What evil is

[Estro Felino]

Philisophically speaking, so many philosophers have tried to give an objective definition of what evil is.

The existence or not of a God as emblem of Supreme Good is irrelevant.
Even so many atheists are able to acknowledge there is a more or less big separation between evil and good.

Evil is the absence of empathy.
It is the absence of Good.

George Soros was interviewed many years ago.
When the interviewer contested him that his financial speculations caused so much destruction and suffering in certain countries, he replied, quote:"""" I am there to make money, basically. cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.""""

Mesdames et messieurs, that is what Evil is.

 

[Estro Felino]

With that grinning, with a devilish coldness...
One cannot believe how horrible Evil can be.

 

[Audie]

Philisophically speaking, so many philosophers have tried to give an objective definition of what evil is.

The existence or not of a God as emblem of Supreme Good is irrelevant.
Even so many atheists are able to acknowledge there is a more or less big separation between evil and good.

Evil is the absence of empathy.
It is the absence of Good.

George Soros was interviewed many years ago.
When the interviewer contested him that his financial speculations caused so much destruction and suffering in certain countries, he replied, quote:"""" I am there to make money, basically. cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.""""

Mesdames et messieurs, that is what Evil is.

" Even" atheists.
Actually, that is not so.
We are considerably better at it.

 

[PureX]

The difficulty is the requirement of objectivity, because we humans are mostly incapable of it.

Logically, to put evil in objective, existential terms, it would be an inclination to act contrary to the continuance of the balance, flow, and variety of existence. And fortunately or unfortunately, so far as we know, humans are the only existential expressions capable of such a willful and active intent. Though, it might be argued that black holes exhibit such an actual intent.

Subjectively, of course, we might recognize evil as "malevolent intent", or "willful nihilism". The will to destroy for the sake of it. And again, that seems to be exclusive to humans.

 

[Kooky]

There is no such thing as "evil", in my opinion. There are acts that are harmful to people, but I don't believe that there is a metaphysical quality to that harm.

 

[Estro Felino]

Subjectively, of course, we might recognize evil as "malevolent intent", or "willful nihilism". The will to destroy for the sake of it.

There is willingness.

He does not say "I commit those actions because I want those consequences", that is true.

But he says : " I do know my actions might cause destructions and suffering, but I will ignore them"...an elegant way to say " I couldnt care less".

I am a jurist and in penal science it is called dolus eventualis , and it is equivalent to full willingness.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think of evil as "causing harm to others." This can happen intentionally or unintentionally...the scale or degree of harm can vary as well...in my opinion...

 

[Estro Felino]

There is no such thing as "evil", in my opinion. There are acts that are harmful to people, but I don't believe that there is a metaphysical quality to that harm.

So there is neither Good nor Evil, right?

 

[AlexanderG]

" Even" atheists.
Actually, that is not so.
We are considerably better at it.

Right, it's not atheists that feel compelled to explain why slavery, genocide, and drowning toddlers is actually good because there must have been morally sufficient reasons, or how torturing someone infinitely for any finite crime could be perfectly good, etc. We are free to explore moral ideas without any unquestionable dogma getting in the way, and arrive at the place our journey naturally leads.

I've never heard a good argument for why "evil" is anything more than something we really really don't like. I've seen no evidence that it's more than a category of thought in our brains. I'm about 60%-40% on morality being subjective as opposed to objective, but I've heard a few good models of objective morality proposed, which would be confirmable with the right evidence.

And you should be careful what your read about Soros. There are many false ideas, quotes, and memes circulating about him on the internet. Your quote is accurate, from what I can tell, but here are two more quotes from George Soros that might contextualize yours:

"I wish I could write a book that will be read for as long as our civilization lasts... I would value it much more highly than any business success if I could contribute to an understanding of the world in which we live or, better yet, if I could help to preserve the economic and political system that has allowed me to flourish as a participant."

"It's more difficult, you know, to bring about positive change than it is to make money. It's much easier to make money, because it's a much easier way to measure success — the bottom line. When it comes to social consequences, they've got all different people acting in different ways, very difficult to even have a proper criterion of success. So, it's a difficult task. Why not use an entrepreneurial, rather than a bureaucratic, approach. As long as people genuinely care for the people they're trying to help, they can actually do a lot of good."​

 

[Audie]

So there is neither Good nor Evil, right?

Maybe the problem is in using it as a noun
rather than an adjective.

 

[syo]

Humans are evil because they are dumb.

 

[Estro Felino]

And you should be careful what your read about Soros. There are many false ideas, quotes, and memes circulating about him on the internet. Your quote is accurate, from what I can tell, but here are two more quotes from George Soros that might contextualize yours:

"I wish I could write a book that will be read for as long as our civilization lasts... I would value it much more highly than any business success if I could contribute to an understanding of the world in which we live or, better yet, if I could help to preserve the economic and political system that has allowed me to flourish as a participant."

"It's more difficult, you know, to bring about positive change than it is to make money. It's much easier to make money, because it's a much easier way to measure success — the bottom line. When it comes to social consequences, they've got all different people acting in different ways, very difficult to even have a proper criterion of success. So, it's a difficult task. Why not use an entrepreneurial, rather than a bureaucratic, approach. As long as people genuinely care for the people they're trying to help, they can actually do a lot of good."​

I am sorry but there is no justification or way out.

In that interview he acknowledges that he is very proud of his success.
That he is aware that he made money at cost of people's poverty. And suffering.
Not willingly, of course.
But he basically does not care.

This carelessness scares me horribly.
It is the total absence of empathy towards the neighbor.

As for the quotes you added, he does not change the substance.
He confirms that the social consequences are a collateral damage of neo-liberism.
That makes certain people incredibly rich and others incredibly poor.

The monetary system is a cycle, a circle. The money cannot end up just in few people's pockets.
Because the rest of the people will be left without it.

 

[viole]

It is the absence of Good.

Yes. And Good is the absence of Evil.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

George Soros was interviewed many years ago.
When the interviewer contested him that his financial speculations caused so much destruction and suffering in certain countries, he replied, quote:"""" I am there to make money, basically. cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.""""

Mesdames et messieurs, that is what Evil is.

That is what capitalism is. There are vastly more serious instances of what you call evil.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nimos]

Philisophically speaking, so many philosophers have tried to give an objective definition of what evil is.

I would think that this is due to evil simply being to unspecific, sort of like trying to describe what a color is. Even if you can talk about light and physics and compare it to something else. Explaining what it is and isn't, is really damn difficult if it is going to make sense. And I even think its easier to define what a color is because it at least has some physical properties

 

[Estro Felino]

I would think that this is due to evil simply being to unspecific, sort of like trying to describe what a color is. Even if you can talk about light and physics and compare it to something else. Explaining what it is and isn't, is really damn difficult if it is going to make sense. And I even think its easier to define what a color is because it at least has some physical properties

This is a very interesting observation.
Philosophy has limits, it is true.

In my opinion, we have had great philosophers in the 19th and in the early 20th centuries that tried to speak of the moral question, trying to be as objective as possible.

Nietzsche's testament is very interesting too.
His Jenseits von Gut und Böse, is a prophecy of neo-liberism.
Which I define destructive in its blind mercifulness and carelessness.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is what capitalism is. There are vastly more serious instances of what you call evil.

Ciao

- viole

To be precise, it is neo-liberism the term that perfectly describes this economics stream.
A great economist, Ilaria Bifarini wrote many books about it.

Btw...what are these "instances"?

 

[Nimos]

This is a very interesting observation.
Philosophy has limits, it is true.

In my opinion, we have had great philosophers in the 19th and in the early 20th centuries that tried to speak of the moral question, trying to be as objective as possible.

Nietzsche's testament is very interesting too.
His Jenseits von Gut und Böse, is a prophecy of neo-liberism.
Which I define destructive in its blind mercifulness and carelessness.

But I think evil run into two issues.

1. Its a description for something else, which people can't agree on what is.
2. Its not objective, but subjective

I know people would like to say that it is objectively wrong to kill and torture children or whatever. But I think the truth is that it is not. It is simply agreed upon as being under the term of evil, but as we have seen in history, people have sacrificed children as well as adults, because they were convinced that it were for the greater good, so were they objectively evil people or simply greatly mistaken?

 

[viole]

To be precise, it is neo-liberism the term that perfectly describes this economics stream.
A great economist, Ilaria Bifarini wrote mamy books about it.

Btw...what are these "instances"?

Well, the holocaust, for instance.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, the holocaust, for instance.

Ciao

- viole

Right. This is a much more serious example.
In which there is deliberate and willful desire to do evil.
There is a great Polish philosopher who suggests us to read De Sade, to understand how sadism is really a stream of thought put into action by certain élites.
And during the Nazi period it manifested itself in all its bestiality and blind brutality.