Evil

Evil [+ favourites]

okay okay, thought of the day and my first post. What would you defin evil as and what is the distinction between natrual and moral evil?

"SMILE NOW, CRY LATER"

I would define evil as a thing that not only hurts the self (spiritually, emotionally, or physically) but also the human community as a whole (in the same three areas).

Natural evil is our own need to serve the self (because this can often cause someone else to hurt) without the proper consideration for other beings.

Moral evil is simply an illusion that makes the world black and white. Moral evil is defined by moral rules and these rules help to restrict the self if they are believed in blindly. Moral rules are not bad, but they must be proven true in your own life before they can be healthy rules. The problem with moral evil is that it is defined. Evil is constantly taking on new forms (since not all humans hurt because of the same things). Since this is true, we may be doing "good" (as defined by moral rules and moral bad) when actually we are doing bad.

To find true evil we must constantly be analyzing our actions to see if they are hurting ourselves or others. And based on this we must decide which action is right.

""What life! What cheery expectation resides in our existence!""

But what is the need for the word "evil" in the first place? In a strictly utilitarian point of view, we can say that those actions that harm others in any of the ways you described are not even beneficial to the agent. Harming others is at most an expedient effort to fix a problem whereas having legitimacy and expressing kindness provides, for the most part, long-lasting solutions. Evil is of no use here if we look at things purely objectively. What is evil but a tarnished form of what we call "bad" or "foolish?"

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

Evil should be defined as the pursuit, defense, and sustainance of lies/untruths/hypocrisy.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

If evil is to be defined as the pursuit of untruths/lies/hypocrisy than all of our actions are evil, for we can know nothing as absolute fact (in my opinion) and as such, everything we claim to know is an untruth/lie. In fact what we think as "good" may very well be an untruth and "good" is therefore evil. And since we act on what we believe to be good, not the absolute definition of it, we become hypocrits because we say that we stand for good, but that good might not actually be true goodness.

""What life! What cheery expectation resides in our existence!""

I beleive it is only through what we call evil that we can know what good is.. it allows us to learn emotions such as love and compastion.

"SMILE NOW, CRY LATER"

I would say that people who do evil acts are not evil necessarily because of the act i.e killing someone, it may have been in self defense or by accident. I would define the act as evil and the person as an evil doer if the act which is abhorrent to others is planned and gives pleasure in some form to the evil doer.

""Each child holds the world in an open hand to mould it into any shape they choose.""

There are people who believe that only the intention of an outcome dictates an action's morality and likewise there are those who believe only the outcome dictates its morality. To paint a picture for you about what each one implies, consider this:

A man by the name of Carl is about to board a very crowded subway train. It could literally only accomodate one more person and the doors are going to close any second. Feeling generous, Carl makes way for another man who is running to the train to get in. Now, in a parallel universe, Carl says "screw this guy" and boards the train himself, leaving the hurried man standing there, watching the train leave. It was later found out that the man running to the subway train had just mugged an old lady and the police were right on his tail. If he had made the train he would have gotten away. Which Carl was morally correct?

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."
[  Edited by ChrisD at   ]

Might I inquire two things about the scenario: Why was Carl boarding the subway? And: Why did the man steal someone's purse?

""What life! What cheery expectation resides in our existence!""

quote:

---

If evil is to be defined as the pursuit of untruths/lies/hypocrisy than all of our actions are evil, for we can know nothing as absolute fact (in my opinion) and as such, everything we claim to know is an untruth/lie. In fact what we think as "good" may very well be an untruth and "good" is therefore evil. And since we act on what we believe to be good, not the absolute definition of it, we become hypocrits because we say that we stand for good, but that good might not actually be true goodness.

---

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

quote:

---

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again: There is nothing intellectual about pointing out relevant versus absolute truths - it is a copout that quasi-intellectual dolts grab onto like flies on shit in order to find an excuse not to devote themselves to any given idea, and to be able to refute any level of criticism thrown their way.

---

""What life! What cheery expectation resides in our existence!""

