|
Many people say evil is only be "the absence" of good. When somone does not know there is a way other than the evil way, AND does not know the evil is evil, then it is the absence of good. Those times are far and few between, and both conditions must necessarily be met.
Evil is the choice to be wrong when you know right; or it is the choice to evade altogether which is the right and which is the wrong. In other words, when you just don't care.
If you choose the absence of good, you are evil. If you choose the presence of evil, you are evil.
If you choose the presence of good, you don't have to be perfect in its practice, e.g., without mistakes. Mistakes big or small don't make you evil; it is in choosing the presence of what you know is right, that makes you right.
A few links to sites dealing with "morality" are below.
also:
People act for many reasons; but for whom, or what, do or should they act—for themselves, for God, or for the good of the planet? Can an individual ever act only according to her own interests without regard for others’ interests. Conversely, can an individual ever truly act for others in complete disregard for her own interests? The answers will depend on an account of free will.[1]
Jerry M: you stated a truism, true as it is. The question was for you to say what YOUR moral arguement is. If she is writing in the style of journalism, she will take your truism into account. If she must take a position, then yours may help persuade her.
 |