:
|
An action can carry negative consequences, and it can be perceived as being an evil deed. The person is another matter; they could view the act as positive or negative. If you want to get psychological, it boils down to perception being what makes a deed good or evil.
|
Now, that is definitely the topic at hand.
:
|
However, as I pointed out, there are several primitive societies who viewed killing a child or murdering as ritualistic or spiritual in nature, and most often in a positive way. Some would raid other tribes' villages and kill everyone, or even select some to be killed. To the tribe they assaulted, this was negative. To the tribe doing the assaulting, this was very good for them.
|
Here is the heart of the question. These societies thought that their actions were for the greater good. They sacrifice a child to their god so that their society may survive. They kill all the boy children of another tribe so that they may not grow to become a threat. Hitler killed the jews because he believed they were a drain on his superior race.
Let's for the sake of argument say that these acts are evil. Are those that committed them insane or just ignorant? Is ignorance a valid argument to keep these people from being considered evil?