Your acceptance that you will never know the truth is the copout. It's exactly like saying there's no true thing as happiness, except it's more of a self-contradicting statement: Your statement that there are no absolute truths is in itself an absolute truth, which makes it a none-sense statement. This is why it is a copout - you DO believe in absolute truths, just ones that make it easier to be weak and irresponsible.

But I appreciate your honest response. I think you should think about it more readily. The statement "i do not believe in happiness so I will not be strong in my belief that it can be pursued, and further I will openly state that anyone who claims to have found happiness is a liar" is presumptuous and insulting. It is identical to the idea that you can say "we are all pursuing untruths" - that is an absolute statement.

All you can say, safely, is that YOU know YOU will never find truths. Even that is an absolute statement, but at least you are limiting it to yourself, which means you are only insulting yourself. As someone who does not believe in absolute truths, it is quite ludicrous for you to claim you KNOW there are not attainable by humans.

In fact, all you can do is have passive beliefs that you really don't subscribe to, including this one.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I would actually agree with most about what you say about me; except on the matter of happiness. I believe that there is true happiness, although I do not know its true definition (and quite frankly, I wouldn't want to—it makes it all the more fun not to know). And also, if other people have found true happiness: good for them, I would never go so far as to call them liars. I only say that I do not know its definition. Maybe I'm being repetitive though.

Secondly, my statements are all completely fluid. My conscious does not operate in a straight line or with complete order and without change. I do not make absolute statements. I make statements that I believe to be true at that moment in time. In a week or two, I may very well believe in something different. Does that mean the last two weeks have been a waste? No, because it was a part of my psyche's evolution. I'm sorry if I communicated that my ideas were absolute. Who knows? One day I may attain absolute truth, but as of right now, I don't believe I can. But I'm still going to strive for it because that's what I live for: to know more true un-truths so that I can serve myself and my relationships better. And I suppose you are correct: I can only say that I will never identify absolute truth (maybe you, or a great slew of people, can).

Yet, after all of this, I still don't think I'm coping out. I'm accepting the (hopefully temporary) limits I see in my own life (that I probably have no control over) and doing the best I can with them. Believing in non-absolute truth, to me, brings a great deal of acceptance when one of my ideas or theories is proven incorrect. By not believing in rock-solid truth I can 1) not be disappointed when I am wrong; and 2) rejoice in the fact that I am learning. For others, acceptance of being able to not know absolute truth may be a cop-out, but for me, it's not.

This is further shown in the fact that I don't just subscribe to "passive" beliefs. Passive implies that I don't act upon them (that I am in fact passive in pursuing them), and this is just not how I act with my beliefs. I do, and will continue to, act upon what I believe to be true at every point in my life. Belief without action is like raw meat: it's very hard to swallow.

Thanks, though, Decius. If anything, this conversation has posed some questions for me to ponder that I haven’t yet and even some things might have been proven untrue in my beliefs. It's been very thought-provoking, so thank you.

""What life! What cheery expectation resides in our existence!""

quote:

---

And since we act on what we believe to be good, not the absolute definition of it, we become hypocrits because we say that we stand for good, but that good might not actually be true goodness.

---

quote:

---

I would never go so far as to call them liars.

---

quote:

---

I believe that there is true happiness, although I do not know its true definition

---

quote:

---

Believing in non-absolute truth, to me, brings a great deal of acceptance when one of my ideas or theories is proven incorrect.

---

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Wasn't evil derived from a belief in God? Doesn't it mean, literally, to be against God? And if so, wouldn't evil have no use to a non-believer in God? Though still, actions such as murder and theft and lying hold serious consequences to anyone whether they believe in God or not. A non believer in God can still get caught in a lie and lose valuable trust with a person or many. A non believer in God can still murder someone and experience the horrific impact it has on a family and society and probably on himself.

You see, these consequences have no necessity in believing in God as they usually have bad, objective, consequences to begin with. This is why I see "evil" as a way for early civilization to explain the objectively bad consequences of theft and murder and lying. Thunder storms used to be the god Zues. Women who knew arithmetic were witches and burned at the stake.

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."