as opposed to the person or situation being observed. "Evil" is an emotional reaction to stimuli. When we realize this, our "opponents" retain their humanity within our minds, and we are less likely to betray our own values when dealing with them.

However, the application of criteria to one's observations is not an evil act.

Criteria and their application are individually subjective and only become objective due a consensus among others. Since a pre-agreed universal set of criteria would be cumbersome and difficult if not impossible, a structure of rights and principles must be developed by society.

Just that evil is a subjective perception.

It makes as more sense than having a hockey team in Phoenix.

Is it evil to destroy?

I guess that's the point. When you're fighting the enemy, will you eventually become that which you originally hated so dearly? Does fighting evil require betraying your own sensibilities of good?

Did Mahatma Gandhi fight his enemy, for example? Did he betray his principles?

then you wont become your enemy.

And you can stop telling me what your signature is. I got it.

jk

And apply it in a social context. There are a number of acts that are so disturbed we use the word evil; say someone is a cannibal, not only a cannibal, bit Albert Fish like, your cannibal will only eat the flesh of stolen babies, in fact, infants. This cannibal knows right from wrong--he simply feels that stealing and eating babies does a greater good because the world is overpopulated, a great wrong in his/her mind and wasting flesh is also a great wrong.

We would call this person mentally ill, and if they continue their justification for their actions, evil. because this way of thinking is so foreign, and feels so wrong on every level we can think of. Stealing is usually 'wrong', but not necessarily evil, stealing babies comes much closer to evil, and eating them crosses all social boundaries.

This is an extreme example I used because is neither noble or self destructive to oppose this; it's closer to species survival. I would say that it's even necessary to fight this kind of evil.

...that which brings harm to a person or property.

Wouldn't that make most humans evil at one time or another?

...checkbook accounting system of good and evil, that's my basis. I like the "first do no harm" part of the Hippocratic Oath.

When things get complicated, the first task is to make them simpler.

Existence is self destructive. We use value judgements like nobility or evil to justify or condemn our struggle against entropy.

The opposition of evil is both noble and self destructive. In fact, profit from opposition to evil is an evil in itself while complete destruction might be seen as the most noble act that can be imagined. It's the difference between a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save others and war profiteering.

People working against entropy, disorder and chaos is what society is about.

that civilized society is the rate and direction of the struggle against entropy.

"A Native American elder once described his own inner struggles in this manner: Inside of me there are two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time. When asked which dog wins, he reflected for a moment and replied, The one I feed the most." - George Bernard Shaw

"If you take a look at history, you will find that the understanding of what is good and evil has always existed before the individual religions. The religions were only invented by people afterwards, in order to express this idea." - Salman Rushdie

"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee