What exactly is evil?

[Secret Chief]

Alright, you can have your kale on bread instead of in a dish.

Yum.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evil is a man-made concept to describe something that causes harm, misfortune, discomfort, repulsive, etc.

I use it somewhat differently. For me, lots of things that can cause harm or misfortune have natural causes, so while they are obviously not something we want to happen, they are not evil. For me, evil requires intent. If you break your nose because you bumped into a wall on your bicycle, that's unfortunate. If you break your nose because my fist collided with it, that's evil on my part.

What's interesting, to me, is that once I use that definition, then if I assume that God exists and causes everything, then many things that would otherwise be misfortune -- sometimes terrible misfortune -- suddenly become evil, because God (as I understand the concept) is an intentional being.

 

[MikeF]

It's whatever you want it to be PLUS what everyone else wants it to be.

The collective decides based on how it effects the collective. You are part of that collective, so you get to decide based on how it effects the collective as well. If you can't or won't do that, you are a traitor to the collective that you gain your subsistence from. You are a toxic parasite.

How does it effect the collective from which you gain and maintain your very existence? You decide this, but so will your fellow citizens. So beware of that selfishness.

If the collective decides what constitutes "good", what percentage of the collective must agree? Is it 50% plus one? Is it 67%? Must it be a unanimous 100% to qualify as a societal "good"?

If 50% plus one decide that sex is evil and should only be done to procreate and the rest of the collective see sex as the ultimate expression of a good and virtuous life and therefore should be engaged in at every opportunity, won't the minority be unhappy living in such a "good" society? Will the minority experience well-being in such a circumstance?

How about a more realistic example. In your opinion, if Donald Trump gets elected as the next president of the US, does that automatically qualify as a "good" for society as a whole and seen as being that which conserves, protects and promotes the well-being of humanity?

 

[LuisDantas]

Who decides what constitutes well-being for humanity as a whole? For example, some may say everyone living like the Amish would achieve the greatest amount of well-being for all of humanity and that technology harms humanity.

Or perhaps it is that which "conserves, protects, and promotes" each individuals personal sense of well-being. In that case, how are conflicts to be resolved if one persons pursuit of personal well-being impinges on another's?

Those questions, IMO, must be constantly asked and answered anew, with as ambitious scopes as we can achieve.

One of the main traits of morality as I understand it is that it decides very early on that it must aim to expand its scope.

 

[sun rise]

Quoting Meher Baba an excerpt:

Evil is the lingering relic of earlier good. Some impressional tendencies, which were necessary and inevitable at a particular phase, are carried over to the higher phase of evolution and they persist in their existence due to inertia. They hinder harmonious functioning in the new context and appear as evil.

Good as well as evil have an undeniable relationship with the circumstances. No judgment can be passed on the goodness or other aspect of any action without considering the concrete context in which the judgment is called for. An act which is normally undeniably evil may under special circumstances be not only defensible but praiseworthy.

Take for example the following exceptional case. Suppose a mother has given birth to a baby and has not her own milk to feed it. The baby has to be fed on cow's milk, which is very difficult to obtain. A neighbor may have some cow's milk but the other knows that he will not part with it for money or for any philanthropic consideration even though he does not need it himself. Under such circumstances, if a person steals the cow's milk and feeds it to the newborn baby in order to keep it alive, the act of stealing is in this case not only justifiable but definitely good.

 

[Yerda]

Also, the unnecessary addition of kale to a dish.

Kale is always unnecessary.

 

[sun rise]

Kale is always unnecessary.

Kale is good, not evil.

 

[Yerda]

Kale is good, not evil.

Whatever, Satan

 

[MikeF]

One of the main traits of morality as I understand it is that it decides very early on that it must aim to expand its scope.

To me, this paints "morality" as a sentient entity. I must confess that I lack the intellectual capacity to clearly interpret what you are trying to convey here. Sincere apologies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is a word that is used very often but what exactly is evil?

Anything intentional that hurts and causes disress.

 

[Secret Chief]

Whatever, Satan

Beat me to it!

 

[LuisDantas]

To me, this paints "morality" as a sentient entity. I must confess that I lack the intellectual capacity to clearly interpret what you are trying to convey here. Sincere apologies.

Morality isn't sentient; it is a mark of sentience, and one of the first consequences of sentience. A core expression of sentience, if you will.

But it is an expression of reason, and it has parameters, which include attempting to establish a scope of wide awareness and understanding of circunstances and applicable factors. Those are the tools that are used to reach moral conclusions. The better one is aware of a situation, the most reliable are the moral decisions one can achieve for that situation.

There is also the aspect of passive failure; failure to act can be a moral failure, at least as much as wrongful action can also be. One of the basic moral duties is detecting what could be done and should be done.

 

[MikeF]

Morality isn't sentient; it is a mark of sentience, and one of the first consequences of sentience. A core expression of sentience, if you will.

Well, I suppose as with all these discussions on RF it depends on how you define 'sentience'. As morality is an abstract human construct that is purely subjective, in my view, it does not serve as a defining element for sentience for me. I would not consider someone who is clinically amoral, a psychopath if you will, as being non-sentient, for example.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What exactly is evil?

It's a word I don't use because of its religious connotations and association with disembodied warring principles and malefic spirits. I wouldn't apply the word to anything but a human being anyway, and even there, I prefer to use words like cruel, malicious, and sadistic rather than call anything or anyone evil.

 

[setarcos]

Evil...
A label constituted of intent to oppose.
Manifested through sentience.
Expressed with pleasure.

 

[JustGeorge]

Also, the unnecessary addition of kale to a dish.

I'm comfortable being evil.

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm comfortable being evil.

I got some sliced aubergine in the post today. It was you wasn't it?

 

[JustGeorge]

I got some sliced aubergine in the post today. It was you wasn't it?

Wasn't it?

 

[Secret Chief]

Tony Iommi's best riffs are evil.

 

[Secret Chief]

Wasn't it?

Yes.