I just have to say Azh that tears formed…. quickly wiped away…while reading your text of “All men were created equal, but after creation the equality stops”. ;)

Wish I had more time to discuss but I will add something useless later. More important things to consider :beer::beer:

Rooting out something indefinable as "evil" cannot be a logical concept.

But what could be more dangerous for the existence of a civilisation than misanthropic logical concepts without ethics?

Examples of genocide/mass murder as an effective way to get rid of a certain set of problems(often creating a new set, but not always)

Sudanese termination of the Dinka people.
Laotian termination of the Hmong people(the survivors are hunted like dogs in their homeland and the rest are in Thailand or the USA)
American near-annihilation of the majority of American indigenous tribes, total annihilation(by Americans, Mexicans, or other European-based states) of tribes like the:
Of course, you could argue that we didn't eliminate them all, but the estimated number of inhabitants before white men came to the Americas of inhabitants is about 100 million. We pared that down by a digit or so.

Seems more like relocating problems, instead of solving and creating new ones.

Evil does not need to be defined in order to be moved away from. It seems you are attempting to throw into logic with the ethics part of my argument when I did not intend that. That's an issue of clarification.

Do we even have enough bullet for all this? This topic really creeps me out, killing so many people just because a few thousand of them piss you off.

How can you fight something you cannot even define?

The second part of my last post was not directed at you.

Competition for scarce and finite resources and space compounded by mans inability to manage his own numbers in a sustainable way? Genocide isnt evil, its just the end result of natural selection writ large. You can sugar coat it any way you prefer and people will always try to tack a justification onto it whether it be religious, racial or economic but at the end of the day the real reason will be because one side wants theirs and their own to be successful and if that comes at someone elses expense, so be it.

A striking summary. But I feel uneasy regarding your (?) conclusion ("so be it").

If a vague definition of justice can be arrived at (without having to set forth crystal clear terms), we can move towards good and away from evil. This is possible only by laying down a universal framework, such as individual rights. If the ability for individual rights to be trampled upon is limited, whether this be in the state where the strong rule the weak, or a large government, there is less of a possibility for individual rights to be removed. That's simple enough and evil does not need to be defined in that situation. It is essentially stating that by limiting the amount of "bad" things that can happen (such as a violation of individual rights), we can move towards more good things without having to get into the nitty-gritty of a centralized definition. For more objective terms, it's like moving a vague circle of the sense of right and wrong along an axis of justice and injustice without having to define either/or.

More towards the topic:

There's a TV show that I love that appeared on FOX back in 1999, but was canceled after just 13 episodes. The show was Brimstone. You guys can look up the plot, but it has a great line:

The Devil: These microbes never cease to amaze me. An orgy of pain and suffering in such a little tiny package. You really have to give that old bitch Mother Nature a lot of credit.

Stone: Mother Nature? What the hell she's got to do with this? Pain and suffering's your domain, isn't it?

The Devil: Please, Ezekiel. My job's not to decide who lives and dies. My business is with the soul. And I have never damned a soul who didn't thoroughly deserve it. Mother Nature is a completely different story. She kills indiscriminately, good and evil alike. Why she gets all the good press, I'll never know.