Analogy!!! If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?

Keep in mind your answer to the first question, okay.



If somebody commits an "evil act" but they don't think it's evil, and there is no one to judge, and no repercussions, and no one gets hurt, or screwed over is it wrong?

ex: a male nurse rapes a comatose woman, and no one is around to judge, and she'll never know, and their were no consequences, i.e pregnancy, or STD's?

Don't get mad, I'm not condoning anything, I'm just asking a legitimate question.

thanks second guy.

You can't positively implement an evil act.

1) Evil is simply the absence of good.

2) Think of a number line.

3) Four isn't any more evil then five, even though five is the greater number.

4) There are simply permissable choices and better choices.

5) The trick is that with free-will, all choices are permissable choices.

6) That doesn't mean raping someone or killing someone won't have repercussions or consequences.

7) I'm sure you stand on this issue as I stand, and hypothesize with tongue in cheek, because your hypothetical doesn't correlate with reality, does it?

8) What if the family members found out, are they going to go along with the 'permissable rule' that states "No repercussions, for raping a comatose woman, I can't get mad at this, best to move on....there was a foul, but no harm done..."

9) If someone commits a barely-permissable act of free-will and knows in his heart-of-hearts there was a better permissable-act to commit, between him and his concious he has commited an evil act.

10) In this context, above, I deem an evil-act as choosing to commit an act of free will that is deemed lesser then greater on the scale of greater or lesser permissable choices.

11) Group Consensus doesn't get to define this scale, but the rule is that: "If it harm none, do what thou wilt" I would challenge that in spite of the hypothetical rule of 'no repercussions' when it comes to 'reality' there will always be indirect repercussions(e.g. harm) no matter how you come to rationalize an act, tongue-in-cheek or no.

12) Hypothetically this is 'best answer', will that cause you to choose it as such, only 'reality' will tell.

I did fail to read your additional comments, and to that my apologies, and looks like I will be the one needing to speak in tongue-in-cheek; next time. And thanks for proving me wrong on point #12, you are right hypothetical's can correspond to reality, sometimes..Thanks!!! Report It

Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, you can feel it and YOU know it....if you don't then you are already wrong. And the tree in the woods is not going to matter.

Same answer to both really.

Merely by the act of observing or judging we influence the outcome.

If we are not in the wood to hear the tree, it is impossible to know whether it makes a sound or not.

If we know nothing of your second scenario, we cannot make a judgement. By knowing of it, we can make a judgement and therefore change the outcome to being either "right" or "wrong".

If this sort of stuff fascinates you - do a search on "Schrodinger's Cat".

Ok - rape IS wrong. Especially if a comatose woman is raped
You must have just got done watching Kill Bill?
You must have missed the part where the comatosed woman remembered and woke up and kicked that guys ***

I think I did answer your question when I said RAPE IS WRONG> I don't need a scenario to decide that.

no it wont make a sound.. but it will make a crash! big bang!noise, while breaking the twigs and branches of the other trees it fell into.

It is wrong to commit a crime or a sin whether someone witnessed the act or not. If the act itself doesn't conform to the moral codes of a society, community, or humanity as whole, then it is wrong and unethical. The person may not be found guilty but the morality of his action(in your given situation) is bad or wrong. It is analogical to how the act or scenario of a falling tree would make a sound regardless if there was someone or no one to witness it.

Interesting. This hypothetical somebody truly believes he has not done an evil act.... I believe sin is sin if you believe it is sin, he did not. Hmmm.....

Good bit to chew on for the day, I must say.

Of course anyone who believes in a judging God will say it was an evil act, but if we contain our own Gods, and as you said, no one heard, did it make a noise? Yes, good food to chew on.

I would say no it is not an evil act; but I would find it hard to conceive of a person who somewhere inside themselves did not think the rape was an evil act, even if they then forgave themselves of it, or allowed themselves the by. A sin is still a sin if you are fogiven, God or not, right?

I think of Rastolnikov (sp?) from Crime and Punishment. He is an example of this, to some degree.... 'Course religious philosophy then came in and did stuff, but the character was there at first. Hmm......

Good question.

I believe that it is purely inappropriate to rape a comatose woman. Why? Simple, despite the fact that she might never know, the effect on her is immaterial. What should really be considered is the effect that it will have on the rapist. After thinking he can rape a comatose woman, he will begin to have a superiority complex, and may come to rape another woman.

Furthermore, I believe that a person would only rape a comatose woman were he desperate, surely this would triple his desperation?

well if a tree fell in the woods and there was no one to hear it so i dont know cos theres noone to hear it!

Like it or not a crime is only a crime if you get caught. Now, it all depends on what catches you. Conscience has been know to be a good trapper.

Sociopaths and psychopaths commit evil acts and see nothing wrong with them. Very often, there are no witnesses and no repercussions, but they are still causing harm to something or someone.
Whether or not the tree makes a sound, it still falls.
An evil act remains an evil act, despite the lack of witnesses or consequences, and it still causes harm.
Causing harm is the evil.

We are obliged, not only to follow the law of the land and our own sense of right and wrong, but also the senses of right and wrong among other people when we are with them.
If a Protestant goes into a Catholic church, s/he is obliged to kneel, genuflect, or cross her/himself when everyone else does, just as a Catholic person would refrain from doing so in a Protestant church.

if the person that commits an evil act lives in a country where there are laws against what he or she has done, then wouldnt you say that it is evil and against the law? even if that person does not get caught, its still illegal.

Of course a tree that falls in the woods makes a sound....Does anyone really hear it though? Just because no one is around to witness the evil act, doesnt mean that it doesnt happen, just as the tree falling isnt heard, because no one is there. I think that it is wrong to take advantage of people's trust in vulnerable situations...Karma has its way of sheddin light! May God be the final judge!

An act in true isolation that has no 'victim' or consequence to any other sentient being is not 'wrong'.

The act of rape of an unconscious woman even though she may have no memory or knowledge is a crime in that she was violated in a personal sense without her perrmission even though she has no knowledge of it. I do not hold that only knowledge of the act makes it a crime. I may not be the world's best philosopher but rape is a crime.

Just to throw a monkey wrench into your hypothesis... how do you define evil?