brilliant wisdom knows of no human right. She does however find humor in our persistent attempt to blend the oils of equality with the fresh water of freedom.
 
Freedom and equality can not blend but they can co-exist superficially when acceptance, wisdom, and knowledge are the court. The term co-exist is an interesting one--it means that I believe we can be of equals in terms of respect and liberty.  It is here we as a people drop the ball as we fumble it with the idea that equality is of status and outcome and not of opportunity.  There are now recent calls for violence.  I urge not give in to these voices of violence. I happen to believe that the puppet masters are plotting a civil war in our country but that's up for debate.
 
We must kneel to the virtues of natural inequality. It's easy to assume Good vs. Evil, it's natural--it's what we're exposed to throughout our entire lives... The turning point however is war. Unfortunately, war is rarely, if ever, about the struggle of Good vs. Evil as our favorite folk tales like to teach us. And here is where I suggest that it's the ideologues that are the root to all of the world's evils...  And sometimes we are among the ideologues ourselves...  Ideologues are those who can convince the masses that their opponent is of the origin of pure evil. They are the men and women who subvert reasoning and convince us to cut ties with the other side.  It's simply perverted to assume that you are a shining golden star in our world of subjective morals.

I would like to end with one of my favorite quotes...
 
"A Time for Choosing"
"You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down." -Ronald Reagan
 
Thank you.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree because it does not account for the instance when said ideologues are right.

The root of evil is hypocrisy, making others follow a set of rules you are exempt from. Those who steal do not want property stolen from them, those who rape do not want to get raped, and those who murder do not want to get murdered. If ethics and morality are universal then any rules that are not universal stand in defiance of them.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocracy, nihilism and child abuse.

 

All 3 substitude YOUR emotions and experiences as PHYSICS and as Universality.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree because it does not account for the instance when said ideologues are right.

The root of evil is hypocrisy, making others follow a set of rules you are exempt from. Those who steal do not want property stolen from them, those who rape do not want to get raped, and those who murder do not want to get murdered. If ethics and morality are universal then any rules that are not universal stand in defiance of them.

 

I agree wuzzums. I've been trying to find the right words to explain this. None of them seem strong enough. "Double standard" does not begin to describe the tyranny of the hypocrite who wields power over others. I do think the denial of reality and sense evidence belongs somewhere in there. Because the hypocrite needs the victim to identify with his version of reality, in order to perpetrate the double standard which is posed as a universal.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love of money.

 

He who loves money wishes he could buy everything:  immortality, luxury, love, art not for sale, the deaths of his enemies, status, divine power, his neighbour's wife, even the ultimate luxury of hypocrisy.  He loves the force-like nature of money and wishes it were absolute.  This sets up a corruption in his soul from which all manner of evils may spring.  This is most evident in the present condition of Terra under the rule of the worshippers of Mammon.

 

Someone who murders doesn't necessarily wish to avoid being murdered himself; look at murder-suicides.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree because it does not account for the instance when said ideologues are right.

When are Ideologues right?

 

Hypocracy, nihilism and child abuse.

 

All 3 substitude YOUR emotions and experiences as PHYSICS and as Universality.

Agree with the first sentence, don't mind some nihilism(trolling) as long as it is then proceeded with something constructive. All 3 are violence. By the second sentence do you mean your/perpetrators will above all in order to be evil?

 

---------------------

 

Thinking of two bible stories. 

 

1. Kane and Able. Jealousy and then murder as violence.

2. Betrayal of Christ by Judas. Envy(of the good) as a form of violence.

 

-----------------------

 

If two people agree to fight each other over some form of prize are they both deceived by an outside influence. There are boxers who literally kill each other, brain cell, by brain cell is that immoral? Or is it immoral to watch?

 

If violence is the root of evil, then what is the root of violence? Deception(Transformers, Robots in disguise.....), lack of understanding of self and others?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ideologues are always wrong" sound like a true statement to you?

I define Ideologues as.... Bullshit!, sounds like a true statement to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the first sentence, don't mind some nihilism(trolling) as long as it is then proceeded with something constructive. All 3 are violence. By the second sentence do you mean your/perpetrators will above all in order to be evil?

 

---------------------

Thinking of two bible stories. 

 

1. Kane and Able. Jealousy and then murder as violence.

2. Betrayal of Christ by Judas. Envy(of the good) as a form of violence.

 

-----------------------

If two people agree to fight each other over some form of prize are they both deceived by an outside influence. There are boxers who literally kill each other, brain cell, by brain cell is that immoral? Or is it immoral to watch?

 

If violence is the root of evil, then what is the root of violence? Deception(Transformers, Robots in disguise.....), lack of understanding of self and others?

 

All i mean by the second sentance is that all 3 of these are acted upon the idea/false principle that YOUR emotions and experiences should BE physics or reality/universality. (i should have worses it better)

 

Hypocracy: ISIS terrorist are all evil! They are violent and rapists also! But me as politician throing to rape rooms of prison and ordering you shot because you disagree with me is totally virtuous! (AKA putting yourself above the principle and value you espouse, you are the EXCEPTION ABOVE UNIVERSALITY and also ABOVE REALITY since you too are human being but claim you are special part of reality.)

 

Nihilism: My parents and school were horribly abusive and valueless and just strived for power nietchian style. Will power is there is, no truth no justice no reality Everything is jsut fog. In this case ones abusive past is placed ontop of reality and truth and universality. And also human history is put there to.

 

Child abuse: Both nihilism and hypocracy. Nihilism in its application hypocracy in its justification.

 

Now this only means that all 3 are perperated trough substituting reality/universality with your emotions and (bad/traumatic) experiences. NOT that act of anecdotes or arguement from authority is itself evil.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I define Ideologues as.... Bullshit!, sounds like a true statement to me.

ideologueAn advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.

ideologyA set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political,economic, or other system.

libertarianisman ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech

 

So you think people that support freedom of thought and speech are wrong.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of all evil is collectivism. It has several brands, but always the same course of action: A few sacrifice many for an alleged greater good.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All i mean by the second sentance is that all 3 of these are acted upon the idea/false principle that YOUR emotions and experiences should BE physics or reality/universality. (i should have worses it better)

Imposing or not imposing your will on others? Your final comment "I should have worded it better". References back your statement about it (1 of the 3, Nihilism) being a "idea/false" principle.

 

Hypocracy: ISIS terrorist are all evil! They are violent and rapists also! But me as politician throing to rape rooms of prison and ordering you shot because you disagree with me is totally virtuous! (AKA putting yourself above the principle and value you espouse, you are the EXCEPTION ABOVE UNIVERSALITY and also ABOVE REALITY since you too are human being but claim you are special part of reality.)

I think most people on the forum, including me, would not put Trump in the Evil politician category, at least not for a while and quite possibly never.

 

Nihilism: My parents and school were horribly abusive and valueless and just strived for power nietchian style. Will power is there is, no truth no justice no reality Everything is jsut fog. In this case ones abusive past is placed ontop of reality and truth and universality. And also human history is put there to.

Yeah basically end up taking "sides". The most annoying thing I found is how the less intelligent or those with less self-knowledge or perhaps the warrior gene can get pissed really quickly, if you breakdown and reflect back to then their behaviour actually or by breaking down their reasoning. My father is pretty aggressive, stubborn, about taking sides, warrior gene possibly from his mother. His father though was fairly intelligent had some values, knowledge about metals, lasers, buying and selling metals. Enough money to buy a colour TV in the 60's take the car on holiday on a train. 

 

Child abuse: Both nihilism and hypocracy. Nihilism in its application hypocracy in its justification.

Sometimes euphemistically called "discipline".

 

-------------------------------------

 

You still didn't answer my initial question "When are Ideologues Right?" 

 

So you think people that support freedom of thought and speech are wrong.

Does it matter if I think people who support freedom of thought and speech are wrong? Through what means?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You still didn't answer my initial question "When are Ideologues Right?" 

 

Does it matter if I think people who support freedom of thought and speech are wrong? Through what means?

 

The right of property is part of an ideology.

Non agression principle is part of an ideology.

Peaceful parenting is part of an ideology.

Reason is part of an ideology.

Free trade is part of an ideology.

...

Slavery, murder, rape and theft are also part of an ideology.

 

Some ideologies are right, some are wrong. Ideologies are right when they are right and wrong when they are wrong. I don't understand why you're having such a tough time with this.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree because it does not account for the instance when said ideologues are right.

The root of evil is hypocrisy, making others follow a set of rules you are exempt from. Those who steal do not want property stolen from them, those who rape do not want to get raped, and those who murder do not want to get murdered. If ethics and morality are universal then any rules that are not universal stand in defiance of them.

 

It's the ideologues that convince us that the world is broken and that the insist that the only way to repair the broken world is through violence.  Pragmatic people try ot reason and come to a compromise.  I've only seen the stubborn self-righteous men start the wars, for they are undiplomatic.  Whether you feel they are "right" or not.

 

The bottom line is that I don't believe the majority of the planet is "evil" and that we need a set of ideologues to repair it.  The non-aggression principle is among us all but we are convince to abandon it due to the influences of these idealist voices.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right of property is part of an ideology.

