In Defense Of Evil: Why Good Is Bad And Bad Is Good

[Squammish]

In Defense Of Evil:  Why Good Is Bad And Bad Is Good

Summary:  A manifesto against all expectations and a criticism of all moral certainty, IN DEFENSE OF EVIL is a biting dissection of popular American ethics and the exoneration of society's so-called villains.

Excerpt:  Another advantage of Instant Gratification keeping us from living too long is that far less of us survive into senility than medical science, combined with reasonable health awareness, ought to allow us to.  This spares us from the worst years of our lives. . . .

I will grant you that Instant Gratification creates problems like global warming and peak oil, but if not for our reckless use of oil and petroleum based products, we'd likely not be as far along in our research of alternative energy because our frugality in the face of a crisis would have had us managing our oil better and using it longer.  If it weren't for the global warming problem, we'd not have poured nearly as much money into climate science, which has lead us to a number of auxiliary revelations about how our whole ecosystem works. 

Half-Assed Review:  Awesome.  Buy it.  8/10.  -1 for the grammar mistakes in the book at times.  -1 for how some of the parts could have been done a little better.  Other than that, I read the book the first day that I received it from Lulu.com.  While I don't agree on all the points of his book, and some points do contradict his word as TheAmazingAtheist on Youtube, it was still a solid read and you will be interested at the very least.

[kkslider5552000]

sounds like the book should be called "Devil's Advocate"

[Squammish]

sounds like the book should be called "Devil's Advocate"

Well, in all reality, the book is set in the view of someone with no clear set-in-stone moral standards as they are provided by the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc.  He views the world in the eyes of an atheist with morals and ethics that are less numerous than those in religion.  One example is his declaration of Hitler as not evil.  Hitler believed that he was doing the right thing and that he was a good man.  What right does someone else have in the determination of whether one's moral standards are good or not? 

EDIT:  Oh, and the book has 30 or so occurrences of the F-Word.  If you are going to buy it, you were warned.  Also, he will most likely offend you if you are either Christian or Buddhist.

[Penguinfan]

  That would make sense since I believe what is good came from religions such as the ten commandments.  Also I think people's brains are auto tuned to work a certain way for the most part (good), thus when people act differently (bad) we view the act as a negative act.  It's been researched that some  serial killers lack or have a smaller area of the brain (forgot the name) that controls the feeling we feel when certain words are said.  For example a person lacking this area of the brain would understand what people are saying when they shout "please dont hurt me" but they would not understand it emotionaly thus they do not stop.  Anyway thats my rant for the day, wether or not it made any since is beyond me ;P.