Thread: What is Evil?

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Well we all have our opinions dont we, and opinions are like.....

...that place where all true evil eminates? Is that what you were trying to say?

well, since I haven't really stirred any pots in a while... I believe that without an absolute truth, or absolute "good"... the concept of evil is useless.

I believe that a socially constructed "evil" is really just a synonym for breaking a norm, but a true evil requires a true good.

*del1r1um backs slowly out of the room*

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

well, since I haven't really stirred any pots in a while... I believe that without an absolute truth, or absolute "good"... the concept of evil is useless.

I believe that a socially constructed "evil" is really just a synonym for breaking a norm, but a true evil requires a true good.

*del1r1um backs slowly out of the room*

I respectfully disagree. I believe my, and Nun2Sharp's, definition does not require a need for any particular level of "good."

Is evil a relative term or absolute?

If I wake up one morning and go to work and decide the bosses are mean hateful people and relish bringing misery to their employees and I take em out is that an evil act?

Was Nero an evil man?

Originally Posted by Utopian

I respectfully disagree. I believe my, and Nun2Sharp's, definition does not require a need for any particular level of "good."

Oh I realized that 100%, and I don't think any less of anyone for it. I would still argue that to call something "evil" there must be a good or else it's another word for "social norm." The concept of evil for me is one of semantics unless it has deeper philosophical roots.

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

Oh I realized that 100%, and I don't think any less of anyone for it. I would still argue that to call something "evil" there must be a good or else it's another word for "social norm." The concept of evil for me is one of semantics unless it has deeper philosophical roots.

Actually, I think it can be possible for evil to become a social norm yet still remain evil.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Is evil a relative term or absolute?

If I wake up one morning and go to work and decide the bosses are mean hateful people and relish bringing misery to their employees and I take em out is that an evil act?

Was Nero an evil man?

You sound like a Postal Worker.

Now, Take Al Queda, What they did to the Towers was an evil act, imo.
Innocent people were killed, but to them, it was a religous act, not evil or so they claim.

Originally Posted by Utopian

Actually, I think it can be possible for evil to become a social norm yet still remain evil.

And I would agree that this test does not take away from what you've said (and I do agree with it), but I would still argue that this requires an absolute good.

If you really get down to it, and you can pinpoint what "evil" looks like in a given situation, you are really defining the absolute. If not, then evil must be a changing/evolving concept.

Once you define the boundaries of evil, you've essentially created an absolute truth.

Going back to part of the original question, I believe there is good and evil fighting each other, and I don't believe we are just pawns to the evil, but through free will choose to succumb to evil or choose good.

My definition of evil is any person or act that denies a living thing of its right to live and be free to live for its own sake.

So yes - Nero was evil. Criminals are evil. Leaders throughout time have been evil.

Just as important is to ask is man inherently evil - but sometimes stumbles into doing good or inherently good and sometimes stumbles into doing something evil?

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

Once you define the boundaries of evil, you've essentially created an absolute truth.

And when you say absolute truth, I take it you mean there is no relative truth (which I never believed there was anyhow)?