Nothing can be totally evil
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
I believe nothing can be totally evil because every action has a set of consequences and all of these consequences can’t possibly be evil. Such as purposely burning down someone’s house in the moment it would be a bad action and alphabets bad consequences with potentially malicious intent. Although the house is replaced by a children’s Hospital.
Just like how something cannot be totally evil nothing can be totally good. For example let’s say you save 1000 orphans from drowning chances are that 20 of them will become murderers so although the action is mostly good there will always be evil lurking behind each action and decision.
If it at least is seen as something good by even one person then it cannot be inherently evil because they saw it as good [it benefited them.]
If it at least is seen as something EVIL by even one person then it cannot be inherently GOOD because they saw it as evil [it maligned them.]
One thing that could be argued to be complete evil is female genital mutilation. It only robs the women of pleasure and traumatises them as they are betrayed by those meant to protect and nurture them (it's done to them as young or teenage girls and the parents blackmail them to go along with it if they resist).In this scenario nothing and nobody benefits in a true sense but even if we say that somehow it 'could be good' what Pro is missing is this:Accidental benefits in one context to some individual or thing does not mean the act was not evil.