What evil is

[Estro Felino]

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?

Many philosophers are also psychiatrists and study thr neurological implications of empathy.

Empathy has been scientifically proved as something that does happen.
It develops when the right lobe and left lobe of the brain trade information continuously.
So just think of what happens if the two lobes cannot communicate.

 

[Nimos]

Many philosophers are also psychiatrists and study thr neurological implications of empathy.

Empathy has been scientifically proved as something that does happen.
It develops when the right lobe and left lobe of the brain trade information continuously.
So just think of what happens if the two lobes cannot communicate.

I can understand that a lot of things or conditions etc. can lead someone to do bad things. But if a person suffers from a biological or mental conditions, which is not their own fault and they do something bad, is it then fair to refer to them as evil? And I think this is where things gets muddy right. What does it mean to be objectively evil?

If one believe that God is the final judge and therefore is the one deciding what is objectively right and wrong, would he punish someone for this, when its not really their fault? What would that make God?

So if there is some objective good and evil out there and someone does something which is not their fault, clearly they should not be referred to as evil, but might as well be called good, despite them having done something terrible. But that causes issues with the whole idea of an afterlife, because obviously those that were wronged and I mean ALL of them including family and friends would have to forgive this person, or set God would have to erase the memory of everyone. But that raises a **** load of other issues, like this life having no meaning at all, as you wouldn't remember anyone or anything in the afterlife, so who cares what you do now.

Even if we could agree on there being objective good and evil, it surely doesn't solve a lot of other issues that would come with it.

 

[Estro Felino]

I can understand that a lot of things or conditions etc. can lead someone to do bad things. But if a person suffers from a biological or mental conditions, which is not their own fault and they do something bad, is it then fair to refer to them as evil? And I think this is where things gets muddy right. What does it mean to be objectively evil?

If one believe that God is the final judge and therefore is the one deciding what is objectively right and wrong, would he punish someone for this, when its not really their fault? What would that make God?

So if there is some objective good and evil out there and someone does something which is not their fault, clearly they should not be referred to as evil, but might as well be called good, despite them having done something terrible. But that causes issues with the whole idea of an afterlife, because obviously those that were wronged and I mean ALL of them including family and friends would have to forgive this person, or set God would have to erase the memory of everyone. But that raises a **** load of other issues, like this life having no meaning at all, as you wouldn't remember anyone or anything in the afterlife, so who cares what you do now.

Even if we could agree on there being objective good and evil, it surely doesn't solve a lot of other issues that would come with it.

Theologically, this is absolutely essential to study and to deepen.
Because science does show that we are all different neurologically and that it is what makes us different, and also unique.

Nevertheless, even the penal science is trying to evolve itself, on the basis of the newest discoveries.

 

[MyM]

If one believes in their Creator and follows his guidelines, then one knows there is good and evil.

There are devil worshippers, evil dark cults that worship the devil, those who practice sorcery etc. and you will in turn get evil stemming from them.

Evil was done and will stay according to Islam until the day of judgement where every man will be accountable for their own actions-even the unseen.

 

[stvdv]

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.

Each human is responsible for his actions and will reap the consequences thereof (called karma, action...reaction)
IF the social consequences are coincidentally good THEN Soros actions are good
BUT as his goal is to make money it is safe to conclude that his actions are not all good

George Soros says "I cannot .... look at the social consequences of what I do".
This proves that he knows exactly what the consequences are and is to scared to look at them OR he is blind"

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

I don't disagree, however empathy can be misused in crazy ways. It can be something that is all in the head and not be tested, and maybe what is in the head does not work in the real world. I want to give some delicious soup to my friend, but if I don't know what I am doing the soup I make will still not be delicious. So I have with empathy made terrible soup and done my friend a wrong.

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.

On this my thought is there isn't an objective definition to "Good or evil" but an algorithmic answer to the question "How can we decide what to treat as good or as evil?" Determining good from evil is a practice, and it has to be determined in our spheres of influence: legal, personal, business, craft, cooking and whatever sphere. You taste the soup, and if it needs salt you add salt. You have to experiment, sometimes; but generally you start with what people before you have been doing. Then you sample and make an adjustment if people are not happy. Then you know good from evil for that moment. If things change you have to adjust.

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.""""

I don't know much about him, but a stoic point of view is that whatever he is doing it is what he thinks is best and good. In his thoughts his actions are righteous, so telling him that he is evil will not be the way forward. What is his real problem? Is he crazy and rich? Is he hiding the truth of something embarrassing and rotting inside? Does he perceive people as friendly or as threatening? Is he X, Y or Z ? What makes him tick? I know none of these things.

 

[Kooky]

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.

What is it with authoritarian xenophobes all across the world constantly obsessing over George Soros of all people?
Is it because he opposes the Koch brothers, their favorite financiers, or because Victor Orbán still has beef with him over his former university in Budapest?

 

[Kooky]

George Soros says "I cannot .... look at the social consequences of what I do".
This proves that he knows exactly what the consequences are and is to scared to look at them OR he is blind"

Can you look at all the social consequences of what you do? Have you ever done so in detail?
What was your conclusion from these observations?

I remember watching The Good Place, a comedy series about the afterlife and its philosophical implications (yes, really), and one of the takeaways of that show that I really vibed with was that our world has become so complex in the way we interact with global chains of trade, hegemonic corporations, and the massive amounts of oppression and neglect that surrounds these issues, that it has become nearly impossible to simply avoid doing things that ultimately harm someone, somewhere.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know much about him, but a stoic point of view is that whatever he is doing it is what he thinks is best and good. In his thoughts his actions are righteous, so telling him that he is evil will not be the way forward. What is his real problem? Is he crazy and rich? Is he hiding the truth of something embarrassing and rotting inside? Does he perceive people as friendly or as threatening? Is he X, Y or Z ? What makes him tick? I know none of these things.

I did not call him evil, though.


I quoted his speech. His words sum up what Evil is.
It is the ideology that is bad. But I am not saying that the person is necessarily bad.

So...this thread is not about a person.
It is about the definition of evil...objectively.

 

[Estro Felino]

Can you look at all the social consequences of what you do? Have you ever done so in detail?
What was your conclusion from these observations?

I remember watching The Good Place, a comedy series about the afterlife and its philosophical implications (yes, really), and one of the takeaways of that show that I really vibed with was that our world has become so complex in the way we interact with global chains of trade, hegemonic corporations, and the massive amounts of oppression and neglect that surrounds these issues, that it has become nearly impossible to simply avoid doing things that ultimately harm someone, somewhere.

Yes...it is absolutely possible.
The great philosopher Kierkegaard (one of my favorites) affirmed that life is an Either/Or, it is a restless decision between options.
We decide every second in our life, so we can choose A) or B) as decision. For instance, A) implies harming others (indirectly); B) implies a renouncing to something but also not harming others.
Choose. A) or B).
Thus spoke Kierkegaard

 

[Estro Felino]

What is it with authoritarian xenophobes all across the world constantly obsessing over George Soros of all people?
Is it because he opposes the Koch brothers, their favorite financiers, or because Victor Orbán still has beef with him over his former university in Budapest?

Philosophy thread.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I did not call him evil, though.


I quoted his speech. His words sum up what Evil is.
It is the ideology that is bad. But I am not saying that the person is necessarily bad.

So...this thread is not about a person.
It is about the definition of evil...objectively.

Good point.

 

[stvdv]

Can you look at all the social consequences of what you do? Have you ever done so in detail?
What was your conclusion from these observations?

Soros stated:
1) I cannot look at the social consequences of what I do
2) I do not look at the social consequences of what I do
That is all I need to know. People who "do not look at the consequences of their actions", I rather avoid
It's not about "being able to ... look at all..."
It's about "being willing to look ... even if not all..."

it has become nearly impossible to simply avoid doing things that ultimately harm someone, somewhere.

Indeed, that is a real challenge to "not harm others"

Choosing "I do not look at the social consequences of what I do (Soros)"
Is the highway to harm others, unless you are a pure and perfect being

 

[Kooky]

Soros stated:
1) I cannot look at the social consequences of what I do
2) I do not look at the social consequences of what I do
That is all I need to know. People who "do not look at the consequences of their actions", I rather avoid
It's not about "being able to ... look at all..."
It's about "being willing to look ... even if not all..."

Sure, if you're looking for snap judgements, a minimal reading of an isolated statement, ignorant of any context where it might have been uttered would do.

I don't think, however, that this level of understanding is sufficient for any extended debate on the subject.

 

[stvdv]

Sure, if you're looking for snap judgements, a minimal reading of an isolated statement, ignorant of any context where it might have been uttered would do.

I don't think, however, that this level of understanding is sufficient for any extended debate on the subject.

The OP gave away 1 major KEY to make a well informed judgement.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sure, if you're looking for snap judgements, a minimal reading of an isolated statement, ignorant of any context where it might have been uttered would do.

I don't think, however, that this level of understanding is sufficient for any extended debate on the subject.

I spoke of a very precise situation and I did contextualize it.
That is, the implications of neo-liberism.
Whether the worshipers of this stream of thought do care about the social consequences of their actions, or not.

In my opinion, neo-liberism is monstrous, and several philisophers agree with me.
Simply because it normalizes the absence of empathy and solidarity, that are the pillars of our European Civilization.
Civitas is the word from which city derives.
The European civitas is a place of economic cooperation, where several people put together goods and services for the good of the community. That is how civilitas was born.

Money is a device. An instrument. It is not an end.

 

[Kooky]

The OP gave away 1 major KEY to make a well informed judgement.

The OP didn't even bother to link the interview.

 

[Ella S.]

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.

TIL I'm evil. That sucks. Oh well.

 

[Neuropteron]

The existence or not of a God as emblem of Supreme Good is irrelevant.

Hi,
It's only irrelevant if He does'nt exist.
If God does exist it become very relevant, since he decides what is good or bad.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do accept the idea that all of my actions have consequences, and that I therefore have a duty to make the best effort I can to try and foresee what those consequences might be.

Of course, I'm not perfect. It is entirely possible that some action of mine results in a consequence that I simply could not foresee, and I think the law in general provides for that.

But for a lot of my actions, it's really quite easy to see that some potential consequences could well be harmful to others. Willfully running a red light, for example, could lead me to T-bone another car legally entering the intersection, and killing the passengers within. And I contend that my action, in that case, was indeed evil, and I must be held accountable.