Trying to engage my gray matter. Just a sec...

1) Is Evil that fights Evil less Evil?

Say a person in whatever medium (games, books, movies, real world, what have you) is an evil person. They enjoy the suffering of others. Let's add in another evil entity. Now, the first evil entity is "threatened" by this newcomer and starts to fight it (for world domination, of course). Does that make them less evil for fighting another evil?

2) If you fought against World Peace, would that make you bad? Say the price of "World Peace" is loss of free will, how about now?

I've been watching an anime called Read or Die and the story is about a group of people that want to "end all wars and suffering" by bringing about "World Peace." However, in order to accomplish world peace, they will brainwash everyone. One of the group fighting them makes the statement in the show, "We DO sound evil, trying to stop world peace."

3) A person kills someone else.

- If that "victim" is a child, is that murder worse than if it was an advlt?

- If that victim was a woman, is this murder less worse than the child?

- If that victim was a pregnant woman, is the most heinous murder of all?

(I won't get into races )

I'll leave this here. Feel free to ignore, address however many you feel like, or even add your own Gray Matter Engagements

PS: I have too much time on my hands... sorry

1. No. An ally of convenience, perhaps, but still evil. Their evil actions are not negated by fighting other evil, particularly if the motive is still selfish.

2. Under normal circumstances, yes, but under extreme circumstances such as those you included, no. In that case it would be the lesser of two evils. Peace can be achieved some other time.

3.

-No. A child--innocent though they may be--will not hurt society more with their death than an advlt. In fact, their death would arguably cause less damage: less has been invested in their success, most likely, so an advlt's death would be worse for society (assuming said advlt has several decades of life ahead of them under normal circumstances).

-No, it's worse. She has likely had more invested in her success, and thus her death would render more costs pointless. This applies to any advlt.

-No, the fetus's worth is not yet realized.

4. Does an individual have any objective worth (i.e. not including their emotional value to those who know them, etc) beyond their possible contributions to society or humanity?

Good thoughts. I'll tackle your addition.

I do not think so. Their loved ones may think differently, of course, but as a society, all we can really base our thoughts on is how they effect society, or us. We are, after all, society based creatures

These contributions do not have to be world saving or earth shattering. Helping troubled teens to a better path is as important as finding a cure for cancer.

1. On an Absolute level, if Person A kills Person B then it is evil, in the situation you described. On a relative level, it all depends. If A killed B for personal gain or out of spite or fear or whatever, then that would be Evil. If they killed them because, well, there is evil then there is eeeeevvvvviiillll, then A would be less Evil, or maybe neutral.

2. Loss of Freedom is worse than not having World Peace. People need to fight against the loss of Freedom. Unfortunately, they don't.

3. We think the deaths of children as being more tragic because they represent the future of the race. Killing one does not make you more or less evil than killing an advlt, your still evil.

1- depends on the motive, is evil fighting evil for the greater good or for greater personal gain?

2- peace without free will wouldn't be that much different from laws now except that we wouldn't be able to willingly cross the line as we'd be brainwashed to stay in line.

3- of course there's a difference, murdering a child who has endless possibilities ahead of them is more tragic then murdering an old person at the end of their life or anything along those lines.

1. Is Stalin less evil than Hitler? After all he fought Hitler and even though he didn't aim at genocide or world domination he caused more deaths. You get to a point where both are so evil you can't really judge between them even if like the Allies you make an alliance with the one thats the less immediate threat.

2. I'd say no. That price for world peace would be too high. Maybe 30 years ago I read "Their Morals and Ours", a debate between Leon Trotsky and the American philosopher John Dewey on issues like when do the ends justify the means. Its worth reading if you're interested in this sort of issue.

3. I'd don't think theres a moral difference although due to our instinct to protect our young killing a child or a pregnant women seems more repugnant to us.

Assuming the average education level and life expectancy in the United States, what is in your opinion the most evil age to kill a person at?

18.

As of age 18 (or more precisely just as a person finishes their public education and enters the workforce), a person has taken their entire up-front fee from society (being provided with education, food, etc) and has not yet begun to repay that fee (or to a minimal extent, most likely). From that point until retirement, everything they take, they typically pay for with an equal or greater contribution, and after retirement they're living off of stored contributions.

So at age 18 their sum contribution to society is likely at its absolute lowest. Going back and going forward it increases. Killing them then makes the largest unpaid debt, and no one's going to pay that debt.

Further, at 18 the vast majority of their positive contribution to the world lies ahead of them, most likely--the difference in loss of potential between killing them and killing an infant is probably small.

That depends on the nature of evil. Let's say we have a run-of-the-mill local community Sith lord. Then Iggy Azalea moves into our community. It's only right to champion for the Sith Lord against Iggy Azalea in lightsaber combat.