>> How would you define absolute non relative evil?

> Why would you want a definition for absolute non-relative evil?


      You made the statement there was both subjective and objective good
and evil.

      Hubbard was very much a relativist, good and evil, beauty and ugly,
are alike mere considerations.

      What is good for the tiger is bad for the impala.

      He thus claims that although man acts 'badly' meaning destructively
to himself and others, these always result from good intentions modified
by ignorance, illogic, reactivity.

      Sometimes it is accidental, free will without wisdom or omniscience
can regret itself, but it can also be intentional, he called it pure

      But he doesn't go on to say what those good intentions might be.

      One can talk platitudes about greatest good for greatest number of
dynamics, as if man is basically a cooperative sympathetic soul, but if
you look at the animal kingdom, territoriality tends to take precedence
over 'goodness' and sharing except in limited family settings, like the
cheetah that brings back food for the cubs and let's them eat first.

      Most games between people have at least two sides which are opposed
to each other, often in deadly terms.  The French and the English had
declared each other fair game back in the 1700's, and the Christians and
the Muslims have been going at it for a long time.

      'Great' conquerers are held in great esteem, like those that made
Rome into what it was, as it spread its influence and power half way
around the world.

      All of it is a kind of territoriality, or Borg assimilation if you

      Is that good?  If so, then so be it.

      Is it bad?  Is there a better good?  OK, then what is it?

      Is there such a thing as fundamental mal intent?

      Towards one's self?  Towards others?

      Is all mal intent agreed upon such as in a foot ball game, 'we are
going to cause you to lose!' governed by sportsmanship and awareness of
invite for both sides into the game?

      Or is there just simply unappeasable, unpropitiatable,
unnegotiatable mal intent?

      What exactly is the nature of the intent of a GodSoul that creates
games of apparent utter demise for itself and others to suffer?

      What about the God that creates such games for other souls, and
creates those souls and dumps them in that game without their consent?
If such a God existed, he would be considered inhuman.

      What about the God that creates souls for his own purposes, and
tests them for obedience, and then punishes them in hell forever for
failing his gauntlet?

      So can we give definitions of good and evil from the creator point
of view, so we can judge the creator himself?

      Can we give definitions of good and evil from the creature point of
view so we can judge the creature himself?

      Generally the creature is a gregarious fellow and considers anyone
good who will team up with him against the physical universe in terms of
survival and fair exchange.

      That's a very self oriented view though, what's good for me is
good, and if you are good for me, then I will consider you good, and if
I am good for you, you will consider me good.

      The bad guy tries to get others to do good for him while refusing
to do good in return, thus the fair exchange is out.

      That's called a criminal rip off.

      Most people won't allow that to happen, but when the bad guy has
more force or trickery of deceit, then the bad guy wins, at least that

      Then the need for 'criminal justice' comes in which means basically
doing criminal things to criminals.  Violating their will as they
violated ours.

      Then the good start to act bad towards the bad guy, doing to the
bad guy what he did to them or something similar, either to teach a
lesson, or quarantine, or to outright punish pain for pain.

      For example if a bad guy kidnaps someone and stows him away, the
good guys try to take the bad guy by force and stow him away too, in

      Not much difference except for who started it and what the intent

      The good guys intent is to produce more than he consumes, and to
help others who help him to do the same.

      The bad guy's intent is to consume more than he produces by getting
others to help him, through deceit or force, but not help in return.
This is basic criminality in the physical universe.

      Criminality is a violation of knowing willing fair exchange.

      Slavery is an example of rip off by force, is that evil?

      Is any of this different than basic animal territoriality?

      Admittedly most animals will fight for their square foot of land,
but then NOT go on to conquer the whole known universe, slaughtering
everything in its path.

      But male lions will kill lion children once they vanquish the older
dominant lion, in order to put the females into heat again.  Is this

      If a human did that to a woman with child, killed her husband, and
children and then made the woman his own, would that be evil?

      If not for the lion, but so for the human, why?  Is the human
suppose to know better, while the lion is just a dumb animal?  If so,
WHAT is the human supposed to know better?

      But then there are animals that will try to kill and slaughter
everything that comes into their sight and which do try to take over the
whole world, virii comes to mind.

      So basically, humans tend to consider cooperativeness in survival
and pleasure to be good, and excooperativeness to be bad, particularly
when based on force, deceit and treason.

      But if one keeps it overt and out in the open like the French and
the English did on the high seas of 1700, then is either side being

      So what is good and what is evil?

      If we agree to fight to the death, then fighting is good?

      But if one sides wants peace and the other wants war, which
side is evil?

      Is there any definition of good and evil that is independent of
what makes me feel good?

      The problem exists with beauty and ugly.

      Can we argue that harmony is mathematically absolute, and
disharmony the same?

      We admit tastes in harmonies and disharmonies will apply,
but are there absolute harmonies that ALL will judge harmonious,
and absolute disharmonies that ALL will judge disharmonious?

      Can we say that prior to decent down the tone scale all enjoy
pleasure and all abhor pain?

      If so why would a god make pain for itself or others?

      Is it possible to make pain beautiful and pleasure ugly?

      Is there such a thing as beautiful sorrow?


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Nov 27 01:14:51 EST 2010