|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Anything Evil? Does Evil Exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Can we agree that evil is simply the lack of empathy? That's an interesting definition, but it requires knowledge of the "evil doers" mental state. We can attempt to conclude from someone's actions that they aren't empathetic, but we can't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I just don't see how 911 can be a relative thing To try and give perspective on this, let's look at a different event. Hiroshima. We dropped a nuke, killed lots of people. We did it to end the fighting. Was it an evil act? The 9/11 hijackers could have been doing this because they thought it was fun. But, I suspect you would have a hard time finding enough people to put in that kind of work for "fun". They had a reasoning behind their actions (not one I fully understand). From their perspective what was happening was necessary. Necessary evil? Maybe. Justifiable Homocide? Maybe. A heroic act of self sacrifice? Maybe. Dunno what they were thinking. I would agree that a person who's doing harm to others for no reason, even in their own minds, is in fact doing evil. But "doing evil" doesn't mean that "evil" exists as an element the way Rob seems to be arguing it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Nuggin used the exact same example I was going to use. The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the resulting death of thousands caused dancing in the streets of America, just as the destruction of the WTC towers with the resulting death of thousands caused dancing in the streets of the Islamic world.
Evil is relative. There are literally countless examples. Here's another. The death of a husband in war is an unmitigated act of evil perpetrated by a belligerent power from the wife's perspective. But for the wives of the soldiers on the other side, the report of another enemy death is celebrated. One can come up with similar examples as fast as one can type. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Evil really seems to be strictly a societal construct. Humans have evolved sets of what is considered evil over time, and those things change.
But even if there were some general concept of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral, it seems to still depend on the perspective of the person making the distinction. In a troop of Baboons or Lions, the Alpha Male killing off any infants that are not his progeny does not seem to be considered evil, immoral or wrong, within the construct of baboon or lion societal strictures. Evil certainly exists, but can it only be determined within the relative collective society? Evil and wrong and immoral seem to be based on the individuals' and societal perspective. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
During the Inquisition, heretics were often killed and that was good. Ask any of the inquisitors. "With the same, in fact with even greater indifference do I regard torturing you than I do bending this reed out of my path with my stick, for by doing so I earn nothing. But when I have you tortured, and by the severe means afforded by the law I bring you to confession, then I perform a work pleasing in God's sight; and it profiteth me." - Heinrich von Schultheis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
As a side note, I was interested to see your definition of evil...
simply the lack of empathy ...because I tend to think that those who use the word evil are themselves exhibiting a lack of empathy. To me, when someone uses the label "evil", it indicates to me that they have decided to end their enquiry into why some undesirable action was carried out. Why did he do it? Because he is evil. End of story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: Can we agree that evil is simply the lack of empathy? Suppose somebody did have empathy, but he performed "evil acts" anyway. Wouldn't that be even "more evil"? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Perhaps you fear that if certain undesirable actions aren't labelled as evil, then bystanders will shrug and allow them to continue? I don't think this is true.
I think Cho's actions are best explained through not by pointing to his dead heart and proclaiming 'there was a fountain of evil!', but instead through an investigation of his experiences and his mental health. Taken together I think these are nothing more than a collection of natural circumstances that lead to moronic, senseless carnage. Simply calling someone evil is an admission of a failure to empathise. Surely the refusal of an attempt to empathise with someone - be they baby-raper, murderer or whatever, is a failing? I happen to believe that abuse in the family perpetuates, and that condemning a father who abuses a son who was himself abused as a child is misguided. Clearly not everyone who is abused will purpetuate the distructive behaviour, but I think circumstances have a tremendous bearing on what people do. I think that total free-will, the ability to chose between the right and the wrong action, is not something that is available to everyone at any time. Clearly, if you are a Christian, then a belief in this ability to chose is central to your faith and I don't expect you to reject it. I just don't see any grounds on which it can be supposed, except the assumptions made in scripture about the individual's ability to chose. To empathise with someone doesn't make one naieve to their potential danger, and nor does it prevent us from keeping the away from society for our protection. On the other hand, to call them evil is to reject them utterly, and to deny the powerful effect of circumstances on their actions. This doesn't seem very humane to me. [ABE] Also, lest their be any misunderstanding, I'm not saying that to empathise with someone is in any way to condone their behaviour. Just as it is possible to speak German and yet to find the German language unattractive, I think it is possible to try to understand an 'evil' action without for one second supporting it.[/ABE] The idea that evil exists is central to the Christian faith because it is the ubiquitous problem for which Christianity is the final solution. But for those who don't share that faith, I don't see how describing something as evil can be anything more than a means of expressing a socially-acquired distaste for an action that is considered in some way disruptive for that society. Edited by Tusko, : see text for ABE notice
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3597 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
'Evil' is not a word I throw around, but here's my working definition:
Evil is that which threatens what I cherish. Awareness of evil is thus the flip side of awareness of love. One becomes conscious of evil as a natural consequence of having something to protect.
Can we agree that evil is simply the lack of empathy? Evil is that which threatens what I love. Withdrawal of empathy is a matter of technique. If I am called upon to protect what I love, it helps if, for the moment, I am not feeling too sorry for any butts I have to kick. This helps me do a better job of kicking the butts, and thus protecting what I love (if I am kicking the right butts). One can take this technique too far. It works best in a moment of acute crisis. As a habit of thought stretched over a long period of time, it is self-defeating. The worst mistake you can make in any conflict is to underestimate your enemy. When you think of a human adversary as subhuman, you have underestimated your enemy. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Ah, but then did he really empathize with his victims? Suppose somebody did have empathy, but he performed "evil acts" anyway. Wouldn't that be even "more evil"? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: Ah, but then did he really empathize with his victims? Ah, but isn't that the "No True Empathy" fallacy? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Archer writes:
In other words, you believe that what constitutes as evil to you might be good to another? Evil is that which threatens what I cherish. Permit me to give an extreme example. The nazi soldiers who performed the horrific acts during the holocaust were having a blast doing them because they believed that they were doing good by ridding the world of the undesirables. In other words, the undesirables were threatening the nazi doctrine of the superiority of the aryan race. Evil is that which threatens what I cherish. I cherish blond hair, blue eyes, and the purity of the aryan race. By some bastardize reason, Jews, Gypsies, Slaviks, Homosexuals, etc. are threatening what I cherish. Therefore, it is good to get rid of them. On the other hand, if I am a Jew, what I cherish is my culture and family. Therefore, the acts of the nazis to me are evil. In other words, the term evil, in this case, is completely subjective. Isn't it sort of pointless, then, to impose one's view of evil over another? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Ringo writes:
Perhaps... but then again true empathy is one of those things where I'd have to say that I know it when I see it kinda thing. Ah, but isn't that the "No True Empathy" fallacy? Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
This is a general reply to everyone who have replied to my definition of evil. Have you considered that the lack of empathy could also mean the lack of demonstrating empathy? I wasn't speaking strictly of one's emotional/mental state during the action in question. Perhaps evil is the lack of either empathy or demonstrating empathy?
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tazmanian Devil writes: ... but then again true empathy is one of those things where I'd have to say that I know it when I see it kinda thing. I have no doubt that the average Nazi-in-the-street did have empathy for his victims. He did believe he was doing what was right in spite of his feelings of empathy. The person who is empathy-challenged is "less evil", in my view, because he doesn't feel the results of his acts. A Nazi, who is "only following orders" against his own conscience, is "more evil". The person who "does evil" because he knows it hurts his victim is "most evil". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024