A very simple question.
To you what is evil? How does it manifest itself and do you think there is some kind of war between good and evil? If there is such a war are we merely pawns in it or do we have control over it?
Printable View
A very simple question.
To you what is evil? How does it manifest itself and do you think there is some kind of war between good and evil? If there is such a war are we merely pawns in it or do we have control over it?
Man, I'm going to enjoy reading this thread.
:beer1:
What do you think it is?
My wife swears that true evil eminates from my back side:)
I cant wait to see the worms that crawl out of this can!Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondesi
OK, I'll start.
(I don't count JMS' response as a legitimate response, though it might truly be evil!)
Skipping any religious aspects, I'll say that evil is the willingness to do whatever you want for your own personal benefit with the full knowledge that what you do will cause harm to others. Evil is not caring at all about the extent of that harm.
Here goes. I myself believe in the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Anything that does not comply with this simple rule is evil, of course there may seem to be more socially acceptable levels of evil, but it is evil just the same.
Pretty much what Ron said, only better!
Malice is evil. Deliberate intent to cause harm to another's mind, body or property without reasonable justification. Revenge is not evil, it is human instinct for some provided that a reasonable person would act this way in the particular circumstance in question. Anything above and beyond is evil I would say.
Some religions believe alcohol and other substances induce evil.
I believe that religion is the greatest evil on the planet. And I'm not even an atheist. Am I evil...yes I am.
I agree, cuz I'm nicer!Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
Well we all have our opinions dont we, and opinions are like.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
...that place where all true evil eminates? Is that what you were trying to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by nun2sharp
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*:lurk:
I respectfully disagree. I believe my, and Nun2Sharp's, definition does not require a need for any particular level of "good."Quote:
Originally Posted by Del1r1um
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
Actually, I think it can be possible for evil to become a social norm yet still remain evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del1r1um
You sound like a Postal Worker.:gwh:Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian
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?
And when you say absolute truth, I take it you mean there is no relative truth (which I never believed there was anyhow)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Del1r1um
I don't believe in relative good and evil. An act is good or evil irrespective of the beliefs of those committing the act.Quote:
Originally Posted by zib
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scipio
A metallica fan?
Both good and evil are neccessary, without good there would be no evil, without evil there would be no good, but both good and evil are relative. AFAIC evil is good because that is what gets us as a people to move ahead, or to produce good, if we didnt see evil or atleast say something is evil society would be stagnant. Nietzche's "beyond good and evil" is a very good read, imo.
Sounds like something I'd believe... yes, I don't believe in relative truthQuote:
Originally Posted by Alembic
Please elaborate on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del1r1um
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alembic
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
Good expresses compassion. Evil does not.
Well said, kind of a different way to say the same thing as the Golden rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Blue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alembic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
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?
It can be hard to convey tone via posts, so please read this as a cordial question and not a smart aleck remark:Quote:
Originally Posted by chay2K
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.
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.Quote:
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Del1r1um
Wait wait... you are jumping the gun and accepting a premise that hasn't been established.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
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?
Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del1r1um
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 :D . 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno