Quote:
Originally Posted by ReptileInYourHead
In a situation where people have the same environmental influence but one person comes up with an “evil” solution and the other one a non “evil” solution what can be attributed to their different behaviour?
|
One of my brothers and I once has a spat and my mother sent us out to get switches for her to use on each other. Believing I should have the upper hand because I am the elder, I selected a large switch for her to use on my brother where he selected a small one for her to use on me...and maybe all of that was because he was of higher moral character (nicer) or because he either could not or would not challenge the matter of elder dominance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReptileInYourHead
They are naturally evil? What does that mean, their brain is dysfunctional, their soul is tainted?
|
I would say someone who is inherently evil would likely be that way because of a lack of mental health as there is no such thing as "natural evil" for a human being. Animals occasionally commit natural evil against other animals for the sake of survival, but humans have other options and healthy-minded or moral humans (either-or) only ever harm others during self-defense against aggressors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReptileInYourHead
I fail to grasp the concept of evil if it does not come from a physical or mental dysfunction of some sort.
|
Are you speaking of natural evil or of moral evil? But overall, a person does not necessary have to be evil in order to commit evil. Some people commit evil in simple ignorance (not knowing something is evil).