How Do You Know What Is Evil?

[Mister_T]

Incest doesn't have to lead to offspring in any case.

Why is one sexual impulse permissible and the other wrong?

I agree. If you take the intent of birthing retarded childern out of the picture, the act itself is not evil. How is the sexual impulse of incest more evil than heterosexual impulse? This is what I was trying to get at

 

[Quiddity]

The most important thing is having their needs met.

Sounds similar too:

I would say that "bad" is anything that leads people away from happiness

The reason I show these is because if we were to get both Mister T and Faint and ask them what makes them happy and what meets their needs you will see major differences that neither would budge on certain points. The same can be said of others.

So what is evil?
That which leads you to pain of any form.

So what is good?
That which leads to pleasure of any form.

Since we all find different things pleasurable and painful. It is an unsolvable equation in the cosmos where everything wants to isolate in an ordered fashion.
Except for us pesky humans.

I think we need help in that department.

 

[lilithu]

Who is the responsibility to?

How about to ourselves? To society? To the world? We have a mutual responsibility to each other. That is what ethics is all about.

EDIT:
You drive? You fly? We westerners are contributing the vast majority to the effects of climate change which threaten the most impoverished people in the southern hemisphere. Essentially our ignorance is leading to their suffering, floods, droughts, hurricanes, famines etc.

Perhaps your furniture was crafted using illegally logged timber, resulting in the deaths of indigenous people, the disappearance of huge areas of forest and hunting of primates.

Repressive governments are propped-up by mining of elements most likely found in your computer.

Perhaps your ignorance in your bank's activities has lead to proliferation of weaponry to militias that are guilty of ethnic cleansing, and privatisation of water resources in the Third World leading to poverty, disease and death.

Yes, I agree. How does that make it alright? Ignorance can be a mitigating factor but it cannot be an excuse. Otherwise, all we do is condone the continuance of harm.

 

[Mister_T]

The reason I show these is because if we were to get both Mister T and Faint and ask them what makes them happy and what meets their needs you will see major differences that neither would budge on certain points. The same can be said of others.

I think you misunderstood me Victor. I was saying that people who are selfish care ONLY about their needs being met. The center of their life is making themselves happy. Even if it's at someone else expense. Like guys who tell women they love them, even though they don't, just to get the girl to have sex. After they get what they want they just up and leave not caring about whether or not he hurts that girls feelings.

 

[Quiddity]

I think you misunderstood me Victor. I was saying that people who are selfish care ONLY about their needs being met. The center of their life is making themselves happy. Even if it's at someone else expense. Like guys who tell women they love them, even though they don't, just to get the girl to have sex. After they get what they want they just up and leave not caring about whether or not he hurts that girls feelings.

Yes I did. My bad...
Although my point still stands, just take your name off it. What do you think?

 

[Ormiston]

Since we all find different things pleasurable and painful. It is an unsolvable equation in the cosmos where everything wants to isolate in an ordered fashion.
Except for us pesky humans.

I think we need help in that department.

You deserve the "Witty Award" Victor. I love it!

And, I agree with you to a degree. There are people capable of rationalizing just about any deed, regardless of consequences or the impact they have on others. However, as a whole, there does appear to be some level of agreement about good/evil. I believe that people have more in common than not and that these similarities or, more specifically, these instincts pave the way for our morality. We spend most of our time squabbling over unique and isolated instances; issues that are usually very complicated, eg. abortion, incest, homosexuality. I have yet to hear of anyone supporting running old women over or kicking puppies.

I rely on my instincts and my experience to decide whether something is right or wrong. I think most of us instinctively are selfless and caring under normal circumstances. But we are a community and it's our combined efforts and opinions that determine right and wrong. Even with the "holy" guidance available, division is visable on most of the issues.

 

[mr.guy]

It is an unsolvable equation in the cosmos where everything wants to isolate in an ordered fashion. Except for us pesky humans.

I would have thought the reverse to truer; equilibrium doesn't always play nicely with isolation.

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]I would have thought the reverse to truer; equilibrium doesn't always play nicely with isolation.

I'm not really sure how equilibrium plays a role in what I noted?

 

[Mister_T]

Yes I did. My bad...
Although my point still stands, just take your name off it. What do you think?

