The Reality of Evil

[lunamoth]

The problem is not that 'bad people do bad things,' but that good people do bad things.

Why?

Is knowledge the answer? If we know right from wrong can we be good? Will overcoming ignorance make us good and lead us to peace and harmony?

OR...is the opposite true?

What do you think of this summation:

1. Evil is real
2. The good are not as smart as they think they are.
3. The good need all the help they can get; one cannot be good on one's own.

This suggests that we are 'morally weak,' and is illustrated by the lynch mob. They see themselves and each other as good; they do not contemplate evil acts. They may feel they are driven by a sense of offended righteousness. They would argue that is was a sense of justice that motivated them to join with their neighbors in dispensing rough justice. Where others see that what they are doing is evil, they themselves see no evil in their actions.

By not recognizing that we have our own capacity for evil we are ripe to be overtaken by it.

What do you think? Is evil real? If so, how is it overcome?

*the above is paraphrased from The Good Book by Peter Gomes*

 

[Ulver]

The goal is to be Beyond Good & Evil.

 

[michel]

The problem is not that 'bad people do bad things,' but that good people do bad things.

Why?

Is knowledge the answer? If we know right from wrong can we be good? Will overcoming ignorance make us good and lead us to peace and harmony?

OR...is the opposite true?

What do you think of this summation:

1. Evil is real
2. The good are not as smart as they think they are.
3. The good need all the help they can get; one cannot be good on one's own.

This suggests that we are 'morally weak,' and is illustrated by the lynch mob. They see themselves and each other as good; they do not contemplate evil acts. They may feel they are driven by a sense of offended righteousness. They would argue that is was a sense of justice that motivated them to join with their neighbors in dispensing rough justice. Where others see that what they are doing is evil, they themselves see no evil in their actions.

By not recognizing that we have our own capacity for evil we are ripe to be overtaken by it.

What do you think? Is evil real? If so, how is it overcome?

*the above is paraphrased from The Good Book by Peter Gomes*

I have various comments to make about your 'statements';(I hope you don't mind)

The problem is not that 'bad people do bad things,' but that good people do bad things.

I believe that to be false; no one is either good, nor bad

Is knowledge the answer? If we know right from wrong can we be good? Will overcoming ignorance make us good and lead us to peace and harmony?

Knowledge is a tool (not an answer); knowledge gives one the wisdom and experience to know what would be a good act, or a bad act. The choice then of which to do is ours.

1. Evil is real
2. The good are not as smart as they think they are.
3. The good need all the help they can get; one cannot be good on one's own.

Unfortunately (IMO) those three are invalidated because of your incorrect (as I see it) definitions above.

The online etimology Dictionary describes evil as :-
O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious," from P.Gmc. *ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, giving the word an original sense of "uppity, overreaching bounds" which slowly worsened. "In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel.

I would contend that evil therefore is not an entity, but a motive (dependent on someone's choice - after consideration, on what to do)

This suggests that we are 'morally weak,' and is illustrated by the lynch mob. They see themselves and each other as good; they do not contemplate evil acts. They may feel they are driven by a sense of offended righteousness. They would argue that is was a sense of justice that motivated them to join with their neighbors in dispensing rough justice. Where others see that what they are doing is evil, they themselves see no evil in their actions.

We can be 'choice'-weak; our morality is determined by what we believe (and I would contend that this applies to everyone except the psychotic) - people who do an 'evil deed' do so knowingly; the knowledge of that comes from their conscience.

how can evil acts be overcome?

(obviously I have had to amend the question) By having love as the prime motivator of all our actions. (which is the basic Christian concept - although it is an ideal - unfortunately)

 

[doppelganger]

This suggests that we are 'morally weak,' and is illustrated by the lynch mob. They see themselves and each other as good; they do not contemplate evil acts. They may feel they are driven by a sense of offended righteousness. They would argue that is was a sense of justice that motivated them to join with their neighbors in dispensing rough justice. Where others see that what they are doing is evil, they themselves see no evil in their actions.

We are specifically talking about human "evil," right? I don't think we are morally weak. I think we are weak, therefore we need morality. Morality is a sign of the decline of life. Morality is also a means of capturing the minds of people and using their own will against them.

People surrender their life for the good of groups. Language and identity operate on anxiety and create an impulsive response to death to judge things "good" and "evil." The greatest atrocities to which we have been subjected were all justified as "good" by the people doing them. And it doesn't take much: just a large group of people who are only partially aware of how they can be manipulated by symbolic language and images and a leader or group of leaders with lust for power.

The German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was killed by the Nazis on the eve of the fall of Berlin for his involvement in the Anwher bomb plot to kill Hitler, wrote in Letters and Papers From Prison:

If we look more closely, we see that any violent display of power, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind; indeed this seems to be a psychological and sociological law: the power of some needs the folly of others. It is not that certain human capacities, intellectual capacities for instance, become stunted or destroyed, but rather that the upsurge of power makes such an overwhelming impression that men are deprived of the independent judgment, and - more or less unconsciously - give up trying to assess the new state of affairs for themselves.

The fact that the fool is often stubborn must not mislead us into thinking that he is independent. One feels in fact, when talking to him, that one is dealing, not with the man himself, but with slogans, catchwords, and and the like, which have taken hold of him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, his very nature is being misused and exploited. Having thus become a passive instrument, the fool will be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil.

One must be watchful about the processes of language to maintain independence of thought and will and avoid becoming part of the trap of moral reasoning from which group "evil" springs.

Very few people will do so, however. Narrow is the gate and difficult is the path that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[Ulver]

I think doppelgänger touched on what I said.

Good and Evil are words that change all too often. It's just a matter of what people "think" as one or the other. These are not concrete things. Therefore we must move beyond them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you think of this summation:

1. Evil is real
2. The good are not as smart as they think they are.
3. The good need all the help they can get; one cannot be good on one's own.

1. Evil is real
   This is, either, a meaningless statement, reification, or an unnecessary appeal to the supernatural.
2. The good are not as smart as they think they are.
   Perhaps, although I might be more likely to accept such a condescending claim if limited, for example, to "good Episcopalians".
3. The good need all the help they can get; one cannot be good on one's own.
   That is a pathetic cop-out, not to mention an implicit ad hominem attack on nontheists.

 

[Ðanisty]

Personally, I don't think evil is the opposite of good. Bad is the opposite of good and evil is obviously worse than bad. So what is the opposite of evil? I haven't been able to come up with a word for it...it must be something that is better than good. It can't be best though...because best is the opposite of worst. I'm not sure that evil has an opposite.

 

[lunamoth]

I have various comments to make about your 'statements';(I hope you don't mind)

Of course not. I'm delighted that you gave some thought to my questions.

I believe that to be false; no one is either good, nor bad

I agree with this. But I'm trying to get at the idea that most (all?) of us fail at times to choose loving-kindness, the 'skilled' path. In a small instance we know we should not have the second piece of cake or raid the Halloween candy stash, we should hold our tongue when provoked. In the larger instance we may actually be blind to the fact that what we believe to be justice is actually very wrong (ie, the lynch mob). I would say that the people in lynch mob are doing something evil. I can't say that if I were one of the white townspeople in the south that I know I would be able to resist that evil. I like to think that I would...but not being there....how can I be sure.

Knowledge is a tool (not an answer); knowledge gives one the wisdom and experience to know what would be a good act, or a bad act. The choice then of which to do is ours.

I agree.

Unfortunately (IMO) those three are invalidated because of your incorrect (as I see it) definitions above.

I don't believe that I gave any definitions.

The online etimology Dictionary describes evil as :-
O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious," from P.Gmc. *ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, giving the word an original sense of "uppity, overreaching bounds" which slowly worsened. "In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel.

I would contend that evil therefore is not an entity, but a motive (dependent on someone's choice - after consideration, on what to do)

I was not suggesting that evil is an entity. I am asking if evil is real and if so how do we overcome it?

We can be 'choice'-weak; our morality is determined by what we believe (and I would contend that this applies to everyone except the psychotic) - people who do an 'evil deed' do so knowingly; the knowledge of that comes from their conscience.

The choices we make are influenced by what we believe, and largely by the values of our society. But is it evil when we knowingly make a choice that we know is wrong...such as not holding our tongue when we've been hurt by another's words and instead lashing back with more hurtful words? (to select one of my own common weaknesses ).

And, as doppelganger gets to below, what about the evils that are done in the name of 'good?'

(obviously I have had to amend the question) By having love as the prime motivator of all our actions. (which is the basic Christian concept - although it is an ideal - unfortunately)

I agree.

Thank you for your post,
luna

 

[lunamoth]

We are specifically talking about human "evil," right? I don't think we are morally weak. I think we are weak, therefore we need morality. Morality is a sign of the decline of life. Morality is also a means of capturing the minds of people and using their own will against them.

I would say that the only form of evil is human evil. A tsunami is destructive and causes much suffering, but it does not have will and choice.

In what way, then, are we weak? Because we have discussed this before I know what you mean when you say that morality is a sign of the decline of life and I can agree. But when I first heard this concept I was very confused by it because I automatically substituted the idea of loving-kindess/compassionate action toward others for the word 'morality.' Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that there is no evil and the existence of the concept of evil is itself the source of suffering?

People surrender their life for the good of groups.

We are communal and it is impossible to separate our good from the good of our group for all circumstances. Different groups lean more one way or another i.e., the individualism of the US vs. the communal (not political Communistic) nature or China. Individualism in the US has not prevented atrocities such as witch trials and lynch mobs.

Language and identity operate on anxiety and create an impulsive response to death to judge things "good" and "evil." The greatest atrocities to which we have been subjected were all justified as "good" by the people doing them. And it doesn't take much: just a large group of people who are only partially aware of how they can be manipulated by symbolic language and images and a leader or group of leaders with lust for power.

Yes, this is what I'm asking about. You call them atrocities, which is the same as calling them evil. Willfully causing suffering in others for the good of oneself or one's group. The worst evils have been done in the name of good and God by the church, by other religions. Wouldn't you call burning heretics evil?

One must be watchful about the processes of language to maintain independence of thought and will and avoid becoming part of the trap of moral reasoning from which group "evil" springs.

Just to highlight this...your answer is that this is the way to overcome evil.

Very few people will do so, however. Narrow is the gate and difficult is the path that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Yes, it is difficult.

luna

 

[doppelganger]

I would say that the only form of evil is human evil. A tsunami is destructive and causes much suffering, but it does not have will and choice.

Unless I project a will and a choice into it. Then it does have a will and a choice.

In what way, then, are we weak? Because we have discussed this before I know what you mean when you say that morality is a sign of the decline of life and I can agree. But when I first heard this concept I was very confused by it because I automatically substituted the idea of loving-kindess/compassionate action toward others for the word 'morality.'

Many people don't make that substitution. And loving-kindness/compassion aren't aspects of doing. They are aspects of being and awareness. The doing is incidental.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that there is no evil and the existence of the concept of evil is itself the source of suffering?

In part. So, too, is the concept of "good."

We are communal and it is impossible to separate our good from the good of our group for all circumstances. Different groups lean more one way or another i.e., the individualism of the US vs. the communal (not political Communistic) nature or China. Individualism in the US has not prevented atrocities such as witch trials and lynch mobs.

I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion. Could you elaborate, please?

Yes, this is what I'm asking about. You call them atrocities, which is the same as calling them evil.

Not to me it isn't, though I accept that these two symbols may be the same for you.

Willfully causing suffering in others for the good of oneself or one's group. The worst evils have been done in the name of good and God by the church, by other religions. Wouldn't you call burning heretics evil?

I'd call it expected. And also saddening, when I think of the horror and suffering to which those people were subjected. My judgment of such acts isn't going to undo that suffering or bring the dead back to life to care for the parentless children, or undo the scars that will become the source of tomorrow's atrocities.

Just to highlight this...your answer is that this is the way to overcome evil.

No. This is the way not to participate in creating an atrocity while contemporaneously calling it "good."

 

[lunamoth]

Personally, I don't think evil is the opposite of good. Bad is the opposite of good and evil is obviously worse than bad. So what is the opposite of evil? I haven't been able to come up with a word for it...it must be something that is better than good. It can't be best though...because best is the opposite of worst. I'm not sure that evil has an opposite.

Hi Danisty,

One way of looking at it that evil is the lack of something, such as the lack of loving-kindness or compassionate action, rather than the opposite of something. But I'm not so sure this is adequate in the example of the lynch mob, and in the cases or people hurting others in the name of good and justice.

I can't help but to observe some things in this world can call them evil. Is the rape of a child simply the lack of loving-kindness?

