These actions are not bad, but they are not necessarily good either. It would be worse for the man to be denied medicine by the pharmacy, or for the starving people to be denied the food. If you stole food from a large corporation that would not be affected by it in any notable way in order to save your life, it's good. If you stole food from another starving man, it's bad.CerataPhthalma wrote:What if a man stole or pocketed medicine from a pharmacy to help a loved one who was ill? Is the act still evil? Would there be a difference if it was a life-threatening illness vs. a mere inconvenience?
What if someone were to steal food to feed others who are starving? What if we steal resources we need during moments of crisis (such as incidents of 'looting' during major disasters)? Are those acts still evil? Are they evil against an individual moreso than they are against a larger entity, such as a major corporation that will feel the effects less?
The word 'evil' implies a very severe and even spiritual level of 'bad', so it's a different discussion. I'm talking about good and bad in the sense of what ensures a harmonic and functional society, not from an idealistic/spiritual standpoint.
That is still amoral, but it is natural. Nature is beyond morals because it is beyond society.How about killing? Thou Shalt Not Kill, after all. Notice it doesn't specify which species. We kill animals frequently for food.
Neither good nor bad.Americans are all about killing in self-defense (and sometimes in retaliation, as in the Death Penalty still active in a very few states). If someone was moments away from killing you, and you killed them before they could, would your killing of this individual still be evil?
The act of killing one person would be bad, and the act of not saving those people if you are able to would also be bad. That's about the lesser of two evils.If the only way to save twenty people was to kill one, would that action be evil?
You've argued a very interesting point about how good and bad isn't black and white, but nothing about that makes good and bad subjective. It speaks to how people have many different opinions about morals, but it doesn't disprove that there is an objective truth in regards to them based on the effects they have on the world. Which means my answers to your examples are completely irrelevant.Again, a large amount of subjectivity unless you are willing to say All of X Action is Bad, Regardless of Circumstance--which is a valid point of view, if one lacking in empathy and generally unpopular with most. If that is the view you take, however, you must be clear that you judge action alone devoid of intent, and intent will never matter in your judgment that an action is 'good' or 'evil.'
It sounds like wishful thinking.