Property is irrespective of ideology. Some animals show possession of property, so do children.

 

Non agression principle is part of an ideology.

Perhaps it is. Which is why in situations of desperation. I would not be opposed to someone punching a person in the face and stealing their car if it meant saving someones life, "A Fuck You" Danny Glover style. In all likely hood they would have got the car anyway or called an ambulance, but if someone wants to be an asshole about private property........

 

Peaceful parenting is part of an ideology.

Would Combat parenting be an ideology too? Train children to fight Spartan, ISIS, African Child Soldiers or Hilter Youth style, would that be right? If an opposing tribe/faction invades kills all the men does that make peaceful parenting wrong?  

 

Reason is part of an ideology.

So according to the definition you gave. Reason is a set of doctrines or beliefs. But not various mathematical abstractions.

 

 

Slavery, murder, rape and theft are also part of an ideology.

Ethics, not ideology.

 

Free trade is part of an ideology.

If Free Trade is "Free", it does not need supporting by an ideology. Freedom of thought, Freedom of Speech, I don't care if they are Right or Wrong, only if the other person is rational.

 

Some ideologies are right, some are wrong. Ideologies are right when they are right and wrong when they are wrong. I don't understand why you're having such a tough time with this.

That is Tautological or circular reasoning. You still haven't explained how one ideology is Right and another Wrong. Tough time with "this". Show me where you're Right and how. If you don't know, say you don't. As truth is a process, I'll bare the Transgression in mind. 

 

 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

 

 

OMG, dude, pay attention.

Don't just start addressing each and every example I've made as if they were single statements. They were put there to make a point and not to be taken individually.

I just posted the definitions of idealogue, ideology, and gave an example of an ideology then I gave an example of a tenant of said ideology that is correct/right/moral/ethical/whatever.

If you can't get a basic syllogism I don't know how much more clearer I could possibly be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, this thread has floated hypocrisy, nihilism, child abuse, jealousy, envy, and collectivism as the “roots of all evil”. The worst sin in the Old Testament was idolatry. This is why Jesus scourged the money-lenders and drove them from the Temple. This sin's magnitude is reinforced by Jesus' first commandment that thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart. So, idolatry is the worst form of deviation because it takes one's eyes off of God and puts them onto an idol of some kind, subject to one's sinful whims.

 

Money can be such an idol. The difference between money and other idols, however, is the abstract force-like nature of money. The soul who loves money wishes it could buy everything, sees in it a symbol of everything, including the purchasing of hypocrisy itself. Money as a god annihilates other gods and concerns, displaces love of children, makes one jealous or envious, and corrupts the nation.

 

The love of money is sloth, wrath, envy, pride, lust, gluttony, and greed incarnate. One can be slothful or greedy without loving money in a literal, conscious sense, but, so, one loves it as a god outside of the one God, secretly, and that secret love ramifies one's life. Just as modernists, collectivists especially, deny Original Sin, so do men deny that Mammon is the false god of false gods.

 

For, what do we call what a man values but his "treasure"?

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is a form of collectivism. As any form of collectivism religion places a few in power to use violence to collect the unearned.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, dude, pay attention.

Don't just start addressing each and every example I've made as if they were single statements. They were put there to make a point and not to be taken individually.

I just posted the definitions of idealogue, ideology, and gave an example of an ideology then I gave an example of a tenant of said ideology that is correct/right/moral/ethical/whatever.

If you can't get a basic syllogism I don't know how much more clearer I could possibly be.

Ah, so are you effectively playing a psychological mind game to make a point?

 

 

So far, this thread has floated hypocrisy, nihilism, child abuse, jealousy, envy, and collectivism as the “roots of all evil”. The worst sin in the Old Testament was idolatry. This is why Jesus scourged the money-lenders and drove them from the Temple. This sin's magnitude is reinforced by Jesus' first commandment that thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart. So, idolatry is the worst form of deviation because it takes one's eyes off of God and puts them onto an idol of some kind, subject to one's sinful whims.

 

Money can be such an idol. The difference between money and other idols, however, is the abstract force-like nature of money. The soul who loves money wishes it could buy everything, sees in it a symbol of everything, including the purchasing of hypocrisy itself. Money as a god annihilates other gods and concerns, displaces love of children, makes one jealous or envious, and corrupts the nation.

 

The love of money is sloth, wrath, envy, pride, lust, gluttony, and greed incarnate. One can be slothful or greedy without loving money in a literal, conscious sense, but, so, one loves it as a god outside of the one God, secretly, and that secret love ramifies one's life. Just as modernists, collectivists especially, deny Original Sin, so do men deny that Mammon is the false god of false gods.

