Is there really an Evil Person ? Does Evil Exist ?

I disagree with your assumption that we are by nature "self-aware" if you mean by nature we are born already aware of morality since I've read stories of people who've grown up in the wild, where they think and believe they are animals. Now, I do think we are born with the ability to be self-aware and that this ability is built-up by the formulation/shaping of our conscience; A process which is heavily influenced by the society and people who raise us from birth.

So we both agree that mankind has within itself the inherent ability to be an agent of morality because mankind is able to cultivate self-awareness. Great. This agreement still brings us full circle back to my examples of honor killings and abortion, which demonstrate the necessity of a moral authority. You see, with both examples you have self-aware human beings who believe two completely different things. On one side you have people who believe these practices cause unnecessary suffering (evil) and then you have those who believe with every fiber of their being that they do not (good).

Which side is morally correct and why?

And just to reiterate, both examples deal with what each sides believes to constitute as unnecessary suffering. In abortion the pro-life side believes abortion is the murder of an innocent life (unnecessary suffering) and then you have the pro-choice side that disagrees with them and believes making a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy is torture (unnecessary suffering).

Who's definition of unnecessary suffering is correct and why?

Again with honor killings. One side believes a woman who has sex outside of wedlock brings dishonor on her family and sins against herself and her relatives (unnecessary suffering) and is justly killed as a consequence. Then you have another side that believes the punishment of death is not proportionate to the offense or doesn't believe the offense itself is even an offenses at all, rendering the entire practice unnecessary.

Who's definition of unnecessary suffering is correct and why?

 

The golden rule is the standard: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Now you might want to start nitpicking at the edges, saying things, what if someone wants to be tortured, but you very well understand the golden rule does solve the question of moral authority.

You might also want to justify evil, it's all relative and all the typical satanic nonsense that everyone nowadays thinks they are progressive by spewing out, but put it this way, if a friend whom you've done favors, betrays you. You are not going to say: he is smart and utilitarian. Everyone should betray their friends when they no longer need them!
You react with anger because you have moral values, and everyone does. The golden rule is the caliber for determining good and evil.

Someone who for example, kidnaps a child and tortures it to get dopamine, is not someone who is doing essential "evil", his actions are BAD, universally bad.

You might want to look up "Mark Passio", he has done a lot of work on natural law.

 

T

The 2 examples you propose are straw man arguments.
Basically they are in a more simplified version like this:
Someone will suffer mental pain if he/she doesn't kill someone else. Who are we to judge the murderer who would have suffered a headache?

Should an 8 month pregnancy child be killed because a woman decided that it's too much of a headache to have children. Put yourself in place of the child and mother and decide accordingly. Why don't we give parents the right to kill their children until the age of 5, maybe children under 5 cause too much "suffering" for the parents!

In honor killings, again you compare mental pain of "dishonor" to killing someone.

 

I’ll just come in here and say yes there is an evil person. He looks like a 21 year old suspect from Atlanta.

 

As you mentioned the "Golden Rule" doesn't solve the problem of the need for authority for a moral law, which is true. Take note here you use words like "satanic" to describe people who don't agree with your moral outlook or with the belief in a "natural law".

To you these are strawman but that is only because the moral law you subscribe to has setup the precepts that abortion is unjustifiable murder or that honor killings are unjustified murders.

Note, I'm not saying I disagree with you that those two things are evil or that they're being
allowed under a faulty premis, but I admit I believe they are evil based on the moral law I follow, which is rooted in a faith in the source of said law, God, according to the Christian school of thought. This goes back to my point that an authority is needed for morality and that this authority would have to be a divine entity.

I don't see good and evil existing in a world where there is no God.

 

I think the world would be a better place if we were to stop calling people evil.

Here's a good talk on the subject: