I can find no concensus on what "evil" actually is. It seems to vary from person to person.
I'll start it out from my confusing position. I really don't see any good or evil, but merely motivations. However, I have a strict code of moral conduct, based mainly on the golden rule. This gives me a basis to act in a manner I feel is correct, but does not help me identify that which is truely evil.
So, what is evil? It is reletive, obviously, and considering the amount of time people spend on identifying it, someone must have some guidelines to share.
What do you consider evil?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
celia
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Okay. Accepted.
Thanks. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Intentionally bringing harm to another person, except in self defense.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Hmmmm, ignorance is a form of evil that many people do not recognize, as it leaves one's motives clear. Yet ignorance is sin, I think, or rather, almost all sin is ignorance.
I seem to hold myself responsible for outcomes, too, and not just having good intentions. I mean, almost nothing is more generative of suffering and sorrow in this world than a well-meaning dunce with a bee in her bonnet.
I will never forget the image of Jacob Brownowski, in "The Ascent of Man" kneeling in the mud at Auschwitz, mud infused with the ashes of the corpses of many thousands, holding a handful of that mud and saying, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you could be mistaken."
[ June 17, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
romanylass, what about defending the helpless who cannot defend themselves?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Wouldn't that be against natural selection?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
<laughs> Natural selection is considered a valid basis for morality? Hmmm, I thought that idea went out of favor about 60 years ago or so.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Not a fan of it myself. I think there is no reason an "intelligent" being should lower themselves to the law of the jungle, to which animals must adhere.
Just sayin'....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think that ignorance makes you evil any more than knowledge makes you virtuous.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Do you mean killing to defend my children? A neghbor's child? A chiuld in another country? Claiming I am killing to protect my children when I have ulterior motives?
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
This is a question that simply cannot be answered without getting metaphysical. From a completely atheistic point of view, there simply is no such thing as objective good or objective evil; instead, those words become whatever you want them to mean, and there's nothing at all about the universe that says that what Stalin did is any worse than what Martin Luther King did.
Objective good and evil can only exist within the confines of theism, because only theism has the power to say that an abstract concept is "true."
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
I disagree. Certainly about the idea that morality is a strictly theistic construct. I believe that we can develop a morality that has nothing to do with Gods.
Posted by Polio (Member # 6479) on :
I believe that evil is objective, but people's viewpoints of it are arbitrary. Many different things are evil, and we are yet to figure out the common denominator which makes them all immoral. Truth be told, I don't think we ever will-- at least not in a way that can be explained objectively.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Ignorance about what is evil and what isn't constitutes one of the major forms of evil-in-the-form-of-ignorance.
Honestly, we don't consider slaughterhouses to be evil, here and now, yet the similar houses of death constructed for the purpose of ridding Germany of what those in power considered vermin, are. Wasn't the German leadership's real problem that they were ignorant about what is and isn't evil? Weren't they doing good in their own eyes?
Aren't most people, for most of the time, doing good in their own eyes? Or at least they are worrying about their own concerns to the exclusions of the welfare of others in a way that they don't consider to be evil, aren't they? Those who are aware of and declare their own evil (Celia aside) seem rather rare.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Another good example comes to me from my reading about the phenomenon of slavery in the world today. Slave owners (throughout time and in all cultures) seem to say things like this, "Those people aren't capable of taking care of themselves. If I paid them with money, they would just spend it all on liquor or drugs. I am doing them a great service, acting as a loving parent to them, taking care of them for the time they are in my care. Their work is mentally very easy and the fact that they are slaves means they don't have to worry about money or raising children or making ends meet. It's truly a mercy that I am performing for these people."
Yet if slave owners and social darwinists are not evil, then what is the meaning of the word?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Having good motives is totally not enough. One also must have a worldview which reflects truly the actual moral universe we inhabit.
Put it this way, if women really were the moral and intellectual inferiors of men, if they really were on the level of domestic animals, then the Taliban and their ilk would be absolutely right to treat them as such. It's only because women are, in fact, true moral agents, and the intellectual equals of men, that the Taliban's policies toward women are evil. Again is this not merely a matter of ignorance?
