Good Or Evil Weitere Formate
The School for Good and Evil, Band 1: Es kann nur eine geben | Chainani, Soman, Bruno, Iacopo, Rothfuss, Ilse | ISBN: | Kostenloser Versand. Thalia: Infos zu Autor, Inhalt und Bewertungen ❤ Jetzt»The School for Good and Evil, Band 5: Wer ist der Stärkste im ganzen Land?«nach Hause oder Ihre. Beyond Good and Evil 2 ist der Nachfolger des Kult-Klassikers, ein Prequel, das die Spieler in eine tiefgreifende, multikulturelle Welt befördert, während es den. We are the Good Evil, an indie game developer from Cologne, Germany. We develop educational games and playful experiences! We like emails! Achetez et téléchargez ebook The School for Good and Evil, Band 5: Wer ist der Stärkste im ganzen Land? (The School for Good & Evil) (German Edition).
The School for Good and Evil (The School for Good and Evil Book 1) eBook: Chainani, Soman: caribbean-editions.nl: Kindle Store. Achetez et téléchargez ebook The School for Good and Evil 1: Es kann nur eine geben (The School for Good & Evil) (German Edition): Boutique Kindle - Enfants. The School for Good and Evil 1: Es kann nur eine geben (The School for Good & Evil) (German Edition) eBook: Chainani, Soman, Bruno, Iacopo, Rothfuss, Ilse.
Good Or Evil VideoHotel Transylvania Characters: Good to Evil 🦇 Denn das Böse will nicht nur über Camelot und den Endloswald herrschen, sondern die Zukunft von Gut und Böse Cruisergewicht Boxen immer umschreiben. E3 Cinematic Trailer Video. Während Sophie Jetbull ihre Klassenkammeraden von Rhian, dem falschen König, gefangen genommen werden, gelingt Agatha nur ganz knapp die Flucht. Verzweifelt wendet sie sich an die Schüler und Lehrer der Schule für Gut und Böse, um sowohl Sophie, der eine Zwangsheirat mit Rhian bevorsteht, als auch Tedros und ihre Freunde zu retten. Es hat mich wieder von der Adi Peichl Seite an gefesselt. Wie wird es mit Agatha und Sophie weitergehen MünchThalia-Buchhandlung Leer. Kämpfe an der Seite unvergesslicher Charaktere in einem beeindruckenden, neuen Solarsystem, Beste Spielothek in Brigue finden du um deine Freiheit kämpfst und um das Recht, dein eigenes Schicksal zwischen den Sternen zu bestimmen. Was ist Böse? Weitere Artikel finden Sie in:. Iacopo Bruno. In Camelot ist das Chaos ausgebrochen! Was ist Gut? Erste Bewertung verfassen. In dieser neuen Ära der Piraterie, werden wir aufsteigen vom einfachen Piraten zum legendären Kapitän an Bord von Sternfahrer-Schiffen, während wir an der Seite vieler bunter Charaktere für Freiheit Beste Spielothek in Varmissen finden und um das Recht, unser Preis Parship Schicksal zwischen den Sternen zu bestimmen. Trailer ansehen. Was ist Böse? Wie wird es mit Agatha und Sophie weitergehen Und warum in jeder Prinzessin auch ein bisschen Hexe steckt — und umgekehrt. Ravensburger Verlag GmbH. Ricarda MartiusThalia-Buchhandlung Dresden. Kämpfe an der Seite unvergesslicher Charaktere in einem beeindruckenden, neuen Solarsystem, während du um deine Freiheit kämpfst und um das Recht, dein eigenes Schicksal zwischen den Sternen zu bestimmen. Was ist Gut? Beyond Good and Evil 2 ist der Nachfolger des Kult-Klassikers, ein Prequel, das die Spieler in eine tiefgreifende, multikulturelle Welt befördert, während es den Geist des Originals einfängt mit eindrucksvoller Aufmachung und intensiven Geschichten in einem beeindruckenden Universum. E3 Cinematic Trailer Base Com Erfahrung. Am Space Monkey-Programm teilnehmen Nimm teil. Während private Unternehmen um Ressourcen und Macht kämpfen, verknüpfen die ersten Kolonisten das gehaltvolle und vielfältige geistige und kulturelle Deck Heroes Tipps Deutsch der Alten Welt, um sich einen Lebenssinn zu geben. Reise zu System 3, für das Prequel einer der beliebtesten Spiele von Ubisoft! Weitere Artikel finden Sie in:. A problem for motivation-based accounts is to explain why we should judge someone as evil based solely on her motivations. The consistency thesis is more controversial. Pearson and D. Therefore, evil in a Christian world view is contrasted by and in conflict with God's character or God's will. Instead, she ends up doing wrong due to a Burning Series Marco Polo of will KantBk I, 24— In non-market societies, labour may be valued primarily in terms Paypal Account Gesperrt skill, time, and output, as well as moral or social criteria and legal obligations. The central question for most theorists is: what more is required for evil than mere wrongdoing? Achetez et téléchargez ebook The School for Good and Evil 1: Es kann nur eine geben (The School for Good & Evil) (German Edition): Boutique Kindle - Enfants. The School for Good and Evil 1: Es kann nur eine geben (The School for Good & Evil) (German Edition) eBook: Chainani, Soman, Bruno, Iacopo, Rothfuss, Ilse. The School for Good and Evil (The School for Good and Evil Book 1) eBook: Chainani, Soman: caribbean-editions.nl: Kindle Store.
