How do you define, quantify, qualify it? Is there an objective definition? Doctors are faced with medical dilemmas and subject to moral evil. Think of goodness, free will and determination, responsibility, and so-called "necessary evil". What about when evil is used to stop evil, does evil triumph, and in such a situation when is it that the resistance against evil augment evil itself, ultimately making evil triumph? Consider that humans are complex creatures and variables have to be considered, like, for example, the degree of free-will versus determination that plays into ones decision. Consider natural disasters and psychology as being beyond choice. But also consider when one has alternatives and knows the difference between necessary and unnecessary actions. Is killing "good" when you do it for your country, but bad when its personal? Does evil to one man grant him the right to evil in return? There can also be a range of evils, some more moral and more natural than others. Moral evil by definition involves the element of free will/choice. Must pain and suffering be weighed to judge the action of a person, or should one consider the progenitor's role and knowledge first? The sciences have indicated that we are all, to some degree, conditioned to every act. Pain and suffering must be addressed before the act and there must be the question of necessary versus unnecessary evil. Maybe evil is just a primal term that says more about our ignorance than anything else and is a surviving concept of a primitive bygone era.

How do you define, quantify, qualify it? Is there an objective definition? Doctors are faced with medical dilemmas and subject to moral evil. Think of goodness, free will and determination, responsibility, and so-called "necessary evil". What about when evil is used to stop evil, does evil triumph, and in such a situation when is it that the resistance against evil augment evil itself, ultimately making evil triumph? Consider that humans are complex creatures and variables have to be considered, like, for example, the degree of free-will versus determination that plays into ones decision. Consider natural disasters and psychology as being beyond choice. But also consider when one has alternatives and knows the difference between necessary and unnecessary actions. Is killing "good" when you do it for your country, but bad when its personal? Does evil to one man grant him the right to evil in return? There can also be a range of evils, some more moral and more natural than others. Moral evil by definition involves the element of free will/choice. Must pain and suffering be weighed to judge the action of a person, or should one consider the progenitor's role and knowledge first? The sciences have indicated that we are all, to some degree, conditioned to every act. Pain and suffering must be addressed before the act and there must be the question of necessary versus unnecessary evil. Maybe evil is just a primal term that says more about our ignorance than anything else and is a surviving concept of a primitive bygone era.

Evil is a label assigned to a persons individual tolarance (dislike) to the presence and absence of various forms and degrees of altruism and exploitation. This tolerance changes throughout a person's life and has a starting place heavily influenced in childhood.

glenn danzig.

Would it not be more fruitful to discuss what is good, also? For it would seem one cannot speak of evil without good and good without evil.

Evil is ignorance. Evil is illogical behavior. Evil is perception. Evil is a specific combination of chemical reactions in your body.

I remember an interesting quote from a movie that I watched a couple of years ago. I don’t remember the exact words but it was something like this.

“If someone asked you what is the opposite of good, you would probably say evil, but your answer would be wrong. Good and evil are one in the same. The opposite of good or evil is indifference.”

I think that the concepts of good and evil has been completely muddled by (monotheistic) religions. Such religions declare that god is perfect and good, and that everything we say is good, and everything opposed to us is evil. Which WORKS, as long as the priests are right about everything. Hence, as people learn new virtues or change their point of view, they basically see "good" in evil; but since they believe their priest (Who are right, of course), they renounce it. Hence good and evil are seen as two opposing forces. And though such religions influence has diluded, the definition still stands.

But if good is wisdom and free will and the good guys always win, whereas evil is always said to be a "mistake" or "wrong", this definition does not stand. It's not really a choice, if the other one is simply wrong. Hence I define good as wise action, which benefits me and evil as shortsighted and/or stupid thing to do. "evil" person seekes personal gain, but makes too many enemies, makes too many mistakes or fails to bring his own (or others) potential to bear, and is hence weak. "Good" person lets resources flow outside himself, risking his own gain wisely, so that it pays him back. He helps others and others help him, he helps other to learn and improve, and learns from others. Hence they attain power. Evil always plays safe and keeps everything simple, and ultimately lose it all, and the meek shall inherit the earth.