What is evil and why does it persist? I'm not giving an answer...just interested in hearing what others think about this.

Thanks,
luna

 

[michel]

Of course not. I'm delighted that you gave some thought to my questions.

I agree with this. But I'm trying to get at the idea that most (all?) of us fail at times to choose loving-kindness, the 'skilled' path. In a small instance we know we should not have the second piece of cake or raid the Halloween candy stash, we should hold our tongue when provoked. In the larger instance we may actually be blind to the fact that what we believe to be justice is actually very wrong (ie, the lynch mob). I would say that the people in lynch mob are doing something evil. I can't say that if I were one of the white townspeople in the south that I know I would be able to resist that evil. I like to think that I would...but not being there....how can I be sure.

I don't believe that I gave any definitions.

Sorry, I was going by:-
What do you think of this summation:

1. Evil is real
2. The good are not as smart as they think they are.
3. The good need all the help they can get; one cannot be good on one's own.

I was not suggesting that evil is an entity. I am asking if evil is real and if so how do we overcome it?

if evil is real but not an entity ? Wow, I am trying to wrap that around my pea-sized brain........Evil (as in Evil thoughts and intentions) are real, while those thoughts are being thought.........does that make sense?

The choices we make are influenced by what we believe, and largely by the values of our society. But is it evil when we knowingly make a choice that we know is wrong...such as not holding our tongue when we've been hurt by another's words and instead lashing back with more hurtful words? (to select one of my own common weaknesses ).

O.K, yes, I agree

And, as doppelganger gets to below, what about the evils that are done in the name of 'good?'

I would rate those the same way as evil actions done by a psychotic; as long as the intent was not evil, then I would say the intent (therefore good) makes the deed Good in God's Eyes.

Thank you for your post,
luna

And thanks for your thread!

 

[Callous]

I have various comments to make about your 'statements';(I hope you don't mind)

I believe that to be false; no one is either good, nor bad

Knowledge is a tool (not an answer); knowledge gives one the wisdom and experience to know what would be a good act, or a bad act. The choice then of which to do is ours.

Unfortunately (IMO) those three are invalidated because of your incorrect (as I see it) definitions above.

The online etimology Dictionary describes evil as :-
O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious," from P.Gmc. *ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, giving the word an original sense of "uppity, overreaching bounds" which slowly worsened. "In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel.

I would contend that evil therefore is not an entity, but a motive (dependent on someone's choice - after consideration, on what to do)

We can be 'choice'-weak; our morality is determined by what we believe (and I would contend that this applies to everyone except the psychotic) - people who do an 'evil deed' do so knowingly; the knowledge of that comes from their conscience.
(obviously I have had to amend the question) By having love as the prime motivator of all our actions. (which is the basic Christian concept - although it is an ideal - unfortunately)

Michel for the most part I agree with what you are saying
My belief is that best compared to electrical theory. Positive and negative charges where both are required to exist. Neither being good or bad just requiring each other.

 

[Halcyon]

What do you think of this summation:

1. Evil is real
2. The good are not as smart as they think they are.
3. The good need all the help they can get; one cannot be good on one's own.

I disagree with all three.

1. Evil isn't real, there are no particles of evil. Evil is a subjective opinion of ones own, or anothers actions/thoughts.
For example, a man might help his elderly mother to die sooner than her brain cancer would naturally kill her, at her expressed wish. Some people would consider the act evil, others would consider it good.
Personally, i think evil as a term covers any thoughts or actions that are motivated by hate, greed, jealously, anger or malice and vengence. Also, actions that hurt others for our own entertainment i would see as evil. But of course, the person commiting such deeds may not consider themselves evil - and that's what makes it subjective. Nevertheless, i think objective analysis of actions motivated by hate would universally classify them as evil actions.

2. Being good and being smart are in no way linked. Being nice to other people, showing love and compassion aren't reliant upon intelligence.

3. I totally disagree with this statement. I think the only person who can make you a good and pleasant human being, is yourself.

This suggests that we are 'morally weak,' and is illustrated by the lynch mob. They see themselves and each other as good; they do not contemplate evil acts. They may feel they are driven by a sense of offended righteousness. They would argue that is was a sense of justice that motivated them to join with their neighbors in dispensing rough justice. Where others see that what they are doing is evil, they themselves see no evil in their actions.

I would say many people are like this, but i wouldn't say all people are like this and i think it is due to an underdeveloped understanding of empathy rather than moral weakness. I also see human society giving double standards which can warp a persons sense of right and wrong;
Vengence is often disguised as justice in our western legal systems. More and more people are seeking vengence for the slightest wrong done to them, instead of simply forgiving and letting go of the anger.
Rightousness is for some reason seen as a good thing too, people get it into their heads that they are the "good guys" and they're fighting the "bads guys". This skewed view of the world mixed with underdeveloped empathy for other huyman beings and animals is what causes things like lynch mobs.

By not recognizing that we have our own capacity for evil we are ripe to be overtaken by it.

I agree with this entirely.

What do you think? Is evil real? If so, how is it overcome?

I think evil is overcome by nurturing compassion and empathy for other human beings. Without the ability to put yourself in the place of another, you can never "Do unto others as you would want done unto you", because it wouldn't even cross your mind.
Being selfish is probably the origin of evil.

 

[lunamoth]

Unless I project a will and a choice into it. Then it does have a will and a choice.

I was puzzled by this until I thought of Fred Phelps.

Many people don't make that substitution. And loving-kindness/compassion aren't aspects of doing. They are aspects of being and awareness. The doing is incidental.

My dilemma is that even with awareness of loving-kindness as the way I am weak when it comes to choosing the compassionate action. On a small scale I self-justify. But basically I just choose to do what I want for self-gratification. On a large scale, a group scale as you point out, the mob also justifies its actions. As Gomes points out in his book, the horror of Nazi Germany was not that the people were ignorant brutes, but that they represented the height of civilization and for the most part the people did not see what was going on as evil. And if it is just a few people in power who are manipulating the rest...what is the explanation of that? Illness (actually, that is an answer I gravitate toward). Can we write all evil off as physiological and mental illness?

In part. So, too, is the concept of "good."

Actually, Gomes makes many of the same points you have in the past about the meaning of the Fall. But he does not hesitate to use the words good and evil. Here's a bit:

The story is not about sex or lust or "parts of shame," no matter how titillated Augustine was by the conviction that it was. It is about limitatins, indeed, about the ambiguity of knowledge. The fact that they knw that they were naked means that they saw themselves for the first time as they were, and that knowledge, contrary to the modern notin the "knowledge is power," made them realize with their first infusion of knowledge just how weak and vulnerable they now were and had been. It was not knowledge that had protected them from the blandishments of the serpent, but ignorance that had preserved their innocence. Now they knew all, but their knowledge was not a blessing, it was a curse; and hence, as John Habgood says, "All knowledge is ambiguous." (p. 261, The Good Book)

I'm not sure how this relates to the discussion. Could you elaborate, please?

Sorry, you are right. Nevermind.

Not to me it isn't, though I accept that these two symbols may be the same for you.

OK; I think I see. I include a judgment when I use the word evil.

I'd call it expected. And also saddening, when I think of the horror and suffering to which those people were subjected. My judgment of such acts isn't going to undo that suffering or bring the dead back to life to care for the parentless children, or undo the scars that will become the source of tomorrow's atrocities.

But don't we have to make judgements for ourselves about what to do and think? Even if that judgement is to recognize the group moral influence and language in order to think for ourselves?

No. This is the way not to participate in creating an atrocity while contemporaneously calling it "good."

I think I understand your point.

luna

 

[doppelganger]

The story is not about sex or lust or "parts of shame," no matter how titillated Augustine was by the conviction that it was. It is about limitatins, indeed, about the ambiguity of knowledge. The fact that they knw that they were naked means that they saw themselves for the first time as they were, and that knowledge, contrary to the modern notin the "knowledge is power," made them realize with their first infusion of knowledge just how weak and vulnerable they now were and had been. It was not knowledge that had protected them from the blandishments of the serpent, but ignorance that had preserved their innocence. Now they knew all, but their knowledge was not a blessing, it was a curse; and hence, as John Habgood says, "All knowledge is ambiguous." (p. 261, The Good Book)

Spinoza arrived there long before either Gomes or I did. From his Ethics:

E4 P68

If men were born free, they would, so long as they remained free, form no conception of good and evil.

Notes: This, and other matters which we have already proved, seem to have been signified by Moses in the history of the first man. For in that narrative no other power of God is conceived, save that whereby he created man, that is the power wherewith he provided solely for man's advantage; it is stated that God forbade man, being free, to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that, as soon as man should have eaten of it, he would straightway fear death rather than desire to live. Further, it is written that when man had found a wife, who was in entire harmony with his nature, he knew that there could be nothing in nature which could be more useful to him; but that after he believed the beasts to be like himself, he straightway began to imitate their emotions, and to lose his freedom; this freedom was afterwards recovered by the patriarchs, led by the spirit of Christ; that is, by the idea of God, whereon alone it depends, that man may be free, and desire for others the good which he desires for himself, as we have shown above.

 

[lunamoth]

I disagree with all three.

1. Evil isn't real, there are no particles of evil. Evil is a subjective opinion of ones own, or anothers actions/thoughts.

Hi Hal, thank you for your responses. I'm not trying to suggest that evil is an entity, although that is one option. I compare it to love. Is love real? If so, then what is it? If love can be considered a power or force, then can evil be equally considered a power or force. If love is a 'way of being' (as I happen to think it is), then can evil be a 'way of being?'

For example, a man might help his elderly mother to die sooner than her brain cancer would naturally kill her, at her expressed wish. Some people would consider the act evil, others would consider it good.

I agree that there is a lot of ambiguity in what we consider good and bad. Reminds me a a story in my daughter's book Zen Shorts about considering something good or bad fortune (i.e., a broken leg that in the end keeps a person out of forced military service).

Personally, i think evil as a term covers any thoughts or actions that are motivated by hate, greed, jealously, anger or malice and vengence. Also, actions that hurt others for our own entertainment i would see as evil.

I would too. But why is this not 'real?'

2. Being good and being smart are in no way linked. Being nice to other people, showing love and compassion aren't reliant upon intelligence.

I agree. I think what the author of these statements was trying to point out is that we can't always trust ourselves to know right from wrong, perhaps because of the subjective nature of evil.

3. I totally disagree with this statement. I think the only person who can make you a good and pleasant human being, is yourself.

Personally I see a need for outside assistance with this, but not necessarily from a supernatural source. I need others to teach me, love me, support me. But yes, the ultimate choices we make are our own.

I would say many people are like this, but i wouldn't say all people are like this and i think it is due to an underdeveloped understanding of empathy rather than moral weakness. I also see human society giving double standards which can warp a persons sense of right and wrong;
Vengence is often disguised as justice in our western legal systems. More and more people are seeking vengence for the slightest wrong done to them, instead of simply forgiving and letting go of the anger.
Rightousness is for some reason seen as a good thing too, people get it into their heads that they are the "good guys" and they're fighting the "bads guys". This skewed view of the world mixed with underdeveloped empathy for other huyman beings and animals is what causes things like lynch mobs.

I agree with this assessment.

I think evil is overcome by nurturing compassion and empathy for other human beings. Without the ability to put yourself in the place of another, you can never "Do unto others as you would want done unto you", because it wouldn't even cross your mind.
Being selfish is probably the origin of evil.

Good points. Thank you.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

Spinoza arrived there long before either Gomes or I did. From his Ethics:

I like that quote. Thank you.

luna

 

[Random]

Evil is real, as real as suffering is.

 

[Ðanisty]

Hi Danisty,

One way of looking at it that evil is the lack of something, such as the lack of loving-kindness or compassionate action, rather than the opposite of something. But I'm not so sure this is adequate in the example of the lynch mob, and in the cases or people hurting others in the name of good and justice.

I can't help but to observe some things in this world can call them evil. Is the rape of a child simply the lack of loving-kindness?

What is evil and why does it persist? I'm not giving an answer...just interested in hearing what others think about this.

Thanks,
luna

The funny thing is, I don't really have a problem conceptualizing what evil is. I can think of several things right now that I consider evil. It's just that it doesn't seem to have an equal, yet opposite force. I can't think of anything that is as good as evil is bad. Am I making any sense at all? For instance, my husband's grandmother was evil...I have no doubt about that and if you want I can give you details as to why I feel this way. I can think of no person who is good enough to right the wrong she's done and I cannot think of a word that would describe such a person either. What is a word for something as powerful as evil, but the antithesis of evil? Good just isn't good enough.