Majority of Americans are evil

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58503973

Logical deduction is as follows:

1. The majority favours DP.
2. The majority don't care about innocent being put to death, even though they know the risk.

No. 2 is evil because you are in favour of executing an innocent (it is is evil to punish an innocent). Therefore, the logical conclusion must be that the majority (no. 1) are evil.

All Americans are not evil...

Do you honestly believe I'm evil? I'm an American after all.

Did I say all? No. I said "majority". 60 %, to be exact.

Most humans are evil. They like to inflict pain on innocents. That's a very human thing to do.

The evidence is there for everybody to watch - in the entire world.

You have a point there...

It's hard to find good data on worldwide opinion but it seems that in 2014 52.5% of Australians favored the death penalty for terrorism, which I suspect is the sort of crime for which the Americans participating in the poll you cite have in mind. I have no idea how things might have changed since

Small majority of Australians favour the death penalty for deadly terrorist acts in Australia

I'll bet a substantial percentage of French people would not run out and demonstrate against a death penalty for the Bataclan terrorists, were that possible. And I'll bet a lot of Swedish people would also sympathize.

Some of the 60 percent might think the risk the risk of no death penalty is greater then the risk of the death from the death penalty. They might think the death penalty not only deters death by murders but death by the psychological and economic costs of being a crime victim.

Everyone is capable of committing acts considered "evil"; but what defines an "evil" act?

Killing someone by stabbing them with a knife is certainly evil; but what if you are a surgeon trying to save someone from choking by performing a tracheotomy with a pocket-knife, and the person dies anyway -- did you commit an evil act?

Your syllogism fails because both premises are presumptive and vague.

Why not have an a short, precise definition of evil?

Evil: An act of deliberate harm, not caused by self-defense.

A surgeon saving the patient, is not harming anyone. The patient may feel pain or lose limbs. But since the alternative is far worse (for the patient), an the act of cutting/stabbing a knife into the patient damages organs, it is not harm.

There needs to be a clear seperation between harm and damage. Harm is damage inflicted for the sake of damage alone.

The fact that the patient dies from this, doesn't matter to the question of deliberate harm, because the motive/purpose was to save the patient, and do good. Motive/purpose of an act is equally important as the act itself.

Then we need to define "Harm".  How about: "That which causes physical or emotional discomfort in another"?

Then you can't claim evil(ness) of people who only believe they choose the lesser evil.

So ... the evilness of an act can be determined by its motivation ... which is stated by the person committing the act ... whose words are validated by the act the person committed ... an act that is good or evil based on the motivation behind it ... which can only be determined by a statement from the person committing the act ... whose words are validated by the act the person committed ... an act that is good or evil based on the motivation behind it ... which can only be determined by a statement from the person committing the act ... whose words are validated by the act the person committed ... an act that is good or evil based on the motivation behind it ... which can only be determined by a statement from the person committing the act ... whose words are validated by the act the person committed ... an act that is good or evil based on the motivation behind it ... which can only be determined by a statement from the person committing the act ... whose words are validated by the act the person committed ... an act that is good or evil based on the motivation behind it ... which can only be determined by a statement from the person committing the act ... whose words are validated by the act the person committed ... an act that is good or evil based on the motivation behind it ... which can only be determined by a statement from the person committing the act ... (et cetera).

Executing someone, is not a "lesser evil". By any means.

It is not strictly necessary to execute someone. It is not necessary for the society as a whole to work, to function nor is it going to undo a crime.

The inmate is defenseless. The inmate has no chance of escape. By the very thing that the inmate is defenseless, the execution is an act of evil.

Court systems are aimed at ensuring possibly innocent people are defended - so inmates are not "defenseless".

If you ask a murderer "why did you kill?" he's likely to answer "because I like it, because I'm bad and there's nothing you can do about it."

If you ask an executioner the same question, you will get the same answer.

A lot of those people doing evil acts admit to the public they're evil.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 09 Sep 2021, 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.