[ June 17, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I go the other way from Polio. I think of Good as objective, solid, and real. Evil is merely that which pollutes or distances from Good and is entirely relative.
Except, of course, as Kat pointed out, for Celia.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Wasn't the German leadership's real problem that they were ignorant about what is and isn't evil? Weren't they doing good in their own eyes?
No, I can't agree with you on that.
Bad things happen because people are ignorant. Evil can only happen when you aren't ignorant, and do bad anyway.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
So the safest and surest way to eliminate evil is to lobotomize every baby at birth. <poof> Instant goodness.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
I think evil can be best defined as getting pleasure, really enjoying another's pain. For this it doesn't even have to be a human they are watching.
Even in self-defense if you were to kill the person going after you, I would expect at least a little sorrow at having to do it, though any animal even is capable of a him or me mentality.
Evil is when a person smiles and laughs at watching a someone writhe with pain. They don't just cause this pain, but they enjoy it.
There are probably degrees that aren't good, because there are no black and white, but the worst kind of evil is enjoying another's pain.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
There's a thing called "ontic evil" (I have probably mis-spelled this) which refers to bad things happening which are no one's fault, like a person killed in a tornado. It's existence is one of the strongest arguments against an omnipotent, perfectly good God and I'm afraid we have to consider that evil exists outside of people's motivations and awareness, though, of course, their individual culpability does not.
[ June 17, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Audeo, have you ever killed in self-defense? I think your theory about that may be off. I think the most common feeling after one kills in self defense is exhilaration that one is still alive, after a life threatening experience. There is often a feeling of joy at the death of the other person. Feelings of sickness or shame or whatever only come later.
We have these theories about what is evil and what isn't, and they change based on our experience of life. I don't think a thrill at killing in self-defense is evil, nor a temporary feeling of joy in the destruction of another person who was trying to kill you, or someone helpless whom you are defending.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*Deja vu*
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
I haven't killed anyone, no, and I do agree that there is an initial thrill, and probably afterwards a residual feeling of righteousness, but I think with there is a wish that you hadn't been compelled to kill. Maybe it manifests as anger towards the person you killed, hating them for attacking you as well as forcing you to kill them. I'm not saying that you'll break down and cry, but that you didn't want to do it, and even after it's done, not you're not happy about having to do it, though that outcome is better than being dead yourself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There's a thing called "ontic evil" (I have probably mis-spelled this) which refers to bad things happening which are no one's fault, like a person killed in a tornado.
I think this use dilutes the word "evil." Suffering does not mean that evil has occurred, nor does evil mean that (detectable) suffering has occurred. Evil is one of the causes of suffering, but by no means the only one.
I think it has to come down somewhat to culpability. Ignorance can still be culpable, as long as it's wilfull ignorance.
I need to think on this some more.
Dagonee
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Okay then.
I am sooo evil! Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
My church teaches that learning everything we can about every subject possible is of the utmost importance. I think that means something.
If the only thing considered evil is actually knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway, for spite or whatever, then there's very little evil in the world.
Then I would have to say by that definition I absolve most slaveowners, the Nazis, white supremacists, the 9/11 hijackers, the Taliban, and really almost everyone else, from true evil. Instead we will have to say only that they make very unfortunate mistakes.
I use the word more broadly than that. Maybe you think of the evil ones as only those who will willingly condemn themselves to outer darkness at the judgement day (to put it in LDS theological terms)? If so then I don't think we disagree on essentials, only on what name to call things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
ak, who's that last one addressed to?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Jim-me, I think that ontic evil sort of blends into other evil-from-ignorance. Because if we knew enough about the weather, and had our act together, the correct warnings in place, the right shelters and public awareness training, and so on, we could have prevented that death from tornadoes, possibly.
That's rather far in the future, that level of knowledge, though. Let's take a more recent example, which will hopefully be more heartfelt. The way the Soviet hierarchy reacted to the Chernobyl accident caused certainly thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands more people to die than was necessary. What exactly that anyone, any individual, did or didn't do, in that situation, should we consider evil?
I just listened this morning to everyone (military and FAA) explain what they did when, and what actually happened, on 9/11. Was there any negligence? Was there failure of due diligence? Could someone, by extraordinary extra diligence, have done something more than they did, have improved the outcome significantly? I'm not prepared to say that anything anyone (with the exception of the hijackers) did that day was evil. They all seemed to do the best they could in a very confusing and unprecedented situation. So are there any parallels between the Chernobyl situation and that of 9/11, in terms of government bureaucratic nonsense, and so on? Was there any evil done?
[ June 17, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Dagonee: "ak, who's that last one addressed to?"
Sorry, the LDS theological parts were addressed to mph. The thoughts contained are addressed to everyone, though.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Evil is seeing other people as less-than-human.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chris, your definition seems far too limited. Are you saying evil only exists with respect to other people? Is there such a thing as victimless evil (ignoring the actor as a potential victim and leaving theological victims out of it)?
Dagonee
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Because evil IS ignorance, to such a large degree, is one reason why nobody is qualified to judge another person, and why the only place to truly do battle with evil, face to face, in hand to hand combat, so to speak, is inside our own hearts.
Someone very wise once told me that and it's true. The evil we encounter in the world at large is only for training purposes, to help us discover and combat the evil in our own spirits, where the battle is truly fought and in fact, the only place where it can really be won.
Evil can only really be fought directly in the first person. I find that wonderful, somehow. Exhilarating and humbling and shaming and glorifying, all at once.
[ June 17, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
The confusing thing about defining ignorance as evil, is that, as humans, we cannot know everything. So does this mean that we are all evil?
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Yeah. That's what the original sin concept is about. The fall. And all that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly. I've always viewed the fall as the loss of a direct connection to God. It really is about knowledge in many ways - trusting our own rather than His. Now we have to use our own, and all of us come up short because of it.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
don't overlook this gem:
quote:the only place to truly do battle with evil, face to face, in hand to hand combat, so to speak, is inside our own hearts.
AK, it might not be completely 100% true all the time [cf. the Nazis(tm)* which everyone is citing these days] but it absolutely rocks and should be pondered by all.
Very nicely said.
* -- for those of you who don't know, TSR trademarked the term "Nazi" for their Indiana Jones board game. Could that be why they (the Nazis, not TSR) keep referring to themselves as "National Socialists" now?
[ June 17, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
I think of the fall as the time in which we changed over from being ignorant of the existence of good and evil, and of the moral consequences of our choices, like a child or animal. That sort of innocence, which wreaks havoc willy nilly but is unaware, is pre-fall.
Then after the fall we're aware, but imperfect. So we wish we could be not evil, but we're incapable of pulling it off. So begins the long process of perfection, which we LDS call eternal progression.
edit: I should add that this process is made possible through the atonement of Christ. That all our efforts are insufficient but for that.
[ June 17, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmm. I've always seen it as the deliberate turning away from communion with God, which could be restored in the Atonement without subverting our free will.
But that's a basic difference we're not going to resolve here.
Dagonee
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Dagonee, that may be true. Aren't animals and children in communion with God? They are, and then they innocently do evil, too. So I don't know what that actually means, in terms of your view or my view. Most likely they are both right and neither, as seems to be the way of most of these theological concepts. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
which is why we should merely kill everyone and let God do the sorting...
Like AK said ... the time and place for battling evil is in ourselves, daily.
There may be times and places to battle people, but we are then battling people, not evil.
I like your statement more and more ak
[ June 17, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Jim-me, I have to give credit for that gem of wisdom (about the only place where evil is actually fought) where it belongs, to Richard Chiu, who posted here as Survivor long ago.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
If animals can "do" evil then they aren't innocent. yes a lion could kill a child which would be a bad thing (more the ontic evil I guess), but the lion is only acting on instinct and following what its brain tells it to do.
I reject the notion that animals can be truly evil.
AJ
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Evil is for the most part anything which is opposite to the values/morality that you have. There isn't anything thats honestly inherently evil. Now there are lots of things our general society today feels are evil, and I would to. But that just means that its evil to us.
The only thing that to me is honestly evil is a coward, that doesn't mean someone who won't fight, draft dodgers, etc. the sort of thing you might think I find cowardly. I think a person who is a true coward is someone who doesn't do something of great value to another/other for the sheer pain it might bring them.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: There isn't anything thats honestly inherently evil.
Except for that statement, perhaps?
So, the fact that we consider murder and rape to be wrong is just an artificial product of our society, right? I mean, if we all decided tomorrow morning that it was okay to rape and mutilate people for the fun of it, then that would make it right, right? Right??
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Technically speaking yes, and their are many socities before that have thought of rape and many other unimaginable things as all right, if not something to brag about. Now I think its evil, but remember the important word there, think. So yes, if a large culture of thousands got together and thought rape and murder was good it would be good to them, I doubt it would change your or my opinion.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Paul: "I think a person who is a true coward is someone who doesn't do something of great value to another/other for the sheer pain it might bring them."
I think that's not a bad definition at all. I think I could agree with that. It seems to encompass the Chernobyl criminal negligence sort of thing, and even small things like trying to give information a positive spin to make yourself look good, when that can cause confusion about what is actually going on, and delay the finding of the best solution to the problem.
However, I do believe that ignorance, even when not willful at all, is evil.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: So yes, if a large culture of thousands got together and thought rape and murder was good it would be good to them
No. It wouldn't. I'm glad that my view of good and evil depends on something more than arbitrary human delusion. Those things would not be right even if everyone in the world agreed that they were. There are some things that are just wrong.
EDIT: (Just pointing out that I was replying to Black Fox's post)
[ June 17, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: digging_holes ]
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
And our society does murder, and calls it good, when we execute criminals. So that part is right. Some people feel meat eaters are committing murder by killing animals for food. There is disagreement about what is evil between societies, and even within a society, witness the public debate about the legality of abortion, or prostitution, or drug use.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Well, in my opinion ignorance fits very well into my defintion of evil. Ignorance is basically ignoring the things that go around, because it makes life easier to handle and what not. Basically people are unwilling to accept the pain and effort that being aware of everything might bring.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
That is something that I can not personally believe in Holes, not that I hold it against you and I can understand where you are coming from. But I as a person honestly believe that even if there is god, and I do believe there is, even what he considers to be good and evil are still his own opinions. I don't know if I would find it a good intelligent and moral thing to ignore those opinions, but opinions they still are.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
However, I agree that there are actual true absolute things which we can discover about what's really evil and what isn't. I think we aren't just making this up as we go, in other words, but that life is the crucible in which our moral theories are formed and tested against an ultimate moral reality, which they stand or fall by, in a way similar to the way scientific theories stand or fall by their ability to successfully explain the outcomes of experiment.
Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, for instance, had a theory about morality that he tested out and found failing.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote: But I as a person honestly believe that even if there is god, and I do believe there is, even what he considers to be good and evil are still his own opinions.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, Black Fox.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Paul: "Basically people are unwilling to accept the pain and effort that being aware of everything might bring."
YES!!!!
That's why I see it as our first moral duty to become aware, to find the blocks to our awareness of things, and try to eliminate them.
[ June 17, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Good and Evil, the things that we decide are so, tend to be on things that improve the efficiency of society. It makes sense not to kill every human being that you meet etc. That and yes an animal can be evil in the eyes of a human being, because what it is doing is something we would find evil if another human being committed the act. Think of every group of people as a seperate beast in that sense. The Rabbit probably finds the fox evil, it eats his children , eats him, it ends his existence. The Fox might find the Rabbit to be good, it gives him food. The fox doesn't find eating the rabbit to be evil however, for doing so brings him the good things. We find the Rabbit and Fox both not evil in this act as we are an outside party, we can look in through the heavens so to speak. We find their actions to be "natural" an action that takes place thousands and millions of times and sustains itself well over a long period of time. Now if your pet rabbit was eaten by a fox you may not like the fox very much to say the least.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I guess so holes, and there is nothing evil about that Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
So you say. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Chris: Evil is seeing other people as less-than-human.
Dagonee: Chris, your definition seems far too limited. Are you saying evil only exists with respect to other people? Is there such a thing as victimless evil (ignoring the actor as a potential victim and leaving theological victims out of it)?
I make a distinction between "wrong" and "evil." I could never interpret simple ignorance as evil, but willful ignorance could be.
Many of the things that have been listed in this thread as being self-evidently evil come as a result of intentionally ignoring the worth of other people. Evil, to me, requires intent.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Me too, Chris.
I find the concept of original evil very illogical. I'm sure that we don't need Judeo-Christian dogma to create a valid system of morality.
But, admitedly, there is some good stuff in every religion that I've examined.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chris, I agree that evil requires intent. But I don't believe it requires a human victim.
Dagonee
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I think that evil arises from a lack of sympathy for other people, and an unwillingness to sacrifice your own interests.
In other words, a truly evil person is one who utterly lacks compassion for anyone other than themselves, and considers their own enrichment over all other consideration.
Thus, a rapist is able to do what he does because in his mind, satisfying his desire to rape is the only important factor, and his victim's screams fall on deaf ears. A murderer can kill for gain because the gain is all that matters to him. The person who was murdered doesn't deserve a second thought.
To some small degree, all of us share this mode of thought, particularly when we are young, and have not yet learned that other people feel as we do, and that there are good reasons to give up our own desires for the sake of others. I think that when good people make this realization, it alters the course of their lives. When evil people make this realization, it only makes their evil acts more subtle.
When someone fails to ever make the realization at all, then I think that is where you have the "ignorant evil" that ak is talking about. That sort of evil is merely immaturity, to be pitied more than feared.
Now, the "truly evil" person I described above, for whom the lack of empathy and selfish motivations are pure and unadulterated, is exceptionally rare, and must be cultivated to be achieved. But when a normal person chooses to sacrifice someone else for their own interests, exploit people for gain, lie and offend to cover their faults, or hurt other people to escape minor inconveniences ... that shows a degree of evil in that person.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I find pain to be evil. I've had this pain in my back for a couple of days. I sure hope those ole' kidney stones are not acting up again.
Pain=evil
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I find very little to be evil, not anymore. I'm such a sophist...
[ June 17, 2004, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote: Aristotle said that a sophist is "one who makes money by sham-wisdom."(Edwards 496) They were despised as needy people who, as citizens, did little or nothing in service to the state. Labeled as incompetent pretenders, tricksters, and cheats, they had little or no support near the end of their era. Sophists were widely recognized as educators for a long while, but soon enough, questions arose concerning what exactly the sophists were teaching.
Dagonee - me, either, I just didn't know how to modify my definition to include other instances without watering it down. Dog said what I said better, I think.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Yep. That's me, Tammy.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Well what you seem to find as evil A rat named god is what a lot of people, at least myself, consider to be greed. Something you might find it odd to be the no.1 American value, and that of most of the world to be honest.
I think of it like this, there are many things that I honestly consider to be evil for me to conduct, but things that I should not use against other human beings as being weakness or evil. Besides the insane most evil people have an honest reason for doing what they are doing, even if it is only pleasure. That and to do an evil act only because say your needs are higher than the other persons needs. Well, that sounds like a lot of the things I see told to people when they become adults. "look after yourself"
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Fox, the fact that a lot of people see greed and exclusive self-interest as positive traits doesn't make it any less evil
[ June 17, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Evil's a hard one. I don't know how to define it precisely, but I do know that when I treat myself as intrinsically more valuable (in body, spirit, wish, desire) than others, it's time to examine my actions more closely.
This makes for more of a red flag than an unerring a priori judgment, but it has been a good rule of thumb for me.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
lol, I know Rat. I was just saying that You and I are living in a culture which for the most part is based on something you consider evil, and I'll be honest I consider evil as well. mmm The Evil Empire.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
This has probably already been said, but I think that not being able to empathise with others (including animals) leads to evil. When you are unable to understand - or refuse to understand - the feelings of others then it's easy to hurt them, physically and emotionally.
space opera
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
meter-maids.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Dog and I must have had the same philosophy class... I agree with what he said. I think evil comes from not caring. And perhaps the ultimate stain, our Original Sin, is that we don't care about other people, other living things, and our world.
When you start caring about things, even rocks seem to have spirits. You have to deal with death as both terrible and good. You can always develop a deeper compassion.
Most people do not care about insects, and so are cruel to them. Is that evil? It is the exact same emotion that the rapist, the murderer, and the genocide posess. It is less than me, it annoys me, and I will have my way with it.
What happens when you must examine your actions and face the issues of life and death through the lens of compassion? That is when you realize that darkness resides in your own soul, and that indeed for every action there is a proper time and season.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
*chalks Jenny G's left rear wheel*
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
? What does chalking my wheel do?
*Leaves white marks all the way down the road*
*Doesn't work very well on gravel roads, though*
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I didn't know what the true defintion ofsophist was.
Anyway, while I believe that there are no universal codes of evil, and that nothing is truly evil, I do have some personal, irrational convictions of what is evil.
Stuff like severly manipulating people is up there on my list.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
What about manipulating them only a tinsy winsy bit?
space opera
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Depends.
If you're doing it to get "candy"...good. If you're doing it for anything else...bad.
[ June 18, 2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
"the dude abides"
fallow
Posted by Shlomo (Member # 1912) on :
Evil is whatever I do not like. No, not as in whatever I do not like in the sense that it is not currently working for my interests. Evil is whatever you would not wish to happen to you.
Note that I say "whatever" and not "whoever" because "whoever" makes positively no sense, is entirely subjective, and therefore has absolutely no value. For example, which types of people were evil in the decade after the French Revolution? Depends who you ask. If you combine all answers, you get: Socialists,Republicans, Democrats, Royalists, Beurocrats, Philosophes, Reactionaries, Laissez-faire economists, mercantilists....I could go on and on. Everyone called each other evil. But I know that what the Terrorists (as in Robespierrists) did was evil because they did not want to be guillotined.
Killing or injuring in self-defense IS evil, in that the actual shooting was an evil occurance-nobody would like to be shot. However, you cannot be faulted for self-defense, because the evil action would take place anyways-only with you the victim.
Soldiers who are good people murdering each other is evil, but neither one can be faulted.
A truly necessary war is evil, but a country defending itself cannot be faulted. That is to say, all European powers are to be blamed to WW1, but not for WW2 because some were defending themselves. Appeasement, the avoidance of fighting an already necessary war, was an evil occurance because it led to hundreds of millions of deaths. Those behind Appeasement can be faulted.
People can be responsible for evil events without being evil themselves. Everyone who kills is responsible for an evil event. The question is whether they had another option.
An evil occurance (something which you would not want to happen to you) is evil, PERIOD. It should be avoided at all costs. However, if it can not be avoided, it can not be avoided.
This doesn't mean that if you are a drug addict, you may spike someone else's drink and not bear responsibility, because it just doesn't mean the same to them as it does to you.
Evil occurances are also subjective. It all depends on who is responsible for the occurance. A tornado is probably an evil occurance, but nobody can really be faulted because...um...a tornado doesn't mind being blown around in circles the same way people mind. In fact, it does this to itself. In fact, it really doesn't actually "do" anything because it is a wheather phenomenon with no feelings. Tornados are not responsible for their actions.
I hope this makes sense. At any rate, I hope you get the general idea. EVENTS, and not PEOPLE, can be evil. Pain is evil because nobody likes pain. Killing is evil because nobody would like to die. Evil events are evil events. The Holocaust and the Soviet massacres and the Allied area bombings and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all evil. However, that does not mean that they were not the best course of action, because they may truly have been necessary to prevent even more horrible events-such as Hitler beating the U.S. and Russia to the nuclear punch. Ignorance is evil. You are responsible only if you can prevent it. The more easily you can prevent it, the more resposibility you bear if it remains.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Most people do not care about insects, and so are cruel to them. Is that evil? It is the exact same emotion that the rapist, the murderer, and the genocide posess. It is less than me, it annoys me, and I will have my way with it.
I think there's a long way from being an egoist to being a murderer.
And I'll bet most "evil" people aren't that way for only their own self-interest. Even Hitler cared enough to "save" his country from the Jews.
My definition of "evil" is the exact opposite of Geoff's (which, hilariously, is me ). "Evil", to me, is the person who, intentionally or not, holds another down or back--the person who relies on the sympathy of others. The leech.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Pain is good.
It's your body's way of saying "Don't do that!".
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Pain is a necessary evil.
Pain is not good.
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Thanks Rat and Fox for bringing up Greed. That is something I, even in my confused state, do consider to be evil!
Mass Production/Consumption seems to have its evil aspects as well.
edit:I spill bad without spall-chek.
[ June 18, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: eslaine ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I draw on M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie quite heavily in my definitions of evil. Basically it is selfishness, which is closely related to lack of empathy and objectifying others. I think Peck also draws on the idea of believing oneself to be infallible. That is, any who do not see themselves as potentially evil are going to wander into it. Kind of like a moral leprosy.
Certainly this is what members of both parties accuse the heads of their opponents of. (sorry for the dangling preposition.)
I think Chris put it more elegantly in his first post.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pain is not good. Pain is not evil. Death is not good. Death is not evil.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ergo pain is death.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pleasure is not good. Pleasure is not evil.
Ergo pain is pleasure. Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*Boinks mr_porteiro_head hard on the head and runs*
My pleasure. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*dies*
My death. Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I would not say pain is evil, pain is in many frames discipline, for the most part people do not like to be disciplined, its that American thought that you should have free will over every course.
That and I as a person rebel against the fact that death or murder is inherently evil. It is simply thought by you to be inherently evil. The way I see it, as said before is that an event or person, or anything really is only evil to an individual. We all have mass opinions on something like say "Hitler is evil" yadda yadda. Now I honestly doubt that everything the man did was evil though.
I will be honest, I think that judging the world in thought that things are evil, good, bad, etc. is a poor frame of mind. I sort of have a mechanical mind to be honest, but things are better judged in efficiency. Efficiency isn't always very tangible ( note that the whole John Kerry threat about Nasa is a good example). People can not operate machines even if it would create the most output, but that also means you have to decide what is the best output. Many would say the greatest happiness, the greatest good, the greatest to the glory of god, the greatest to the glory of man, the greatest to the glory of himself etc. I honestly believe that all those things are wrong.
Everyone has some sort of inherent emotion, its not as if every belief or way you react is programmed into you by your upbringing, though much of it is. Many people are revolted by the sight of things, even if they want it to happen. An Excellent example is Heinrich Himmler who was appalled when a goodly number of Jewish people were shot in front of him. He fainted from the sight of all the blood. After that even he decided that they should come up with a method to gas the jews as it would be much more ethical and cleaner. He wanted them to die, but the sight of their death still revolted him.
Few people can honestly kill without remorse, sickness, or pain. Those that can for the most part are either missing a part of their humanity or have been highly programmed. It makes sense to have a genetic need not to kill except in rage.
Evil and good to me are simply rudimentary words used to measure the efficiency of an action. An Evil action tends to bring about less efficiency in one manner or another. A Good action tends to improve the efficiency of things in the long run. I've really babbled here, but I hope that I've made some sense.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The thoughts contained are addressed to everyone, though.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)