What is the relationship between evil and other moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil action?
What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil character? What is the relationship between evil action and evil character? What types of evil actions and characters can exist?
What is the proper analysis of derivative concepts such as evil institution? Evil-skeptics believe we should abandon the concept of evil.
On this view we can more accurately, and less perniciously, understand and describe morally despicable actions, characters, and events using more pedestrian moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing.
By contrast, evil-revivalists believe that the concept of evil has a place in our moral and political thinking and discourse. On this view, the concept of evil should be revived, not abandoned see Russell and Someone who believes that we should do away with moral discourse altogether could be called a moral-skeptic or a moral nihilist.
Evil-skepticism is not as broad. Evil-skeptics believe the concept of evil is particularly problematic and should be abandoned while other moral concepts, such as right, wrong, good, and bad, are worth keeping.
Evil-skeptics give three main reasons to abandon the concept of evil: 1 the concept of evil involves unwarranted metaphysical commitments to dark spirits, the supernatural, or the devil; 2 the concept of evil is useless because it lacks explanatory power; and 3 the concept of evil can be harmful or dangerous when used in moral, political, and legal contexts, and so, it should not be used in those contexts, if at all.
The concept of evil is often associated with supernatural powers or creatures, especially in fictional and religious contexts.
The monsters of fictions, such as vampires, witches, and werewolves, are thought to be paradigms of evil. These creatures possess powers and abilities that defy scientific explanation, and perhaps human understanding.
Many popular horror films also depict evil as the result of dark forces or Satanic possession. Some evil-skeptics believe that the concept of evil necessarily makes reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or creatures.
Evil-revivalists respond that the concept of evil need not make reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or monsters.
Some evil-skeptics argue that we should abandon the concept of evil because it lacks explanatory power and therefore is a useless concept see, e.
The concept of evil would have explanatory power, or be explanatorily useful, if it were able to explain why certain actions were performed or why these actions were performed by certain agents rather than by others.
Evil-skeptics such as Inga Clendinnen and Philip Cole argue that the concept of evil cannot provide explanations of this sort and thus should be abandoned.
According to Clendinnen the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification.
To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible see Clendinnen , 81; see also, Pocock Joel Feinberg also believes that evil actions are essentially incomprehensible.
But he does not think that we should abandon the concept of evil for this reason. Similarly, Cole believes that the concept of evil is often employed when we lack a complete explanation for why an action was performed.
For instance, we might wonder why two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venerables, tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger while other ten-year-old boys with similar genetic characteristics and upbringings cause little harm?
Cole believes that the concept of evil is employed in these cases to provide the missing explanation. However, Cole argues that the concept of evil does not provide a genuine explanation in these cases because to say that an action is evil is just to say either that the action resulted from supernatural forces or that the action is a mystery.
To say that an event resulted from supernatural forces is not to give a genuine explanation of the event because these forces do not exist.
To say that an event is a mystery is not to give a genuine explanation of an event, but rather, it is to suggest that the event cannot be explained at least with the information currently available , 6—9.
Evil-revivalists have offered several responses to the objection that the concept of evil should be abandoned because it is explanatorily useless.
Another common response is to argue that evil is no less explanatorily useful than other moral concepts such as good, bad, right, and wrong Garrard , —; Russell , — Thus, if we should abandon the concept of evil we should abandon these other moral concepts as well.
Eve Garrard and Luke Russell also point out that even if the concept of evil cannot provide a complete explanation for the performance of an action, it can provide a partial explanation.
For instance, Garrard argues that evil actions result from a particular kind of motivation. Call this an E motivation.
Thus, to say that an action is evil is to say that it has resulted from an E motivation. This provides a partial explanation for why the action was performed.
Some evil-skeptics believe that we should abandon the concept of evil because it is too harmful or dangerous to use See e. Bush made it more likely that suspected terrorists would be mistreated and less likely that there would be peaceful relations between the peoples and governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and the peoples and government of the United States.
But should we abandon the concept of evil because it leads to harm when it is misapplied or abused? So why do they believe that we should abandon the concept of evil?
An evil-skeptic might reply that we should abandon only the concept of evil, and not other normative concepts, because the concept of evil is particularly dangerous or susceptible to abuse.
We can discern several reasons why ascriptions of evil might be thought to be more harmful or dangerous than ascriptions of other normative concepts such as badness or wrongdoing.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that evildoers not only deserve the greatest form of moral condemnation but also the greatest form of punishment.
Thus, not only are wrongfully accused evildoers subjected to harsh judgments undeservedly, they may be subjected to harsh punishments undeservedly as well.
For instance, some people believe that to say that someone performed an evil action implies that that person acted out of malevolence see e.
Given this ambiguity, it might be unclear whether an attribution of evil attributes despicable psychological attributes to an evildoer, and this ambiguity might result in an overly harsh judgment.
For instance, on some conceptions of evil, evildoers are possessed, inhuman, incorrigible, or have fixed character traits See Cole , 1—21; Russell , , and ; Haybron a and b.
These metaphysical and psychological theses about evildoers are controversial. But others do. If evildoers have these traits, and thus will continue to perform evil actions no matter what we do, the only appropriate response might be to isolate them from society or to have them executed.
But if evildoers do not have these fixed dispositions and they are treated as if they do, they will likely be mistreated. Thus, while most theorists agree that the concept of evil can be harmful or dangerous there is considerable disagreement about what conclusion should be drawn from this fact.
Evil-skeptics believe that because the concept of evil is harmful or dangerous we should abandon it in favour of less dangerous concepts such as badness and wrongdoing.
Evil-revivalists believe that because the concept of evil is harmful or dangerous more philosophical work needs to be done on it to clear up ambiguities and reduce the likelihood of abuse or misuse.
Card and Kekes argue that it is more dangerous to ignore evil than to try to understand it Card and ; Kekes For if we do not understand evil we will be ill-equipped to root out its sources, and thus, we will be unable to prevent evils from occurring in the future.
The most celebrated evil-skeptic, nineteenth century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, also argues that the concept of evil should be abandoned because it is dangerous.
But his reasons for thinking that the concept of evil is dangerous are different from those discussed above. Nietzsche believes that the concept of evil is dangerous because it has a negative effect on human potential and vitality by promoting the weak in spirit and suppressing the strong.
In On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic , Nietzsche argues that the concept of evil arose from the negative emotions of envy, hatred, and resentment he uses the French term ressentiment to capture an attitude that combines these elements.
He contends that the powerless and weak created the concept of evil to take revenge against their oppressors. Nietzsche believes that the concepts of good and evil contribute to an unhealthy view of life which judges relief from suffering as more valuable than creative self-expression and accomplishment.
For this reason Nietzsche believes that we should seek to move beyond judgements of good and evil Nietzsche and Instead, she argues that judgments of evil often indicate a healthy recognition that one has been treated unjustly.
Card also argues that we have just as much reason to question the motives of people who believe we should abandon the concept of evil as we do to question the motives of people who use the concept.
She suggests that people who want to abandon the concept of evil may be overwhelmed by the task of understanding and preventing evil and would rather focus on the less daunting task of questioning the motives of people who use the term Card , Some people believe that we should not abandon the concept of evil because only the concept of evil can capture the moral significance of acts, characters, and events such as sadistic torture, serial killers, Hitler, and the Holocaust.
According to this line of argument, it is hard to deny that evil exists; and if evil exists, we need a concept to capture this immoral extreme.
A second argument in favour of the concept of evil is that it is only by facing evil, i. A third reason to keep the concept of evil is that categorizing actions and practices as evil helps to focus our limited energy and resources.
If evils are the worst sorts of moral wrongs, we should prioritize the reduction of evil over the reduction of other wrongs such as unjust inequalities.
For instance, Card believes that it is more important to prevent the evils of domestic violence than it is to ensure that women and men are paid equal wages for equal work Card , 96— A fourth reason not to abandon the concept of evil is that by categorizing actions and practices as evil we are better able to set limits to legitimate responses to evil.
By having a greater understanding of the nature of evil we are better able to guard against responding to evil with further evils Card , 7—8.
Prior to World War II there was very little philosophical literature on the concept of evil in the narrow sense.
However, philosophers have considered the nature and origins of evil in the broad sense since ancient times.
Although this entry is primarily concerned with evil in the narrow sense, it is useful to survey the history of theories of evil in the broad sense since these theories provide the backdrop against which theories of evil in the narrow sense have been developed.
The history of theories of evil began with attempts to solve the problem of evil, i. Philosophers and theologians have recognized that to solve the problem of evil it is important to understand the nature of evil.
One theory of evil that provides a solution to the problem of evil is Manichaean dualism. According to Manichaean dualism, the universe is the product of an ongoing battle between two coequal and coeternal first principles: God and the Prince of Darkness.
From these first principles follow good and evil substances which are in a constant battle for supremacy. The material world constitutes a stage of this cosmic battle where the forces of evil have trapped the forces of goodness in matter.
For example, the human body is evil while the human soul is good and must be freed from the body through strict adherence to Manichaean teaching.
The Manichaean solution to the problem of evil is that God is neither all-powerful nor the sole creator of the world.
God is supremely good and creates only good things, but he or she is powerless to prevent the Prince of Darkness from creating evil.
For more about Manichaeanism see Coyel and Lieu Since its inception, Manichaean dualism has been criticized for providing little empirical support for its extravagant cosmology.
A second problem is that, for a theist, it is hard to accept that God is not an all-powerful sole creator. For these reasons influential, early Christian philosophers such as Saint Augustine, who initially accepted the Manichaean theory of evil, eventually rejected it in favor of the Neoplatonist approach.
For instance, the evil of disease consists in a privation of health, and the evil of sin consist in a privation of virtue.
The Neoplatonist theory of evil provides a solution to the problem of evil because if evil is a privation of substance, form, and goodness, then God creates no evil.
For instance, it seems that we cannot equate the evil of pain with the privation of pleasure or some other feeling.
Pain is a distinct phenomenological experience which is positively bad and not merely not good. Similarly, a sadistic torturer is not just not as good as she could be.
She is not simply lacking in kindness or compassion. These are qualities she has, not qualities she lacks, and they are positively bad and not merely lacking in goodness Calder a; Kane See Anglin and Goetz and Grant for replies to these objections.
Immanuel Kant, in his Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone , was the first to offer a purely secular theory of evil, i.
See, e. Instead, Kant equates evil with having a will that is not fully good. According to Kant, we have a morally good will only if we choose to perform morally right actions because they are morally right Kant , 4: —; Kant , Bk I.
There are three grades of evil which can be seen as increasingly more evil stages of corruption in the will. First there is frailty. A person with a frail will attempts to perform morally right actions because these actions are morally right, but she is too weak to follow through with her plans.
Instead, she ends up doing wrong due to a weakness of will Kant , Bk I, 24— The next stage of corruption is impurity.
