From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Whites are evil?[edit]

I'll assume good faith but a caption that boils down to "whites are evil" isn't going to fly.

User:Dzlinker: 22:24, 11 January 2014: [1].

User:Dzlinker: 23:01, 10 February 2014: [2].

User:Simonm223: 22:53, 21 February 2014: [3].

-- Tobby72 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

All I did was revert the page to the last stable version. Because with this article it's probably always a good idea to build consensus in talk first. However I'll point out that the reference to the Atlantic Slave Trade doesn't mention the skin colour of the people involved (you know, since it involved people of all kinds of skin colours and both Christians and Muslims) and while the British colonists who kicked off the Australian genocide are generally pretty pale it was in that case more a specific nationality attacking another. Whereas you were trying to single out a single religion for their participation in a massive (yes, evil) venture that probably touched on a heckuvalotta people who weren't the same faith as them.
And that's getting into WP:NPOV territory, not to mention WP:DUE so I'd advise against. Now if it turns out that the general consensus disagrees with me I'm not going to go to the walls over it. However I just think it's not the most appropriate edit for this article. Simonm223 (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no strong consensus regarding images, see [4]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The rationale provided by user: seems sound. I'm sometimes a bit of a wiki ogre and I recently came active again - may have missed an intervening debate, and I do agree that this article should not be used for any political axe grinding. Simonm223 (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Race is not a factor in reference to people Im.pure.evil85 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Why is there no section on the concept of evil as used in fantasy/sci-fi literature? Is there another article where this is covered? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 18:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no such other article. Perhaps such a section could be added here, but is the concept well-defined (meaning, are there sources)? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pluralism vs. Relativism[edit]

‘Four opposed camps: moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism’ - I’m assuming that moral pluralism has been subsumed under moral relativism ? 20040302 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I dealt with this, as nobody else addressed it after a month. I object to the notion of 'four opposed camps' without a reliable source. As I pointed out, moral pluralism was not mentioned, so either the 'four opposed...' needs to be renumbered - or just gotten rid of. Likewise, as I am unable to point to an RS that mentions any specific list of 'camps' that include the five that are mentioned, it is wrong to assume that there are only five. Within a broader context, the notion that we are aware of every single 'school of moral thought that is informed by the notion of evil' seems really naive. At the very best it would involve some ghastly integrative correlation (eg some sort of assertion such as, 'Socratic moralism is equivalent to both Platonic moralism and neo-semitic moralism from 200BC through 200CE - and they are all relative moralism' that itself would be groundless, as the notions of evil and morality are deeply tied to the culture and contexts within which they arise. (20040302 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC))

Universality -> approaches; Not 4 divisions.[edit]

(1) There is no 'universality' regarding evil. There are various philosophical 'approaches'.

(2) There are not just four divisions to the approaches - there are at least five, and we should be hesitant in declaring a specific number, certainly without citation. As mentioned before, moral pluralism has a long-standing and important role to play in the discussion of good and evil. An example of value-pluralism is the idea that the moral life of a nun is incompatible with that of a mother, yet there is no purely rational measure of which is preferable. Hence, moral decisions often require radical preferences with no rational calculus to determine which alternative is to be selected. moral pluralism differs from moral relativism in that pluralism accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. Plato indicates moral pluralism in Statesman when he writes that although the aim may be "to promote not a part of virtue but the whole", it is often the case that the different parts of virtue "may be at war with one another". (20040302 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

(2*) As stated here and struck, the notion of 'four major divisions' is weak. cf. Meta-ethics which has a list of (what are known as moral ontologies) that recognise three major ontological categories, which are then divided into many different sections - this is far better enumerated on the original article Regardless, the section only partly addressed meta-ethics, which misses out on the vast domain of ethical philosophy. (20040302 (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC))