# What really is, "Evil"?



## Bob Hubbard

"If somebody has no concept of what they are doing being evil, is it still an evil act."

I found this question in a discussion on MAP, and it got me thinking.

What really is Evil?

Take for example the Mayan priest, killing sacrifices as part of their religion, or the ancient Spartan practices of removing the imperfect from their society. Today, we consider both to be evil acts, but at the time, neither society saw anything wrong. Animal sacrifice was a big part of the Christian bible's old testament, and a part of the Hebrew faith. But, set up an altar and kill a goat today, and the SPCA will show up with the sheriff. 

So, what makes something truly, "evil".


----------



## Hand Sword

Anything the dominant culture labels as evil. It changes culture to culture, even generation to generation.


----------



## MBuzzy

This is a huge philosophical debate that has been going on for thousands of years.  It actually relates back to the basic debate of the definition of Ethics.  

There are many different schools of thought toward how ethics work and what is right and wrong and good and evil.  For example, the idea of intrinsic good - good of the sake of itself, with no other intentions than the act itself.  Of course, all acts have some result....so does it exist.

Then there is the idea that ethics are "in the eye of the beholder."  Basically, what you belive is right and wrong....is.  But may not be for others.

Or the idea that right is the action that produces the best results for the most people.  "The needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few."

Obviously, I'm talking about good here - because Evil is the opposite of good - whatever your definition may be...So I suppose what true Evil is simply depends on your frame of reference.

Evil is also frequently defined FOR us by society and government...


----------



## Shaderon

Perception.

Everything is down to perception, how the person labelling the thing sees it.  If that Mayan Priest doesn't see what he's doing as Evil, and no one else does then it's not, it might be in his eyes necessary to appease the gods.  If someone kills someone else in a morbid nasty way and enjoys doing it just for the kicks, then I see that as evil.

Also people's perception of their religion will dictate to them what is evil, I really enjoy doing Chinese Character Analyses, however my mother who is a born again christian, sees that as evil because she says it's "occult" and therefore must be evil.

Good and bad are all relative to each other, as are good and evil.


----------



## MBuzzy

So where is the line between one person's perception and another person's rights?

If it is my perception that it is right for me to walk around kicking old ladies in the head....it may be right for me - but what about the old ladies?



And the cops that come to arrest me?


----------



## mrhnau

MBuzzy said:


> Evil is also frequently defined FOR us by society and government...


Laws tend to not ascribe morality, but legality.

It might not not be legal to jay-walk, but is it evil? Spitting gum? Nose picking?


----------



## MBuzzy

mrhnau said:


> Laws tend to not ascribe morality, but legality.
> 
> It might not not be legal to jay-walk, but is it evil? Spitting gum? Nose picking?


 
Very good point - laws do not relate to morality...but I would maintain that Society does.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

I'm going to take the other side.

Evil is simply the willingness to watch or cause others to suffer for your own gain.

Cultural, political, social factors are irrelevant.  The concentration camps were evil, even with governmental approval.  Human sacrifice is evil now, and was evil when the Mayans and others practiced it.  

Because willingness and personal gain are factors, it is possible to commit an evil act without being evil (as martial artists, we understand about having to hurt somebody without wantint to).

A wise man once wrote "The world is black and white.  Gray is just white you let get dirty."  Evil is not a relative thing.


----------



## Andrew Green

bushidomartialarts said:


> Evil is simply the willingness to watch or cause others to suffer for your own gain.



Isn'r suffering a big part of Christian beliefs?  Especially older ones?  If memory serves even Mother Theressa was a believer of suffering bringing people closer to God. 

Anyways, back to the question:

Evil is a relative word, with it at one end and "Good" at the other.  Like Big and small they have meaning in relation to other things, but not on there own.  Is a Elephant Big?  In relation to a Insect or a planet?

It is also culturally defined.  Is Christianity "Evil"?  In 21st century North America? The Middle East? How about 1st Century Rome?  

Was Paganism?  Pre-Christianity?  Dark Ages?

Even nowadays we have fuzzy issues.  How about Capital punishment?  Eating Meat? Scientology? Fundamentalist religious beliefs (Islam or Christianity)? Preemptive attacks on countries that are unable to effectively defend themselves (Iraq)? Communism? Capitalism?

But lets take one, Human sacrifice, something we all will agree is pretty bad, and I'll see if I can defend it 

Whether it is evil or not would at least partially depend on what you believe the reprecutions of it to be would it not?  So if for example, you believed that a sacrificed person would be greatly rewarded by the Gods, as well as the village recieving a better harvest or some other thing that is good and saves lives.  Is it evil?  Our beliefs tell us that sacrificing a person won't improve the harvest or bring rain or a appease any Gods we believe in.  But, if your beliefs say that it will, does that change things?

Let's say you see a man who is starving, and you give him some food, warm clothes and a place to sleep.  This act is "good" is it not?  Now suppose he dies of a unknown allergic reaction from something you gave him, does that make you evil all of a sudden?

No, you're belief was that these things would help him, possibly save his life.  You where acting out of generosity and kindness, trying to do some good, and through no fault of your own the man died due to a condition no one knew about.

Now lets take another case, you are a doctor and a patient has cancer.  If you do nothing you believe the patient will die within 6 months.  However you can save the patient by amputating his arm.  You do so, and the patient lives out the rest of there life healthy, but armless.  This is a "good" act.  Now 3 months later someone else cures that form of cancer, had you not sacrificed the arm the patient would have been able to have been cured, and lived out the rest of his life healthy with both arms.  Was making the sacrifice evil? 

No, you acted on the best information you had to do what you believed to be best for the patient as a whole.  The fact that it was cured could not have been known to you and you acted with good intentions.  

Now how about a military situation, where the entire crew is going to die if a problem is not fixed.  One person could fix the problem, but doing so will cost them there life.  You order someone to go, saving the lives of everyone else through sacrificing a human life.  Is it evil?  How about if rescuers arrive minutes later and could have solved the problem without costing a life, but you did not know that at the time?

Now you are the leaders of a village, you and the entire village believes the Gods have been angered and require a sacrifice.  You ask for volunteers, and someone steps up to sacrifice there life for the good of the village.  You and they both believe this as strongly as you believe feeding a hungry man will help him, or amputating a cancerous arm will help a patient, or a Christian priest believes in God.  Is it wrong to make the sacrifice?

Where does the evil line get drawn?


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Crom laughs at your fuzzy morals.

That sort of argument, though intellectually compelling, is part of the problems we see in our society today.  Serial killers are labelled 'insane' and given free room and board forever.  Child molesters are 'sick'.  Irresponsibility and evil are too often justified by mental gymnastics and legal maundering.

To address suffering:  willingly accepting pain and trouble is laudible. Willingly inflicting or permitting suffering is evil.  Mother Theresa noticed that living with pain can be a path to enlightenment, while _working to alleviate suffering_.

The Christian church was an institution and therefore incapable of any human trait:  evil, good, love, hate.  Individuals within the church were sometimes evil and committed evil acts.

Your doctor with the arm was good.  He didn't _willingly _inflict suffering.  Same for the military operation you suggest.  In either case, the person in question was _required_ to cause some suffering in order to avoid larger suffering.  A 'necessary evil' as they say.  If either willingly performed the sacrifice, or enjoyed the suffering it caused, then yes that person would be evil.

Evil is a constant.  You can have more evil and less evil, just like you can have more alcohol or less alcohol.  But 140 proof whiskey is different from near beer only in quantity, not quality.


----------



## Andrew Green

bushidomartialarts said:


> If either willingly performed the sacrifice, or enjoyed the suffering it caused, then yes that person would be evil.



And right there is where the fuzzy comes in.  You are making whether or not it is evil at least partially dependent on there beliefs about there actions and whether they enjoyed it.

Assume in the case of the human sacrifice they believed it to be absolutely neccessary, and did not at all enjoy it.  From there POV the sacrifice was as neccessary, and as regretful as the military commander ordering someone to do something that will kill them, or a doctor chopping a arm off.



> Evil is a constant.  You can have more evil and less evil, just like you can have more alcohol or less alcohol.  But 140 proof whiskey is different from near beer only in quantity, not quality.




Ok, but if you want to claim that evil is a constant, and not dependent on the persons belief system and motivation, which you seem to go back and forth on, does that not rule out our ability to determine what is good and what is evil?  As we may, like the priest performing the sacrifice, be wrong in our beliefs?


----------



## bushidomartialarts

You make a good point about the Mayan human sacrifice.  It's not my most familiar mythos, but weren't they convinced it would hold off the end of the world?  

In that case, it would boil down to -- as you say -- personal motivation.  I'm sure some of the priests were servants of the greater good.  That one who laughed maniacally and always volunteered for dagger duty -- he was evil.

I guess you could say that since my definition is about  _motivation_, beliefs do have a role.  Doesnt' change my basic thesis:  Evil is the willingness to cause suffering. 

Where you see a moral ambiguity, I see a trap.


----------



## mrhnau

Bob Hubbard said:


> "If somebody has no concept of what they are doing being evil, is it still an evil act."
> 
> I found this question in a discussion on MAP, and it got me thinking.
> 
> What really is Evil?
> 
> Take for example the Mayan priest, killing sacrifices as part of their religion, or the ancient Spartan practices of removing the imperfect from their society. Today, we consider both to be evil acts, but at the time, neither society saw anything wrong. Animal sacrifice was a big part of the Christian bible's old testament, and a part of the Hebrew faith. But, set up an altar and kill a goat today, and the SPCA will show up with the sheriff.
> 
> So, what makes something truly, "evil".


I have had this discussion in various forms over the years... The core concept remains the same. I tend not to get too involved with these conversations... generally, the thread author has some angle, mostly among the following:

1. thread starter seeks to soothe counciousness/excuse some broken social more by seeking moral relativity
2. Desire for no greater authority to answer to (responsibility), since everything is determined by social structure, not any form of diety or underlying principles that everyone must ultimately answer for
3. desire to lessen the religion de jour, more often than not Christianity. Generally the author has some beef w/ that religion.

Not an exhaustive list, but the threads tend to degrade quickly into arguements about faith and obscure cultures that worship rats and think murder is fine. Or something like that 

Not saying these are your motivations Bob, but in general, this is what I tend to find..


----------



## heretic888

"Evil" can be described, very simply, as The Other.

