Thread: What is Evil?

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 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 zib

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.

I don't believe in relative good and evil. An act is good or evil irrespective of the beliefs of those committing the act.

What it is instead is acceptable or unacceptable. So what Al Queda did was evil whether they think so or not - but it was an acceptable act to them based on their beliefs.

To us, it was both evil and unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Alembic

I don't believe in relative good and evil. An act is good or evil irrespective of the beliefs of those committing the act.

What it is instead is acceptable or unacceptable. So what Al Queda did was evil whether they think so or not - but it was an acceptable act to them based on their beliefs.

To us, it was both evil and unacceptable.

One could say that what al queda did was good, regardless of what they felt about it. Taking down the twin towers got us to quit feeling so secure, and made the US safer because of that loss of our feelings of security. Al queda settled for a few thousand lives and a couple buildings as their good, or our evil, when they could of killed hundreds of thousands if they would of changed venues. A couple of planes crashing into the rose bowl, or the super bowl would of killed far more, but because of the choice to do what they did, it will be harder to get bigger body counts, because we are paying attention now, which is good imo. No matter what the opinion, good and evil are relative, just like everything else in life.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

good and evil are relative, just like everything else in life.

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.

Good expresses compassion. Evil does not.

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 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.