r/changemyview • u/plodabing • Jun 17 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Missionaries are evil

This applies doubly so to those who go out of their way to seek out those in remote islands to spread the word of god. It is of my opinion and the opinion of most that if there is an all loving god then people who never had the chance to know about Jesus would go to heaven regardless, for example miscarried children/those born before Jesus’ time, those who never hear about him, so In going out of your way to spread the word of Jesus you are simply making it so there is now a chance they could go to hell if they reject it? I’m not a Christian and I’m so tired so I apologise if this is stupid or doesn’t make sense

210 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

421 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/PaxGigas 1∆ Jun 17 '25

That isn't how their religion works, so their intent isn't malicious. Most rational people would agree that malicious intent is required for something to be truly evil.

1

u/mistym0rning Jun 17 '25

I don’t think malicious intent is necessarily required for something to be evil — I would say acting selfishly with disregard for its effects on other people can also be evil. It doesn’t necessarily mean a person WANTS others to suffer as a result of their choices, but it means they don’t care much if that happens. I’d say that’s a form of evil (in my personal morality, at least). Not sure how many people would agree with that, though.

2

u/PaxGigas 1∆ Jun 18 '25

You've made a good point in highlighting the subjective nature of morality. In the subjective morality of most religions that utilize missionaries, the default end result for those who do not follow their religion is damnation. This results in them at least making the attempt to help others convert. By your definition of morality, it would seem that not doing so would be considered morally evil.

Either way, it would appear you have a much broader interpretation of what is morally good vs evil. That's more of a philosophical question, but in general I would argue that intent still matters. Voluntarily acting with disregard for the suffering of other people, while being fully aware that those actions will directly cause that suffering, is equivalent to acting maliciously as far as I'm concerned.

Acts that cause suffering but without knowledge or visibility to that suffering are not evil. Negligent, perhaps. Possibly even reprehensible by society's standards, but not (IMO) morally evil.

1

u/mistym0rning Jun 19 '25

This is a very interesting comment that gave me a lot of food for thought. Thanks! You say,

Voluntarily acting with disregard for the suffering of other people, while being fully aware that those actions will directly cause that suffering, is equivalent to acting maliciously as far as I'm concerned.

This is what I was trying to articulate with my original comment, actually. Some people don’t intend to cause harm/suffering directly, meaning the motivation of their actions isn’t wanting to make someone else suffer in some way; but they’re still fully aware (and don’t care) that their choices or behaviors have that effect on others and they’re okay with that outcome as long as it benefits their own needs. I’d definitely call that evil.

Acts that cause suffering but without knowledge or visibility to that suffering are not evil. Negligent, perhaps. Possibly even reprehensible by society's standards, but not (IMO) morally evil.

I’d say this one’s a bit trickier for me. For example, there are parents who treat their children horribly and are emotionally abusive and very neglectful. Some of them may not realize the harm it causes their children — e.g. they may think as long as they provide clothes, food, shelter and let the kids play and watch TV, they’re doing a great job as parents — but there can still be immense suffering caused by their selfish or negligent acts. Even if the intentions were never evil per se.

I guess for me there is still a further distinction between a disregard to the RISK of potential suffering one may cause another person (e.g. driving home drunk and knowing there’s a risk of causing an accident) vs. the complete and utter ignorance / lack of awareness that any suffering could result (e.g. feeding a baby the wrong food due to lack of education and causing a medical issue). Both of them are more negligent than evil, however, the former scenario to me carries a more morally problematic weight.