That is the one thing that all human cultures, regardless of the particular mores or mythos they adhere to, have in common. "Evil" is always Them, it is always something The Other does, it is the quintessential definition of What We Are Not. Whatever "evil" is, it is most assuredly Not Us.

Whenever a human civilization subscribes to a belief in an absolute "evil", this is _universally_ what is meant. The culture is operationally defined as "the good", so that which strays from social norms and mores is operationally defined as "the evil". And, of course, the degree of deviation will regulate the degree of "evil" that individuals and their behavior is assigned.

Not once has their ever existed a human society that admits to a belief in absolute "evil" and then concedes that their own mores and cultural norms fall under this categorization. It has never happened and never will happen, precisely because "evil" is just an ex post facto rationalization for demonizing The Other.

You will notice that the ones arguing that "evil" really does exist rarely argue for a multicultural or pluralistic worldview, in which numerous mores and mythos are tolerated. They are also the ones that tend to dismiss things such as moral context, mental illness, and biological dependencies as "mental gymnastics" (to quote a recent post) and see awareness of such variables as a moral decline of society. Furthermore, they are the ones that tend to describe the perpetrators of said "evil" in dehumanizing terms such as "monster", "demon", "inhuman", "soulless" and so on. They key point is to paint reality in a rigidly divisive light, as Us versus Them. 

This is not to say that certain actions are not immoral or unethical. But it is a world of difference to acknowledge something as unethical compared to defining it as "evil". "Evil", by nature, is absolutist in nature and uncompromising. Ethics, however, is largely a matter of context.

I would suggest signing up for some social psychology courses at your local community college. Most of this stuff is old news to the social sciences.


----------



## Andrew Green

bushidomartialarts said:


> You make a good point about the Mayan human sacrifice.  It's not my most familiar mythos, but weren't they convinced it would hold off the end of the world?



Got me, my point was simply to point out that human sacrifice, depending on your background beliefs, could be seen as a good thing, not a evil one.

Although if the end of the world was at stake, preventing the sacrifice would be the evil, not doing it 



> In that case, it would boil down to -- as you say -- personal motivation.  I'm sure some of the priests were servants of the greater good.  That one who laughed maniacally and always volunteered for dagger duty -- he was evil.



Is that a realistic depiction though?  Or a modern "slander" of past beliefs to make them seem more wrong (and by that, ours more right)?




> Evil is the willingness to cause suffering.



But there I have a problem. 

Some people believe suffering to be neccessary in order to be closer too God.  Much of Christian belief is based around suffering and the "passion" of Jesus.

So would this imply that the Christian God is evil as he sent his son to suffer for humanity's sins?  And all those followers that believed to be closer to Jesus they, and everyone else, also had to suffer?


----------



## mrhnau

Andrew Green said:


> But there I have a problem.
> 
> Some people believe suffering to be neccessary in order to be closer too God.  Much of Christian belief is based around suffering and the "passion" of Jesus.
> 
> So would this imply that the Christian God is evil as he sent his son to suffer for humanity's sins?  And all those followers that believed to be closer to Jesus they, and everyone else, also had to suffer?


And for a non-religious point, how about pregnancy? Isn't that suffering, at least in part?


----------



## morph4me

bushidomartialarts said:


> I guess you could say that since my definition is about _motivation_, beliefs do have a role. Doesnt' change my basic thesis: Evil is the willingness to cause suffering.
> 
> Where you see a moral ambiguity, I see a trap.


 
When it comes to defending oneself or one's family, some people  are willing to do things that will cause someone suffering, either the attacker or his family, does that make the person defending himself evil?

If a doctor were to refuse to submit someone to treatment to save his life because the treatment is painful and he is unwilling to cause suffering, is he evil or not?

Good and Evil are concepts based on belief.  Human sacrifice was believed to be necessary to keep the gods happy, which was good for the majority, and the priests who perfomed that duty believed he was doing a service. We now believe that it was wrong, because we know better.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Here a few definitions of evil to add fuel to the debate, not that any was needed, I'm just feelkng a little evil myself today I guess

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil

evil - adjective
very bad; wicked; sinful
Example: evil intentions; an evil man; He looks evil; evil deeds; an evil tongue 

evil - noun
wrong-doing, harm or wickedness
Example: He tries to ignore all the evil in the world; Do not speak evil of anyone

evil - noun
anything evil, eg crime, misfortune etc


----------



## Shaderon

mrhnau said:


> And for a non-religious point, how about pregnancy? Isn't that suffering, at least in part?


 

I'll join in tomorrow more when I have more time, but I don't think pregnancy is evil, it can be quite enjoyable.  Childbirth IS evil though, take it from me.


----------



## JBrainard

morph4me said:


> Good and Evil are concepts based on belief.


 
That, in a nutshell, is the fact of the matter. I would also add that good and evil are adjectives, not nouns. They do not exist. "Cool" does not exist, yet I use it to describe things that I think are neat.
So, even if you call someone like a child rapist "evil" or even "evil personified" you are using an adjective, one that is defined by the social norm, to describe them.
It seems to me that this is a common topic of contention because many people believe that evil is a "thing," something tangable. IMHO, there is nothing on this earth that *is* "Evil," only things we call evil.


----------



## CoryKS

Evil is a device by which a society attempts to limit or remove a behavior which it has identified as a threat to the society and/or its members.  It differs from law in that the motivation to accept the limit comes from within the individual who has a natural desire to be "good", rather than external, where breaking the law can lead to censure, financial penalties, or jail.

Update:  Of the two, I would say that the concept of good/evil is much more effective than that of law/justice.  Law is effective as far as there is someone around to see you.  Morality means the officer is _always_ right there with you.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Andrew Green said:


> But there I have a problem.
> 
> Some people believe suffering to be neccessary in order to be closer too God.  Much of Christian belief is based around suffering and the "passion" of Jesus.
> 
> So would this imply that the Christian God is evil as he sent his son to suffer for humanity's sins?  And all those followers that believed to be closer to Jesus they, and everyone else, also had to suffer?



Doesn't the Bible make a big deal of the fact that this was a sacrifice?  Sending Jesus (a part of himself) because he wanted to alleviate human suffering. 

While I hold strong to willingly causing suffering being the definition of evil, to willingly suffer so others don't have is the polar opposite.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Bob Hubbard said:


> "If somebody has no concept of what they are doing being evil, is it still an evil act."
> 
> I found this question in a discussion on MAP, and it got me thinking.
> 
> What really is Evil?
> 
> Take for example the Mayan priest, killing sacrifices as part of their religion, or the ancient Spartan practices of removing the imperfect from their society. Today, we consider both to be evil acts, but at the time, neither society saw anything wrong. Animal sacrifice was a big part of the Christian bible's old testament, and a part of the Hebrew faith. But, set up an altar and kill a goat today, and the SPCA will show up with the sheriff.
> 
> So, what makes something truly, "evil".


Any thought or action that harms the family or does the family no bennefit.
Sean


----------



## zDom

Ah, moral relativism, eh?

If we corrupt society to the point where everybody accepts murder, rape, child molestation as acceptable, then it is no longer evil?


Nor do I equate causing suffering to be in and of itself "evil."

I suffer through intense workouts all the time and they make me stronger, and that is GOOD.

Acting contrary to the Creator's plan is evil. Treating other people in ways we wouldn't want to be treated is evil. From those two you can extrapolate quite a bit.


----------



## mrhnau

zDom said:


> Acting contrary to the Creator's plan is evil. Treating other people in ways we wouldn't want to be treated is evil. From those two you can extrapolate quite a bit.


Isn't that what Christ kind of sumarized the law as? Love God and love your neighbor? paraphrasing here of course LOL


----------



## Andrew Green

zDom said:


> Acting contrary to the Creator's plan is evil.



Two problems:

People can't agree on what the creators plan is / was.  That sacrificing priest believed he was acting according to the wishes of his Gods.

Them silly atheists still have morals, without gods


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

What is evil? I'll make it easy for you with the short answer. I am. The thing that goes bump in the night? C'est moi. Stealer of dreams? Me. Bringer of unjust dooms? Yep, you guessed it. Also me.

But I also often bring beer or a nice cabernet. So I guess that means I'm not ALL bad.

Be good (or bad, if you prefer),

Dave


----------



## Steel Tiger

I like to think of evil, along with good, as a universal concept.  It is found in all cultures.  It seems that what defines the concept varies with cultural values but I think there are two things that are constant through these definitions.

The first is summed up nicely by Lao Tzu, "Without ugliness there is no beauty."  Following this line, evil is necessary for us to known what good is.  It is about relationships.  Once one can define good then one can define evil, and vice versa.

The second is a little more difficult to grapple with.  In an earlier post someone said, "Evil is the willingness to cause suffering."  I think I would redefine this slightly to say Evil is the desire to cause suffering.  It is in desire that base nature usually rears its ugly head.


----------



## INDYFIGHTER

My ex. :biggun:


----------



## Carol

If moral relativism means moral corruption, then most of y'all are morally corrupt for not wearing headscarf.


----------



## Steel Tiger

Carol Kaur said:


> If moral relativism means moral corruption, then most of y'all are morally corrupt for not wearing headscarf.


 
That's the least of my worries.  Having been raised Catholic and not having been to church for decades I am deep in the Sin Pit.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Andrew Green said:


> So would this imply that the Christian God is evil as he sent his son to suffer for humanity's sins? And all those followers that believed to be closer to Jesus they, and everyone else, also had to suffer?


 
As I understand it, Christ was presented with many choices. By the Devil and by his father. Satan offered him all earthly power if he but chose to worship him. God gave him the choice to be the sacrifice and suffer so as to save humanity. God didnt force it or enjoy it.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

"I am the good shepherd:the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep."

And if you subscribe to the Catholc concept of the holy trinity. Christ IS god, so those quotes above take on a signifigant meaning.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Carol Kaur said:


> If moral relativism means moral corruption, then most of y'all are morally corrupt for not wearing headscarf.


 
And...a round lobs over the bow!

Nice.


----------



## Carol

Steel Tiger said:


> That's the least of my worries.  Having been raised Catholic and not having been to church for decades I am deep in the Sin Pit.



Misereatur nostri omnipotens Deus [SIZE=-1]et dimissis peccatis nostris, en nomini Patri, et Fillii, et Spiritu Sanctu Amen.[/SIZE]


----------



## Kacey

In the novel The Mammoth Hunters, by Jean M. Auel, the characters have a discussion about what constitutes evil.  One quote has always stuck with me from that discussion:  "Evil is malicious harm." (pg 503).  Now, "malicious", like many other descriptive terms, is open to discussion - but I interpret it as intentionally hurtful (emotionally, physically, etc.) to the person(s) the action is aimed at.


----------



## Steel Tiger

Carol Kaur said:


> Misereatur nostri omnipotens Deus [SIZE=-1]et dimissis peccatis nostris, en nomini Patri, et Fillii, et Spiritu Sanctu Amen.[/SIZE]


 
Thank you.  I feel much better now.


----------



## Carol

Steel Tiger said:


> Thank you.  I feel much better now.



...and save me a seat if you get to the Sin Pit before I do.  I have the feeling we'll have plenty of company.


----------



## Steel Tiger

Kacey said:


> In the novel The Mammoth Hunters, by Jean M. Auel, the characters have a discussion about what constitutes evil. One quote has always stuck with me from that discussion: "Evil is malicious harm." (pg 503). Now, "malicious", like many other descriptive terms, is open to discussion - but I interpret it as intentionally hurtful (emotionally, physically, etc.) to the person(s) the action is aimed at.


 
This is interesting.  Malice comes from the Latin word _malitia_ which means badness or spite.  So another way of saying "Evil is malicious harm." would be Evil is spiteful harm.  And spite is an ill-natured desire to humiliate or injure.  I think that evil comes down to this.  It may be conscious or not, but there is a desire to do someone else wrong.

Jean M. Auel has made a succinct statement there which surprises me.  I'm not a fan.  Ever since the sling and the two rocks incident in Clan of the Cave Bear (it was just foolish).


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steel Tiger said:


> This is interesting. Malice comes from the Latin word _malitia_ which means badness or spite. So another way of saying "Evil is malicious harm." would be Evil is spiteful harm. And spite is an ill-natured desire to humiliate or injure. I think that evil comes down to this. It may be conscious or not, but there is a desire to do someone else wrong.
> 
> Jean M. Auel has made a succinct statement there which surprises me. I'm not a fan. Ever since the sling and the two rocks incident in Clan of the Cave Bear (it was just foolish).


She lost me at "Plains of Passage" I have the next book but I just can't pick it up. I disagree, however; Their need be no malicious intent for and action to be evil.
Sean


----------



## Steel Tiger

Touch Of Death said:


> She lost me at "Plains of Passage" I have the next book but I just can't pick it up. I disagree, however; Their need be no malicious intent for and action to be evil.
> Sean


 
Do you think an evil act can be performed without some form of attachment?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steel Tiger said:


> Do you think an evil act can be performed without some form of attachment?


Yes; a self serving act (and which act isn't self serving in some way?) can result in unintended evil. Doesn't the "Cry Wolf" story help us understand that?
Sean


----------



## Steel Tiger

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes; a self serving act (and which act isn't self serving in some way?) can result in unintended evil. Doesn't the "Cry Wolf" story help us understand that?
> Sean


 
I see what you're saying.  To take the boy in the Cry Wolf story as an example.  Even though he had a desire to be noticed and important, he had no desire to harm the village.  

This would suggest that evil is not defined by culture and perception.  What happened to the village was evil, not evil due to perception or cultural bias.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Carol Kaur said:


> Misereatur nostri omnipotens Deus [SIZE=-1]et dimissis peccatis nostris, en nomini Patri, et Fillii, et Spiritu Sanctu Amen.[/SIZE]



We'd all feel much better about that if we weren't damn sure you memorized it from watching Boondock Saints one too many times....


----------



## Carol

bushidomartialarts said:


> We'd all feel much better about that if we weren't damn sure you memorized it from watching Boondock Saints one too many times....


 
That's not in the Boondock Saints.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

Steel Tiger said:


> Do you think an evil act can be performed without some form of attachment?


 
A true sociopath will perform an act to create an adrenaline flow for the purposes of simulating emotions they are incapable of having. Knew one that wasn't locked up; scary guy.


----------



## MBuzzy

I think the best definition of "Evil" is "The opposite of Good."  This encompasses everything.  Since good is based on your belief system also - it works.

The problem with bringing religion into play is that not everyone shares the same religion.  You can't define Evil using a concept that not everyone subscribes to - otherwise everyone who doesn't agree with you is Evil.  EVERY religion has their own definition.  

Every person also has their own definition.  But whatever your belief system tells you to think of as "good"....take the opposite.


----------



## Shaderon

Right I see what's being said, evil is malcious harm makes a lot of sense, but once again this is still perception.  If the person doing the act is malcious about it, then it's evil, if they don't consider themselves malcious, but rightous, who are we to say it's evil?  It might be an act that will help the greater good.  Once more who are we to define the greater good?

If all those people that believe that god is omnipotent (not telling you what I believe here just throwning in an "if" for discussion) believe that evil is possible but god is all good.... then that's an oxymoron isn't it?

How can an omnipotent and totally good god allow evil to exist, therefore is anything really evil?  is it ALL for the greater good?

*Sits back with popcorn and waits* opcorn:


----------



## Makalakumu

Evil is a label and cultures apply it willy nilly depending on circumstance.  No absolute definition of evil exists.  

This brings up an interesting thought...I wonder if "evil" as determined by different cultures, is largely defined by the environment in which the culture grew?


----------



## morph4me

Steel Tiger said:


> I see what you're saying. To take the boy in the Cry Wolf story as an example. Even though he had a desire to be noticed and important, he had no desire to harm the village.
> 
> This would suggest that evil is not defined by culture and perception. What happened to the village was evil, not evil due to perception or cultural bias.


 
Following that logic I would have to conclude that water, fire, snow and ice, wind and other natural occurences are evil because of the damage they do and the suffering they cause in some instances, again not due to perception or cultural bias.


----------



## Carol

morph4me said:


> Following that logic I would have to conclude that water, fire, snow and ice, wind and other natural occurences are evil because of the damage they do and the suffering they cause in some instances, again not due to perception or cultural bias.



And traffic jams.  Lots of suffering caused by traffic jams.  Most definitely evil.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Carol Kaur said:


> And traffic jams. Lots of suffering caused by traffic jams. Most definitely evil.


 
Absolutely!


----------



## mrhnau

Shaderon said:


> If all those people that believe that god is omnipotent (not telling you what I believe here just throwning in an "if" for discussion) believe that evil is possible but god is all good.... then that's an oxymoron isn't it?
> 
> How can an omnipotent and totally good god allow evil to exist, therefore is anything really evil?  is it ALL for the greater good?



I think thats a fundamental question thats been asked for ages now. Here is my take on it though... just my view 

How can we describe something as being light w/out knowing that darkness exists? Isn't darkness, in essence, abscence of light? Isn't it the same way with goodness/badness? Isn't badness just the abscence of goodness? MBuzzy said it well, I think... I'll be using "badness" and "evil" interchangably...

Now, that leaves humans with a choice of following good or bad. Do we believe that freedom of choice is important? As a soceity, we have (well, for the most part) evolved to the point where marriages are no longer forced. We consider that progress. Women are no longer treated as possessions in our culture, but have the same degree of freedom as men. We perceive this as a good thing. In all civilized countries slavery is mostly non-existant. This is a good thing. So, can we say that increasing freedom and reducing "bondage" is good? Doesn't that apply to all of humanity? Would it be "good" for God to enslave us and force us to only follow the "good"? Is that what love is about? How can there be love w/out the choice to not love? How can there be goodness w/out the choice to follow badness?

Ask your average child if they would prefer having a puppy or a robot. Most would say puppy. Those choosing a robot would eventually grow tired of it and sit it in a corner. A puppy can conceivably bite you, can attack other children, can run away, and eventually dies. However, in those years you spend with them, you can experience such love, companionship and happiness too... Robots do just one thing. Obey what you ask them to do. It will never love you, because it has no choice for love. for me, I'd prefer a puppy 


> *Sits back with popcorn and waits*


popcorn indeed LOL


----------



## Shaderon

Nice answer and certainly a very well thought out one.

popcorn mate?  *hands it over*

Right we have freedom of choice, we decide what is good and what is evil.  To me that means each individual person decides what is good and what is evil to them.  One mans meat is another man's poisen.   But we must agree on some lines that we don't cross which mean we can all get on together well without hurting each other which means we have to have an "official" meaning for evil and bad (which I believe are serperate things close in meaning but seperate).  This meaning has fuzzy edges though.

opcorn:


----------



## zDom

mrhnau said:


> I think thats a fundamental question thats been asked for ages now. Here is my take on it though... just my view
> 
> How can we describe something as being light w/out knowing that darkness exists? Isn't darkness, in essence, abscence of light? Isn't it the same way with goodness/badness? Isn't badness just the abscence of goodness? MBuzzy said it well, I think... I'll be using "badness" and "evil" interchangably...
> 
> Now, that leaves humans with a choice of following good or bad. Do we believe that freedom of choice is important? As a soceity, we have (well, for the most part) evolved to the point where marriages are no longer forced. We consider that progress. Women are no longer treated as possessions in our culture, but have the same degree of freedom as men. We perceive this as a good thing. In all civilized countries slavery is mostly non-existant. This is a good thing. So, can we say that increasing freedom and reducing "bondage" is good? Doesn't that apply to all of humanity? Would it be "good" for God to enslave us and force us to only follow the "good"? Is that what love is about? How can there be love w/out the choice to not love? How can there be goodness w/out the choice to follow badness?
> 
> Ask your average child if they would prefer having a puppy or a robot. Most would say puppy. Those choosing a robot would eventually grow tired of it and sit it in a corner. A puppy can conceivably bite you, can attack other children, can run away, and eventually dies. However, in those years you spend with them, you can experience such love, companionship and happiness too... Robots do just one thing. Obey what you ask them to do. It will never love you, because it has no choice for love. for me, I'd prefer a puppy
> 
> popcorn indeed LOL




Yep. It call comes down to free will. Evil is a ... um ... necessary evil


----------



## Touch Of Death

morph4me said:


> Following that logic I would have to conclude that water, fire, snow and ice, wind and other natural occurences are evil because of the damage they do and the suffering they cause in some instances, again not due to perception or cultural bias.