Of course, viewing things like this means abandoning many traditionally "Good" sides, and accepting also some attributes considered evil. Good, for example, is considered altruistic, with no thought for selfish gain. I say it makes more sense than the "eternal struggle of good and evil". The polarism is mostly a mess of attributing some virtues as good and some as evil, when there is really no way to categoriaze them into two, opposed forces. Out of the two I choose the best of both and wreck the rest.

Hegel said that first man creates an idea (thesis), and sooner or later invents an idea (antithesis) which seems to oppose the first idea; and man fights, followers of one against the followers of the other. Ultimately no side wins, after the people realize there is virtue in both, and they form a new idea (synthesis), combining both ideas. And then invent another idea to oppose the new idea. And so forth until everything has been invented, all ideas are perfect and heaven on earth.

So oppose me so I can learn :P

I think that the concepts of good and evil has been completely muddled by (monotheistic) religions. Such religions declare that god is perfect and good, and that everything we say is good, and everything opposed to us is evil. Which WORKS, as long as the priests are right about everything. Hence, as people learn new virtues or change their point of view, they basically see "good" in evil; but since they believe their priest (Who are right, of course), they renounce it. Hence good and evil are seen as two opposing forces. And though such religions influence has diluded, the definition still stands.

But if good is wisdom and free will and the good guys always win, whereas evil is always said to be a "mistake" or "wrong", this definition does not stand. It's not really a choice, if the other one is simply wrong. Hence I define good as wise action, which benefits me and evil as shortsighted and/or stupid thing to do. "evil" person seekes personal gain, but makes too many enemies, makes too many mistakes or fails to bring his own (or others) potential to bear, and is hence weak. "Good" person lets resources flow outside himself, risking his own gain wisely, so that it pays him back. He helps others and others help him, he helps other to learn and improve, and learns from others. Hence they attain power. Evil always plays safe and keeps everything simple, and ultimately lose it all, and the meek shall inherit the earth.

Of course, viewing things like this means abandoning many traditionally "Good" sides, and accepting also some attributes considered evil. Good, for example, is considered altruistic, with no thought for selfish gain. I say it makes more sense than the "eternal struggle of good and evil". The polarism is mostly a mess of attributing some virtues as good and some as evil, when there is really no way to categoriaze them into two, opposed forces. Out of the two I choose the best of both and wreck the rest.

Hegel said that first man creates an idea (thesis), and sooner or later invents an idea (antithesis) which seems to oppose the first idea; and man fights, followers of one against the followers of the other. Ultimately no side wins, after the people realize there is virtue in both, and they form a new idea (synthesis), combining both ideas. And then invent another idea to oppose the new idea. And so forth until everything has been invented, all ideas are perfect and heaven on earth.

So oppose me so I can learn :P


I wouldn't say evil is simply an antithesis of all we perceive as good. By objective definition I mean that human perception doesn't encompass it. Perception can define "bad", wicked", "rude", "lack of manners", but for some reason we reserve "evil" for otherwise. Why is that? An objective definition, unlike the related labels, isn't polar. What I guess I'm saying is that it ain't personal.

Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse.

How do you define, quantify, qualify it? Is there an objective definition? Doctors are faced with medical dilemmas and subject to moral evil. Think of goodness, free will and determination, responsibility, and so-called "necessary evil". What about when evil is used to stop evil, does evil triumph, and in such a situation when is it that the resistance against evil augment evil itself, ultimately making evil triumph? Consider that humans are complex creatures and variables have to be considered, like, for example, the degree of free-will versus determination that plays into ones decision. Consider natural disasters and psychology as being beyond choice. But also consider when one has alternatives and knows the difference between necessary and unnecessary actions. Is killing "good" when you do it for your country, but bad when its personal? Does evil to one man grant him the right to evil in return? There can also be a range of evils, some more moral and more natural than others. Moral evil by definition involves the element of free will/choice. Must pain and suffering be weighed to judge the action of a person, or should one consider the progenitor's role and knowledge first? The sciences have indicated that we are all, to some degree, conditioned to every act. Pain and suffering must be addressed before the act and there must be the question of necessary versus unnecessary evil. Maybe evil is just a primal term that says more about our ignorance than anything else and is a surviving concept of a primitive bygone era.

If you ever run into an ugly pig-faced guy with a slightly burnt face and some small horns protruding from his forehead holding a pitchfork, smiling and standing under an old worn out sign that says 'Ye Who Enter Here, Abandon All Hope' or something like that, then you can probably say that is one evil looking bast.....d. After that, it's all down hill for you. If you ever have that experience, then you will really know what the word 'Evil' means. Take plenty of sunscreen with you just to be safe. :D

The answer to that question depends on the era. Since the invention of civilization, I believe that the only acts that are truly evil are those that threaten to destroy civilization. As I have posted elsewhere, the killing by one human being of another (with rare and readily agreed exceptions) is arguably the only act that falls into that category.

The question was how to define it, so I define it thus. Everyone has their own definitions, so I don't think it can be quantified or qualified before agreeing to a definition.

As you Nicholas1M7 said, good seems to be good for ALL, whereas evil seems harmful to ALL. It just seems to me that by this definition no one is truely, ever evil, as understood as some sinister, wicked, SELFLESS act of harmful behavior. Why would anyone do "evil" without personal gain? And if it is personal gain one seeks, wouldn't other means suffice?
I fail to see how violent, abusive or manipulative (etc.) could be the best course of action in the long run. So evil seems to me more shortsightedness than anything other.

I think an antique definition was good (virtue) vs. evil (sin). I read somewhere that the ancient greek word for "sin" meant "to miss the bullseye" , and from this point of view it makes sense to me; good is perfect action, evil is simply a mistake OR an imperfect action. It's not all clear cut.

But as i said, religions declared themself perfect, and all that it did not incompass was evil. This is another definition. But according to this definition Evil gains characteristics that might be considered good, at least for oneself, or the society. Hence the concept of "necessary" evil is made.

As for Rocker, if we assume civilization as good, wouldn't my definition stand? It would merely encompasess certain interpersonal issues, as well. And what of actions, which provoke murder/death/kill in the long run, such as taking someones stuff, or manipulating public opinion against people(s)? When someone gains an unfair advantage through behavior, which causes death in the extreme long run, people have a tendency to react through violence.

How do you define, quantify, qualify it? Is there an objective definition? Doctors are faced with medical dilemmas and subject to moral evil. Think of goodness, free will and determination, responsibility, and so-called "necessary evil". What about when evil is used to stop evil, does evil triumph, and in such a situation when is it that the resistance against evil augment evil itself, ultimately making evil triumph? Consider that humans are complex creatures and variables have to be considered, like, for example, the degree of free-will versus determination that plays into ones decision. Consider natural disasters and psychology as being beyond choice. But also consider when one has alternatives and knows the difference between necessary and unnecessary actions. Is killing "good" when you do it for your country, but bad when its personal? Does evil to one man grant him the right to evil in return? There can also be a range of evils, some more moral and more natural than others. Moral evil by definition involves the element of free will/choice. Must pain and suffering be weighed to judge the action of a person, or should one consider the progenitor's role and knowledge first? The sciences have indicated that we are all, to some degree, conditioned to every act. Pain and suffering must be addressed before the act and there must be the question of necessary versus unnecessary evil. Maybe evil is just a primal term that says more about our ignorance than anything else and is a surviving concept of a primitive bygone era.

Evil could be as simple as someone purposely leaving an open bottle of Shad's Stink Bait in front a big department store's central air conditioner's duct on a Sunday day clearance special. :D

How do you define, quantify, qualify it? Is there an objective definition? Doctors are faced with medical dilemmas and subject to moral evil. Think of goodness, free will and determination, responsibility, and so-called "necessary evil". What about when evil is used to stop evil, does evil triumph, and in such a situation when is it that the resistance against evil augment evil itself, ultimately making evil triumph? Consider that humans are complex creatures and variables have to be considered, like, for example, the degree of free-will versus determination that plays into ones decision. Consider natural disasters and psychology as being beyond choice. But also consider when one has alternatives and knows the difference between necessary and unnecessary actions. Is killing "good" when you do it for your country, but bad when its personal? Does evil to one man grant him the right to evil in return? There can also be a range of evils, some more moral and more natural than others. Moral evil by definition involves the element of free will/choice. Must pain and suffering be weighed to judge the action of a person, or should one consider the progenitor's role and knowledge first? The sciences have indicated that we are all, to some degree, conditioned to every act. Pain and suffering must be addressed before the act and there must be the question of necessary versus unnecessary evil. Maybe evil is just a primal term that says more about our ignorance than anything else and is a surviving concept of a primitive bygone era.Evil has as most other concepts many angles as to how we can perceive it.

