Thread: What is Evil?

Originally Posted by Alembic

Ok, I understand your perspective now. But I don't think everything in life is relative. Truth is not relative - only one of two perspectives can actually be true, somebody will be wrong, but in an effort to get along, we allow somebody to walk away with their dignity in tact by saying "What is true for me does not have to be true for you". But that does not mean one of the people is any less wrong.

I see your point, but how many things in life have been 'true', only to find out with the next scientific discovery that it is no longer completely true. If we closed down debate just because we felt one was completely true, and therefore the other was completely wrong, advancement would never come. If we look just to recent history, one could say butter was bad because of saturated fats, which is why man made trans fats(margerine) was invented. Now the research shows trans fats are far worse than saturated fats were ever were thought to be. Or look at newtonian physics, thought to of been the complete truth, then einstien came along, now newton was mostly right. IMO there is no absolute truth, only relative truth, based on what we know as of now.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

I see your point, but how many things in life have been 'true', only to find out with the next scientific discovery that it is no longer completely true. If we closed down debate just because we felt one was completely true, and therefore the other was completely wrong, advancement would never come. If we look just to recent history, one could say butter was bad because of saturated fats, which is why man made trans fats(margerine) was invented. Now the research shows trans fats are far worse than saturated fats were ever were thought to be. Or look at newtonian physics, thought to of been the complete truth, then einstien came along, now newton was mostly right. IMO there is no absolute truth, only relative truth, based on what we know as of now.

So if some one beat you with a baseball bat during Newtons time it may be bad. If they did it in Einsteins day it could be "relatively" good?

Originally Posted by chay2K

If you look at the human race throughout all of history, and spanning the entire breadth of the planet-- every culture which has ever existed, has had some notion of both good and evil. To me, this is sufficient proof as to the existence of both good and evil. Granted, there are social variations, which account for the 'social norms' mentioned earlier, but the core concepts good and evil seem to be pretty universal. But, most importantly, the most pernicious type of evil is that which is carried out in the name of 'good'. This blurring of the lines, I believe, leads some to the denial of the existence of good and evil. Just my 2 cents.

It can be hard to convey tone via posts, so please read this as a cordial question and not a smart aleck remark:

Part 1.
It is also true that most of these historical cultures had some kind of mythology or religion backing their moral codes, can we accept that as evidence of a metaphysical power? Or, could the historical evidence provide support for the concept of good/evil, or a reflection of evolutionary mechanisms that increase individual and societal survival?

Part 2.
Again, without getting to an understanding of what good and evil really are, this statement loses meaning. If evil is relative or can be relative, it's just a question of what standard you are using.

To be clear, I argue that evil is either an absolute with boundaries, or an unsatisfactory label for what is goes on and how events are evaluated.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

IMO there is no absolute truth, only relative truth, based on what we know as of now.

In other words, we only have what we believe to be true based upon the evidence we have and our level of understanding... this doesn't mean we have "relative truth"... instead we have what we thought was true but wasn't, in light of new evidence. The fact remains that it was not truth.

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

To be clear, I argue that evil is either an absolute with boundaries, or an unsatisfactory label for what is goes on and how events are evaluated.

Since, good and evil cannot be absolute, it can only be " an unsatisfactory label for what is goes on and how events are evaluated."

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

Since, good and evil cannot be absolute, it can only be " an unsatisfactory label for what is goes on and how events are evaluated."

Wait wait... you are jumping the gun and accepting a premise that hasn't been established.

Who says they can't be absolute? This assume that we currently have a perfect knowledge that they aren't... What if we find out we were wrong about this?

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

I see your point, but how many things in life have been 'true', only to find out with the next scientific discovery that it is no longer completely true. If we closed down debate just because we felt one was completely true, and therefore the other was completely wrong, advancement would never come. IMO there is no absolute truth, only relative truth, based on what we know as of now.

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

Wait wait... you are jumping the gun and accepting a premise that hasn't been established.

Who says they can't be absolute? This assume that we currently have a perfect knowledge that they aren't... What if we find out we were wrong about this?

Ok i'll bite, Can you give me an example of something that is absolutely evil, or absolutely good? For that matter just give me an example of something evil, or good that can only be taken one way.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

Ok i'll bite, Can you give me an example of something that is absolutely evil, or absolutely good? For that matter just give me an example of something evil, or good that can only be taken one way.

Interesting... didn't mean to make anyone have to bite, I'm really not trying to play gotcha. I could give you an example, but (as with ANY definition of evil) it would depend on my personal beliefs, and could be argued by a person with a different belief... but that doesn't mean that one of us can't be correct . Again, I can say there is absolute evil... you could say there isn't... but we may not ever have the knowledge of who is right.

Again, my point is that if there isn't an absolute moral code or truth (somewhere out there) the term "evil" would be meaningless to me. I happen to believe that there is an absolute truth, and that evil exists in the realest sense possible, and in various degrees.

Imo, evil is the absence of empathy. We all have desires and thoughts that we keep suppressed. For most people this is not a problem because they realize that those desires a) bring unfortunate consequences with them and b) they can empathise with other people.

If the above are of no concern, then that means your actions will most likely be or become evil.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Imo, evil is the absence of empathy. We all have desires and thoughts that we keep suppressed. For most people this is not a problem because they realize that those desires a) bring unfortunate consequences with them and b) they can empathise with other people.

If the above are of no concern, then that means your actions will most likely be or become evil.

That was the same point I tried to make in my first post, but you said it better. And again, that type of evil has no need for any comparison with any form of "good."