Evil

okay okay, thought of the day and my first post. What would you defin evil as and what is the distinction between natrual and moral evil?

I would define evil as a thing that not only hurts the self (spiritually, emotionally, or physically) but also the human community as a whole (in the same three areas).

Natural evil is our own need to serve the self (because this can often cause someone else to hurt) without the proper consideration for other beings.

Moral evil is simply an illusion that makes the world black and white. Moral evil is defined by moral rules and these rules help to restrict the self if they are believed in blindly. Moral rules are not bad, but they must be proven true in your own life before they can be healthy rules. The problem with moral evil is that it is defined. Evil is constantly taking on new forms (since not all humans hurt because of the same things). Since this is true, we may be doing "good" (as defined by moral rules and moral bad) when actually we are doing bad.

To find true evil we must constantly be analyzing our actions to see if they are hurting ourselves or others. And based on this we must decide which action is right.

But what is the need for the word "evil" in the first place? In a strictly utilitarian point of view, we can say that those actions that harm others in any of the ways you described are not even beneficial to the agent. Harming others is at most an expedient effort to fix a problem whereas having legitimacy and expressing kindness provides, for the most part, long-lasting solutions. Evil is of no use here if we look at things purely objectively. What is evil but a tarnished form of what we call "bad" or "foolish?"

If evil is to be defined as the pursuit of untruths/lies/hypocrisy than all of our actions are evil, for we can know nothing as absolute fact (in my opinion) and as such, everything we claim to know is an untruth/lie. In fact what we think as "good" may very well be an untruth and "good" is therefore evil. And since we act on what we believe to be good, not the absolute definition of it, we become hypocrits because we say that we stand for good, but that good might not actually be true goodness.

I beleive it is only through what we call evil that we can know what good is.. it allows us to learn emotions such as love and compastion.

I would say that people who do evil acts are not evil necessarily because of the act i.e killing someone, it may have been in self defense or by accident. I would define the act as evil and the person as an evil doer if the act which is abhorrent to others is planned and gives pleasure in some form to the evil doer.

There are people who believe that only the intention of an outcome dictates an action's morality and likewise there are those who believe only the outcome dictates its morality. To paint a picture for you about what each one implies, consider this:

A man by the name of Carl is about to board a very crowded subway train. It could literally only accomodate one more person and the doors are going to close any second. Feeling generous, Carl makes way for another man who is running to the train to get in. Now, in a parallel universe, Carl says "screw this guy" and boards the train himself, leaving the hurried man standing there, watching the train leave. It was later found out that the man running to the subway train had just mugged an old lady and the police were right on his tail. If he had made the train he would have gotten away. Which Carl was morally correct?

Might I inquire two things about the scenario: Why was Carl boarding the subway? And: Why did the man steal someone's purse?

quote:

---

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again: There is nothing intellectual about pointing out relevant versus absolute truths - it is a copout that quasi-intellectual dolts grab onto like flies on shit in order to find an excuse not to devote themselves to any given idea, and to be able to refute any level of criticism thrown their way.

---

Well, if I didn't know better, I'd say someone thinks that I'm a quasi-intellectual dolt that grabs on to the “copout” of absolute v. relevant truth like a fly does shit. I suppose that there is something very flattering about flies and shit (in fact I'm blushing right now).

Quite frankly, I don't think that I'm coping-out by believing that I will never be able to know the absolute truth of anything (but there's no reason that you can't think otherwise). In stead, I believe that I'm merely being honest with myself. Sure, I can believe something as a truth in my life and I can act on it, and someone else can do a completely opposite thing, but I won't condemn the other person because how do I know if I'm truly the possessor of truth?

Truth is all relative to how you look and come at it. But this doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop pursuing the truth for only through doing this can we make decisions that help us to be the best humans that we can be.

Decius, I'm glad you're so firm in your opinions. And let me be very honest with you: I'm simply not that firm with my opinions yet, and I don't have to be yet. But I'm still going to pursue more-true untruths, because I think it is my responsibility as a human being. So as for now I'll continue to grab onto the “copout” of absolute v. relative truth like a fly does shit. And who can really say? Maybe humans' purpose in this life is just to grab onto shit. I could very well be doing my cosmic duty (but somehow I doubt it).

I would actually agree with most about what you say about me; except on the matter of happiness. I believe that there is true happiness, although I do not know its true definition (and quite frankly, I wouldn't want toâ€'it makes it all the more fun not to know). And also, if other people have found true happiness: good for them, I would never go so far as to call them liars. I only say that I do not know its definition. Maybe I'm being repetitive though.

Secondly, my statements are all completely fluid. My conscious does not operate in a straight line or with complete order and without change. I do not make absolute statements. I make statements that I believe to be true at that moment in time. In a week or two, I may very well believe in something different. Does that mean the last two weeks have been a waste? No, because it was a part of my psyche's evolution. I'm sorry if I communicated that my ideas were absolute. Who knows? One day I may attain absolute truth, but as of right now, I don't believe I can. But I'm still going to strive for it because that's what I live for: to know more true un-truths so that I can serve myself and my relationships better. And I suppose you are correct: I can only say that I will never identify absolute truth (maybe you, or a great slew of people, can).

Yet, after all of this, I still don't think I'm coping out. I'm accepting the (hopefully temporary) limits I see in my own life (that I probably have no control over) and doing the best I can with them. Believing in non-absolute truth, to me, brings a great deal of acceptance when one of my ideas or theories is proven incorrect. By not believing in rock-solid truth I can 1) not be disappointed when I am wrong; and 2) rejoice in the fact that I am learning. For others, acceptance of being able to not know absolute truth may be a cop-out, but for me, it's not.

This is further shown in the fact that I don't just subscribe to "passive" beliefs. Passive implies that I don't act upon them (that I am in fact passive in pursuing them), and this is just not how I act with my beliefs. I do, and will continue to, act upon what I believe to be true at every point in my life. Belief without action is like raw meat: it's very hard to swallow.

Thanks, though, Decius. If anything, this conversation has posed some questions for me to ponder that I haven't yet and even some things might have been proven untrue in my beliefs. It's been very thought-provoking, so thank you.

Wasn't evil derived from a belief in God? Doesn't it mean, literally, to be against God? And if so, wouldn't evil have no use to a non-believer in God? Though still, actions such as murder and theft and lying hold serious consequences to anyone whether they believe in God or not. A non believer in God can still get caught in a lie and lose valuable trust with a person or many. A non believer in God can still murder someone and experience the horrific impact it has on a family and society and probably on himself.

You see, these consequences have no necessity in believing in God as they usually have bad, objective, consequences to begin with. This is why I see "evil" as a way for early civilization to explain the objectively bad consequences of theft and murder and lying. Thunder storms used to be the god Zues. Women who knew arithmetic were witches and burned at the stake.

A modern philosophical definition isn't needed though. Evil is an archaic word which has no relevance in today's society. It has magical and supernatural connotations, it insinuates that something is bad in and of itself and ignores any possibilities for motives that I'm sure anyone will agree exist.

Misguided motives don't make someone evil, they make them unintelligent.

Disinformation is disinformation. Counter-production is counter-production. Why put them under the headline evil? That is an unneeded label.

Truth is neither good nor evil so why say that it's either? Corruption could be used in ways defined as good by your terms I'm sure. Let's say for instance you try to corrupt someone to test their character, wouldn't that be good in your book?

Good and evil don't exist, they're just guidelines passed down to us from our ancestors because of what they tend to produce. Murder tends to produce bad things and so it was called evil.

We should look at things for what they are and not bombard them with unnecessary labels. My name is Chris. I have the potential to produce both good and evil. I have produced both good and evil. What am I? Good or evil? Well... I'm neither. I'm just Chris, a conglomeration of cells capable of making choices, thinking thoughts and questioning things, that's it.

I believe good and evil get in the way of whats truly important.

Unity.

i find the human species gives both god and the devil their powers. We choose sides. We are the plain in which opposites coexist.

We have a buffet of infinite ideas. Infinite pursuits. The only limits we have are on the very things that would ultimately limit us.

well assuming that the universal idea of "Good" is what it is, "Evil" is merely the antithesis.

For every positive or good action, there is in some form, to some degree, an evil opposite.