assuming there is a such thing as evil....

[Alex]

Evil is not entirely subjective because most people react similarly to certain stimuli.

[SHATOUSHKA]

a plea to majoral behavior isn't sound logic...
nor is it effective

thats like saying --

most people prefer apple pie... therefore apple
pie is the best.

its a jaded experiment.

statistics are just that... a majoral representative...
which is transferred (crudely) into some sort
of legitimate objective reasoning.

when you talk about 'evil'... you blanket all
of people (majority or no)... i highly doubt
you can establish 'evil' as 'commonplace'.

tell me, alex,....

when a seagull eats its young, is that evil?

[Alex]

Are there any cultures where people frown when they are happy, and smile when they are mad?

And if there are one or two, is that statistically relevant when compared to a 1000 other groups who don't smile when mad and frown when happy.

[SHATOUSHKA]

the only importance to the minority in a statistic
is just that... its a minority.

we are talking about evil, however, and you have
suggested that evil is commonplace regardless
of culture/environment.

so i'm asking you if you think its evil that
a seagull eat its young.

[Alex]

I would need additional data as to why a Seagull eats its young. I can come up with several reasons why it could happen.

Is the Seagull eating it's young on a "free will" basis, or is there a compelling motivation?

[SHATOUSHKA]

the seagull eats its young because it feels obligated to.

while there is no indication that one nestling
will survive over another... once two eggs have
hatched... the rest are destroyed (either by
eating or removing from the nest).

should more than two nestlings hatch... the same
applies to the offspring, it is either eaten
or tossed out of the nest.

this is a multi-faceted thought problem... as it
asks you to determine not only whether the gull
is acting under 'evil'... but to justify your
answer by determining (either directly or indirectly)
WHY the gull is doing it.... its a circular
proposition... a paradox.... and one that cannot
be answered quickly.

however, i am interested in what your answer is....

[SHATOUSHKA]

er... in case that didn't make any sense...

what i'm saying is this --

which comes first:

evil? or the means to justify evil?

[Alex]

Well, I can come up with a slew of reasons why a seagull mom would eat it's young.

The Seagull might..

eat the loudest one to help not draw attention to it's nest/home.

not be able to properly nurse a full brood, rather than starve the smallest and weakest, eating them gives more strength and nourishment to the mother seagull which in turn can be passed onto the remaining brood, AND prevents the stench of a dead seagull from attracting other wildlife and possibly endangering the rest of the family.

Perhaps these reasons are sidebar issues.

If the Seagull is genetically predisposed to a certain behavior, than it's activities are not evil. However, humans are supposed to evolve as they mature and acquire external educational stimuli to help "guide" their activities and predispositions.

That is probably what separates us from other animals.

[SHATOUSHKA]

i'm not sure what makes the power to reason
that much different than other naturally-defined
motives (instincts).

i'm always leery about segregating reason from
instinct.....

[Alex]

instinct is probably a direct route to a result, the human way may just be a lot of extra stuff that we think makes us "superior" when it may just be excess baggage.