What is evil?

[emiliano]

Evil is perhaps, the result of the human species not agreeing on what is evil.

In other words the very nature of evil, in any sense, is a judgment placed on experience. The fact that people may judge a situation differently, is one characteristic of evil.

Evil is that which comes from humans, and is directed outwardly and inwardly, with the final result being anything the stops peace from taking place.

This is exactly was is not or say, humanity is essentially very good (not perfect like it creator, but very good) and was created to do good, the use that they make of this capacity is what makes evil a sin, humanity has everything it need to do good, when it doesn’t it corrupted and evil.

 

[MoonWater]

Well, I wasn't labelling the person, but the act. The act of raping is evil. However, if the person has a habit of doing this, then yes, he is "an evil, vile person."



I'm not so sure it "gets in the way of this understanding." Part of what the rapist has to acknowledge is that what he has done is evil. If he has a distorted or deformed personality, whatever the cause, that is certainly part of what needs to be revealed and dealt with. But we shouldn't try to paper over the evil the person has perpetrated. Instead of pretending he's not evil, he should acknowledge that he is evil, be shocked by it, and as a result become motivated to reform.



I understand your reluctance to call a spade a spade. Sometimes the unvarnished truth "gets in the way" of understanding.



When you call a person "evil", you are not necessarily saying that they are thoroughly evil. I have no problem calling Ted Bundy evil. He may have been wonderful in certain contexts, but that simply doesn't change the fact that he raped and murdered several young people. These actions were more than "unhelpful". Indeed, they were more than merely harmful. They were downright evil. Failure to label them as such is simply an unwarranted failure of nerve.

My reluctance with the term "evil" has nothing to do with "not wanting to call a spade a spade" or "lack of nerve". I understand your point but I'm coming at this from a different perspective. The witch burnings were justified because it was believed witches were evil. By the label of "evil" to witches it put a blocker on people trying to learn about and understand them. If that label had not been in place I doubt the witch burnings would have been as prevalent as they were. There are numerous examples throughout history where one group of people will label another group of people evil and use this to justify all sorts of atrocities commited against that group. People use the term to label rapists and murders as 'monsters" which is used to justify the often deplorable treatment of them in prisons and wards. Another word for evil is "inhuman" and as such we often come to see people with that label as "inhuman' as someone without compassion, and without a soul. They come to view the person only in light of the horrid things they have done and nothing more. If Luke Skywalker hadn't insisted that there was still "good" in Darth Vader then Vader never would have been able to redeem himself and become Anakin Skywalker again. And I doubt Luke would have held such conviction if he saw Vader as just "evil". I tend to not like labels in general as applying labels puts things in boxes that we humans have a tendency to not look past. Granted I do understand that they are at times necessary. However that doesn't change the fact that human history has shown us that when we label a person We see only the label and not the person. It is not that I am against having a justice system or think there is anything wrong with those who do use the label, it's just a personal preference and it all comes back to my philosophy of weighing the ratios of harm vs. help when judging something. I feel the application of the label "evil" has harmed for more people than it has helped.

And i can't help but wonder why you say you aren't calling the rapist evil and then in the same paragraph turn around and call him evil. Is that poor wording on your part or do you truly believe that the rapist is evil?

 

[Dunemeister]

And i can't help but wonder why you say you aren't calling the rapist evil and then in the same paragraph turn around and call him evil. Is that poor wording on your part or do you truly believe that the rapist is evil?

You missed the modifier "thoroughly." A one-off act doesn't warrant the term "evil." If the person has a habit of raping, that's an evil person. Not labelling him so is a failure of nerve.

That said, I understand what you're saying in the rest of your post, and I largely agree. I just think that the term "evil" is sometimes appropriate.

 

[MoonWater]

You missed the modifier "thoroughly." A one-off act doesn't warrant the term "evil." If the person has a habit of raping, that's an evil person. Not labelling him so is a failure of nerve.

That said, I understand what you're saying in the rest of your post, and I largely agree. I just think that the term "evil" is sometimes appropriate.

fair enough, though I consider it wholly inappropriate to claim that someone doesn't apply the term evil due to "failure of nerve". Especially when said someone explicitly states it has nothing to do with "failure of nerve". If anything it takes more "nerve" for me to avoid the usage of such a term. So please, don't go accusing people of "lacking nerve" simply because they choose not to use a label that you yourself wish to use.

 

[Buttons*]

Evil is ignorance...

 

[Erebus]

Evil is anything you think you are incapable of doing.

 

[TheKnight]

I'd have to go ahead and say that I agree with MSizer's post.

Evil is an adjective, not a noun. It does not exist as some form of entity.

 

[Dunemeister]

fair enough, though I consider it wholly inappropriate to claim that someone doesn't apply the term evil due to "failure of nerve". Especially when said someone explicitly states it has nothing to do with "failure of nerve". If anything it takes more "nerve" for me to avoid the usage of such a term. So please, don't go accusing people of "lacking nerve" simply because they choose not to use a label that you yourself wish to use.

The nerve! :sorry1:

 

[MoonWater]

The nerve! :sorry1:

:sarcastic. Do you have a point with that statement?

 

[McBell]

Evil is an adjective, not a noun.

Webster seems to disagree:

Evil \E"vil\ ([=e]"v'l) n.
1. Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or
deprives a being of any good; anything which causes
suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury;
mischief; harm; -- opposed to good.
[1913 Webster]​

 

[logician]

Evil is very subjective, not objective, defined by culteral mores and norms.