What evil is

[stvdv]

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

That's true, I had to Google myself

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

That's the point
So many philosophers stated that man alone is able to distinguish Good from Evil.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

Log into Facebook | Facebook

 

[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.

I would like to underline that the Nazi crimes are an example that clearly demonstrates that neurological implications have little to do with evil.
So many Nazis deliberately chose to do evil. Unnecessary evil, and out of mere sadistic pleasure.
And as a free will believer, I believe it was a choice they took, willfully and with full awareness.
The choice Kierkegaard too speaks of.
A choice taken with a perfectly functioning brain.

 

[pearl]

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

Yes. And Good is the absence of Evil.

These are moral evils, there are also ontic evils over which there is no control.

 

[Estro Felino]

These are moral evils, there are also ontic evils over which there is no control.

Obviously as a Pelagian I do not agree there are ontic evils.
Because it is exactly what Agustine (and Aquinas, much later) insisted upon to justify human sin.
Because man is supposedly imperfect by nature (which I refuse).

When a person is young, an adolescent, let's say, can be justified. There is still a lack of awareness.

But old people...no...I am sorry, there is perfect awareness.

 

[Estro Felino]

These are moral evils, there are also ontic evils over which there is no control.

And btw...Soros clearly said he believes in no God.
Which is a very coherent position.
Because a person who believes in God would never do what he did. He would fear His judgment.

That said...there are incredibly good atheists, so I think theism is not a rule to rely on.
Some atheists are 10 times better than Christians.

 

[Kooky]

I spoke of a very precise situation and I did contextualize it.

And you did so while hiding all references and sources.
That does not make for the basis of a good faith discussion.

 

[Kooky]

And btw...Soros clearly said he believes in no God.

Which is a very coherent position.

Because a person who believes in God would never do what he did.


That said...there are incredibly good atheists, so I think theism ia not always a rule to rely on.

Would a person who believes in God feel disgust towards people of other ethnicities and races?
Would they forcibly segregate these groups from themselves?
Would they advocate that they be stripped of rights, and treated as a lesser class of human beings?

 

[Estro Felino]

Would a person who believes in God feel disgust towards people of other ethnicities and races?
Would they forcibly segregate these groups from themselves?
Would they advocate that they be stripped of rights, and treated as a lesser class of human beings?

As Hannah Arendt wrote in A report on the banality of Evil , evil is always brutal and animalistic. Banal.

God is Wisdom and Love.
As I wrote in post #44, Nazi crimes are an example of the sadistic nature of evil.
And sadism is the consequence of the absence of empathy.
And it is light years away from God.

 

[Estro Felino]

And you did so while hiding all references and sources.
That does not make for the basis of a good faith discussion.

I linked the video on post #43.

It is not on YouTube any more probably because the dear gentle Soros tried to cover it up.

 

[Audie]

As Hannah Arendt wrote in A report of the banality of Evil , evil is always brutal and animalistic. Banal.

God is Wisdom and Love.
As I wrote in post #44, Nazi crimes are an example of the sadistic nature of evil.
And sadism is the consequence of the absence of empathy.
And it is light years away from God.

The empathy shown to parents of children
killed by the angels all over egypt,
say.

 

[Audie]

And btw...Soros clearly said he believes in no God.

Which is a very coherent position.

Because a person who believes in God would never do what he did.


That said...there are incredibly good atheists, so I think theism ia not always a rule to rely on.

People who believe in god conducted the
inquisition.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Evil is the absence of empathy.

Evil…? That’s a tricky one.

Empathy is the understanding of what X implies to another.

A genuine absence of empathy is a neurological condition and would really better be described as neutral (or possibly, malfunctioning).

A learned, lack of empathy is an habitual, psychological coping-mechanism and would better be described as the unconscious effect of unaddressed or incorrectly processed personal fears and/or pain/traumas.

Then, there’s this sort:

I am there to make money, basically. cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do

A cultural disregard of empathy - understanding what X implies to another but choosing to ignore this when it appears advantageous to self - is a result of social conditioning (socialisation) and is better described as assimilated, shortsighted self-centredness, resulting in misplaced values and priorities being rewarded within a community of people.

 

[Estro Felino]

Evil…? That’s a tricky one.

Empathy is the understanding of what X implies to another.

A genuine absence of empathy is a neurological condition and would really better be described as neutral (or possibly, malfunctioning).

A learned, lack of empathy is an habitual, psychological coping-mechanism and would better be described as the unconscious effect of unaddressed or incorrectly processed personal fears and/or pain/traumas.

Then, there’s this sort:


A cultural disregard of empathy - understanding what X implies to another but choosing to ignore this when it appears advantageous to self - is a result of social conditioning (socialisation) and is better described as assimilated, shortsighted self-centredness, resulting in misplaced values and priorities being rewarded within a community of people.

Pre-Christian philosophy takes the idea of Good for granted. That is why Plato is considered the one who mastered this philosophical argument.
Because he explained that the idea of Good is there, surely far from the human condition, but is still there.

The post-Christian era is on the contrary characterized by the chaos and the disruption.
And as anthropologist Gatto Trocchi used to say, the conscious agenda to delete and to deny the difference between Good and Evil. As if they were one thing.
And it is a distinction that was born with pagan philosophy so it has nothing to do with Christianity.

That said, is the willful absence of empathy good?
Answer this question.

 

[pearl]

That said...there are incredibly good atheists, so I think theism is not a rule to rely on.
Some atheists are 10 times better than Christians.

Absolutely, the reason they are 'saved' even without acknowledging Christ

 

[Estro Felino]

Absolutely, the reason they are 'saved' even without acknowledging Christ

Well...that's what Pelagius used to say.

 

[pearl]

Obviously as a Pelagian I do not agree there are ontic evils.

You don't allow that there exists 'natural' evil, which deprive people of their life? Evil, either ontic or moral is a spinoff of life, without which there woud be no evil.

 

[Estro Felino]

You don't allow that there exists 'natural' evil, which deprive people of their life? Evil, either ontic or moral is a spinoff of life, without which there woud be no evil.

So you consider evil as a necessary and inevitable component of human condition?
And I am speaking of the evil that harms the soul, not the evils that harm the body. Because our body is mortal, we know that.

 

[pearl]

And I am speaking the evil that harms the soul, not the body? Because our body is mortal, we know that.

And that would be moral evil, an unjust act deliberately inflicted on another.