Is Evil Relative?

[Samantha Rinne]

Why do you have two such threads?

Hearing the same thing twice is not going to convince me to believe it.

Events have relative moral value, because two people have priorities thar are different. "It's only you and me, and we just disagree." But there are many things that cannot be justified as good, only morally excuses ( rationalized).

For example, putting hundreds or thousands of people out of work, because "you don't feel safe" is basically telling others to wear a sweater because you're cold to an evil extreme. Likewise, killing a child and harvesting them for parts, even if those parts save lifes, those saved this way would tell you "this is evil". Fighting a war due to a stupid reason (there was a war actually fought over a bucket) is evil.

 

[BSM1]

Adam and Eve could not steal what God had forbidden them. They did not gain the knowledge of good and evil. That's not what the story implies. What it implies is that they took the idea into themselves that they, being God's equals (according to the serpent), could and would possess the knowledge of good and evil by defying God's mandate, when in truth they could and did not. The serpent was a deceiver. And as a result of their taking on this arrogant and untrue presumption, they began to stand in judgment of all they encountered (hence the fig leaves), wrongly thinking that everything that exists (all Creation) should serve them (as they believed they were God's equals). The result was that they had doomed themselves (and all mankind) to a life of endlessly trying to 'correct Creation", to make it serve us. This presumption that humanity is God's equal is humanity's "original sin", from which all other sins spring.

You might want to re-read the story with a more objective perspective.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Now when I think about it, it could be an evil relative

 

[PureX]

You might want to re-read the story with a more objective perspective.

If you read it CAREFULLY, you will see that what I'm saying is correct. Understand that this is mythology, and that all the "characters" and "events" are symbolic. You've already rightly noted that the tree is the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", not the, "tree intended to test our obedience". Or the, "tree of God says so, so you no go". Nor does it say anywhere that humans actually received the 'knowledge of good and evil'. Or that humans had the capacity to take from God what God had forbidden them to possess. And once we understand that this didn't happen, it changes the whole meaning and trajectory of the story. The "punishment" becomes self-inflicted, by the hubris of the deception that we (as Adam and Eve) chose to adopt as our truth.

 

[Jane Boswell]

To an extent, yes. There is a variety of things that people regard as evil, but I would say there is an essence to the term that is objective: to intentfully, and without justification, cause suffering upon someone else.

Is it not possible to likewise kill someone with kindness?

 

[EtuMalku]

Is evil relative?

It is impossible to define evil in such a way that it is not ultimately subjective because everything is ultimately subjective. But whether or not evil can be defined in such a way that it refers to something which is not relative but is instead absolute is yet another matter.

Certainly, if one defines evil as 'bad', then it is relative. But defining evil as bad is only one possible definition of the term.

So, is there some definition of evil such that the word does not refer to something that is relative? If so, what is that definition?



Please Note, as used in this OP, the term subjective refers to an epistemology, while the term relative refers to a contextual difference in truth, value, or fact. For instance, Johnny can see reality only from a subjective point of view. But what he sees might or might not be relative. If he sees that 2 + 2 = 4, he is seeing a non-relative truth (albeit from a subjective point of view). However the truth of the statement, "You just gave me a headache", that Johnny says every time his friend Sunstone opens his mouth is not only subjective, but also relative. Sunstone himself does not experience Johnny's headache.




_____________________________

I did see your other thread related to this topic, I decided to address this one.

GOOD/EVIL are both subjective. One man's GOOD will be another man's EVIL. In the objective/physical universe, we are endlessly subjected to the illusions of duality. There is no duality in the sense of polar opposites, everything is unique unto itself, there is no 'parallel universe' effect so to speak.

Hot is not the opposite of cold, there are simply gradations of both experiences.
What is decided by a community/society to be 'Evil' is so for the benefit of the community as a whole. Whether you see it this way or agree/disagree, a perpetrator who commits an act against the community's laws can in many instances consider their actions to be beneficial to them, and thus the community laws to be an impediment and act of Evil towards their pursuit of happiness (e.g.)

 

[PruePhillip]

I cannot think of a single man-made concept, such as evil, that is not ultimately subjective, thereby rendering whatever concept relative. There can be a societal definition that can appear to be axiomatic, but ultimately, how evil is delineated will ultimately vary from group to group or individual to individual.

I don't see how evil cannot be relative.

That's how I see it. But of course, I'm probably wrong, because I can be just plain evil.

