Malice shouldn't be assumed.

That’s why we have rules, laws and punishments.
To set apart from the group those who for several circumstances don’t comply what we have decided is the best way to accomplish the main purpose of any living creature. Those who commit crimes chose another path to accomplish the main command. Why? For many factors: abandonment, bad models, genetic flaws, you name it.

Why people commit crimes? We tend to think that there must be all kinds of causes when in reality there are only a few ones. And it has been being the same since ancients times. That is, sex, greed, revenge. Sometimes also for severe mental illness ( many few cases, and mainly for self-protection).
What do these causes obey to?

What we call malice is selfishness, greed, control on what they consider their man or their woman).

Malice or goodness are human constructs.

What about goodness? Why people is considered by others good?

P.S. It would be astonish how much we have in common with a bug, a rodent, a virus.

Where did I said that people should be allowed to kill or rape, or rob?
We chose rules and laws for that. And prison, and even the capital penalty.
Monkeys also have rules. They also chose to live in paws for the sake of the specie. They had the skill to chose because as I mentioned at the beginning of my first message here, they also have a more developed brain than a worm, for example.

@AzulOscuro I disagree with what you're saying, but maybe the language barrier is also an issue. So I won't say anything else.

A banjo is a human construct, that doesn't make it hurt any less if you get hit with one. Human construct can be as real as any natural construct.

I'm not sure I understand what exactly it is you're arguing, you seem to be in favor of the rule of law that dictates and punishes egregious human behavior, but also are arguing that such behavior is simply people exercising their nature. Do you believe that people can choose to go against their nature, and choose to reject acts that might cause harm to another?

I don't understand what you're saying either.

And I love you disagree but which language barrier are you referring too? Isn’t it my English clear? What you or I didn’t understand well?
If you would point it to me, maybe I could clarify it.

I’m nothing but expressing my opinion. I’m not arguing. This word “argue” was added by your head alone.

In English, the word argue does not always mean disagreement. It means stating your point. A synonym for argue in this case would be assert.

A side note for @OafFish, Buddhism understood very well the connection between all living creatures with the belief of reincarnation. That, said aside, I don’t believe.
But, what if on my next reincarnation I’m a dung beetle, lol!

I want to apologise to Yaowen for what I’m gonna say now.
It’s clear many times here can’t have and defend your own ideas without being criticise for my English or seeing bad intentions (arguing) when I only try to expose my view.
I don’t care if you have another vision. Only I may care to listen and maybe reconsider my view.

You may disagree 100 thousands of times but there’s a long distance between this and introduce non needed comments that for the most part are wrong.

People can’t feel free if it only counts what the person on the other line wants to listen what they like to listen.
I see this so meaningless.
For respect to you @Yaowen, I’m not gonna write more here, but only for respect to your thread.
I will go on having my views and defending my right to say them.

Yes, I know. But the context in which the word was presented either means (discuss) or the context or the message conveyed has no sense, because it’s supposed that I’m allowed to argue and reply to defend my argument.

Ironical (I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to argue with arguments (my own arguments) to a post by a user.

And I’m not gonna say anything else. Because this last posts have nothing to do with what @Yaowen wants to treat.
Or maybe it has to do. But, I let it for you, girls.

You all raise so many good points.

I tend to think and this is just me, that concepts like good and evil, and true and false are things that in one form or another cannot be gotten rid of without involving us in self-contradiction.

For example, if someone were to make the statement: "truth does not exist" I think one would only make such a statement if he or she believed that this statement was true and something important.

But if the statement "truth does not exist" is true then it seems that one has ended up with truth again. Otherwise it is like saying "truth does not exist" but this isn't true or important.

So it seems self-contradictory to me like saying "truth does not exist" and this statement is both important and true and yet it is simultaneously false and unimportant.

Someone once said to me: Nothing in reality, no law of reality is permanent. Everything is temporary and changeable.

So I asked that person: "If nothing is permanent, what about the law that nothing is permanent? Is that law permanent? If it is, then something is permanent, namely that law. If that law is not permanent then there could be permanent things since the law of impermanence is not itself permanent.

This line of thought seems to me to go with concepts of good and evil.

If say, an evolutionary biologist were to say to me that there is no good and evil and that these are social constructs produced through evolution, then I would ask the evolutionary biologist: "Is your theory of evolution true? Is your theory of evolution something good?

If he or she says it isn't true and isn't something good then I feel I could ignore him or her. If he or she says that this theory of evolution is something definitely true and of value then I say: "well, then it seems there is something like good and bad, true and false.

I had a professor of philosophy in graduate school who taught that everything is relative including morality and law.

So one day I decided to do something a little bit naughty. When I went to his class, I sat in his seat at the big desk in front of the class. When he arrived, he said to me, "you can't sit there, that is my seat." So I said, if all morality and law is relative, from my point of view that seat is mine. And he argued and argued with me and eventually said: Well, something things are just right and some things are just wrong.

I have found that most people seem to discover the non-relativity of morality when they are wronged in some way, even professors of ethics in university graduate schools.

Now there have been philosophers who tried to get rid of the concepts of good and evil, but so far at least, I have found that they usually find a way to smuggle the concepts back into their thinking, often under disguise.

Someone might say I don't believe in good and evil but I believe certain things are useful, say or certain things are helpful. But then I can ask, do you think that being useful is a good thing or a bad thing?

This is a bit different I think than speaking about the objective and subjective poles of morality. If a much stronger person forces me to do something bad by overpowering my strength, objectively I am a cause of what results from this. But subjectively I am not guilty because I was coerced beyond my strength to resist. I was forced. This was what I was trying to get at in my original post.

Sorry if I caused any needless misunderstanding and strife here.

Thanks for that @Yaowen

You know some people who say there is no good or evil use that stance to absolve themselves when they harm others.