Joe Hubris wrote:I asked this question last year of people an art festival and posted their responses in an article on my website. I'm very interested in hearing what this community thinks.

True or false: All evil begins with a lie.

There are various ways to phrase the same inquiry, but I think this is the simplest.

Okisites wrote:Directly giving my view though I had read all views for the question.

In my thinking Evil do not began with a lie, rather its lie which began with an evil. It means no evil begins with a pure lie, though it may be a some kind of untrue statement or belief which understood as a truth but which is not a truth.

I think that evil always begun with many factors when comes together to start any evil deed. The first is "the thought or emotions", the second is "the circumstances"(very important) the third is "the chance"(most important) and the forth is "the need". When all of these come together in any particular time brings about the beginning of an evil. I think so. And then begin the whole round of sequences of lie.

Misty wrote:
How are you dark, very dark and lack evil? What is the difference in the way you use evil?

Douglaspocock wrote:

XDredg3 wrote:

Misty wrote:
How are you dark, very dark and lack evil? What is the difference in the way you use evil?

Evil - Lacking morals and malevolent

Being dark - Is a sense of humor and a unique taste in things i. e. Black(not the race) comedies, certain music(Nine Inch Nails).

Couldn't laughing at 'dark' jokes constitute causing harm to other people? Not saying that harm is evil. I am also not saying that laughing at dark jokes causes harm.

But! If both were the case, I'm sure someone thinks so, couldn't being "very, very dark'" be "evil"?

I don't actually think this way, I just wanted to say it.

Gamnot wrote:Take the Enron scandal for example. The chief exectives of Enron were called the smartest guys in the room. The President of Enron, Ken Lay was a friend of the President of the United States. People trusted them and did not ask enough questions about what they were doing. They betrayed the trust people had in them in the most egregious way. They convinced the Anderson Accounting Firm to "cook the books for them." They had enough smarts to shift their internal crisis situations onto the State of California by deliberately invoking "rolling black outs" and "brownouts." Enron the Texas based energy company was canabilizing the people of California and they believed that they would be able to get away it. This is certainly lying on a grand scale.

wouldn't you call this evil activity?

I have not read the book on the scandal yet, but I intend to. It would be interesting to determine at what point in time and through what action the malfeasance begin. Maybe they "Bite off more than they could chew" began sliding into trouble and through a gambler's fallacy could not stop their egregious activities.

Schaps wrote:"Then in turn not saying anything can't be a lie" I think that this is a delusion! A "deception" is a synonym of a "lie"- to attempt to distinguish between the two is like grasping at straws! Cheating IS the same as lying! The false statement need not be verbal. By appearing to be honest, one is making a false statement as to its veracity - IMHO...

Misty wrote:

XDredg3 wrote:

To me that's not a lie. Going merely upon what you said, if they didn't ask then they didn't lie? I mean if I cheat on my wife and never telling her 'cause she didn't ask, it's not lying. It's being untruthful; deceitful. A lie is something you tell, a fasle statement. Then in turn not saying anything can't be a lie

A lie is something one tells. Another dictionary meaning is: "To create a false or misleading impression". So, if you and your wife have an understanding of fidelity, and you cheat, you have lied to her whether you tell her or not. A lie by omission is still a lie.

Ghostwriter wrote:True or False.
In regard to ‘human’ affairs, evil is an absence of Conscience.

Ghostwriter wrote:Question.
If I were to suggest that ‘Conscience’ is, in part --- ‘a quality with the potential to serve the individual in some circumstances as a restraint upon certain actions, and in other circumstances as a calling to act' ---
would you agree?’