What is evil?

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
The universe does not require evil or good, it just is. Good and evil are human conceptions and they are based on the feeling of being an individual. You are right in that: evil takes from the individual, the human. Nothing can ever be taken away from the universe, so of course evil means nothing to the universe. Because of this conncetion between in ...[text shortened]... magination can't wrap itself around such a state.

Good luck in your quest.

... --- ...

The universe just is? What do you mean by that? That all moral
conceptions are basically human taste nothing more?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The universe just is? What do you mean by that? That all moral
conceptions are basically human taste nothing more?
Kelly

Pretty close. Moral conceptions are human substance.

That the universe just is means that is it beyond us, beyond the scope of our imaginations. Comets collide, planets spin around countless stars, galaxies get sucked into black holes, it all just happens with a cold, emotionless exactitude. It just IS. Not on the scope that God just IS, of course, for it is not truly ineffable, but is just IS in a way that we humans never can be, which is what I believe was my original point. The universe feels no evil for it doesn't have to. It's all Mathematics. No good, no evil, just forces, trajectories and orbits. Humans feel evil because we feel the need to protect what is "ours." If we succeed in protecting what is "ours" that that is good. If we fail, that is evil, except when the universe steps in, e.g. natural disasters, in which case we did not fail exactly but instead were overcome by the chance mathematics. Tragic, yes, but not evil, for what was "ours" was not directly targeted. Simply put, I think.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Pretty close. Moral conceptions are human substance.

That the universe just is means that is it beyond us, beyond the scope of our imaginations. Comets collide, planets spin around countless stars, galaxies get sucked into black h ...[text shortened]... " was not directly targeted. Simply put, I think.

... --- ...

I'm of the opinion it goes deeper than just human substance,
though being humans our perspective this is how we see. If it were
just a human construct than humanity can basically set any action
up to be either good or bad, it would not matter what that rule or
action is! There would be no need to justify any action if it were all
simply a human construct, yet we all feel the need to justify our
bad actions, and credit our good actions to ourselves, we are quick
to point bad behavior in others as well. This is done I believe because
we live in a universe that was not man made, was not an accidental
grand accident which brought forth everything in the universe.

Evil isn’t in rocks, trees, storms and so on as was pointed out in
earlier posts, yet when there is the ability to make a choice, with
knowledge of what that could mean, we now can find it. Basically it
wraps everything around to suit itself, to the cost of others. Stealing
is taking from others, murder is taking from others, lying is a
twisting of the truth many times because of a desire to avoid what
should or could happen if the truth were known. Evil isn’t a human
construct, but if we can certainly see it in the human condition.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evil isn’t in rocks, trees, storms and so on as was pointed out in
earlier posts, yet when there is the ability to make a choice, with
knowledge of what that could mean, we now can find it. Basically it
wraps everything around to suit itself, to the cost of others. Stealing
is taking from others, murder is taking from others, lying is a
twisting of the ...[text shortened]... . Evil isn’t a human
construct, but if we can certainly see it in the human condition.
Kelly

You say that only humans can be evil but then state that evil isn't a human construct, If, as you say, evil is taking from others for your own gain, doesn't that make it exactly that, a human construct? I see evil as a product of complex behavioural actions and reactions. It is obviously counterproductive to society to murder, steal etc. And as such we are taught from a very young age that it is wrong, it is a behavioural moral instilled in us to assist our evolution both short term and long term. Those of us that do not learn this lesson are able to commit what we are calling evil, as they are detached from society's morals, or the morals of that society are failing. Giving evil some sense of supernatural takes the responsibility for one's actions away, it says that evil is something that you are afflicted by and, as such, it may be easier to say it's not your fault than to strive to rebuke it at every point.

The idea of selfishness which you have put forward is one that I would agree with but in a slightly different way. I would say that evil is nothing more than acting upon one's instincts for survival, albeit in a way which is removed from the agreed methods of the rest of society. Nevertheless there may not be such a difference between the mindsets of the powerful corporate executive who does business in a ruthless manner, to that of the person who steals or murders. Each of them exhibits a selfishness to strive for their own gain, at the expense of others. I'm not saying that the executive is evil, but perhaps he is closer to the potential for evil, in other words he views the morals of society in such a way as to allow him to gain from the rest of society, in this he shows a similarity to the mindset of the thief or murderer.

