Thread: What is Evil?

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)?

Originally Posted by Alembic

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

Sounds like something I'd believe... yes, I don't believe in relative truth

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

Sounds like something I'd believe... yes, I don't believe in relative truth

Yes, something can be true or not true, but it can't be true for me and not true for you - one of us would be wrong. As hard as that is to accept for many people, there are instances where somebody is wrong.

Originally Posted by Alembic

Yes, something can be true or not true, but it can't be true for me and not true for you - one of us would be wrong. As hard as that is to accept for many people, there are instances where somebody is wrong.

Hence ... one of my favorite sayings ... "We both can't be right, so you must be wrong!" Thought I'd drop a little humor in the midst of this heavy thread.

In the end everything is relative.

Imagine a society of people where many of the concepts that rule our society simple don't exist. It's just dog eat dog and that's the norm. You wrong me and I take retribution on you and yours and that's just the way it is. You're walking down the street and the guy next to you keels over and people just leave him there to die, no one cares that's just the way it is.

We define ourselves based on the norms of our society. That's one of our big problems because if there is a clash of our societies we need to reconcile what we might think is universally evil to what another society says is the norm and the law. I think you all know what I'm getting at here without having to say it.

We have people within our own society who we say are anti social or nonconformist who play by their own rules not ours. Many of these people we might say are evil.

I challenge you to come up with any single action or concept that any intelligent living being be he from this world or another, could universally agree on as being what we generally think of as evil.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I challenge you to come up with any single action or concept that any intelligent living being be he from this world or another, could universally agree on as being what we generally think of as evil.

Well, your original thread challenged us to define evil. We all did that as we believe evil manifests itself.

People here almost universally defined evil as the difference between something that promotes life and something that does not - with lots of variations, but generally that was the essence.

And, I agree with you that you will never find universal agreement on an action or concept being good or evil.

But some body's opinion does not make an action good or evil, the act itself does. Then you might ask "as defined by whom?" As defined by itself. Man is very capable of wiping himself out not by good acts but by evil ones. I don't really care what you call it, we are using good and evil for the purposes of this discussion. But the acts themselves will either promote are deter life. At that point, any life form anywhere can give it's relative opinion on an act's goodness or evilness and it would not matter - life is wiped out.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

In the end everything is relative.

Unless you are wrong

We define ourselves based on the norms of our society. That's one of our big problems because if there is a clash of our societies we need to reconcile what we might think is universally evil to what another society says is the norm and the law.

Unless one of the points of view, or moral codes turns out to be correct (good luck proving otherwise). Who says that the ultimate authority is society or the way we define ourselves?


I challenge you to come up with any single action or concept that any intelligent living being be he from this world or another, could universally agree on as being what we generally think of as evil.

??

Sure thing... I (an intelligent and living being from this world) can universally agree that the single action of rape is what we generally think of as evil.

Of course, this all still depends on my fundamental beliefs being correct, just as the other points of view expressed here do.

Originally Posted by Tuxedo7

Hence ... one of my favorite sayings ... "We both can't be right, so you must be wrong!" Thought I'd drop a little humor in the midst of this heavy thread.

yeah, but you can both be wrong.