I'm sorry, I was trying to find the proper words, but failed at it... I meant the total evil, as a characteristics of some deed (even though it indeed cannot be measured properly from human point of view), whereas nonexistence of absolute evil I consider to be as natural as non-existence of absolute good, unless we speak of their unity.
Now this is something I understand, but cannot accept fully. (Though presumably I should, for I did not experience it and therefore am corporally, which should include thoughts, detached from it). Because when it happens to someone I doubt that they can share a similar view, such philosophy would fail to aid for there seems to be no justification...
And now to be honest I don't even know what I seek (lol), for neither I would like this action to be justified in any way, nor be considered as good, or even total evil, for it makes no difference. But thanks to Nefastos' commentary on the chapters, I now see the distinctions, though I must reread them to grasp completely.
However, your idea also draws another question - what are the factors that make humans do such horrible things?
That is for sure! It was probably a bad example, I don't know, but I just wanted to compare it to something similarly horrible which can be justified as a lesson. For even though it never is, and hell, the executions even used to be entertainment, the thin message "this is a lesson for all of you" from authorities still exists just like video disclaimers no one pays attention to.Smaragd wrote: ↑Thu Jan 07, 2021 11:41 pm Such scare tactics as lessons could be seen only to build outer moral conformity, while true occult lessons in ethics are taken within individuals owns decision regarding situations of ethical choices. Ethics are superior to morals, and as a Satanist I would sxdszee it a terrible failure to kill somebody to build moral walls for the sheep; walls that are destined to be destroyed anyway. Only individual living relation to ethics is building on a sound basis.
Also I was not addressing the revenge. And... we both either made a mistake or just leaped over the words, but the serial killer's victim wouldn't be able to kill the killer cos it is already a victim, oh my, I'm laughing, my mistake.
Here I meant murder as an act of 'self-defence' when the (in-near-future) victim already knows of the intentions of the killer but uses their chance to 'turn the tables'. And I guess you don't mind if I say that both of us would choose this scenario out of the two. Now the third scenario proposed by you changes and improves the situation and I'm thankful, for I tend to miss the 'third side' of things where it is actually necessary and is better, to say nothing of the potential for many more 'sides'. But let's say if there was no possibility to tackle such events peacefully... usually people would prefer defending themselves at all costs. I, personally, would fight because I would feel ashamed for him, and offended. "How dare ya take someone's life? Hey! Staph!"
...And now I fully realize their death would be unfortunate and something I truly wouldn't want to do. For death cannot teach or speak in words with dead. (Unless there's something beyond life...)