Is Anything Evil? Does Evil Exist?

Don't think you can ask "Does evil exist?" without first answering the question "What is evil?"I don't mean, name an action or historical event or person which is an example of "evil". That's not going to forward the debate.I mean, how do we define evil?Here's dictionary.com's take:1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.There's more definitions, obviously, but I'm taking the one closest to what you're talking about.The problem is this def is really weak. "What is evil?" - It's stuff that's morally wrong. Well, then "What is morally wrong?"Are we to say that "evil" acts are acts which contradict the accepted moral code of the society in which the act takes place?So killing your neighbor in Denver - Evil.
Killing your neighbor in Teotihuacan - Not evil.What's your take on "Evil"? Once that's locked down, you can start to discuss if it actually exists.

You've made a poor arguement when you said that "evil" is like "light" or "matter".Obviously, both light and matter can be empirically observed. Where as "evil" can not.An action can be observed, it can be labelled "evil", but the action is still the action. It's the opinion of the observer about the action that makes it evil.Here's an example -
During the Inquisition, heretics were often killed and that was good. Ask any of the inquisitors.Your better argument, one that you almost made, would be this:Evil is like pornagraphy, we know it when we see it. (a la the supreme court's definition of porn).(Please note I am NOT claiming the pornagraphy is evil)It seems from your examples and reasoning that you feel evil is subjective. That is fine, but then the debate becomes "what do think charactorizes evil and why?"If on the other hand you feel that evil is objective, you should be able to give a rock solid efinition.

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.

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.

Evil is the same as gravity? That's a load of crap.Masses attract one another - why? we don't know. But, we can measure it and it remains constant.The intent of the mass is not a factor in determining if gravity has happened or not.The intent of action is necessary to determine evil. There can be no objectively evil action, only subjectively evil actions.There is no subjective gravity.Likewise, there is no subjective matter. Where did I say "reasonable" in regards to this?Do I believe that they may believe that what they are doing is not evil? Sure. Perhaps it's a lack of imagination on my part but I can't fathom the thought process which may bring them to this conclusion. I do not, however, blame them for my lack of imagination.The secondary question then becomes, do I blame them for their actions? Absolutely.We can, and should, punish actions which we as a society have deemed unacceptable no matter what the motivation behind the action.If you are speeding for fun, you get a ticket. If you are speeding to go stop a murder from happening, you should still get a ticket. (hopefully after the cop helps you stop the murder). Okay, so let's go with this as your working definition of "evil". If this is the case, evil is in the actions but the person themself is not evil. This requires motive.The person must be motivated to do the action in their own self interest and the action must be at the expense of others.So, I buy candy at the store - not evil.
I steal candy from the store - evil.But if steal candy from the store but don't enjoy doing so - not evil.We're back to the person's motivation behind their actions.

I'm not sure if you meant these as examples of the reasoning, or if this are concepts you are backing as valid but they don't make sense to me.I cherish my dog the most. The things which threaten my dog are: Heartworm, busy streets, age, etc.I don't consider any of these things evil even in the slightest.

You are making a mistake of arrogance here. You assume that because you can not figure out the reasoning behind his actions that his actions in and of themselves lack reasoning. This is false.For all we know his actions are the direct, inescapable, conclusion of very clear reasoning. We just don't know the variables.By the way, you've brought up this story a couple of times now and I'd like to point out this:You are recounting a tale told by a person who's objective is convince you that there is evil in the world. I suspect that he gets paid handsomely to do this. But he isn't even claiming that this story is true. He's telling you a story that he himself heard from a stranger.This all strikes me as a bit of a game of telephone.Surely there are better documented examples of evil acts which can be verified at least by the people who are presenting them.

That's one theory. Another is that you are doing a poor job making those connections.It's a very poor teacher who blames his student for not learning.

By this thinking, you are evil due to your unreasonable belief in a God.You may "think" that your beliefs are reasonable, but since you out of hand discarded the potential reasoning of your alleged child molestor, you must be willing to accept the same treatment.

Ringo: Rob: Rob, do you see how you are dodging the question. Ringo asked how you can detemine the motives if you DON'T UNDERSTAND the reasoning.You're reply is that there is NO REASONING.That's just covering your eyes. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 'Sound' reasoning implies only that given a set of facts, one can draw a logical conclusion.But you are mistaking all "facts" to be "good" or that the logical conclusion of those facts is "good". This is a mistake.The 9/11 hijackers had a number of facts. They drew reasonable conclusions based on those facts. They acted on those conclusions.Therefore, by your argument, the 9/11 hijackers are "good".

Proving motive is really the least important part of a criminal case. In fact, the "motive" really shouldn't play a part in the case at all.If I can prove that you were present, that you had a gun and that you killed the person, I don't need to know why in order to send you to jail.However, if I can prove that you wanted someone dead and they ended up dead, but I can no prove that you committed the crime, a jury should not find you guilty.(yes, I know, juries make mistakes)