In 30 years of watching basketball I don't believe I've ever seen a team that outscored the other team by 40+ points in the paint get outshot at the free throw line 3 to 1 by a team that shot 32 3-point shots. Absolutely unreal. Dallas was not in the penalty in a single quarter and the lakers pounded the paint relentlessly.
Its's over, good has finaly triumph evil. This battle has been going on for decades but now reality finally set in A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background. C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. However the numerous instances in which rape or murder is morally affected by social context call this into question. In fact, many acts now considered evil have been termed as acceptable in some societies at different times. One might argue, nevertheless, that the definition of the word rape necessitates that any action described by the word is evil, since the concept refers to causing sexual harm to another. Up until the mid-19th century, the United States — along with many other countries — practiced forms of slavery. As is often the case, those transgressing moral boundaries stood to profit from that exercise. Arguably, slavery has always been the same and objectively evil, but men with a motivation to transgress will justify that action. The Nazis, during World War II, found genocide acceptable, as did the US Union Army's massacre of "savage" Native American Indians and the Hutu Interhamwe in the Rwandan genocide. One might point out, though, that the actual perpetrators of those atrocities probably avoided calling their actions genocide, since the objective meaning of any act accurately described by that word is to wrongfully kill a selected group of people, which is an action that at least the victimized party will understand to be evil. Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly related to acts or intents. Thus, while the ideological leaders of Nazism and the Hutu Interhamwe accepted (and considered it moral) to commit genocide, the belief in genocide as "fundamentally" or "universally" evil holds that those who instigated this genocide are actually evil.[improper synthesis?] Other universalists might argue that although the commission of an evil act is always evil, those who perpetrate may not be wholly evil or wholly good entities. To say that someone who has stolen a candy bar, for instance, becomes wholly evil is a rather untenable position. However, universalists might also argue that a person can choose a decidedly evil or a decidedly good life career, and genocidal dictatorship plainly falls on the side of the former.
Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:
* Moral absolutism holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by a deity or deities, nature, morality, common sense, or some other source.
* Amoralism claims that good and evil are meaningless, that there is no moral ingredient in nature.
* Moral relativism holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice.
* Moral universalism is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans. Author Sam Harris notes that universal morality can be understood using measurable (i.e. quantifiable) metrics of happiness and suffering, both physical and mental, rooted in how the biology of the brain processes stimuli.
Plato wrote that there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, philosophers such as Bernard Gert maintain that preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct.
mannnn, i'm kinda salty. still feel LA is the better team, but i won't take $hit away from dallas. ya'll have been the better team so far and killed us with the pick n' roll. i'm gonna take a nap so i don't start drinking