Seasons

Sometimes acts intended as evil have good consequences.
I can't not think of one, what acts would those be?

Trust me, my ego is just fine. Really. It's my tummy that need work. Oh yeah..that's why I like the comfort stretch pants at Wal Mart and Baby Phat. I am 5'7" 135. If I go to 121 lbs I look fashionable and feel like crap. So I will take strech fabric and tunics. And you are right I have a list of things I would change about my appearance.

In and of itself, an action is neither good nor evil I can not agree. Murder, genocide, rape, etc. are actions..I can see no good side in them. How can killing babies be a neutral action. Actions can be good, neutral, or evil. To me the slaughter of innocents more than a 'notion of evil'. It is the only 'label' I can think of, it is the label that it deserves. Putting a dent in my neighbors car, might be neutral. (Hey, Buddy, it's a work of art, now). But to torcher his child is evil.

You're confusing the action with its context. Killing vs. Killing a Baby/Killing an Innocent. Sex vs. Unwilling Sex. If you want to argue that killing is always bad, then you'll have to take up Jainism and only eat vegetable matter that falls on its own. Most of the food we eat was once a living organism and must be killed to be eaten.

The actions are "killing" and "sex". The context is what determines the label.

As for "evil with good consequences," WWII pulled the United States out of the Depression. The Axis (both German and Japanese) carried out rather heinous acts, and when the US joined in to stop them, it revitalized the US economy and ended the Great Depression.

Oh, here's a classic for you Prob123: Suppose you had a time machine and could go back and kill Hitler. Because of various calculations and scientific principle we have not yet discovered, the only way to kill HItler and stop WWII and the death camps is to murder him as an innocent baby. Can you do it?

Suppose you can't, but an evil sociopath follows you back in times, sees you spare the baby, and kills it to torment you (thinking you had gone back in time to save the child). Which one of you is good and which is evil?

take up Jainism and only eat vegetable matter that falls on its own. We as humans have a brain that can hopefully notice the difference between a Big Mac and a child. Oh, here's a classic for you Prob123: Suppose No, I would not kill Hitler the child. He had not yet committed any crime. For the same reasons I am against rounding up people with certain DNA patterns. After his rise to power..YEP, give me a gun.

NOW...You can't tell me that either of you think a childs life is the same as a Big Mac. Or that because Hitler was a child, it's ok, neutral to kill a baby!?! Some things are just evil.

Suppose you could only go back to that time, when he was a baby? Suppose that was the only way you or anyone else could stop the holocaust? If it's good to save one innocent person, why isn't it good to save millions of them?

I don't think you're being fair to Ulrike. She is not climing or manifesting an inability to tell the difference. On the contrary, her whole point hinges on there being a significant difference tof that kind. If X says "killing is wrong" with no further qualifications, then X is not making any such distinctions.

As for WW2 ending the depression remember that there are many other factors, it helps a lot to remember that "monetary policy" "the Fed" and that maybe "policy" is a misnomer, there. FDR devalued the dollar through the last months of 1933, which might have provided a shock upward price to some commodities (good), and with the revaluing of the dollar at $35/oz of gold in January 1934, appears to have put the dollar at an attractive price point for international investors. the New Deal was intended as a remedy, by empowering labor unions and farmers and by raising taxes on corporate profits. Regulation of the economy was a favorite remedy. Some New Deal regulation (the NRA and AAA) was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.[5] However the Securities and Exchange However the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Social Security and other laws and regulations won widespread support which continues to this day.

As for WW2 ending the depression remember that there are many other factors, it helps a lot to remember that "monetary policy" "the Fed" and that maybe "policy" is a misnomer, there. FDR devalued the dollar through the last months of 1933, which might have provided a shock upward price to some commodities (good), and with the revaluing of the dollar at $35/oz of gold in January 1934, appears to have put the dollar at an attractive price point for international investors. the New Deal was intended as a remedy, by empowering labor unions and farmers and by raising taxes on corporate profits. Regulation of the economy was a favorite remedy. Some New Deal regulation (the NRA and AAA) was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.[5] However the Securities and Exchange However the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Social Security and other laws and regulations won widespread support which continues to this day.

Suppose you can't, but an evil sociopath follows you back in time I think the fact that he is "an evil sociopath" precludes him from being the good guy?

I appreciate your commitment to recognizing evil as such and being tough on it. And you might be right about the baby Hitler case.

How about this: You have a choice of buying a can of soft drink or drinking water from a fountain. The soft drink has little nutritive value. If you drink the water from the fountain, you can give the money you would otherwise have spent on the soft drink to Oxfam or some other reputable relief agency, thus saving at least one human life. Is there any justification whatever for buying the soft drink?