 

For, what do we call what a man values but his "treasure"?

Idolatry, sounds similar to Ideology. I remember from a documentary somewhere that the Jewish moneylenders had a particular coin as a gift at a festival. Which cost more in silver then a regular minted coin, kind of like a modern day proof or special edition coin, but with associated religious or sacrilegious meaning.

 

I don't think money itself is Evil merely a tool. I think currency is particularly corrupting, which includes bitcoin, as it does not even have some material to back it. 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so are you effectively playing a psychological mind game to make a point?

 

Yes. I like to call this technique "using an argument".

Very effective.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I like to call this technique "using an argument".

Very effective.

Looking back wuzzums i have to concur with RichardY, you didnt answer his question. To me it seemed like you were trying make case for something for which he said nothing about.

 

He may genuinely not know how an idea is right or wrong. I am bumbing in because ive seen this rockslide in FDR since 2009 and i think it comes to down consistent lack curiousity and acceptance that the other person is genuinely curious simply doesnt know or doesnt beleive you know until you make the case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back wuzzums i have to concur with RichardY, you didnt answer his question. To me it seemed like you were trying make case for something for which he said nothing about.

 

He may genuinely not know how an idea is right or wrong. I am bumbing in because ive seen this rockslide in FDR since 2009 and i think it comes to down consistent lack curiousity and acceptance that the other person is genuinely curious simply doesnt know or doesnt beleive you know until you make the case.

I gave a clear example to his question which was "when are ideologues right?". It's not my fault he's still confused about definitions even after I hyperlinked said definitions for him.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so are you effectively playing a psychological mind game to make a point?

 

 

Idolatry, sounds similar to Ideology. I remember from a documentary somewhere that the Jewish moneylenders had a particular coin as a gift at a festival. Which cost more in silver then a regular minted coin, kind of like a modern day proof or special edition coin, but with associated religious or sacrilegious meaning.

 

I don't think money itself is Evil merely a tool. I think currency is particularly corrupting, which includes bitcoin, as it does not even have some material to back it. 

 

Money is no more corrupting than land or livestock or a personal aeroplane.  It's the love of money that's corrupting.

 

Let me be clear, I'm not saying "loving a coin" is the root of all evil, nor that enjoying prosperity is; I'm saying that loving Money as an idea, even an idea that has yet to reify, as with the paleolithic, is the problem.  I conjecture that, just as behind all numerable numbers there is Number, and behind all spinnable stories there is Story, and behind all utterable entities there is the Word, so behind all sin and false gods there is Money.  Even an inaccurate choice of modern classroom mathematics such as one based on Newtonian deductive axioms rather than a Keplerian principles and synthetic geometry, which has disastrous effects on human creativity, is in a sense monetary.  Even the garden of Eden's tree of knowledge of good and evil bore, in the end, golden fruit that the serpent beguiled such a love of into Eve, that she with her unfallen nature would not have normally had, and she beguiled Adam, and thus there was the first sin: pride.

 

ETA:  Behind every sin is a false god, and behind all false gods is love of money.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave a clear example to his question which was "when are ideologues right?". It's not my fault he's still confused about definitions even after I hyperlinked said definitions for him.

 

Maybe i jussed missed it but all i could find is you explaining WHAT it is not when it is right or not right. Am i missing something crucial/obvious here?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Albert Einstein said: "Evil is the absence of Good". So what is Good then?

According to Snopes website, he didn't say that. Something similar was said by St Augustine, until perhaps Thomas Aquinas.

 

"Evil(generally considered to be a negative) is the absence of Good(generally considered a positive).

 

A negative is the absence of a positive. Non Existence is Existence.

 

Which by the way is the use of Syllogisms. The way you could counteract, would be to say the Devil is Evil and walks the Earth in physical form, as opposed to an immaterial one.

 

Predator II (King Willie) Makes me think of a recent video Stefan and Mike did.

 

I do not know where he is, only what he is.

The Spirit World Man.

You can not see the eyes of the demon, until he comes a calling. 

Prepare yourself.

"His foundation lie in the holy mountain...Selah!"

 

Yes. I like to call this technique "using an argument".

Very effective.

Except that you never made an argument. Only a list of Assertions and definitions some of which are inconsistent. The law of Identity "Its Right because its Right or Wrong because its Wrong", is Not An Argument (Hate the phrase, getting to be overused and poorly applied).

 

I was open to the possibility you maybe Gaslighting to make a point on Hypocrisy. I now conclude Stupidity from insults on your part, and misplaced optimism on my part.

