What or who is evil?

Remove all ads!

There is no such thing as evil. No person is wholly bad, nor wholly good. Events or things can't be evil, because events and things have no motivations in and of themselves. They merely exist. Actions, however, could probably be good or evil, but since good and evil are such subjective terms, I would prefer that society eschew such labels entirely. So much "evil" has been done in the name of "good". The last thing our society needs is more handy labels with which to sway the masses.

 

Drew has an excellent point -- evil is a pejorative word; we sometimes associate it with "that which causes suffering", but even then, we are inclined to slap labels on things like "pollution", or "capitalism", or "communism" as evil.

Take pollution, for example. No one likes pollution, and we'd all get rid of it if we had a mgaic wand. However, to get rid of some pollution, you have to make sacrifices -- companies have decreased revenue, then workers get fired, not everyone gets the goods (computer games, toys, pencils, whatever). So -- is pollution evil? Most economists will probably tell you that there's an optimal amount of pollution (not zero), not accounting for magic wands and such.

Money is -- in my mind -- a great thing to have (for society and for oneself). Money = goods = services. Moreover, money is one step above the barter system; saying money is bad is sort of like saying having computer games or Diet Coke is bad. Computer games and Diet Coke, in the right circumstances, can very well become a medium of currency.

Desire for money can lead to bad things -- theft, burglary, etc. (Of course, there are a number of things we do to address this, e.g. minimum wage, etc.) However, desire for most things can lead to suffering and pain. Desire to overthrow your tyrannical and backwards government will lead to suffering (and probably unncessitated suffering) in general, if you look at the French Revolution. Desire for good things can lead to suffering and pain -- robbing a store to feed your family is noble and all, but that might mean the storeowner goes broke next month and has to move his to the slums.

Suffering is bad because we don't prefer it. In fact, much of what we consider "evil" equates to "what we don't prefer". This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because I believe most people would prefer peace, joy, lcompassion, and ove in perfect cirucmstances. Of course, circumstances are not perfect, and there are always complications (e.g. people who prefer to cause suffering, ignorance, lack of compassion, etc.)

 

Evil is more than a lable or pejorative word and if you fail to see that I do not understand what kind of life you have lived to lead you to this conclusion or even what world you live in. Evil surronds us all and we are drowning in it. Someone, please explaine to me how good and evil are subjective terms. How can pollution be a tolerable thing that, 'just is'? How is money a great thing to have if everything we do to get it, and everything we want to get with it is destroying our habitat and our sense of right and wrong? Good and Evil are not lables, they are tangible. Do we not use WORDS to convey meaning, to express tangible evidence? Look around you, and I don't mean in the safety of your own environment, and tell me you do not see the poisoning of minds leading to harmful, hurtful, hateful, and fatal actions. Is this not evil? Evil exist because it is taken lightly or ignored or considered a pejorative term or a belief of the unwashed and non-intellectual types. (No offence ment to anyone)

 

The soldier did not ask for the war, nor did he start it. He is defending his family and country. I would guess that the majority would rather not be fighting, but they fight for their family and country.

Christ did not fight becuase solutions through non violence are always better. The soldier fights when that is not likely, by the pride, wrath or greed of his leaders...

Exactly. The soldier ought do his duty with no malice but rather the understanding of the reasons he is needed here.

That is one of the problems with Charity. A few small donations in a kettle at Christmas time, despite the good it does for those in need, is not the limit of what is needed of us. We give a little here or there and think we have charity, but do we ignore those in need at other times?

We are, but how many of us know how to see that need and respond in a way that's really helping them? Sure sometimes that simply supplying a little labour for an afternoon, or taking them a meal when they are pressed for time due to emergency, but cleaning their house because they are lazy does more harm than good. It is not enough to give, but to serve.

Exactly. Some only exist to generate wealth. Giving to the poor reduces the wealth available to be made...

 

A powerful statement. And a simple truth that few are willing to face.

 

Well, 'evil' is certainly a subjective notion. That said, all observers must agree that Terrell Owens is evil. It is an objective truth.

 

Well, he has consistently behaved in a mean, spiteful, hateful manner. He keeps paying the consequences for his actions, yet seems to have no inclination to curb or restrain himself.

Yep, I'd have to agree that he fits my subjective definition of 'evil'. (good - if non sequitur-ish - example)

 

But -- things are hardly so black-and-white that you can point to a person, or to concept, and declare, "this is evil".

Good and evil, in one sense, don't exist just like capitalism and free speech don't exist -- they're abstracts, and only exist when real, tangible things are in place.

I believe suffering exists, for example, and that alone very, very much encapsulates what is evil. No one wants to suffer. (And for those who do want to suffer, then not being able to suffer is a sort of suffering.)

"Evil" is a word that conveys value (or lack thereof). People point to a gay couple, or to pornography, or to an American, and they say, "that is evil". When that happens, people (can) become convinced that a gay couple, or pornography, or Americans need to be destroyed or cast out, even at some great or greater cost. Of course, people say a gay couple, or pornography, or Americans are evil because those things offend them or their values.

Homosexuality, pornography, or Americans are not intrinsically evil, assuming you look at things scientifically/rationally. These things do not radiate evil auras like the One True Ring or whatever. These things may cause suffering, and we may choose to address them on that basis, however.

Suffering is more "real" than evil, in my opinion. However, just completely eliminating something that causes suffering always has consequences.

Think about pollution. Pollution is not evil in itself. Pollution does not come from the Devil, or does it desire to eat babies or kick puppies. Pollution causes lung cancer (for example), but if we demanded that factories stop polluting, there are still consequences. Factories shut down because they can't keep up with costs, and workers are laid off. Unemployed workers can no longer feed their families, and their children are forced to drop out of school in order to help earn money for the family. Some of the unemployed, now without work, kill themselves. Other families have to switch from eating healthy fruit to eating potatoes and macaroni; this lack of nutrition results, twenty years later, in cancer.

The possibilities are endless with pollution or without, but both have consequences that no one wants. It's important, then, to weigh what will happen if you choose to eliminate suffering at the expense/risk of other/more suffering.

I'm not saying pollution is good, or that factories ought to be free to pollute -- but what I am saying is that eliminating pollution always involves costs and benefits.

Obviously, you can change "pollution" here to something else you oppose: pornography, etc. However, getting rid of pornography, for example, puts free speech at risk, something we value greatly.

 

Not that I have anything against p0rn, but whats p0rn got to do with freedom of speech?

 

People don't like porn, because they think it's offensive or degrading to women, and believe it should be banned. The response to that, naturally, is that makers of pornography have a right to free speech through porn.

 

I don't believe in evil. Because it's definition varies startlingly from person to person I find it difficult to attatch a meaning to the word, especially since it is all relative to the viewer. For example, I could see Hitler as evil, but he would almost certainly not have seen himself as being so. Therefore, I can merely determine if person is violating rules in terms of my personal interpretation of "the rules," rather than simply label them as "evil."

 

Good and evil are qualitative terms. Quality is not subjective. There is a basic level of good and evil inherent to all sentient beings, that is beings that have a nervous system, but not necessarily self-awareness. And you could stretch that even further into every single living organism.

Living things direct themselves towards things that help them grow and proliferate. This could be called as the basic level of 'good'. Every living thing also tends to avoid things that are harmful to them, sentient beings avoid things that make them experience pain. This could be understood as the basic level of 'evil'. In any case this is the most rudimentary experience of quality that is common with every living thing. Statistically speaking, since there are exceptions. However, organisms that do not act according to this basic level of good and evil don't get to pass their genes onward as much as the organism that abide by this rule.

Evil is that which is harmful. Good is something that is beneficial. Without this basic experience of good and evil, life would not exist as we know it.

When it comes to society, things get a little more complex since the consequences are not that easily perceivable or straightforward. With human perception good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, but only to a certain extent. The basic instincts are always there underneath the cultural influences, and most of the cultural influences rest on top of this basic level of sentience.

 

In my humble opinion, the terms "good" and "evil" imply intent. Without knowing the intent behind an action, it is impossible to know if the action was borne of good or evil. Since I have only seen the inner workings of one mind (mine) it logically follows that there is only one human being on the face of this earth who I am qualified to judge as good or evil. Since it is impossible to know what motivates the actions of people like George Bush, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Mother Theresa, or Keanu Reeves it is similarly impossible to judge any of them as "good" or "evil".

 

I'm not quite sure about my own definitions, but I have some guidelines about good and evil. Good is for me a category that involves care for the well-being (on all levels) of oneself and others, or at least our closest environment. Evil is exploiting one part of the environment - or all of it - for personal gains and outside of the group conventions. As such, good and evil can be both conscious choices and, to a lesser degree, unconscious guidelines.

While I would agree that intent can be judged on a good-evil axis, I would argue that the methods used to pursue a goal can also be considered from an ethical perspective. How you treat yourself, your allies or assets, the opposition and the non-involved observers in the name of your cause can show a lot in terms of good or evil. After all, few people can honestly say that they are doing something that would benefit only them or that is, to be frank, evil. Most would speak of necessary sacrifices, or the need for progress, or of the necessity to restore the proper ways, etc. etc.

 

Evil is the unnecessary impediment of the self-interest of one person by another person.

 

We all just need to see the wisdom in balance, as Jaroo once said...

 

The life is evil.. Its the reason why we're having so much pain... The Satan is evil.. also he's another reason why we're having pain... The death is nice... Its the only medicine which finishes our pain...

 

Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales if you read any NY Times articles.

Probably just socialists in general (unless your socialist party happens to be Sinn Fein, then its okay).