"evil"

Originally posted by vistesd
Do mean in the sense that good and evil are objective, rather than subjective, categories?

Or that there is some independent force called “good” and some independent force called “evil”, as there is an independent force called gravity?

I have offered the following definition of moral evil (to which twhitehead has added some cogent expansions/adjustment ...[text shortened]... mean by the word “evil”.

Note: I guess there can be actions that are morally neutral.

Well, obviously I believe there is an independent force behind each.

I guess I mean good and evil in an objective sense.

“Moral evil is the unjustified deliberate causing of harm, suffering or unpleasantness to another.”

I can accept this definition easily enough, but I get lost trying to make a case for a force that motivates one to "do" evil. Either we have free will to choose what force we obey, or we are simply reacting to conditioning.

Morally neutral actions? I suppose so.

Originally posted by josephw
Well, obviously I believe there is an independent force behind each.

I guess I mean good and evil in an objective sense.

[b]“Moral evil is the unjustified deliberate causing of harm, suffering or unpleasantness to another.”

I can accept this definition easily enough, but I get lost trying to make a case for a force that motivates one to ...[text shortened]... we obey, or we are simply reacting to conditioning.

Morally neutral actions? I suppose so.[/b]

i dont believe there are morally neutral actions. you cant stand by and watch something bad happen and not help and say "hey i didnt do it, and i didnt stop it, thats neutral." that is evil, for not helping prevent something bad

Originally posted by josephw
Then everything that is evil is the opposite of everything that is good?

Does this mean then that there IS good and there IS evil?

The real question is, can you have one without the other, and if so
which one?
Kelly

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i dont believe there are morally neutral actions. you cant stand by and watch something bad happen and not help and say "hey i didnt do it, and i didnt stop it, thats neutral." that is evil, for not helping prevent something bad

Put your hand on top of your head.

Was that a morally neutral action?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Put your hand on top of your head.

Was that a morally neutral action?

i dont think that is a moral action at all; it is just an action.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i dont think that is a moral action at all; it is just an action.

I'm thinking you and I have different interpretations of 'morally neutral action' 🙂

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm thinking you and I have different interpretations of 'morally neutral action' 🙂

i think that i just interpreted "moral action" as an action that involves morals; so i didnt see how there could be a nuetral moral action because if it didnt have any morals it wouldnt be moral and immoral but i understand how you interpreted it now.

Originally posted by vistesd
You are offering some cogent expansions, adjustments and questions that I accept. I am interested if anyone has an alternative definition of moral evil to offer.

I still think the rights issue is quite important to consider. I am not saying you are wrong with "justification for causing deliberate harm or suffering", I am just considering whether rights follows from that or that follows from rights.
Consider education. Some countries have enshrined in their constitution certain individual 'rights' including the right to education. Many people would consider it morally evil for a parent to deliberately deny their child an education.
Now why would we make a judgment of 'evil'? Is the child going to be harmed or otherwise suffer as a result? Do we think the child will not enjoy his life to its fullest potential?
Or is it the other way round?: we have certain rights and one of them is to not be harmed or made to suffer and violation of any right (without proper justification) is evil.
Could we say that the fundamental right of all is to live the most desirable life possible and that evil is anyone or anything without proper justification causing you to not achieve that?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
i dont think that is a moral action at all; it is just an action.

Do you think an action can be either good or bad depending on the
intent, as well as the same action just be an action other times?
Kelly

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
does evil exist? what is good and evil? are we not just animals with no more of a significant existence of every other animal? if so, is there any significance to morals at all?

Well basically evil starts when people say God doesn't exist and they think they can do their own thing. People for the most part don't want to believe in God because then they can't spoil themselves and do whatever they want. Saying God doesn't exist means there is no evil. There are no rules, morals, respect, and the only person who counts is number one. And God does exist and so does evil.

Originally posted by Mr Awsm
Well basically evil starts when people say God doesn't exist and they think they can do their own thing. People for the most part don't want to believe in God because then they can't spoil themselves and do whatever they want. Saying God doesn't exist means there is no evil. There are no rules, morals, respect, and the only person who counts is number one. And God does exist and so does evil.

Well basically evil starts when people say their God must be believed in and submitted to—or else... People for the most part want to believe in God because they want to be told what to think and do rather than think for themselves. Saying God doesn’t exist means the person saying it is evil, and wants to do evil things. There are rules and morals are laid out, and must be respected without question; and the only person who counts is God. Anybody who says there is no God cannot love anybody else.

—I just thought one absurd post deserved another.

Originally posted by Mr Awsm
Well basically evil starts when people say God doesn't exist and they think they can do their own thing. People for the most part don't want to believe in God because then they can't spoil themselves and do whatever they want. Saying God doesn't exist means there is no evil. There are no rules, morals, respect, and the only person who counts is number one. And God does exist and so does evil.

Your post is a little confusing. First you say evil is when people don't believe in God then you say it doesn't exist when people don't believe in God.
Do you believe in God? If you do, are you incapable of evil?
Do you know anyone who doesn't believe in God because they simply don't want to, or are you simply trying to find a comforting explanation for the existence of atheists?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still think the rights issue is quite important to consider. I am not saying you are wrong with "justification for causing deliberate harm or suffering", I am just considering whether rights follows from that or that follows from rights.
Consider education. Some countries have enshrined in their constitution certain individual 'rights' including the ri ...[text shortened]... t evil is anyone or anything without proper justification causing you to not achieve that?

I don’t disagree. As bbarr once pointed out to me, one can talk about the same moral question in terms of rights or in terms of obligations (the question, as I recall, had to do with my moral obligation to refrain from flaying Floyd with a flail, and/or Floyd’s right to not be flayed).

In this case, I suspect that requiring a justification to cause harm implies some right, on the part of the victim, not to be harmed.

Originally posted by vistesd
In this case, I suspect that requiring a justification to cause harm implies some right, on the part of the victim, not to be harmed.

I think my question is whether or not the definition of evil we are getting at encompasses more than 'harm'. I have given the examples of lack of education and slavery where no discernible harm may be suffered by the victim. Many people in fact argue that it is better to be free and suffer than to be a slave and live a life of luxury. My question is whether or not it always comes back to harm and suffering whether physical or mental or whether there are cases where a fundamental right can be violated without causing any discernible suffering or harm to anyone and whether such a violation could be called evil.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think my question is whether or not the definition of evil we are getting at encompasses more than 'harm'. I have given the examples of lack of education and slavery where no discernible harm may be suffered by the victim. Many people in fact argue that it is better to be free and suffer than to be a slave and live a life of luxury. My question is wheth ...[text shortened]... any discernible suffering or harm to anyone and whether such a violation could be called evil.

Ah. Well, I guess that depends on how broadly one defines “harm.” I think you’re talking about, say, depriving me of something to my detriment, e.g. education or medical treatment. But I still think the question of justification comes in.

If you don’t harm me, cause me suffering or unpleasantness, or deprive me of some good (tangible or intangible), act to my detriment in some way*—how can your actions toward me be classed as evil? Is that phrase “acting to one’s detriment” expansive enough?

I see a danger here: that of me deciding what’s best for you, and then “inflicting” that perceived “good” upon you against your own desires (for simplicity, let’s assume you are a reasoning adult). Suppose I am correct, and what I inflict on you is actually more beneficial than what you yourself would do—is my action good or evil? Under what circumstances? What if I am incorrect? What constitutes justification for me constrain your own choice in the matter?

* Or, as you noted, perhaps fail to act on my behalf when I am being harmed by someone else. “Good” can be taken here as anything that I care about or value—e.g. if you were harming, not me, but someone I care about.

—Late here, got to go now.