"Evil"

[Nicholas I. Hosein]

We begin by looking at the common definitions of evil:


dictionary dot com

Quote:

e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


If evil is exclusive to human civilization then we can argue that it is competely based on perspective.

If evil is based on perspective, then the one percieving it has either qualifyingly or unqualifyingly judged it based on some concept or perceived violation of justice. Therefore, "evil", although it may be a purely subjective term, still is modelled after some well-formed or tautological truth in the mind of the person who witnessed it. Hence, it becomes a question of what standards one has in their concept of good relative to the evil witnessed. The standards are normally set by the "utilitarian good" or the greater good as defined in Benthamite philosophy.

But in this case our semantic concept of "evil" is not yet complete if we consider evil as a defiance in perspective of the greater good. Which leads us to ask, from what is this perspective in each individual born of? If it is born of the primal survival instincts then it can be attributed to territorial disputes, in regards to humanity and not any other animal this is meant in the sense of what is commonly expected of us and what we expect others to live by per society.

In nature there exists the hierarchy of beings and of this, the food chain. From the bottom to the top of the food chain we see a gradual rise in command each being has over every other. If every creature has a survival need of every other, then the scenario of cheating and abuse of power may arise. This would be a case in point of a "natural evil". If a person kills an animal without reason, then it would be an accident since the act was in absence of choice. Where nature can be called the judge, this would be the mens rea. However, if the same person kills an animal while conscious that the value of personal gain is significantly less than the value of the animal's life, then the person has committed a natural evil. In other words, a non-predetermined act of evil would suggest that evil can be considered to be fairly subjective, and an act of evil based on choice is truly evil. Since nature is only partially predeterministic, then there is both true evil and subjective evil.

 

[§outh§tar]

Since when was evil exclusive to the human civilization? Ever hear of fallen angels?

The evil that pertains to humanity is concerned with the law and our conscience which bears witness, between ourselves our thoughts accusing or else excusing our actions. All variations, as you have stated, only go to demonstrate human imperfection, as we are incapable of keeping the law, and yet need it to distinguish evil.

Hope I made sense..

 

[Leo Volont]

If evil is exclusive to human civilization then we can argue that it is competely based on perspective.

What we have here is a failure of intellectual imagination.

Once you got as far as thinking in terms of Civilization, you should have realized you had the veritable Key to the distinction between Good and Evil. Civilization is made possible only by Goodness -- the willingness of People to cooperation and share -- to effectively treat others as themselves. Civilization is the physical manifestation of the Golden Rule.

Evil is not just a matter of perspective. Evil is the barbarian impulse to pillage civilization in order to exult the individual.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

We begin by looking at the common definitions of evil:


dictionary dot com

Quote:

e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


If evil is exclusive to human civilization then we can argue that it is competely based on perspective.

If evil is based on perspective, then the one percieving it has either qualifyingly or unqualifyingly judged it based on some concept or perceived violation of justice. Therefore, "evil", although it may be a purely subjective term, still is modelled after some well-formed or tautological truth in the mind of the person who witnessed it. Hence, it becomes a question of what standards one has in their concept of good relative to the evil witnessed. The standards are normally set by the "utilitarian good" or the greater good as defined in Benthamite philosophy.

But in this case our semantic concept of "evil" is not yet complete if we consider evil as a defiance in perspective of the greater good. Which leads us to ask, from what is this perspective in each individual born of? If it is born of the primal survival instincts then it can be attributed to territorial disputes, in regards to humanity and not any other animal this is meant in the sense of what is commonly expected of us and what we expect others to live by per society.

In nature there exists the hierarchy of beings and of this, the food chain. From the bottom to the top of the food chain we see a gradual rise in command each being has over every other. If every creature has a survival need of every other, then the scenario of cheating and abuse of power may arise. This would be a case in point of a "natural evil". If a person kills an animal without reason, then it would be an accident since the act was in absence of choice. Where nature can be called the judge, this would be the mens rea. However, if the same person kills an animal while conscious that the value of personal gain is significantly less than the value of the animal's life, then the person has committed a natural evil. In other words, a non-predetermined act of evil would suggest that evil can be considered to be fairly subjective, and an act of evil based on choice is truly evil. Since nature is only partially predeterministic, then there is both true evil and subjective evil.

Nicholas I. Hosein,

Very interesting topic (and nice job BTW). I wanted to share a different
view on the subject. My observations of how nature works vs. what people
consider 'good' and 'evil' lead me to a very interesting conclusion. In nature,
there are two very factual behaviors that our world's various species exhibit.
One is altruism and the other is exploitation. For either behavior you can
have a complete absence of it (i.e. a neutrality so to speak); hence, there
are 4 states that can be derived if we consider altruism, exploitation, and
neutrality.

1. Altruisim
2. Exploitation
3. Altruisim AND Exploitation
4. Neutrality

Throughout our lives we pick out various forms of the above states and label
them with the words 'good' and 'evil' (notice that there are only 2 labels).
Existing picks may change labels over our lives while new picks are constantly
made. While this constant flux exists, our society / parents / cultrue /
religion / etc. heavily influence how we label any new picks and even allow
us to make predictions on how some people's picks will change labels over
time.

In other words, 'good' and 'evil' are man-made labels that subjectively
express individual tolerances of various forms of the above states. This
also means that there is no such thing empirical 'good' and 'evil' in the
universe.

I feel it would be a really cool thing if some day we could have a more
definitive moral structure based on altrusism, exploitation, and neutrality.
Some of the benefits it could potentially have are to mitigate moral / ethical
disagreement and incoherency while eliminating the dependency of fairly
tale practices (ex. Religion) as a source of morals and ethics.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What we have here is a failure of intellectual imagination.

Once you got as far as thinking in terms of Civilization, you should have realized you had the veritable Key to the distinction between Good and Evil. Civilization is made possible only by Goodness -- the willingness of People to cooperation and share -- to effectively treat others as themselves. Civilization is the physical manifestation of the Golden Rule.

Evil is not just a matter of perspective. Evil is the barbarian impulse to pillage civilization in order to exult the individual.

Nicholas,

Ignore this indivual's insults. Arrogance, empty assertions, and fallacy
are not a substitute for a thinking.

 

[Leo Volont]

Nicholas I. Hosein,

1. Altruisim
2. Exploitation
3. Altruisim AND Exploitation
4. Neutrality

In other words, 'good' and 'evil' are man-made labels that subjectively
express individual tolerances of various forms of the above states. This
also means that there is no such thing empirical 'good' and 'evil' in the
universe.

.

Altruism is the real Good. Exploitation is the real Evil. The Bibles Prophecy of The Beast and Antichrist anticipate that the Real Moral Compass will be reversed, just as it is Today.

In Modern Politics 'Exploitation' is called by the euphemisms of Freedom and Opportunity, while 'Altruism' receives the Curse of being deemed Liberal.

Yes, moral perceptions can be perverted. We can see this from Jewish Scripture. Jacob was a liar and a cheat who swindled and defrauded his Eldest Brother out of his Birthright by lying to his Father. But because Jacob is considered the Patriarch of the Hebrew People, these moral outrages which would land any modern civilized person in jail, are considered 'clever' and justified. Jews over hundreds of Generations have slowly patterned themselves on Jacob and have effectively become a race of Jacobs. If you need somebody to lie and cheat for you, you can find no better choice. It is why they make such effective (I won't say 'good') lawyers.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Altruism is the real Good. Exploitation is the real Evil. The Bibles Prophecy of The Beast and Antichrist anticipate that the Real Moral Compass will be reversed, just as it is Today.

In Modern Politics 'Exploitation' is called by the euphemisms of Freedom and Opportunity, while 'Altruism' receives the Curse of being deemed Liberal.

Yes, moral perceptions can be perverted. We can see this from Jewish Scripture. Jacob was a liar and a cheat who swindled and defrauded his Eldest Brother out of his Birthright by lying to his Father. But because Jacob is considered the Patriarch of the Hebrew People, these moral outrages which would land any modern civilized person in jail, are considered 'clever' and justified. Jews over hundreds of Generations have slowly patterned themselves on Jacob and have effectively become a race of Jacobs. If you need somebody to lie and cheat for you, you can find no better choice. It is why they make such effective (I won't say 'good') lawyers.

Leo,

Most people are not even fully aware of the concepts of altruism and
exploitation. They just label things on the fly as 'good' and 'evil' and adjust
these labelings over time. Within the scope of this event, people don't
have an agreeable definition of 'good' and 'evil', and without recognizing
how they are defining it now such an agreement would not be possible.
In fact the way I am defining altruism and exploitation is based on a model
of the factual and observable behaviors of Earth's species. More specifically:

Altruism:
Unselfish behavior targeted towards another individual / group that is for that
benefit of that individual / group and may be detrimental towards the well
being of the source of the behavior.

Exploitation:
Taking advantage of another individual / group that is detrimental towards
the well being of that individual group without the agreement from that
individual / group.


The moral compass couldn't be changing because there is no existing
compass to begin with. Ask people where 'North' is and fingers will be pointing
all over the place. Perhaps society has matured to a point where it can
come to some firm agreements of moral definition based on altruism,
exploitation, and neutrality. We could have a compass with definitive
directions based on behavioral fact. As to what direction people would
choose, well that would be a decision of the individual with environmental
influences; however, it could be very well shown that altruistic and neutral
behaviors will produce greater benefit.

Politics reflects many conflicts born of moral and ethical concepts lacking firm
agreed-upon definiton. If someone exercises altruistic behavior towards
the homeless then some individuals will recongnize the deed and others
will condemn the homeless for being exploitive of the altruistic people helping
them. The latter half would label the altruistic folks as 'Liberal'. Both Liberal
and non-Liberal parties agree on the problem though and have different
ways of solving it. It is possible to be altruistic and receive neutrality or
even altruism in return.

The concept of opportunity gets a raw deal if it is being considered exploitive.
Consider two companies competing for business. If one company initiates
a price war and wins, then the other company goes out of business and
many people loose their jobs. That is not exploitation. When people accept a
job, they are agreeing to compete for business and have their expectations
set to the positive and negative consequences of the agreement. For
example, if the CEO of one company finds a huge defecient feature in a
competitors product then he will take advantage of this fact and decimate
the competition. Did he take advantage of the competitors weak point? Yep.
Did the competator agree to this? Yes! The moment they entered the market
they made the agreement.

Regarding freedom, the word has alot of meanings so we would have to
agree upon one to discuss it.

As far as Jews are concerned, I have seen some of the behaviors you
are asserting; however, it is not common and I don't know for a fact that
the ratio of such behaviors is greater in the Jewish population than in other
religions.

 

[okinrus]

I don't think this is standard convention but it will make things a bit less confusing. Evil with the capital E is separation in relationship with God. Just plain "evil" refers to someone's individual actions that manifest Evil.

 

[Lemming3k]

Evil with the capital E is separation in relationship with God.

Does that mean someone without a relationship with god is Evil?

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo,



The concept of opportunity gets a raw deal if it is being considered exploitive.
Consider two companies competing for business. If one company initiates
a price war and wins, then the other company goes out of business and
many people loose their jobs. That is not exploitation. When people accept a
job, they are agreeing to compete for business and have their expectations
set to the positive and negative consequences of the agreement. For
example, if the CEO of one company finds a huge defecient feature in a
competitors product then he will take advantage of this fact and decimate
the competition. Did he take advantage of the competitors weak point? Yep.
Did the competator agree to this? Yes! The moment they entered the market
they made the agreement.

Life is not a game. Who do you think made all these rules and agreements you are talking about? If the Leisured Rich decide to have a contest as to who can pillage greater part of the World, that does not make it right. Before we had Capitalist Barbarians, we had Warrior Barbarians. Then the Rules you love were to assemble Armies and invade and attack. Some would win and some would lose, but it was all quite fair since everyone agreed to it. Well, NO! The People never agreed to any of this destructive, exploitative and predatory crap.

Here is something to think about. Productivity has gone up 700% since the Nineteensixties. But Americans are still working 40 Hour Workweeks. Now why on Earth do you think that the American Working Class wants to spend every weeking hours slaving for some Capitalist Bosses, when if you were to do the Math, then with the Productivity Increases figured in he really should only have to be putting in Six hours of work a week.

Really, I don't think that ordinary people are quite so agreeable about being screwed over. The way Capitalist Control works is the People are effectively deprived of Control. Socialism was made the Enemy and every Communist was deemed a traitor to his Country. It is not much of a Choice when the System kicks the Living Crap out of anybody who will choose Door Number Two or Door Number Three.

While we still have Religion, Usury was forbidden. Predatory Business practices were frowned upon. Guilds did not put other Guilds 'Out of Business' -- the Church would mediate Accomodations.

What you are defending is just Modernized Contemporary Barbarism.

 

[Leo Volont]

Does that mean someone without a relationship with god is Evil?

Predators who prey upon their fellow Man are Evil.

For everyone but a Mystic, God is just an intellectual abstraction. Virtually nobody has a relationship with God. Those who say they 'believe' in God are mostly just putting up a pretense. What they actually mean is that they would like to Believe in God. The difference is the same as between having a Million Dollars and wishing you had a Million Dollars.

But people are put in the state of psychological duress. the Protestants scream at them that if they do not believe in God they will go to Hell, and at the same time they are told that believing in God is accomplished simply by saying the words, "I believe in God". So they say the magic words. But saying you believe in God does not make it so.

 

[Lemming3k]

Here is something to think about. Productivity has gone up 700% since the Nineteensixties. But Americans are still working 40 Hour Workweeks. Now why on Earth do you think that the American Working Class wants to spend every weeking hours slaving for some Capitalist Bosses, when if you were to do the Math, then with the Productivity Increases figured in he really should only have to be putting in Six hours of work a week.

One simple reason, money, if you only do a 6 hour week you dont earn enough to live on, hours of work vary with jobs as does the money, also productivity might be 700% higher but if everyone only did 6 hours a week that would fall back down to what it was before and then perhaps demand has increased by 700% aswell and that would account for the rise in productivity, along with new technology and such.

Predators who prey upon their fellow Man are Evil.
For everyone but a Mystic, God is just an intellectual abstraction. Virtually nobody has a relationship with God. Those who say they 'believe' in God are mostly just putting up a pretense. What they actually mean is that they would like to Believe in God. The difference is the same as between having a Million Dollars and wishing you had a Million Dollars.
But people are put in the state of psychological duress. the Protestants scream at them that if they do not believe in God they will go to Hell, and at the same time they are told that believing in God is accomplished simply by saying the words, "I believe in God". So they say the magic words. But saying you believe in God does not make it so.

I asked a simple question yet fail to see an answer in all that you say, theres a few things that seem to divert away from the question but nothing that directly answers it, if your trying to say only a few people have a relationship with god and those people are 'good' then please explain how you can tell who has a genuine relationship with god and who doesnt?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Life is not a game. Who do you think made all these rules and agreements you are talking about? If the Leisured Rich decide to have a contest as to who can pillage greater part of the World, that does not make it right. Before we had Capitalist Barbarians, we had Warrior Barbarians. Then the Rules you love were to assemble Armies and invade and attack. Some would win and some would lose, but it was all quite fair since everyone agreed to it. Well, NO! The People never agreed to any of this destructive, exploitative and predatory crap.

Here is something to think about. Productivity has gone up 700% since the Nineteensixties. But Americans are still working 40 Hour Workweeks. Now why on Earth do you think that the American Working Class wants to spend every weeking hours slaving for some Capitalist Bosses, when if you were to do the Math, then with the Productivity Increases figured in he really should only have to be putting in Six hours of work a week.

Really, I don't think that ordinary people are quite so agreeable about being screwed over. The way Capitalist Control works is the People are effectively deprived of Control. Socialism was made the Enemy and every Communist was deemed a traitor to his Country. It is not much of a Choice when the System kicks the Living Crap out of anybody who will choose Door Number Two or Door Number Three.

While we still have Religion, Usury was forbidden. Predatory Business practices were frowned upon. Guilds did not put other Guilds 'Out of Business' -- the Church would mediate Accomodations.

What you are defending is just Modernized Contemporary Barbarism.

