Evil

[Guest]

I doubt you really wondered all of that.  Your first clause alone lets me think that you havent considered this deeply.

"Is Evil just the result of ignorance or moral imperfection of man" 
If evil was a result of ignorance that really means evil doesnt actually exist, by reduction you would be saying evil was a meaningless relative value.

The whole Kardec deal you move on to is circular nonsense. If you make a value judgement to call something "imperfect" that is no different than calling it "evil".

Kant was just playing loony semantic games too. His reasoning is analogous to a mathematician saying "you cant subtract a number because negatives dont exist - you can only not have added it".

Its all the same really, the trick is semantics not substance.
There are 2 real options.

1 Evil doesnt exist. Its simply a realtive construct of systems in a naturalistic world(Good doesnt exist either).

2 Evil does exist and its the antitheses of Good.
[right][snapback]60628[/snapback][/right]

You haven't understood what I meant:
There are several meanings for 'Evil' ,that doesn't mean that there is a truth behind each meaning;for instance,the word "unicorn" is in your dictionnary,still there is no 'unicorn' in the real world;what I meant is what meaning of Evil is true in our real world;the meanings of words are just there to express our thoughts and in no account they can express what is true or untrue.
I can't believe that one can make logic mistakes like that.