posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:40 PM
I'd like to point out that it seems to me that the article (I'm not subscribed, so I can't read it all) has a decidedly Christian bias towards the
nature of evil. While I know many users will find this perfectly acceptable as they may be some form of Christian themselves.
However, the nature of evil can be examined from other angles too. A dualist would see evil and good as two sides of the same coin, that one cannot
exists without the other. "Evil" and "good" are subjective; any act can be turned from light to dark, or dark to light depending on circumstances
and unforeseen variables.
To philosophers and atheists "good" and "evil" come down to ethics and morality. So there's no need for possession, evil, cruelty, etc.
Everything just comes down to the nature of humanity (whether natural of nurtured). Everything to people of this mind is subjective, there is no
objective evil. Nor is there an objective good either.
There are other ways of studying evil and good too. Above all though, I think the argument should always come down to simple, common, human decency.
What is evil? Evil is that which hurts yourself and others. What is good? Good is that which benefits others, and causes you to feel like your actions
were appreciated. A good act can be disguised in an evil form, just as easy as an evil act can come in the guise of kindness.
Just my opinion of course. I may subscribe (if no one finds the complete article available elsewhere) to see what else the author has to say on the
~ Wandering Scribe