There is another sort of evil we should discuss here, that is not for gain, but for pleasure. Where the outcome of the event is for nothing more than to amuse or satisfy some emotional need in the evil-doer. For example, the person that tortures another, or a paedophile. These people are not gaining in the evolutionary stakes at all, they are purely operating on a need generated by their own brains. I would guess that this highlights a defect in that brain and as such it falls outside the bounds of normal morals, the brain cannot assimilate these values. This can be due to either physiological or behavioural damage, but both can be said to be outside the conscious control of the individual. Does this still make it evil? Well from the standpoint of the rest of society, yes, we judge by our own moralistic values. But the person probably sees no wrong in it at the time of the act.

To the theist I would hazard a guess that there is no difference in these two types of person, to go against the will of god is a sin, regardless of the reasons behind it. This generates an interesting question as to whether insane people are evil when that insanity drives them to commit a crime against another. I would be interested to discuss this in another thread or at your liberty in further posts here.

But for me, evil does not need any sense of supernatural tag, it is a function of the physical over the morals of society as a whole.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm of the opinion it goes deeper than just human substance,
though being humans our perspective this is how we see. If it were
[b]just a human construct than humanity can basically set any action
up to be either good or bad, it would not matter what that rule or
action is! There would be no need to justify any action if it were all
simply a huma ...[text shortened]... . Evil isn’t a human
construct, but if we can certainly see it in the human condition.
Kelly
[/b]

Okay, the task you have put before me seems primarily made up of misunderstanding and giant leaps of definition. I will do my best to clarify my thoughts point by point, but not necessarily in the order you presented them.

First, you seemed to take my comment that evil is of human substance to mean that evil is a human construct. I never used the word construct or any synonym of the word construct. I never said good and evil was a human construct, only that it arises from humanity's need to possess things both concrete (like a computer or a piece of land) to the very abstract (like love, honor, truth, and faith. . . especially faith) .

Obviously, you believe that evil is a thing of itself, that is to say a noun (look! There’s Evil!), whilst I see it as an adjective (that deed was evil). There can be no argument here, for it delves into the personification of spiritual concepts, an area that bears no argument. We must agree to disagree or else dive into a religious argument and I don’t see that going anywhere, either.

As to justification, we humans do not necessarily have control over this part of ourselves, even though it spews forth from our dirty little hearts, though we can and do use it to justify the most heinous of acts. We cannot set up any action to be good or bad as you seem to think I'm saying because of the one axiomatic rule of good and evil: if my stuff is protected, it is good, if it is destroyed or taken from me, then we have evil. defended=good, lost=bad. Under this rule, I could not say that it is good that my honor has been soiled or my computer was taken from me by a bad of nefarious internet-seeking outlaws.

However, we can choose what we think of as evil and what is good to a certain degree, depending on what perspective we choose. There is such a thing as pure evil, something that is viewed as evil by everyone, including the perpetrator, but it is very rare. What happens more often are things that are evil only to one side of the argument. For instance (and STANG should love this example) the terrorists and suicide bombers in the Middle East believe that we (the USA and the western world) are evil because we are trying to take from them their faith and the freedom to rule themselves. We think they are evil because they take lives with impunity and deny what we see as freedom to their fellow countrymen. Who is right? Both sides fit my model: good is defending what is yours or what belongs to your “side,” evil is trying to destroy those things or take them away. The US government can be seen (and is seen) as evil by some for they take away part of a hard-earned paycheck. If my one-year-old daughter gets her hands on a knife or some other nasty pointy thing I of course take it away promptly; she sees this as the absolute acme of all evil, the taking away of what she believed to be hers. I see the act as one of goodness, for I am protecting what I believe is mine. It is never evil to want to defend what you see as yours, yet it is always evil to take what someone else has. Unfortunately both things can occur at the same time.

That there are contradictions in human morality is not a new idea, and an idea that I would think is generally accepted by the thinkers in our midst. Not that there is anything we can do about it. All we can do is make our decisions and do our best to live with them.

Oh, great. Decisions: yet another thing we have to defend to be good.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Okay, the task you have put before me seems primarily made up of misunderstanding and giant leaps of definition. I will do my best to clarify my thoughts point by point, but not necessarily in the order you presented them.

First, y ...[text shortened]... Decisions: yet another thing we have to defend to be good.

I believe that we do need to keep our definitions clear throughout our
discussion, point by point as you said, and said well I might add.

Evil when it comes my thinking, does not have its foundation with
mankind, that is my point! Noun or adjective, I suppose it will depend
on the context.

Evil is revealed in our lives, we can see it. It is also more complex than
just the loss of stuff too! I can suffer the loss of things and it not be
an evil act, I can purposely lose my life, and it too may not be an evil
act if it was done for a righteous cause or reason. As in the protection
of something or someone like home or family, and so on. Just as we
can have people give, and it is for completely selfish ends too, like
for just show or to get something else in return! Life is generally more
complicated than that, context of events, the reasons behind the
actions, and so on.

I have to quit for awhile I will get back to this subject a little later, I
know I owe you and others more detailed responses.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe that we do need to keep our definitions clear throughout our
discussion, point by point as you said, and said well I might add.

Evil when it comes my thinking, does not have its foundation with
mankind, that is my point! Noun or adjective, I suppose it will depend
on the context.

Evil is revealed in our lives, we can see it. It is also mo ...[text shortened]... k to this subject a little later, I
know I owe you and others more detailed responses.
Kelly

As much as I don't want to perpetuate onen of those thread where people are just shouting their opinions at one another, I have to respond to a couple of things you said, and I will quote them to make goings easier.

Evil when it comes my thinking, does not have its foundation with
mankind, that is my point!

Actually, the ultimate foundation of evil, or its source, is really immaterial to my argument. If you must say that evil goes through humanity instead of starting with it, that's fine. My argument outlines the structure of evil, and that is the same whether it comes from God, or His imaginary counterpart Satan, or from man himself. And if

Noun or adjective, I suppose it will depend on the context.

you think that evil acts on its own accord and not though humanity, then you think of it as a noun.

Evil is revealed in our lives, we can see it. It is also more complex than just the loss of stuff too! I can suffer the loss of things and it not be
an evil act . . .

You use the words "stuff" and "things" so loosely, and in a way that makes me think of actual concrete objects, like books or clothes. However, when I speak of property, I mean more than just "stuff." I mean abstract things as well, like faith especially, but also love, victory, happiness, family, freedom, pride . . . I think that supplies enough examples to demonstrate my point. The word "stuff" demeans all of these human possessions to something you can put in a safty deposit box or something.

I can purposely lose my life, and it too may not be an evil act if it was done for a righteous cause or reason. As in the protection of something or someone like home or family, and so on.

This is a wonderful example of how I said both good and evil can happen at the same time. You take your own life, but you take it from whom? You take it from your friends and family; you remove your talents from the world. Taking=evil. However, as I said many times, protection=good, and unfortunately for your argument you went and used the word yourself: protection. So, frankly, in the above quoted statement you are actually agreeing with me, even though I'm sure you didn't mean to.

Just as we can have people give, and it is for completely selfish ends too, like for just show or to get something else in return!

Evil and good are in intention, of course. Just like in a complicated chess combonation, what matters is how the board looks at the end of the exchanges. The person in this example may have given something, but he did not do it to protect, but instead, as you stated yourself, he did it "to get something else in return." Something has to come from somewhere, so in essense he was taking, and taking=evil. Once again, you are agreeing with me. Sorry.

Life is generally more complicated than that, context of events, the reasons behind the actions, and so on.

Let me take this moment to stress once again that evil and good have shown an ability to act at the same time. What you call it (good or evil) depends greatly on your perspective, and the perspectives of your loved ones. As you loved ones, or people on your "side" can often be a diverse group, it is often difficult to place these labels. It is even more difficult if you consider the perspective of the other side, the enemy, the people outside your scope of protection. Geez, could this get more complicated? You suggest that my simple definition of good and evil propegates simple situations, but I must say that you are mistaken. Its simplicity does more to complicate than anything else could.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. You say there are "reasons behind the actions." "Reasons," as in plural, more than one reason. I would put forth the theory that there is usually only one ultimate reason, and that one reason, if you can sort it out of the mess, it the one to be judged, if you so dare to judge.

I mean, really. What if I walked into a church coffee hour and announced that Jesus Christ had more than one reason for dying?

... --- ...