Again I would say that the human interaction with the environment has either a positive or negative effect on the outcome of the event in question.
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu

How can one person honestly appraise another person's definition of evil?  What objective criteria would you use to do this?

I, personally, do not think that it is possible to fairly judge one definition over another.  There are just too many contradictions.  

IMHO, those contradictions spell out the relative nature of evil.

Think about it, given time, humans can rationalize anything, even destroying ourselves.


----------



## Touch Of Death

upnorthkyosa said:


> How can one person honestly appraise another person's definition of evil? What objective criteria would you use to do this?
> 
> I, personally, do not think that it is possible to fairly judge one definition over another. There are just too many contradictions.
> 
> IMHO, those contradictions spell out the relative nature of evil.
> 
> Think about it, given time, humans can rationalize anything, even destroying ourselves.


Is that really such a bad thing? LOL


----------



## Steel Tiger

morph4me said:


> Following that logic I would have to conclude that water, fire, snow and ice, wind and other natural occurences are evil because of the damage they do and the suffering they cause in some instances, again not due to perception or cultural bias.


 
That's a good point.  Natural events are natural events.  They are neither good nor evil.  As I stated in an earlier post, I think evil involves some level of desire or attachment.  Personally, I do not think the boy who cried wolf was evil, just an attention seeking idiot who did not consider the consequences.  He did seek to harm the village.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

So..if there is no definition of evil. Is there a distinction between "right" and "wrong"?


----------



## Steel Tiger

Blotan Hunka said:


> So..if there is no definition of evil. Is there a distinction between "right" and "wrong"?


 
THis one is even more subjective than good and evil.  Right and wrong can be evaluated, defined if you like, on a person to person basis.  Cultural training gives broad fields of what is right and wrong but it is left to individuals to interpret. 

Yes there are laws that define right and wrong for a society, but many laws start from a position of somebody not liking something, others define more obvious wrongdoings, like murder.  Still there are people who commit murder who do not consider it wrong.  Perhaps they are just evil?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Blotan Hunka said:


> So..if there is no definition of evil. Is there a distinction between "right" and "wrong"?


That is relative to what you are refering too.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Steel Tiger said:


> I see what you're saying. To take the boy in the Cry Wolf story as an example. Even though he had a desire to be noticed and important, he had no desire to harm the village.
> 
> This would suggest that evil is not defined by culture and perception. What happened to the village was evil, not evil due to perception or cultural bias.


I have thought about this and I would say the wolves killing all the sheep and the villiage starving to death as a result is not the evil, but the original repeated bearing of false witness.
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> So..if there is no definition of evil. Is there a distinction between "right" and "wrong"?


 
It depends on what the people around you think and it depends on whether or not they have the power to force that standard on you.

This can also work the other way around.  Someone else on the outside of your "community" can have the power to force their standard on you.

The bottom line is that their are no absolute standards for either.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

So take a heinous crime (in MY definition of the word) like kidnaping a little girl, sexually abusing her and then killing her. In some places that would be "right"? Depending on your "relative" view?


----------



## MBuzzy

Blotan Hunka said:


> So take a heinous crime (in MY definition of the word) like kidnaping a little girl, sexually abusing her and then killing her. In some places that would be "right"? Depending on your "relative" view?


 
Depending on your relative point of view, that is correct.  If in your own moral and SOCIAL moral standard this is acceptable, then who is to say that it is evil?  i.e. if everyone around you thinks it is ok, is it still wrong?

This applies on many levels - even with cultural standards.  In some muslim countries, a woman exposing skin is considered evil or wrong.  In America, we think that is absurd - but if an american woman goes there, she can be put in jail just like anyone else if she doesn't follow their rules.


----------



## Makalakumu

Blotan Hunka said:


> So take a heinous crime (in MY definition of the word) like kidnaping a little girl, sexually abusing her and then killing her. In some places that would be "right"? Depending on your "relative" view?


 
What if you lived in a culture where that sort of behavior was okay?  How would you go about show those people that the behavior was bad?


----------



## Touch Of Death

Blotan Hunka said:


> So take a heinous crime (in MY definition of the word) like kidnaping a little girl, sexually abusing her and then killing her. In some places that would be "right"? Depending on your "relative" view?


You are dead on, unfortunantly. If a mongol horde has it in their religion to populate the earth with their offspring then raping the enemy is not a bad thing.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

MBuzzy said:


> Depending on your relative point of view, that is correct. If in your own moral and SOCIAL moral standard this is acceptable, then who is to say that it is evil? i.e. if everyone around you thinks it is ok, is it still wrong?
> 
> This applies on many levels - even with cultural standards. In some muslim countries, a woman exposing skin is considered evil or wrong. In America, we think that is absurd - but if an american woman goes there, she can be put in jail just like anyone else if she doesn't follow their rules.


Before we condem the Muslims we need to stamp out the Amish.
Sean


----------



## CoryKS

Touch Of Death said:


> Before we condem the Muslims we need to stamp out the Amish.
> Sean


 
Dude, trust me - you do _not_ want the Amish Jihad.


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Touch Of Death said:


> You are dead on, unfortunantly. If a mongol horde has it in their religion to populate the earth with their offspring then raping the enemy is not a bad thing.
> Sean


 
Only if youre a Mongol. Im sure they wouldnt want you doing the same thing to THEIR women. Thats the difference as I see it. Do unto others as....


----------



## zDom

Touch Of Death said:


> ... repeated bearing of false witness.
> Sean


 
Yep. That's evil.


----------



## Carol

Part of the problem with defining evil is that some of the terms used to define evil acts also vary from culture to culture, and even person to person.

For example...I think all cultures thing "murder" is evil.

But what is murder? 

There is the premeditated killing of another person, such as an assassination.  There is felony murder, a homicide that happens when committing a felony. An example could be a buidling denizen that perishes when an arsonist sets it afire.

Some people also think that euthanasia is murder, others think abortion is murder.  That tangles the matter up substantially.


----------



## MBuzzy

Do unto others is a christian belief, that doesn't mean that it is a part of everyone's moral code.

At one point in history, Christians thought that murder was perfectly acceptable - they called it the Crusades.  Of course, that also depends on your definition of murder.  It wasn't evil to them, they thought they were doing good.


----------



## morph4me

MBuzzy said:


> Do unto others is a christian belief, that doesn't mean that it is a part of everyone's moral code.
> 
> At one point in history, Christians thought that murder was perfectly acceptable - they called it the Crusades. Of course, that also depends on your definition of murder. It wasn't evil to them, they thought they were doing good.


 
People all over the world have decided they could end evil with torture and murder, the Inquision, Jihad, The Holocaust,  various Genocides. I guess if you're trying to eliminate evil, the ends justify the means.:idunno:


----------



## MBuzzy

Very true!  Unfortunately, it comes full circle - to do that, you have to know what evil truly is!  The people who have decided that are no more qualified to make that decision than any of us!


----------



## Blotan Hunka

But someone HAS to make that decision somewhere along the line. If you sit back and do nothing than "evil", no matter whos definition, is going to be done on someone. Its easy to be "relative" when you are not having "evil" done on you or your loved ones. Its an excuse to keep your *** safe IMO. Why risk yourself for the welfare of another when its all "relative" in the long run? I find the idea has very distasteful repercussions.


----------



## morph4me

Blotan Hunka said:


> But someone HAS to make that decision somewhere along the line. If you sit back and do nothing than "evil", no matter whos definition, is going to be done on someone. Its easy to be "relative" when you are not having "evil" done on you or your loved ones. Its an excuse to keep your *** safe IMO. Why risk yourself for the welfare of another when its all "relative" in the long run? I find the idea has very distasteful repercussions.


 
You're right, someone has to make that decision, you do, or more to the point each individual has to, based on his interpretation of evil. In each case, both sides thought they were doing the right thing and confronting an evil, the victors were correct, because they wrote the history. If Germany has won WWII we would believe that Hitler was a hero who destroyed the evils of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Handicapped etc. Those engaged in Jihad think they are fighting an evil, the great Satan. Every example of evil, and those fighting it, are based on individual interpretation.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Blotan Hunka said:


> But someone HAS to make that decision somewhere along the line. If you sit back and do nothing than "evil", no matter whos definition, is going to be done on someone. Its easy to be "relative" when you are not having "evil" done on you or your loved ones. Its an excuse to keep your *** safe IMO. Why risk yourself for the welfare of another when its all "relative" in the long run? I find the idea has very distasteful repercussions.


We Generaly think of that what the Spanish did to the Indians was Evil, but they land in the Americas and find the dominant tribe slaughtering roughly 40,000 people a year for blood sacrafice. How could they not act?
Sean


----------



## HKphooey

Could not resist....


----------



## heretic888

MBuzzy said:


> Do unto others is a christian belief, that doesn't mean that it is a part of everyone's moral code.



Actually, the "Golden Rule" (treat others as you would wish to be treated) is a common tenet to many religions and philosophies around the world. It is not unique to Christianity.

The reason being, of course, that such moral principles are the product of third-person moral reasoning (what Lawrence Kohlberg identified as "postconventional" morality). This is somewhat independent of environment and indoctrination (assuming no developmental arrest occurs along this domain of growth). It merely requires that one develop the cognitive capacity to put psychologically imagine oneself in the position of another (which, admittedly, most people probably don't possess).

This is why I don't buy into moral relativism. There _is_ an axis of moral development that human beings are born into. The problem is that this axis is not found in a predetermined set of rules or laws we are to follow, but in the continual growth and maturation of our sociomoral faculties (to use Kohlberg's language, preconventional to conventional to postconventional).

However, upnorthkyosa is correct that this axis of moral development is also predicated, to a degree, on the effects of one's environment. You will only develop to a level of moral reasoning that your environment demands of you (those that are significantly "below" or "above" the social norm tend to be ostracized). This also ties, predictably enough, into level of education (better educated individuals are statistically more likely to develop higher levels of moral reasoning).

In any event, the issue is far from black and white. Both absolutism and relativism fail to provide us with answers.


----------



## SageGhost83

Hand Sword said:


> Anything the dominant culture labels as evil. It changes culture to culture, even generation to generation.


 
Agreed. Good and evil are arbitrary by their very nature.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Well actually there is a pastor that wrote an article that says if you study Ki/Qi/Chi you are indeed evil. Or at the very least a follower of Satan.

So  by that definition us Internal CMA people are in fact evil :uhyeah:


----------

