Good Elf, your post is precisely why there can be no absolute or non-subjective view of the words 'good' and 'evil'.

To take your example of the Nazi's, they obviously felt what they were doing was 'good'. The assets stolen from the Jews helped fund a bankrupt Germany's entire war effort. After the battering of Germany in WWI, their inflation and government was so broke, the common expression was a 'wheelbarrow of marks for a loaf of bread'.

To steal even the hair, teeth, fat from jewish bodies produced money so the economy could continue to function and the war machine could keep on producing bullets and weaponry. This doesn't count property, bank accounts, and other tangible assets.

While it's disgusting, horrible and vile... and in most opinions 'evil'... there would have been no WWII if they didn't do what they did. And they came darn close to winning. Had the US not entered the war, or entered the war on the side of Germany (a real debate at the time in the US til Pearl Harbor settled it), they may have won.

Had they won, how many Germans would look back on the war effort as evil, even if they knew the price paid afterwards?

If you go back to the earlier examples, it's pretty clear that you can endlessly come up with situations where one side considered a given action evil and the other side good. Or an individual or a nation evil or good. It's a matter of perspective always... and if the term becomes always subjective and changeable depending on who's viewing it, how can it 'exist' as an absolute?

Hi Curious1,

I think there may be a semantic problem with the English language and the words "good" and "evil". It is possible that other languages may not have this difficulty. Human "duplicity" seems to be entangled with these concepts to the extent that different groups have traditionally disagreed about the meaning of these words to advantage their groups personal benefit.

As we have a group of scientific standards such as various International Measures and Laboratory Best Practice and the idea of peer review of these practices that is already being handled in Scientific Institutions throughout the world, the end result is to provide a single point of reference and to ensure that a test in one country provides the same standards of measurement in any other country. There are "sample exchange programs" and ethical boards that involve those who have religion free measures of ethics. All too often religions apply different standards to peoples of other religious persuasions than they do to their own adherents. I would like to see an end to these differences of human treatment and ethics based on prejudices. The same kinds of processes used by science might be employed to ensure a universal standard is applied via some independent body to show those governments and groupings who use "duplicity" can be labeled as an "inferior" standard and to characterize these groups as being "evil" and to ensure that they have no place in the rest of the world's undertakings.

The United Nations is anything but united and the "uniting" does not give equal voices to all groupings. Some organizations have used this institution to frustrate any attempts to provide the world with a moral base grounded in the "Golden Rule" alone. If we had even that level of mutual respect then the world would be a better place. It is a great pity that self interest is used to drive all negotiations to the exclusion of mutual respect. In fact the value of all negotiations seems to be written in dollars and no value is placed on human dimensions.

Cheers

Hi all,

I believe curious1 is right in this matter, as a summary.

I feel everyones contributed and added enough of different perspectives for all to objectively see relatively clearly that EVERYONE who does an act, normally has at least one overt/covert REASON behind/for it! Whether they realise or admit to it, is a different scenario. There is always a stem and a start.

Whether who judges that reason for it to be VALID to be justified or NOT, is a different matter in its entirety, and dependant on where you are living, your family, the culture, the laws of your nation and to a certain extent, the BODIES of leaders you have chosen/supported/helped/furthered, by any one means or another, complacently/content or otherwise.

If people ANYWHERE (but for those too poor) were ever serious about defending anything, they would fight for it, in the same way as they would fight for their own sons mysterious death inquiry to be investigated, and the truth be known. In urgency.

Whether that means boycotting ANYTHING from the individuals/agencies/organisations involved in "this apparent sons murder" or being ostracized and absconding, WILL NOT be a matter difficult enough, for anybody, relatively able and in reasonable capacity to suffer in toleration and proceed ahead with their aim/objective. MANY would do this, even if it means or risks their own death!

It shows pretty clearly what people deem as MAJOR IMPORTANCE and what not, as much.

Its just MOST people nowadays DO NOT prefer to be judged by others, UNLESS they heartedly, consciously or unconsciously GIVE that right or otherwise known as TRUST to that particular individual.
IF this individual is apparently judged by another, he/she is NOT comfortable with, they will try to defend themselves, in the FIGHT response, however their experience and knowledge shows them best to, to at least a certain point. This is considering, this individual is in the WRONG.

Using an analogy with Iraqi's and American's, which is long debated but much less known from both sides in the West:
Broadly speaking an American will mostly see his/her national benefit, to at least a certain extent, and an Iraqi his/hers! (as they own property/relations/monies etc there)

Both are justified, if reasonable, but then again, who defines the parameters to reasoning and whats reasonable? THIS IS a huge confusion and undefined spot.

This is precisely why North Korea tests, while America and its like-minded or interest laden allies deem/press to sanction, creating further inflammation and tension, where NOT due.

