YAQ: What, me evil?

[vakkotaur]

Via jmthane

You Are 16% Evil

You are good. So good, that you make evil people squirm. Just remember, you may need to turn to the dark side to get what you want!

How Evil Are You?

This quizzoid thing has at least a couple questions that don't really belong in it and it doesn't look like it has them as controls, either. One is about belief, or rather lack of belief, in God. I don't see how skepticism is evil. I've heard claims that "morality only derives from religion" but I've never heard the claims backed up with anything much more than "this book says so and this book is right as it says so" while I do know some quite moral and ethical atheists and agnostics.

Another is about having used firearms and liking it. What's wrong with liking a tool that functions as it ought to? Evil is not about a thing, or liking a thing, but about what a person does.

Comments

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I think one of the main arguments is that atheists have to choose their morality and ethics while religious folks have an existing set of ethics that they're supposed to ascribe to. A hedonistic atheist might choose a very skimpy set of ethics to maximize his or her own pleasure and freedom, even at the expense of others. Of course, the supposedly religious folks tend to do the same thing, twisting their religious beliefs into a form more pleasurable for themselves and less pleasant for others.

Or to put it another way, you can't criticize someone for being a bad atheist when they act selfishly, since there's no morality built into atheism. You can accuse someone of being a bad Catholic or a bad Sunni etc. if you point out that they're doing a. and b. instead of c. or d., but they will rationalize their behavior and get angry at you for accusing them.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I suppose, but I could also argue that buying an "off the rack" moral code is lazy, too. It seems what you mention isn't so much about a person's own behavior as having the ability to criticize others and have some cover for doing so.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, might be lazy, but if you agree with 95% of some pre-existing advertised social moarlity, there can be benefits to associating with a group. Furry seems to have a morality all its own in some ways, being part of the group lets the rest of the group know you think they're cool.

As for being able to criticize others, well, a true follower of a religion will always judge himself or herself more harshly than he/she judges anyone else. And sometimes good things do come from the imposing of morality, like the abolotion of slavery.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

There are benefits, at least until you encounter that last 5% and need to say, "but I'm not like that!" Associating with a religion also means associating with its problems and needing to show where there is divergence.

As for the True Follower being harsher on the self, it may be so, but it's then the False Follower who seems to be the loudest and most visible. I see the example of Abolition as a logical extension of following the 'Golden Rule' which seems independent of religion. It's logical self-interest and a means to self-preservation, it doesn't need imposition from Above. Or at least I think it doesn't if someone is capable of believing in themselves rather than needing to believe in an external power (http://vakkotaur.livejournal.com/106390.html).