 

Looking back wuzzums i have to concur with RichardY, you didnt answer his question. To me it seemed like you were trying make case for something for which he said nothing about.

 

He may genuinely not know how an idea is right or wrong. I am bumbing in because ive seen this rockslide in FDR since 2009 and i think it comes to down consistent lack curiousity and acceptance that the other person is genuinely curious simply doesnt know or doesnt beleive you know until you make the case.

Agree with the first paragraph.  

 

I think Stefan avoided using terms like Right and Wrong in UPB for good reason, and focused on Universal Applicability. I go with Ayn Rand's definition of a Right being a psychological manifestation of asking for permission, or an expression of the Will to Power. 

 

I'd really like to gain more knowledge(power) if anyone has any ideas for other forums (think FDR is the best, I've seen in terms of layout, skill and heart of contributors.) Please share your ideas, anyone probably being better than socialists or Elites. Can be religious or focused on topics such as history. Politicsforum.org seemed pretty ruthless, conducive more to manipulation than reason. Historum, more for socialist lecturers with hypergraphia.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, evil always comes down to a lack of empathy. Empathy in the sense of universal connectedness.

Connectedness not only to humans; to the future, the environment, truth, everything that is real and all universal abstract matters. A person who can extend their empathy to everything becomes truly unable to do evil.

I believe you can be connected to the future in form of the consequences of what you do - doing something of great impact without knowing if the impact will be positive is evil.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i jussed missed it but all i could find is you explaining WHAT it is not when it is right or not right. Am i missing something crucial/obvious here?

see: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49140-what-is-the-root-to-all-evil/#entry446944

He keeps insisting that the definitions I gave are incorrect therefore my argument is incorrect even though he offered no definitions prior to his assertion. He is just arguing against a dictionary at this point trying to save face.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectivism is a subset of hypocrisy, because in all collectivist ideas there are rules that apply to 'all', except to the rulers / priests / politicians / etc. So hypocrisy includes collectivism and is thus the more mighty concept. Since ethical rules are always formulated universally, i too think that hypocrisy is the root of all evil.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectivism is a subset of hypocrisy, because in all collectivist ideas there are rules that apply to 'all', except to the rulers / priests / politicians / etc. So hypocrisy includes collectivism and is thus the more mighty concept. Since ethical rules are always formulated universally, i too think that hypocrisy is the root of all evil.

 

Love it! Thank you

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectivism is a subset of hypocrisy, because in all collectivist ideas there are rules that apply to 'all', except to the rulers / priests / politicians / etc. So hypocrisy includes collectivism and is thus the more mighty concept. Since ethical rules are always formulated universally, i too think that hypocrisy is the root of all evil.

 

I agree.  Collectivism I believe is centralization.  Centralization harbors corruption.  Corruption is possibly the biggest problem with our constitutional republic at the moment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectivism is a subset of hypocrisy, because in all collectivist ideas there are rules that apply to 'all', except to the rulers / priests / politicians / etc. So hypocrisy includes collectivism and is thus the more mighty concept. Since ethical rules are always formulated universally, i too think that hypocrisy is the root of all evil.

 

:thumbsup:

I think this is perfectly true if we consider all leaders of collectivism as hypocrits. (And I believe most are, but yes, I can not proof it).

But I am also pretty convinced that some are no hypocrits. Think of a strong religious believer, who really believes with all his working brain cells that he is a tool of god, that supressing and beheading nonbelievers is, in fact, a good thing. A strong believer who actively seeks his own death in battle against nonbelievers, cause then he is instantly dispatched to god.

In that case I would say that the collectivistic idea is more fundamental.

 

regards

Andi

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread begs the definitions of Good and Evil. Otherwise there is no point in arguing. Some people may even deny the existence of objective Evil.

As Albert Einstein said: "Evil is the absence of Good". So what is Good then?

I think the issue with this is that it creates a positive obligation in order to be good.  So anytime you are not acting in a certain way, that hasn't even been defined, you are being evil? How can that be so?

 

I think the inverse makes more sense, although I still take issue with it.  Good is the absence of evil. But either way you arrange this sentence it places a moral value on inertia.

 

 

 

I like the suggestion of hypocrisy being the root of all evil.  It holds consistent as a necessary component when you think of commonly agreed evil actions, however it also applies to actions most wouldn't consider evil.  For example if I said "I think people should park between the lines" yet I consistently park outside of the lines, I am a hypocrite.  But am I evil? Maybe some would argue so.

 

Ayn Rand said that "the root of all evil is the desire for the unearned."  Abusers demand authority they have not earned, knaves and thieves property, rapists sex, murderers life.  Is there an action that stems from the desire for the unearned which would not be considered evil?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now