If we are born pure and innocent, at what point does evil enter?

some great answers. thanks

Originally posted by anonamousantichrist
what a fun question.

as soon as someone claims the moral high ground, you can look at them and conclude that they are evil.

all kidding aside, evil does not exist...... so, never.

OK I have had it with people who think evil does not exist, wtf, are you insane or something, have you been blind to the atrocities that have been commited throughout our history from dictators to individuals whom have commited hurtful acts against innocent individuals, who get kicks and enjoy seeing the suffering of others to inflate their own sense of superiority or satisfy their warped mindset. Yes warped much like yours.

In fact i see the very fact that you deny evil exists as smelling of evil in itself.

Moral highground! So what you live in moral flatland do you?

In answer to the OP i think that evil enters an innocent indirectly very early on, thats not to say the child itself becomes evil but that the product of evil acts or manipulation can carry on through generations within a family line.

My definition of evil itself is best understood if one understands the evil doer as the perpetrator and the receiver seen as the innocent. It is that polarity imo that gives rise to the act being evil. For me an evil act commited against an evil person cancels out the evil act, however an evil act towards an innocent indeed remains evil. I also see evil as acts that have a domino effect and cause suffering amongst many or causes pain or anguish that remains with individuals for a long duration time. So for example if I had a financial interest in a company that produced the anti-virus to the bird flu, and then to make a quick few $'s I then decided to intentionally introduce that virus into the general populace, that would be an evil act.

So to clarify if i killed your pirana fish on purpose you'd be upset for a short while but you'd get over it fairly quickly so you couldn't really class that as an evil act. However if i sliced you up into small chunks and then fed you to the rest of the pirana that might well be more likely to be evil act and have a domino effect by causing others pain and suffering (including the slicee!).

However one thing i will admit is there is a fine line between madness/mental illness and evil, so hypothetically 'anonamousantichrist' could be in either camp. Who can take an idiot with a username like that seriously anyway!



[edit on 7-2-2010 by pharaohmoan]

reply to post by pharaohmoan

OK I have had it with people who think evil does not exist, wtf

Ok. Then justify your position and answer my intial question in the thread. Give me a definition for evil.

My definition of evil itself is best understood if one understands the
evil doer as the perpetrator and the receiver seen as the innocent. It
is that polarity imo that gives rise to the act being evil.

...in a way that's a very insightful distortion...because it nicely illustrates the "problem" of perceiving things as "evil." It only really makes sense if you start with the assuption of one person as the evil-doer and one person as the innocent victim.

In my experience, real life is rarely so simple.

For me an evil act commited against an evil person cancels out the evil act

I see. So, if EvilJoe murders NiceJack and takes pleasure in it...that's evil. But if NiceJack's brother VengefulJohn then murders EvilJoe in retribution, and takes pleasure in it...that's not evil? So then...your sense of evil is largely about justice, yes? Both EvilJoe and VengefulJohn killed someone, and both of them took pleasure in the act. But if I understand you correctly, you perceive EvilJoe as evil, and VengefulJohn as the bringer of justice.

Ok. So then, what if...

SelfishSue is rich, and StarvingSally is dying of hunger. So, Self-righteousSara kills SelfishSue, takes great pleasure in it, and then gives SelfishSue's money to StarvingSally so that she can eat. Is Sara the bringer of justice, or is she evil?

My definition of evil itself is best understood if one understands the
evil doer as the perpetrator and the receiver seen as the innocent. It
is that polarity imo that gives rise to the act being evil.

Exactly.

It's all about perception. If you perceive one person as "bad" and another as "good" then this whole of idea of "evil" becomes self-evident. But if you don't see people as good or bad to begin with...evil doesn't always make a lot of sense.

So for example if I had a financial interest in a company that produced the anti-virus to
the bird flu, and then to make a quick few $'s I then decided to intentionally introduce
that virus into the general populace, that would be an evil act.

But wait...the motivation here is not pain, suffering, death, nor is it taking pleasure in any of those. The motivation is making money. Are you suggesting that acting on self interest with indifference to others is evil? So, let's say two people are in an airplane about to crash, and there is only one parachute. So one of them takes the parachute and allows the other to die. Was that evil? He acted for his own self interest, with indifference to how his actions would affect someone else, and thereby caused another person's death. Was that an evil choice?

What about a fatal disease? Is a bacteria invading your body evil? After all...it's not only acting in a way that indirectly results in death, it's actively and directly causing the death of its host. Is that evil?

or causes pain or anguish that remains with individuals for a long duration time.

Isn't that extremely arbitrary? What counts as a "long duration?" A month? A year? A decade? A hundred years? Where do you the draw the line? What about intent? Let's say a woman leaves her husband because she falls in love with someone else, and that man spend the next 40 years of his life in abject misery until finally he kills himself, causing the orphange he supports to fall apart and 100 orphans to be turned out into the street for lack of anywhere to stay. Does that make the woman evil?

So to clarify if i killed your pirana fish on purpose you'd be upset for a short while
but you'd get over it fairly quickly so you couldn't really class that as an evil act.
However if i sliced you up into small chunks and then fed you to the rest of the pirana
that might well be more likely to be evil act and have a domino effect by causing
others pain and suffering

I don't understand. You're continually changing the criteria you use to judge what is and is not evil.

Give me a single sentence that defines evil without having to adjust it for each case we want to examine.

Originally posted by loner007
Evil comes about because we choose to do something in which others will percieve as evil.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by loner007]

Perfect answer. Evil or "wrong" is in the eye of the beholder and therefore only exists when an action is being observed and judged.

Then again, the same can be said of Good, or "right".

Well I been raising kids all my life and at one time ran a day care center, and let me tell you the little darlings, however cute, can be holy terrors.

I don't know about evil, but they learn real early on how to lie and manipulate,

OK so my adorable two year old granddaughter, is so very sneaky, watches me out of the corner of her eye while trying to touch something she knows she is not allowed to touch,

She knows she is doing something wrong or she wouldn't be so sneaky.




[edit on 112828p://bSunday2010 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777

She knows she is doing something wrong or she wouldn't be so sneaky.

Isn't being "sneaky" a reasonable precaution when a powerful, outside force wishes to control your behavior and is in a position to cause you pain if you don't submit to its will?

Perspective is everything.

reply to post by LordBucket


"Evil is the description of what the majority of the society you live in, judges to be morally incorrect".

But there are varying degrees of "evil". And what society judges to be evil changes sometimes.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by elaine]

[edit on 7-2-2010 by elaine]

Originally posted by hautmess
If we are born pure and innocent, at what point does evil enter a child or human being? Or are we born with these traits?

You haven't had much to do with new borns, have you?
Self-centred evil is there from the beginning.

reply to post by silent thunder


I seem to have inner conflict even at times when I feel totally in line with my morality. The conflict seems to be a forgone conclusion and certain situations bring it out the most. A part of our mind that doesn't use words effects us always. I have had conflict arise even at times when my mind was quieted. What I can't be sure of is my conscience, I think that is what is causing the dissonance in me, and I don't know what it wants me to do, or if it simply cannot be reasoned with... a forgone conclusion.

To attempt an answer to the OP: Evil or Good comes first, and early early in life on some level, varying levels and scopes. Either way once you have one you can be sure you have the other (very soon).

reply to post by elaine

"Evil is the description of what the majority of the society you live in, judges to be morally incorrect".

But there are varying degrees of "evil". And what society judges to be evil changes sometimes.

That immediately begs the question what definition you might provide for "morality," but assuming your view of morality is similar to your view of evil, I think you've provided a definition that's both functional and self-consistent. It does however mean that "evil" is a totally subjective, purely local perspective that may vary with location, people, and what's "fashionable" at the time.

I have no problem with that. But I don't think it's a perspective you'll convince many people to agree with. At least...I haven't had much success.

I think evil is the wrong term. At what point do we become corrupt. "Corrupt" means a loss of direction. To prefer the convenient or the self-enriching to what must be done, to take immediate rewards over doing what is right in the larger view. It can even mean to imagine that the worlds inside our minds take precedence over reality. When we lose sight of the workings of the world around us, we become isolated in our minds, and our actions become corrupt.

The most destructive facet of corruption is that it pervades our assumptions of what is good and what is bad. When our illusions outweigh reality, we seek them in a desperate attempt to avoid the bad, but we create the bad because what we consider good is unrealistic. Corruption comes from within and cannot be isolated in a category.

reply to post by Jinni


I respectfully disagree. You are suggesting inner conflicts begin at the onset of puberty, therefore attributing "the inner evil" to testosterone, hormones, and the beginning of sexual development.

Not everyone finds sexual development anything other than a part of life, the way we are wired, and something we use to procreate while giving and receiving love among two caring adults. Generally, it is accepted as such, without being distorted, placed on some huge untouchable pedestal, and made into something it's not, out of some fearful collective neuroses.

It is not the big bugaboo that determines who we are, and where we will be led following death. It does not determine whether or not we are a good person, or whether we will go to heaven or hell. It's a biological function, and an emotional one, that is absolutely normal.

It has been used to frighten people and have them believe it is more than it is, because it is such a powerful human drive. But it doesn't determine anything good or evil. It's akin to our hunger drive. It just is. It's the way we are made. Nothing evil about it.

Anybody who would permit anyone to convince them otherwise, has been brain washed, by parents, religion, or whatever the case may be.

In fact, I pity young boys and girls who have it pounded into them that when their bodies do something they are innately designed to do (have a human sexual response) that they are evil and hell bound. That they must fight these urges at all costs. It would be like telling them "anytime you feel hunger, you must fight it off, or you are in danger of hell".

It's a very ignorant and sad circumstance for developing youths, which can truely effect their mental health for the rest of their live. They might never feel comfortable in their own skin, and with their own God-given sex drive. It's a very cruel trick played upon people.

So does evil enter the body with the secondary sexual hormones?
Only in one's head, sir. Only in the head.

I think that the potential for evil in any person is 'activated' once they become aware of the sense of me and mine.

This awareness would trigger the self-serving behaviours that we associate with acts of evil. These behaviours, could include such things as possessiveness, territoriality and the desire or need for power.

Fulfilling these needs with regard only to me/mine while ignoring the consequences to others sets the stage for the perpetration of acts of evil.

To some degree I think that we all are inherently capable of acts of evil. The scale of the harm we do to other people and things would be a product of the extent to which we are cognizant of you/yours.

Evil is mostly sociological, rather than pathological.
Indeed i'd like to go so far to say that it is because of the pressures of society, the NEED to survive, that evil surfaces, but i can't. i dont believe that there is a child born which is evil, but certainly children with even the most rounded upbringing can become symbols of evil(Hitler much? sure not completely rounded but be subjective..)
Taking a less whimsical view, i could sit back and denounce that evil is a not a matter of perspective, but moreso a physical outlet due to defficiencies in the neurological constuct of ones self, but that's just my view.
Peace.

From birth, the thing is it wouldnt be considered evil if you never knew what it was it may have originally been a energy form designed to balance the other energy form. Since we have knowledge from "THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE" humans tend to run with the energy and create what is known as power and oppression VERY WEAK INDEED.

reply to post by LordBucket


your insistance to deny evil existance is obvious act of evil

and no, when you know that you cant do something whatever the reasons are, the reaction is to limit your positive drives and not to be over positive about, true positive drive is always about common reality interactions and never there is a real move manifestation without an abstraction of being supported for, but when it is real there is no need of abstract supports relations, all is objective obvious as it is present simultaneously
and what confirm this, is the fact of being true manifest always in meaning being real alone and never using others realities for
while the fact of being evil is about using anything you can to assert lies as sources of yourself existance and source of your superior pretense as alive

evil is the opposition to truth

that opposition is a result and not the drive source, that is how it assert evil existance

the drive source of evil is lies results, the sense of existing from lies assertions make a conscious rise as existing life

the justification of that fact is due to two reasons principally,

the lack of truth abstract affiliation at the base of conscious freedom, affiliation to superior consciousness drives loving lies for creations lives

when lies assertions face a fact of truth it becomes evil existance since what cant see truth cant face truth, lies assertions always end to kill true facts rights livings as a choice of their existance lies bases supports and powers instead

evil existance kill true facts bases of rights livings but choose to abuse living rights, from what evil living mean to gain true sense of existing and living from being above,
which proove that the drive is not against truth, but it is for lies, and not for truth

evil existance kill then at it sources truth facts bases, and in that actualisations of lies bases assertions powers evil actualize the fact of its own death, killing truth basic principles is erasing all lies associations of being ever existed

and evil existance lives at it ends of rights abuses, rights are always true livings, when true livings are living lies are not even existing to mean anything about

Here's my attempt to define the concept of evil...to take pleasure in the suffering of others.

Stealing bread from a starving child to feed yourself is not inherently evil. Taking pleasure from watching that child starve is.

anything is itself only and absolutely
and this is of absolutes sources life

like existance is not related to life

and existance bases is not related to its bases

the bases of certainty facts is absolute principles in freedom base

the bases of freedom certainty is absolute principle of void

so the element in common shares is freedom and certainty

abstract symbolize the freedom element
concrete symbolize certainty element

that is how absolute reality is always reached from relating abstract and concrete to one relative existance life

life is always to freedom realisations
existance is always to certainty realisations

life is always to concrete reality
existance is always to abstract source

now how to differenciate more clearly existance of life
and how they are one truth

existance is then an abstract fact certainty of absolute certainties facts
so it is like an absolute certainty of relative fact

what is absolute certain can objectively realize inferior facts existance as out of itself existance superiority but also can conceptualize superior facts as its sources certainty

so to a human he has an existing sense when he can do something without being related to its sense
so when a human eat or seek his needs realisations he is not there existing, he is existing in what he can do without moving for, like thinking or observing or meditating, that is how what descartes said is true, he is since he can think, it has no efforts while he can sense that he is doing it alone and nothing rushing it for

life is different totally, it is basically a certainty move so an absolute one move, life source is absolute moves reality, so a living true is an absolute move of relative certainty

so existant true prefer certainty being absolute
living true prefer moving being absolute

certainty at its base is freedom, so the more certain the more free it means closer to its sources

moving at its end is freedom, so the more it moves the more free it means closer to its ends

so how they are one truth, from the concept of truth being free certainty absolutely

so everyone should respect freedom as the bases of certainty principles that are the base of absolute positive reality wether it is existing means or living or simply true as truth is always the source of all, and each thing is itself end and there is no end without conceptualisations of source life first

Never.

We are all born innocent and we all die innocent.

"Evil" is a creation of the human imagination and is completely subjective, depending upon the "accuser".