Pleasure feels good, but that doesn't always make it good: Especially when your life is based soley on it. Bad things WILL happen. It becomes like a drug addiction. If you try to eliminate pain from your life all together, you are going to end up dissapointed and you will cause yourself further pain by having your expectations shattered. Plus that addiction can become so controling, that you'll do whatever you need to do in order to fill that void.

Pain feels bad, but that doesn't always make it bad:
Bad experiences are inevitable. The pain that you experience can make you grow as a person. You learn from them. Pain can temper your emotional state of mind like a blacksmith tempers steel to make it stronger. When bad things happen down the road, the effects will be far less devestating. It callouses your emotional state of mind.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Cats in bags! Need I go on? Twisted.

If I recall, it was you holding the bags open so I could more easily stuff the little buggers in.:sarcastic

 

[drekmed]

That very conveniently absolves you of all moral responsibilities, doesn't it?

and

How about you? What a shocking concept.

Lilithu you obviously didnt understand my post. i wasn't commenting on moral responsibility, which of course is also a man made social behavior.
i have a social responsibility to not be detrimental to the group i am in. that means i should not commit negative acts against those people. some people feel that their responsibility extends only to those living in their vicinity, others feel they extend to the country, and others still that feel a social obligation to the world.
i have no moral responsibilities beyond those that i have made up. my social responsibilities are those made up by others. sometimes they are the same, but where they differ, i have to chose which i feel is more important. nothing controls what i feel except me, i make the decisions on what i feel is right and wrong with my idea of morality.

Drekmed

 

[opuntia]

Evil is considered having less than the whole. The Hebrew word for "evil" is "ra' " (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) and this word is derived from "ra'a'," or "breaking to pieces." In God, to be evil is to "break" His laws, to make it less (or attempt to) than it is. The whole law states that we are to honor our father and mother (Exodus 20:12), and yet many will not follow the whole law or sometimes will when it suits them or in part--all less than the whole. Satan is evil or lacks the dimensions that make a good man. It is good to give someone a pie, pizza, or an item expected to be whole; but not good if pieces of the pie, pizza, or other is missing. This is bad manners.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course I know what evil is! I listen to American talk show hosts. Evil is Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. Sheeesh! Y'all act like this is a difficult question!

 

[finalfrogo]

I suppose I define "evil" as anything that goes completely against the nature of the universe, which is goodness. The problem that you mention is to define what parts of reality are part of that nature, if not all parts. I usually go with my intuition, except for complex matters, such as homosexuality. Things like basic murder and theft are easy to label as evil (though this may become more difficult in perspective. For example, what if I murdered a notorious, murderous dictator responsible for thousands of deaths? Am I being evil?)

Also, I would never define actual PEOPLE as evil. Everyone has a clean soul. Instead, evil attaches to action. I don't think it is necessary to judge people by their actions when everyone is inheritely good.

 

[lilithu]

Lilithu you obviously didnt understand my post. i wasn't commenting on moral responsibility, which of course is also a man made social behavior.

If you are commenting on evil, then you are commenting on moral responsibility. That you consider them both "man made social behavior(s)" recognizes that they stem from the same source.

i have a social responsibility to not be detrimental to the group i am in. that means i should not commit negative acts against those people. some people feel that their responsibility extends only to those living in their vicinity, others feel they extend to the country, and others still that feel a social obligation to the world.
i have no moral responsibilities beyond those that i have made up. my social responsibilities are those made up by others. sometimes they are the same, but where they differ, i have to chose which i feel is more important. nothing controls what i feel except me, i make the decisions on what i feel is right and wrong with my idea of morality.

So in your view, evil is not the same as moral responsibility is not the same as social responsibility. Wow, how complicated.

You make a rambling distinction between moral responsibility and social responsibility. Functionally, what is the difference? What in your opinion is a moral responsibility that is not a social responsibility? What does morality mean when isolated from a social context?

 

[Yerda]

How about to ourselves? To society? To the world? We have a mutual responsibility to each other. That is what ethics is all about.

It gets a bit complicated though, if we have a responsibility not to do 'evil' onto others, we would have to know what others find permissible.

Yes, I agree. How does that make it alright? Ignorance can be a mitigating factor but it cannot be an excuse. Otherwise, all we do is condone the continuance of harm.

I don't think it makes it alright, it's horrific. It seems relevant though to the discussion. We're all guilty...

 

[Super Universe]

Evil is this:

A human who has suppressed their consciounceness to the point that it hardly remains.

They have absolutely no internal limits.

 

[lilithu]

It gets a bit complicated though, if we have a responsibility not to do 'evil' onto others, we would have to know what others find permissible.

I agree that it gets a little tricky in the fine points. I have long thought that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" could lead to some unfortunate situations as people have different ideas of what they would want done unto them. But I think that > 90% of ethics is pretty straightforward. Even with the longstanding debate between utilitarianism and kantian ethics and more recently narrative ethics, even tho they base their ethics on very different things, most of the time in any given situation they will come to the same conclusion. I don't think that we should let the relatively few instances where we disagree prevent us from saying that there is evil. There are some things that we need to oppose; it's not just a matter of personal taste or cultural bias.

My guess, and this is just a guess, is that you are concerned that the words "evil" and "responsibility" might bring in the concept of God. Hence your question of "Who are we responsible to?" I don't think that one needs to believe in "God," but I believe that one needs to believe in the interconnectedness of humanity. I sincerely believe that with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind, and if I see peole saying/suggesting otherwise, I will argue. (You see, I am a religous zealot afterall.) Humans thrive as a group or perish as a group. Ethics/religion/whatever can't just be about the self, and it can't only be self-referential. We need to recognize our interdependancy, and with that comes "responsibility." And "evil" to me is anything that makes it just about the "self."

I don't think it makes it alright, it's horrific. It seems relevant though to the discussion. We're all guilty...

Yes. Passive evil is still evil. As Voltaire said: "Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do."

 

[Quiddity]

However, as a whole, there does appear to be some level of agreement about good/evil. I believe that people have more in common than not and that these similarities or, more specifically, these instincts pave the way for our morality. We spend most of our time squabbling over unique and isolated instances; issues that are usually very complicated, eg. abortion, incest, homosexuality. I have yet to hear of anyone supporting running old women over or kicking puppies.

No doubt there is commonality in morality (Ha! Sounds like I’m rapping) in the human race. But I’m sure you can see that this apparent universal morality is not what drives people on an individual level or at a community level. As much as both theist and non-theist agree “we should do the right thing” it is all but an illusion when you have pain and pleasure that drives us. Why? Because as I have said before, what is right is not what works for the majority but rather what brings you or the collective pleasure or no perceived pain. One of our members named Faint is more then honest in admitting this. And I respect his willingness to admit what the crux of the matter really comes down to. But I kindly disagree with his approach.

One can argue that a religious community can face the same problem as that of a secular one, but without deviating too much from the thread I will say that I would argue otherwise. Why? Because having a God with a species whose main drive is moving towards pleasure and away from pain, makes the world of difference.

Peace be with you,

~Victor

 

[Yerda]

I don't think that we should let the relatively few instances where we disagree prevent us from saying that there is evil.

Perhaps. If you define evil as that which separates us then I agree, there is evil. I'm not sure everything divisive is harmful.

There are some things that we need to oppose; it's not just a matter of personal taste or cultural bias.

If we want to achieve survival for ourselves and our children I agree, there are things we must fight. Isn't it separational?

My guess, and this is just a guess, is that you are concerned that the words "evil" and "responsibility" might bring in the concept of God. Hence your question of "Who are we responsible to?" I don't think that one needs to believe in "God," but I believe that one needs to believe in the interconnectedness of humanity. I sincerely believe that with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind, and if I see peole saying/suggesting otherwise, I will argue. (You see, I am a religous zealot afterall.)

My problem with the word 'evil' is mostly from the objectivity it implies.

Humans thrive as a group or perish as a group.

Tell that to the indigenous worldwide, and those killing them even now. The benefits of wiping out a whole people to usurp their lands and resources are so vivid it continues now. I can't see us humans living or dying together as one, I can only see the domination, exploitation, and extermination of people by other people for material gain.

And "evil" to me is anything that makes it just about the "self."

If nothing else do no harm.