Let's assume that good is the opposite of evil, then choosing the lesser evil to prevent a greater evil is good, which creates a kind of absurdity. Good and evil are also not distinguished by their inherent nature; they are simply evaluations of an event or fact. The main point here is not what happened, but how and who evaluates it. There is no point in these arguments; everyone is saying the same thing, just in different variations (and I read all 171 messages). IT'S BORING. No one said anything new. (Sorry for the unwarranted criticism; I'm leaving...)
Let's assume that good is the opposite of evil, then choosing the lesser evil to prevent a greater evil is good, which creates a kind of absurdity. Good and evil are also not distinguished by their inherent nature; they are simply evaluations of an event or fact. The main point here is not what happened, but how and who evaluates it. There is no point in these arguments; everyone is saying the same thing, just in different variations (and I read all 171 messages). IT'S BORING. No one said anything new. (Sorry for the unwarranted criticism; I'm leaving...)