Leo,

When someone creates a product and sells it, that is not pillaging. In
the U.S. you don't magically become 'rich'. You have to work for it. If
you have a great product and work hard to sell it then you may become
rich. If you are fortunate enough to attain great financial succes then you
may choose to fund and guide others whom have product ideas that you
feel may be sold. This has nothing to do with Barbarians.

I don't see what prouctivity increases has to do with 40 hour work weeks;
however, as to why people choose to work... it's simple. If you have a
reasonable education then you can become quite wealthy by joining a
company and being a high performer. High performance = salary increase.
High performance and improved competency = salary increase and promotion.

Really, people in the U.S. are not getting screwed over.

 

[§outh§tar]

@ Crunch Cat

Ever heard of Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie?

 

[TruthSeeker]

For everyone but a Mystic, God is just an intellectual abstraction. Virtually nobody has a relationship with God.

You speak for yourself. All Christians I've met believe God is alive and that they have a relationship with God. That includes both Gospel and Presbiterian. Also, the catholics believe that too. Your statement is either ignorant or deceiving (i.e. a lie).

Those who say they 'believe' in God are mostly just putting up a pretense. What they actually mean is that they would like to Believe in God. The difference is the same as between having a Million Dollars and wishing you had a Million Dollars.

Again, not true. All Christians I've met have had complete conviction of the existence of God. So far you don't refelct in any way the Christian way of thinking.

But people are put in the state of psychological duress. the Protestants scream at them that if they do not believe in God they will go to Hell, and at the same time they are told that believing in God is accomplished simply by saying the words, "I believe in God".

That is once again completely wrong. Protestants by definition are the exactly opposite of what you have stated. The early protestants in Geneva had the exact opposite perspective that you show here. The perespective that you are showing belong to the Catholics, who believe that the grace of God has to be gained. But that is an obvious mistake, since grace, by definition, is the unmerited favour of God. In other words, the protestants (i.e. most non-catholics) believe that we are saved by grace, and not by our works. Protestants believe that they don't need to ask for God's forgiveness, while catholics believe that they should be constantly asking to be forgiven, which clearly contradicts the Word of God.

So they say the magic words.

That is also wrong - spetially for protestant churches. Pretestant churches tend to believe that faith is just one step towards victory. Protestants tend to believe that you first need to pray and then act in that faith and make it happen. So, once again you are seriously mistaken.

But saying you believe in God does not make it so.

Finally something accurate....

 

[okinrus]

Does that mean someone without a relationship with god is Evil?

Yes. But there's degrees of separation. Alledgely, someone who doesn't know that God exists is unable to hate God. So the degree of separation in this case is less than someone who knows God exists and hates Him.

 

[okinrus]

TruthSeeker, Catholics believe that grace is unmerited as well. Look up grace in the catechism somewhere. The difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics believe that salvation is by grace alone(someone must act on their faith) and Protestants believe that salvation is by faith alone(true faith automatically produces action).

As for asking for forgiveness, you will find some Protestants who say "yes," such as Evangelicals, and others who will say no.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Since when was evil exclusive to the human civilization? Ever hear of fallen angels?

*************
M*W: In the pre-biblical civilizations, is there any documented evidence of evil? I'm asking, I don't know.

 

[§outh§tar]

TruthSeeker, Catholics believe that grace is unmerited as well. Look up grace in the catechism somewhere. The difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics believe that salvation is by grace alone(someone must act on their faith) and Protestants believe that salvation is by faith alone(true faith automatically produces action).

As for asking for forgiveness, you will find some Protestants who say "yes," such as Evangelicals, and others who will say no.

What do you believe, okinrus?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Yes. But there's degrees of separation.

*************
M*W: There's no degree of separation between God and Humanity.
*************

okinrus: Alledgely, someone who doesn't know that God exists is unable to hate God. So the degree of separation in this case is less than someone who knows God exists and hates Him.

*************
M*W: Hasn't it been said that no one can really "know" God? I disagree with that, because I believe I "know" God or what God means to me. But how could anyone who believes in God hate God? It's beyond my imagination. To me, that would mean they hate humanity. I think that's impossible for a sound mind. Then that brings me to the point that, if someone hates their own creator, they must be mentally unstable -OR- they believe in something ungodly.