If I stab someone with a needle and inject them with virus, is that evil? It sounds pretty evil but that is what we do every time we give someone a flu shot. But of course no one considers this evil because the ends justify the means.

Now in this analogy what happens when the virus that is injected has worse side effects then what it is preventing? Does is now become evil?

Would it be considered evil to have killed Hitler before he had a chance to kill all of those jews?

Would it be considered evil to kill 1,000 Hitlers in order to save 20,000,000 innocent people?

Would it be considered evil if you had a chance to kill Hitler before he killed all of those jews, knowing full well what he was going to do, and did not take that chance?

I would like to hear how the atheists on this forum answer these questions. Please give your yes and no answers and then explain why you chose what you did.

Obviously it doesn't matter how the atheists respond to your questions as we do not have a god to tell us what is and is not evil. Without god, there is no good and evil, AMIRITE?

That is not the point of this thread. Whether or not I believe that atheists can be justified in their morality is a totally different topic. It also does not change the fact that most atheist and pretty much every atheist on this forum has their own sense of morality and act accordingly. I have heard many references against Christianity and the God of the bible with regards to morality.

Yes, but that's where the thread would have inevitably lead. If you didn't eventually reply that atheists have no basis or justification for judging good and evil, it would have been NotReady, or Splendour, or Aaron W. making the argument. It happens in every thread where morality is being discussed.

Do you honestly think that atheists will respond differently to your questions than theists would have responded? Do you really need us to justify why it would have been okay to kill Hitler before the holocaust?

That is not my intention for this thread at all. It really does not have much to with the basis of there morality at all. For the purposes of this thread it makes no difference.

I would hope that the atheists would respond exactly like the theist would in these scenarios. I want to see what the justification are for the individuals and how they gauge evil. I have a clear purpose for this thread but it has nothing to do with the soundness of the individuals justification, per se. But more just the consistency of that justification. It seems to me that many people talk out of both sides of their mouth here in regards to one particular situation.

If your beliefs and morals are consistent then you should have no issue answering the question. These are not trick questions.

Hopey,

I do not understand you. You give me 0 credit as an intellectual but you are always concerned that I am going to trap you some how. If I am as dumb as you think you should be able to see right through any one of my rouses anyway. Not to say this is a rouse. And I am not sure if I spelled rouse correctly.

It's "ruse". "Rouse" is what you do in the morning.

If not to "trap" atheists into admitting that they have no basis for morality, what is the point of this thread? What new information were you hoping to glean when you asked atheists to comment on your scenarios that involved killing Hitler?

As I said earlier, I want to look at the consistence of their morality, or justification on how they gauge evil. It is just about consistency.

In what way(s) do you believe that atheists will differ from theists in this regard?

What is evil about giving a flu shot? How does it sound "pretty evil"? Because it uses the word "stab" or "virus"?

Is this medical science believing that they are doing good, but later realizing they were wrong or someone purposefully trying to harm someone?

If you had knowledge of what he was going to do? Absolutely not.

If they were all going to be as evil as Hitler. Absolutely not.

Well, it would depend on how you define chance. If there was a good chance you'd lose your own life in the process of attempting to kill hitler... it'd be a hard decision. But there would have to be a way for you to get your information to the military or someone who would be able to do something. But I would consider it selfish, not evil, if you didn't take the chance to kill Hitler in these circumstances. Now if you could kill Hitler without any consequences and you didn't do it... that'd be pretty evil.

I guess define evil and we can go from there.

I think evil is a tiny seed thats mixed in with the good seed. That's why it can grow to different heights in different people.

I like the story of 2 dogs. It goes something like this: there is a bad dog and a good dog who fight all the time. One day a little kid asks an old man. Which of these dogs do you think will win in the end?

The old man replies: "the dog you feed".

The seed analogy is like the dog analogy. Its just that plant growth is a lot more measurable in the seed analogy whereas the dog analogy explains outcomes.

From the perspective of the person who did this weighing of effects, certainly. From someone who disagrees with the weighing not at all.

From my perspective yes, from someone else's maybe not so.

I can't imagine it would have been considered very evil.

I would think most people would have considered it extremely evil.

And this is all that I am looking for. I am not talking about any hard and fast rules, nor is this a discussion about absolute morality. But the opinions and convictions of the people on this site.

An evil act is something that knowingly increases suffering.

That's the best I can come up with. Based on this...

Not if this wasn't the intent.

No.

No.

Yes.

I'm not really sure where this thread can go.

Let me pose a more interesting question.

What is the difference between "sin" and "evil"?

Evil is what causes us to sin, IMO.

sin is the act and evil is the temptation.

Hello?

What is evil?
What is sin?

Hello?

What is evil?
What is sin?

They are both choices and temptations.

mens rea = evil
actus reus = sin

except in some cases where the thought is the act.

everybody clear now?

Whether sin = evil or sin != evil, let's take a look at some of these so called sins and see how they're characterized:

Is homosexuality evil?
Is lust evil?
Is gluttony evil?
Is pre-marital sex evil?
Is lying evil?

And for those who believe a sin is a sin is a sin...

1) You and your wife go shopping for a car. The salesman tells you that the car you want is not available when it really is. Then he looks at his computer and tells you that no other dealerships have it when they really do. The salesman goes home and asks God for forgiveness of his sins.

2) You and your wife go shopping for a car. The salesman rapes your wife on the showroom floor. Then he shoots her in the head 10 times in front of everybody. The salesman goes home and asks God for forgiveness of his sins.

Do you view these two scenarios as being equally sinful/evil?
Do you believe the Bible states that these two scenarios are equally sinful/evil?
Do you believe God views these two scenarios as equally sinful/evil?

BTW, my answers...

I would like to see Jibninjas responses to these deep philosophical questions, as he is most qualified to judge the sinfulness of car salesmen.