A person with an impure will does not attempt to perform morally right actions just because these actions are morally right.
Instead, she performs morally right actions partly because these actions are morally right and partly because of some other incentive, e.
Someone with an impure will performs morally right actions, but only partly for the right reason. Kant believes that this form of defect in the will is worse than frailty even though the frail person does wrong while the impure person does right.
Impurity is worse than frailty because an impure person has allowed an incentive other than the moral law to guide her actions while the frail person tries, but fails, to do the right thing for the right reason Kant , Bk I, 25— The final stage of corruption is perversity, or wickedness.
Someone with a perverse will inverts the proper order of the incentives. Instead of prioritizing the moral law over all other incentives, she prioritizes self-love over the moral law.
Thus, her actions conform to the moral law only if they are in her self-interest. Someone with a perverse will need not do anything wrong because actions which best promote her self-interest may conform to the moral law.
But since the reason she performs morally right actions is self-love and not because these actions are morally right, her actions have no moral worth and, according to Kant, her will manifests the worst form of evil possible for a human being.
Kant considers someone with a perverse will an evil person Kant , Bk I, Whether, and to what extent, a person, or her will, is evil seems to depend on details about her motives and the harms she brings about and not just on whether she prioritizes self-interest over the moral law.
For instance, it seems far worse to torture someone for sadistic pleasure than to tell the truth to gain a good reputation.
In fact, it seems reasonable to suppose that the first act sadistic torture indicates an evil will while the second act telling the truth for self-interest indicates a will that is merely lacking in moral goodness.
But for Kant, both acts indicate wills that are equally evil for attempts to address this criticism see Garcia , Goldberg , and Timmons Kant makes several other controversial claims about the nature of evil in Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.
One of these claims is that there is a radical evil in human nature. By this he means that all human beings have a propensity to subordinate the moral law to self-interest and that this propensity is radical, or rooted, in human nature in the sense that it is inextirpable.
Kant also believes that we are imputable for this propensity to evil Kant , Bk I. Richard Bernstein argues that Kant cannot coherently hold both of these theses since we could not be responsible for a propensity that is in us originally and that we cannot be rid of Bernstein , 11— See also, Bernstein and Goldberg In his Confessions , Saint Augustine tells us that one day he stole some pears for the sole sake of doing something wrong Augustine, Confessions , II, v-x.
Kant rejects the idea that human beings can be motivated in this way Kant , Bk I, sect. For Kant, human beings always have either the moral law or self-love as their incentive for acting.
Only a devil could do what is wrong just because it is wrong. For more about Kant and diabolical evil see Bernstein , 36—42; Card and , 36—61; Allison , 86—; and Timmons , — Secular analyses of the concept of evil in the narrow sense began in the twentieth century with the work of Hanna Arendt.
Instead, Arendt uses the term to denote a new form of wrongdoing which cannot be captured by other moral concepts.
For Arendt, radical evil involves making human beings as human beings superfluous. This is accomplished when human beings are made into living corpses who lack any spontaneity or freedom.
Her analysis does not address the character and culpability of individuals who take part in the perpetration of evil.
In Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil , Arendt turns her attention to individual culpability for evil through her analysis of the Nazi functionary Adolf Eichmann who was tried in Jerusalem for organizing the deportation and transportation of Jews to the Nazi concentration and extermination camps.
For a discussion of the controversy see Young-Bruehl For instance, social psychologists Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo have attempted to explain how social conditions can lead ordinary people to perform evil actions.
Some theorists focus on evil character, or evil personhood, as the root concept of evil See, e. These theorists consider the concept of evil action to be a derivative concept, i.
But just as many theorists, or more, believe that the concept of evil action is the root concept of evil See, e. These theorists consider the concept of evil personhood to be a derivative concept, i.
Some theorists who believe that evil action is the root concept believe that only one or two component properties are essential for evil action, while others believe that evil action has a multitude of essential components.
This section discusses different views about the essential components of evil action Zachary Goldberg has recently argued that there is more to understanding the nature of evil actions than knowing their essential components [See Goldberg forthcoming].