The Americans have history, national and international guidelines/laws/ethics/Aristotelian logic (etc) and what they will term "ration" to guide them in any decision making, IF NOT corrupt or with hidden agendas/motives/interests.

The Iraqis have the history, national and international guidelines/law/ethics and to a more extent, the bigger boundaries dictated by religious scholars of the past, even philosophers and most importantly ISLAM...IF NOT corrupt or with hidden agendas/motives/interests.

So the fight, between these two nations over RIGHT or WRONG would definitely exist between the principal judgment, lawgiver they have chosen, thus in self-governing principles.

This is exactly the position and problem between North Korea and the US now. One judging the other wrong, the other defending with "fight to my right".

BUT arrogance and power are an "evil" combination, when faced with this circumstance. Knowing one can defeat/overpower and get support for, another is MOST irresistible to mankind, especially LEADERS. It seems the easiest way out to help the "my"s OR remove any FUTURE conjectured/detected threats.

Nations of the East, and many populations of even the West, such as Great Britain, deem/see the US as playing GOD. This is why the US passionately and intimately receives so much hatred all over the world. This is less observed by the "insiders" more by the "outsiders", living away from the US.
Its always VERY hard to see yourself and your OWN as simply WRONG.
Where two bodies/peoples are concerned this normally ends and only settles with DEFEAT and subjugation of one, otherwise known as CONQUERING or least INJURING.
Man never gets away from his "evil" past, the dream to rule/dictate/influence/overpower/intimidate others, in family, society or elsewhere.
Thus, others could never question or compete with it i.e. judge it wrong and take detrimental or effective action!

Most of the times, this is when self-honour/pride and EGO is hit. The ego to defend ones family, property, rights etc, which is aka the "FIGHT" response when receiving or detecting threat.

Whose "wrong" or "evil" is again in remanents applicable to understanding the concept behind refusals and rejections of compliance and conforming...that Truth HURTS, a bitter pill to face, acknowledge and swallow, never mind account for.

Iraqis and most Easterners DO view the US, as a whole population as the "oppressors/tyrants," just like Nebuchadnezzar was for the Hebrews/Jews, in and around the 6thCentury BC.

Whether someone is not to believe this, is often bland stupidity and ignorance, most often employed by pedant supporters of governmental related EVIDENCE and OFFICIAL THEORIES/VOTES/SURVEYS/SAYINGS, when in connection to daily life facts/routines. This would be as utterly inane as suggesting "some" groups of Muslims and people DID NOT have a long term problem/grudge with the US.

Was there a survey for this, commonly known and accepted by the governments and Western US allied populations, NO.
Did it exist worldwide, YES. For near enough five decades in gradual propulsion.

Governmental bodies/links/supporters/followers and their hierarchies are normally the last to ever see this, if ever. Such as stating to your 12 year old daughter, back in 2000, that "N-Sync" and "Justin Timberlake" are evil and wrong....its supposed to be the NOW common idiosyncratic influence of the hegemonies and pantheon.

The leaders ARE NOT the population, and increasingly now, the reason for the ruin and destruction, long and short term for those they represent.

I will quote what I have heard EVERYONE who fights the terrorism of the US, against the occupiers of Iraq, mimics repeatedly...for the fight:
they have defiled our women, our sisters, our mothers, our daughters....

Do you think other populations of different religion/race/habitations to the West are stupid/heartless to repeatedly claim their women have been raped? Especially when they have a long history to carry out honour killings, related to women marrying or dating (in their view illicitly)?? I doubt so people.

This is also what you would hear time and time again, in the video releases and statements of the killed Abu Musab al Zarqawi and co.

These are my observed views, not of my own, of others over two decades around the world.

On a separate note, following on from before...
Stupidity arises when stubbornness arises. Stubbornness exists in everyone of the many populations of this world, in some form and degree or another, when hitting the right buttons, on at least one SACRED agenda. For many now, that is also nationalism.
"ME" or "US" is a common form of this.
There is no different in this concept than racism. Its just on a more dangerous level, because a nation can become stable enough to attack and try colonizing others, overtly or covertly.

Acts show, even what the tongue twists and lies about.

So whether evil exists or not?

To every individual is at least the HATRED of one happening/event/matter/act, to themselves or to anyone they know, or anyone or anywhere else. This can be in as much degrees for one to deem it EVIL. Whether what their understanding or explanation of evil is, is a different matter again depending on many factors such as knowledge/experience/thought/understanding/religion/beliefs etc.
They have this hatred for somethings in them, whether knowingly or yet unknown/unexperienced.

In brief... I believe evil exists, in corrupted and diseased hearts, which are devoid and locked away from the brain or compassion for others. Pride and arrogance are its initial cause, and to some extent, selfishness, being ignorant, an elitist and being in a better situation/circumstance/luxury than another, also sets forth ones reasoning/beliefs/actions in this manner.

A quick dash, I may have many mistakes still undetected. My apologies.

Thanks.