In Western societies the notion of evil has been tied to Judean Christian principles.
This provided a commonality in any discussion. Everyone was singing from the same
song sheet, even if they weren't honoring the words.
But in a post modern world where there is no truth (except the Truth-of-Post Modernism)
truth seems to be redefined on an almost annual basis (ie woke culture)
One only has to look at how two sides of a military conflict have their own idea of what
is right and who is right.
So once abortion was evil and killing whales was good for European lamps. It's terrifying
there is no longer any absolutes.

 

[Brian TD]

In Western societies the notion of evil has been tied to Judean Christian principles.
This provided a commonality in any discussion. Everyone was singing from the same
song sheet, even if they weren't honoring the words.
But in a post modern world where there is no truth (except the Truth-of-Post Modernism)
truth seems to be redefined on an almost annual basis (ie woke culture)
One only has to look at how two sides of a military conflict have their own idea of what
is right and who is right.
So once abortion was evil and killing whales was good for European lamps. It's terrifying
there is no longer any absolutes.

Very interesting thoughts! I tend to agree with you PruePhillip. You seem to have a good handle on the issue of moral absolutes. I'm curious now, as to what you believe to be true about God?

 

[QuestioningMind]

To an extent, yes. There is a variety of things that people regard as evil, but I would say there is an essence to the term that is objective: to intentfully, and without justification, cause suffering upon someone else.

And who gets to decide if something is with or without justification?

 

[QuestioningMind]

In Western societies the notion of evil has been tied to Judean Christian principles.
This provided a commonality in any discussion. Everyone was singing from the same
song sheet, even if they weren't honoring the words.
But in a post modern world where there is no truth (except the Truth-of-Post Modernism)
truth seems to be redefined on an almost annual basis (ie woke culture)
One only has to look at how two sides of a military conflict have their own idea of what
is right and who is right.
So once abortion was evil and killing whales was good for European lamps. It's terrifying
there is no longer any absolutes.

Are you truly convinced that there ever was a time when there were moral absolutes? Was there a time when it was ALWAYS evil to perform an abortion, even if it meant losing the life of a woman who already has two infants dependent upon her for survival? Was there ever a time when it was genuinely good that we exterminated an entire species of whales just so Europeans could have a more convenient source of illumination?

 

[PruePhillip]

Are you truly convinced that there ever was a time when there were moral absolutes? Was there a time when it was ALWAYS evil to perform an abortion, even if it meant losing the life of a woman who already has two infants dependent upon her for survival? Was there ever a time when it was genuinely good that we exterminated an entire species of whales just so Europeans could have a more convenient source of illumination?

I used the abortion/whales as an example.
There never was a commonality of values, but what existed was that people had
more in common than they do today. And values were more human-centric.

As for abortion. The further along the pregnancy is the more repugnant it becomes.
There are those who want to televise capital punishment - the aim being to make it
real to those who support it. Ditto for abortion - show how they stop a baby's heart,
crush its skull, vacuum out the brain matter then pull the baby, or bits of it, out of the
cervix. Show it in 4k.

 

[PruePhillip]

Very interesting thoughts! I tend to agree with you PruePhillip. You seem to have a good handle on the issue of moral absolutes. I'm curious now, as to what you believe to be true about God?

Are we talking about the Judaeo Christian God?
If so then the God presented to us in the bible. Being Christian I would read the
New Testament more, with particular attention to the Gospels. Here we don't
just read doctrine (Matt 5,6,7) but there's a picture of what living is acceptable
to God.

 

[dfnj]

Is evil relative?

It is impossible to define evil in such a way that it is not ultimately subjective because everything is ultimately subjective. But whether or not evil can be defined in such a way that it refers to something which is not relative but is instead absolute is yet another matter.

Certainly, if one defines evil as 'bad', then it is relative. But defining evil as bad is only one possible definition of the term.

So, is there some definition of evil such that the word does not refer to something that is relative? If so, what is that definition?



Please Note, as used in this OP, the term subjective refers to an epistemology, while the term relative refers to a contextual difference in truth, value, or fact. For instance, Johnny can see reality only from a subjective point of view. But what he sees might or might not be relative. If he sees that 2 + 2 = 4, he is seeing a non-relative truth (albeit from a subjective point of view). However the truth of the statement, "You just gave me a headache", that Johnny says every time his friend Sunstone opens his mouth is not only subjective, but also relative. Sunstone himself does not experience Johnny's headache.

Yes, most of my relatives are evil.