Define Evil

Originally posted by Jonna
Good, Evil? It all depends on where you are standing. Neither exists as an Absolute.

Thanks, Jonna.

This is the problem with the president declaring 'evil', 'evil-doers', and 'axis of evil'. There is no frame of reference absolute to the term by which everyone can understand the value of 'evil'. This is a problem.

I believe that the term 'evil' must be struck from the record and henceforth more absolute terms be used for what is happening. I wouldn't even mind if the tactics that our enemy used was termed 'acts of war', since they have in fact declared war. There are some who would rather these tactics be termed 'criminal acts', going along with the idea that they must be met with judicial action. We could hash these definitions out in commitee, which would be better than catering and pandering to a targeted constituency with a religious term to get people on the boat.

The bottom line is that as long as 'evil' is the administration's coup de grace, there will always be a division between the people on what is the intent of our enemy.

Neo-Christians can leave their uber-righteous sentimentality at home. It causes division between Americans. Division which we cannot afford.

This is a call for a clear definition of events that have happened, and will continue to happen. Real terms for real events. Evil is not a term that conveys meaning to all people accurately, as we can see above. It is a term that is so unclear in people's minds, that a president has no business using it in his rhetoric.

There are some who would rather these tactics be termed 'criminal acts', going along with the idea that they must be met with judicial action.

what about when our govt holds people indefinetly, with no intent of inciting a judicial overview.

isnt that wat is happening all over the place?

what about the guy who is not so 'evil', and happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, gets taken away with the crowd and locked up...


[edit on 11-10-2004 by sturod84]

[edit on 11-10-2004 by sturod84]

Unless a generaly accepted universal paradigm of Good and Evil can be warranted, the two remain relative accords.

Deep

Most think that terrorists are evil, and the terrorists think we are evil, so who is right? Good and evil are based on individual opinion. There would not be conflict if both sides didn't think they were good, and the other somewhat evil. There are no defined absolutes past what a book can tell you about these two opposites. You define your own good/evil, even if someone else tells you what that is.

Example:

A terrorist might see an opportunity such as cutting a hostages head off as being a good act for the proposed cause. Thus, in order for it to be seen through, the terrorist has no doubt that this act is the right thing to do, and is therefore good.

I however do not believe that such an act is good at all, and quite horrible, thus I suppose since it sparks a negative reaction for me, it would be somewhat evil, though I don't like using that extreme, you know what I'm getting at here.

The climax:

Can you accept or see the terrorists view of what he does as being good, and that he most likely sees you as being evil aswell? It's twofold, so who's right in the end? I suppose in this world, the 'winner' decides. If one can accept both views, then you can actively seek out why their is conflict in the first place, there always usually is a fault on both accounts. It's at the root where 'forgiveness' must kick in, inorder to eliminate such perspectives of hate/evil. We are all one.

Just off the top of my head:

Evil could be defined as a moral structure that is different from the observer in a given situation. If you think about it "evil" is only the antithesis of whatever principals guide you in life, and in this respect "other" morals could/will be viewed as evil. An example could be Muslims say Christians are evil, Christians say muslims are evil, etc., etc., etc., but who is right?

If one is a true atheist they must not believe in the concept of good/evil because that concept developed by religions worldwide. So, if someone were to walk up and punch an atheist in the face for no reason whatsoever; would he/she consider it an "evil" act? I would think not, because according to their own set of rules their cannot exist good/evil or they must admit that "something" more powerful is guiding those actions.

So, does evil even exist?...it depends on who you ask I guess. If evil does not exist then Good cannot exist either, and the selfless acts of charity, forgiveness, love, etc. would mean absolutely nothing.

I believe good/evil exist as a natural duality in nature and conscious. Afterall...what is the basis of logic and knowledge? Duality. If there was not duality everything would be accepted at face value and nothing more, which humans know to be incorrect. Just look at the current political state...Duality. Duality effectively proves the existance of good and evil in the world, but the main question is...

...are good and evil just Duality in nature?


Sorry for getting a little off topic there, hope it didn't stray too far from the original question.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by Jazzerman]

I believe evil is the absence of good.
But, I also believe life is all the grey areas in between.
I don't know if anything is pure good or pure evil in this world.

DFH and Jazzerman, thanks.

So since evil is subject to one's own opinion, and evil is defined in different degrees and types depending on the particular religious point of view, would it not be prudent to use more pertinent terms to describe the tactics? I mean, just so we can find some degree of agreement on what is happening.

You too, Sturod...

I agree that detainment without cause indefinitely has an element of wrongness to it, but could you define it as evil, even if you wanted too? I couldn't. That's injustice, and people may one day be held accountable for it. If they aren't, then that's just more injustice.

I think only the acts of terrorism are extreme enough to construe it (or construct it) as evil. This term needs to be expelled, and the acts need to be defined as what they are, or at least something more can agree with. Evil, as a label, is unproductive, subjective, partisan, as well as inefficient with regard to planning what to do against it.

How do you fight something like 'evil'?

Nobody will agree with this but oh well lol. Here goes nothing.

I believe there exists in all things a natural balance between creation and destruction; life and death. Even if we achieved an ideal world, death would still occur. Illness would likely still occur. There would still be natural disasters, and other catastrophes with which to content. These things are necessary to the perpetuation of life, change, and creation. I define these things as necessary or inherent destruction.

I also believe that as life forms evolve, and as their capacity for intelligence expands, so too expands an equivalent capacity for what manifests itself in human nature as what we call love. You could also call this an equivalent capacity for wisdom, equivalent to a being's capacity for intelligence. In some species it might be so negligible that we don't recognize it's existence, because it lacks the complexity or advanced nature of our own. However, I believe it exists in all things.

Now, having the capacity for something, does not guarantee the use of that capacity. The problem arises when beings use the intellectual capacity to a greater extent than the capacity for love and/or wisdom. We posses the intelligence to engineer instruments of immeasurable destructive force. We don't always exercise the wisdom that might stop us from doing so, however.

It is within the schism between the two, where I believe what we call "evil" develops. It is a space in which an abscess forms. An abscess of hate, intellectual (or instinctual) justification for unnecessary destruction (in contrast to inherent or necessary destruction), etc. That abscess is what I define as "evil."

I don't regard love as an emotion, but rather as a force that exists in all things, but which our intellectual capacity has grown to allow us to be imminently aware of (because of our equivalent capacity for it). In less advanced life forms, it might not be a cognizant thing, or it might be as simple as particle interaction in an atom. It's there nonetheless, and in the cause of human beings, is a cognizant aspect of our natures. We simply don't fully utilize that capacity. The two (intelligence and love/wisdom/compassion) need to be in balance with one another.

I also don't regard hate as a necessary opposite of love. As stated above (on different grounds and perhaps in a very different context), saying that love requires hate in order to exist, is like saying light requires it's own absence to exist. Light would still exist without darkness, just as love could still exist without hate.

Many people believe that there is a necessary balance between "good" and "evil," and between "love" and "hate." However, I see the balance as being one between creation and inherent/necessary destruction, and I see "evil" as the inordinate occurrence or implementation of UNnecessary destruction. hate isn't the counterweight, or balancing force, to love. Hate is what destroys that balance. Likewise "evil" isn't the balancing force to "good." It destroys what balance there is.

So that is what I define "evil" as. An erosion or total destruction of the balance between necessary creation and necessary destruction, due to an imbalance between the intellectual capacity and the capacity for wisdom and/or love, compassion, empathy etc.

Indeed, I believe one of the hallmarks of "evil," is a lack of empathy. Love, because it allows us to recognize and "feel" our connection to others. Compassion because it allows us to act on that feeling. Empathy, because empathy is a necessary step in how we can best choose to exercise compassion, since every person is completely unique, and has different feelings.

As to the tactics used, I don't believe any tactics can be excluded from this definition of "evil." I regard conflict of any kind as unnecessary destruction. I know many will sharply disagree with this, and that's alright. Most people don't agree with me that anger is simply an insulation mechanism against pain either. The fact that I'd rather cry than be "pissed," strikes most folks as strange or cowardly. So be it. I'm different. Heaven forbid.

I don't believe any person is inherently evil. I do believe any person is capable of evil, though. Most of us are guilty of it to one degree or another.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by AceWombat04]

True Evil is George W Bush and Dick Cheney. That is pure evil in its truest form. This is what all people should be worried about. This is for all of you that are big Bushie fans. You guys spout off about Kerry and Edwards all the tiime take a good look at your boys, this is evil. Like most Republicans they have no heart or soul. The Democrats aren't much better. I know this was uncalled for, but you get tired of hearing all that bullS..... from the same people all the time. It's the truth and thats what hurts. These people are so hatefull, is that a good Christian Value. Does your God teach you to be so hatefull of others that don't believe as you do? You all must be very unhappy people with all this hate built up inside of you. I truly feel sorry for all of you.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
So since evil is subject to one's own opinion, and evil is defined in different degrees and types depending on the particular religious point of view, would it not be prudent to use more pertinent terms to describe the tactics? I mean, just so we can find some degree of agreement on what is happening.

I think only the acts of terrorism are extreme enough to construe it (or construct it) as evil. This term needs to be expelled, and the acts need to be defined as what they are, or at least something more can agree with. Evil, as a label, is unproductive, subjective, partisan, as well as inefficient with regard to planning what to do against it.

How do you fight something like 'evil'?

Wow...fantastic questions I must say.

I agree that a general term like "evil" is too vague to defeat in and of itself and another term is needed to describe the tactics. I know this question has plagued mankind since the beginning, because as soon as something is labeled "evil" it effectively takes it into the realm of religious dogma to many people.

I also agree that the act of "terrorism" is one that can be construed as evil, but your question remains...How does one defeat evil? I guess its much like asking...How does one win the hearts and minds of the people they are at war with? There is a simple answer, simple enough for every soldier to understand, yet too hard for a philosopher to define...

Love, Compassion, and Altruism

Both questions can be answered by the spread of these beliefs, and if Duality is indeed the answer for the existance of good and evil...then love would be the contrary term to evil. However, defining acts that are viewed as "evil" in other terms is very difficult to do.

[edit on 11-10-2004 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by Jazzerman
I also agree that the act of "terrorism" is one that can be construed as evil, but your question remains...How does one defeat evil? I guess its much like asking...How does one win the hearts and minds of the people they are at war with? There is a simple answer, simple enough for every soldier to understand, yet too hard for a philosopher to define...
[edit on 11-10-2004 by Jazzerman]

What about forgiveness? In showing that source of "evil" that they've done no wrong to begin with, thus negating the label of being evil. I know it sounds a little jesus, but it's true.

Originally posted by friday2112
True Evil is George W Bush and Dick Cheney. That is pure evil in its truest form. This is what all people should be worried about. This is for all of you that are big Bushie fans. You guys spout off about Kerry and Edwards all the tiime take a good look at your boys, this is evil.

Ok, this is the problem. You can say that Dick and Bush are evil, but hardly anyone would agree with that. We need to come up with more accurate terms to describe what is happening here. Descriptors for Dick and Bush may be: Wrong, shortsighted, incompetent, hasty, inexperienced, over-confident, ad infinitum. But to say they are simply evil is impossible to prove, and incredulous to believe.

Like most Republicans they have no heart or soul.

This is simply maniacal banter drawn purely from unbridled and unreasonable emotion. If they were truly heartless and soul-less, it wouldn't matter as much as being brainless. You are obviously looking at this from the 'heart and soul' vantage point, when this situation really needs to be examined with the brain.

Does your God teach you to be so hatefull of others that don't believe as you do? You all must be very unhappy people with all this hate built up inside of you. I truly feel sorry for all of you.

Um, who are you talking to? Are you on the same thread as we are?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Does your God teach you to be so hatefull of others that don't believe as you do? You all must be very unhappy people with all this hate built up inside of you. I truly feel sorry for all of you.

Um, who are you talking to? Are you on the same thread as we are?

I agree with DeltaChaos...what are you on about? We are having a discussion about the definition of "evil", just like we could have a discussion about the definition of "good". Are you even on the same topic as us?

Originally posted by Jazzerman
We are having a discussion about the definition of "evil

But more accurately, we're discussing the lack of definition of the word 'evil'. At least that's what I'm typing about, anyway.

Originally posted by fledgling666
i like this question. i am glad someone asked it. here's my 2 cents, for whatever it's worth:

evil is the sleep of reason.

[edit on 12-10-2004 by fledgling666]

yesterday, i posted a bunch of crap that went way outside the bounds of what i know and i shouldn't have, so i edited it.

here's my 2 cents on what's been said so far:

evil is not a religious expression.

evil is not, like some define "art" as being "in the eye of the beholder."

evil is not indifference.

evil is everything meant by the ancient phrase "sleep of reason."

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
I believe evil is the absence of good.
But, I also believe life is all the grey areas in between.
I don't know if anything is pure good or pure evil in this world.

I disagree. "Good" is also a relative term. For instance, you can fall off a roof and break both legs, and it's still "good" that you missed the sharp fence that may have killed you. Of course, having an accident is never "good", but it wouldn't be considered "evil" if you had been killed. It would be considered unfortunate.
This is why I say there is no such thing as good or evil. There's only negative and positive. Another example; "Man, it's a good thing I stopped hitting that guy in the head with that baseball bat. I might've killed him, otherwise." This can only be misconstrued as good by comparing it to something worse. There's no "absence of evil", and no "absence of good".

How do you fight something like 'evil'?

simple

fight the men dictating our path

those who care not for indifference, and condone injustice

I can't say if evil is Islam. Honestly it is the sickest religion you could find on this piece of rock.


So what is evil, well it is what you don't like done to you!

Evil can be mutually exclusive of religion...serial killers being a prime example...

Evil is simply the absence of Good. It is just like
darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence
of Good.

Though I love this story, the above is false. If it were true, then all non-sapient creatures (as only they could be deemed good or evil) would then be evil by default, being absent of good. This means a bunny rabbit would be evil! (well, the one in MP's Holy Grail is another matter entirely)

Evil is a specific and very real thing. A serial killer isn't killing because he is absent of good...he's killing because he DESIRES evil pleasures....

Originally posted by Gazrok
Evil is a specific and very real thing. A serial killer isn't killing because he is absent of good...he's killing because he DESIRES evil pleasures....

Desire of evil pleasures. This also is not a suitable standard to describe and understand acts of terrorism. And I'm not so sure you could call a terrorist a serial killer by this standard, because many of them do believe that what they are doing is fighting for their God and their people, which is good.

I understand the point completely. A serial killer that kills for his/her own twisted pleasure could be something that could be described as evil, but even in law, evil is not the term used. Evil desires is yet another subjective term that could only cause division amongst would be victims.

One may consider the want and act of sex before marriage an evil desire, and still someone else may consider any sex act other than one for procreation, even after marriage an evil desire. Still, neither of these cases are considered crimes by law.

Evil is a term that is completely subject to one's own beliefs, teaching, past experience, and more importantly in the case of our current president, AGENDA.

The use of the term evil by a politician/leader can never be anything less than pandering to those who may believe similarly, and since the similar belief be a religious one, the proclamation of 'evil' almost ensures complete compliance of thought with said leader. This one of the problems with the word.

The invocation of the term evil by a religious leader, or in this case a political leader, ensures that those of a certain religious persuasion will be committed to the endeavor of elimination of 'evil' or 'evil-doers', almost without question. Unfortunately, those who do not hold the same religious convictions are left wanting for a deeper cause for fighting the enemy than the superficial and arbitrary 'evil' excuse. It would serve those without religion, but with genuine concern and will to act, to have a term that accurately describes that which they are to commit to defeating by way of warfare.

There are crimes that are punishable by death. Murder is the one crime for which the death penalty is accepted by most. Certainly the slaughter of 3000 on 11 September 2001 is mass-murder, carried out not necessarily by an individual, but in the name of an ideal held by many individuals. An ideal that still is strong in the hearts of many who would willingly participate in similar attacks in the future.

Are these people an 'axis of evil'? I say no. They are an international crime syndicate, albeit disorganized at the moment, bent on the extermination of those who do not cling to the ideals they cherish.

George Bush and others may consider it 'evil' if they like, but it does not serve their purpose to use 'evil' as a descriptor of the enemy, as the sentiment is not shared equally by all. For this reason, more accurate definitions need to be agreed upon, definitions which will lead to greater uniformity of thought on the subject, subsequently allowing for greater unity in the fight against our enemy.

Evil doesn't work.