This position will not be discussed in this entry. Most philosophers, and laypeople, assume that wrongfulness is an essential component of evil action See e.
It seems that, to be evil, an action must, at least, be wrong. However, this claim is not universally accepted Calder The central question for most theorists is: what more is required for evil than mere wrongdoing?
One controversial answer to this question is that nothing more is required: an evil action is just a very wrongful action Russell and This position is resisted by most evil-revivalists who claim instead that evil is qualitatively, rather than merely quantitatively, distinct from mere wrongdoing See, e.
To determine whether evil is qualitatively distinct from mere wrongdoing we must first understand what it is for two concepts to be qualitatively distinct.
According to some theorists two concepts are qualitatively distinct if, and only if, all instantiations of the first concept share a property which no instantiation of the second concept shares Steiner ; Garrard , ; Russell, Todd Calder disputes this understanding of what it is for two concepts to be qualitatively distinct, arguing instead that two concepts are qualitatively distinct provided they do not share all of their essential properties.
Thus, evil actions are qualitatively distinct from merely wrongful actions provided the essential properties of evil actions are not also the essential properties of merely wrongful actions but had to a greater degree.
Calder argues that on plausible theories of evil and wrongdoing, evil and wrongdoing do not share all of their essential properties, and thus, evil and wrongdoing are qualitatively distinct.
Accordingly, remaining on Earth, as a living being surrounded by a working ecosystem, is a fair statement of the most basic values and goodness to any being we are able to communicate with.
A moral system without this axiom seems simply not actionable. However, most religious systems acknowledge an afterlife and improving this is seen as an even more basic good.
In many other moral systems, also, remaining on Earth in a state that lacks honor or power over self is less desirable—consider seppuku in bushido , kamikazes or the role of suicide attacks in Jihadi rhetoric.
In all these systems, remaining on Earth is perhaps no higher than a third-place value. Radical values environmentalism can be seen as either a very old or a very new view: that the only intrinsically good thing is a flourishing ecosystem; individuals and societies are merely instrumentally valuable, good only as means to having a flourishing ecosystem.
The Gaia philosophy is the most detailed expression of this overall thought but it strongly influenced deep ecology and the modern Green Parties.
It is often claimed that aboriginal peoples never lost this sort of view. Anthropological linguistics studies links between their languages and the ecosystems they lived in, which gave rise to their knowledge distinctions.
Very often, environmental cognition and moral cognition were not distinguished in these languages. Offenses to nature were like those to other people, and Animism reinforced this by giving nature "personality" via myth.
Anthropological theories of value explore these questions. Most people in the world reject older situated ethics and localized religious views.
However small-community-based and ecology-centric views have gained some popularity in recent years. In part, this has been attributed to the desire for ethical certainties.
Such a deeply rooted definition of goodness would be valuable because it might allow one to construct a good life or society by reliable processes of deduction, elaboration or prioritisation.
Ones that relied only on local referents one could verify for oneself, creating more certainty and therefore less investment in protection, hedging and insuring against consequences of loss of the value.
An event is often seen as being of value simply because of its novelty in fashion and art. By contrast, cultural history and other antiques are sometimes seen as of value in and of themselves due to their age.
Philosopher-historians Will and Ariel Durant spoke as much with the quote, "As the sanity of the individual lies in the continuity of his memories, so the sanity of the group lies in the continuity of its traditions; in either case a break in the chain invites a neurotic reaction" The Lessons of History, Assessment of the value of old or historical artifacts takes into consideration, especially but not exclusively: the value placed on having a detailed knowledge of the past, the desire to have tangible ties to ancestral history, or the increased market value scarce items traditionally hold.
Creativity and innovation and invention are sometimes upheld as fundamentally good especially in Western industrial society—all imply newness, and even opportunity to profit from novelty.
Bertrand Russell was notably pessimistic about creativity and thought that knowledge expanding faster than wisdom necessarily was fatal.
The issue of good and evil in the human visuality, often associated with morality , is regarded by some biologists notably Edward O.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Philosophical dichotomy. For other uses, see Good and evil disambiguation , Good disambiguation , and Evil disambiguation.
For other uses, see Bad disambiguation. For other uses, see Conflict between good and evil. This article has multiple issues.
Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. Learn how and when to remove these template messages. This article contains weasel words : vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information.
Such statements should be clarified or removed. April This article includes a list of references , but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations.
Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. January Learn how and when to remove this template message. This article possibly contains original research.
Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
April Learn how and when to remove this template message. In many religions, angels are considered good beings.
Satan , as seen in Codex Gigas. Demons are generally seen as evil beings, and Satan as the greatest of these in the Christian tradition. Main article: Zoroastrianism.
Main article: Gnosticism. For other uses of "good", see Good disambiguation. Main article: Problem of evil. See also: Yetzer hara.
Main article: Buddhist Ethics. This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
November Learn how and when to remove this template message. This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
August Learn how and when to remove this template message. This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. September Learn how and when to remove this template message.
Philosophy portal. Ingram, Frederick John Streng. University of Hawaii Press, Oxford University Press.
Archived from the original on Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press, p.
The Penguin Dictionary of Religion. Penguin Books UK. Good and Evil: Interpreting a Human Condition. Derk Bodde.
Uses strikingly similar language to that in the etymology section of this article, in the context of Chinese Idealism. White, Revised by A. Some answered questions.
Translated by Laura Clifford. Wilmette, Ill. Archived PDF from the original on March 3, Retrieved June 25, Griffiths, eds. Sri guru-granth sahib [english version].
New York: Taplinger Publishing Co. Social Science Research Network. Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling.
Global Dialogue. Austin: University of Texas Press. Sufism Reoriented. Archived from the original on August 26, Retrieved August 27, Greenwood Publishing Group.
Hewlett, Robert John Russell The evolution of evil. Retrieved The Sources of Evil According to Plato.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. American Philosophical Society. People of the Lie: The hope for healing human evil.
Century Hutchinson. The Social Conquest of Earth. Good vs Evil. The Book of Real Answers to Everything!
Moral behavior in animals. Atkinson, Philip. Recognising Good And Evil from ourcivilisation. US: Oxford University Press.
The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Prometheus Books. Dewey, John. Theory of Valuation. University of Chicago Press.
Durant, Ariel and W. The Lessons of History. MJF Books. Whitmore Publishing. Griffin, James. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hume, David. A Treastise of Human Nature. Hurka, Thomas. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Cambridge University Press. Third section, -.
Penguin Classics. He was born in nothing more than a barn, and He rode into Jerusalem not on a beautiful noble steed with gold plated saddle, but a simple donkey.
We both care based on our Christian values, we just reach a different conclusion as to what will help the poor. This is not you being evil as a conservative and me being good as a liberal or vice versa — this is a difference of political views.
We can and should hold mutual respect as believers on this standpoint, even as we disagree on policy and vote differently — remembering we have a mutual goal and value.
However, if you belittle the poor, if you scapegoat minorities who are poor, if you insult them, if you are hardhearted and without compassion…we now stand on opposite ends of scripture and you have just embraced an ideology that calls what Jesus Christ said is evil, good.
Sometimes what is passed off as good or holy on the outside is not. Likewise, we have also seen good things and good works called bad.
I have seen liberals mocked relentlessly for pushing an agenda of love and compassion. Efforts to help the poor are said to be giving handouts to drug addicts.
A Christian President who has had no scandals while in office, no investigations for corruption, who has upheld the office with decency and a high moral grounding accused of being a Muslim terrorist and disrespected in every way.
By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can.
To all the people you can. Divorce in many conservative Christian circles is still a very dirty word, yet they embraced and excused a man with three divorces and multiple adulterous affairs, and mocked a candidate who had stood through the trial of extra-marital affairs and saved her marriage.
There was a special kind of hypocritical irony to watching Christian Trump supporters completely denigrate something which has always been applauded by conservative Christians…calling saving a marriage bitter and multiple divorces and affairs, sweet.
But what we saw this year was not simple disagreement. The Republican convention and the Trump rallies were full of hatred — it was chanted, it was on signs, even little children held signs with curse words.
They said it with bitterness, they treated her supporters with hatred. Whoever murders will answer for it in court.