One angle can be that evil is evil for evils sake (someone that does bad because it is bad).

Also evil can be perceived as being something bad that is done with intent and calculation.

Evil is often when you regret something afterwards instead of before. It could have been changed in the thought stage.

Evil can also be perceived as doing something that you don't believe in (like if you follow someone elses bad example knowing it is bad).

If evil is done to unmake evil then evil is still done, it isn't allright to kill the killer.

If you have done bad things, don't forget that there is mercy and forgiveness, and don't forget all the good things that are out there too!

Cyperium:

I would, in the vein of SOcrates/Plato, proclaim that is impossible to seek evil for evil's sake. For even in the case of a masochist, who seeks pain, it is not the pain that is sought, but rather the pleasure which he gains from it. Similarly, no murderer murders for the sake of murder, but rather of the pleasure of the kill (as some serial killers do) or the achievement of some other value that could only be brought about by deadly force.

Evil is good in another form. Good is the only reality.

One man's good is another man's evil.

Prince James That corresponds with writing parts for bad guys in books, movies, etc. A good "bad guy" should be written as having a justification for his actions. They don't wake up and think "what evil can I perpetrate today?" The torching of an entire village may be necessary to enforce obedience, and hence peace, among the rebellious subjects. Even Hitler had his reasons. You just have to be careful not to identify too closely with the bad guy. Something about falling into the abyss. (What was that quote?)

people are good if they have good reasons to do what they do? and since everyone has good reasons, no one is evil?

evil is imbalance, separation, consciousness... it exists there...
no... wrong..

Cyperium:

I would, in the vein of SOcrates/Plato, proclaim that is impossible to seek evil for evil's sake. For even in the case of a masochist, who seeks pain, it is not the pain that is sought, but rather the pleasure which he gains from it. Similarly, no murderer murders for the sake of murder, but rather of the pleasure of the kill (as some serial killers do) or the achievement of some other value that could only be brought about by deadly force.But the pleasure that he gains from such deeds are filled with evil desires!

It is the motivation that you talk about, sure a man needs motivation for doing evil deeds, a man needs motivations for doing any deeds, the motivation are in some cases self-induced, meaning that the motivation is sought by the person.

The pleasure of pain, isn't the pleasure of the pain itself, it is the motivation that causes him to seek pain. The motivation he uses could also be calculated so that it masks the true intent, where the method of solving the underlying problem could be something nice, a method is instead used that isn't nice, and it brings pleasure because it is indeed a method of solving a problem and is forcely believed so, so as to mask the intent which indeed could be the same problem that he is trying to "solve".

If that problem is masked in such a way that it gives rise to said problem with intent, then that could be said to "do evil for evils sake".

Oxygen:

"Prince James That corresponds with writing parts for bad guys in books, movies, etc. A good "bad guy" should be written as having a justification for his actions. They don't wake up and think "what evil can I perpetrate today?" The torching of an entire village may be necessary to enforce obedience, and hence peace, among the rebellious subjects. Even Hitler had his reasons. You just have to be careful not to identify too closely with the bad guy. Something about falling into the abyss. (What was that quote?) "

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil"


c7ityi_:

"people are good if they have good reasons to do what they do? and since everyone has good reasons, no one is evil?"

No, there are evil people. They simply do not seek evil for the sake of evil. This is an impossibility. One cannot seek something for the evil it brings, only for its benefit.

Cyperium:

"But the pleasure that he gains from such deeds are filled with evil desires!"

But benefit is never itself evil. It can be evil in relation to another thing - and thus why it is evil, though not sought for evil - but it is impossible to seek that evil as the good one seeks.

"It is the motivation that you talk about, sure a man needs motivation for doing evil deeds, a man needs motivations for doing any deeds, the motivation are in some cases self-induced, meaning that the motivation is sought by the person. "

Motivation surely has its roots in the self's desire, yes.

"The pleasure of pain, isn't the pleasure of the pain itself, it is the motivation that causes him to seek pain. The motivation he uses could also be calculated so that it masks the true intent, where the method of solving the underlying problem could be something nice, a method is instead used that isn't nice, and it brings pleasure because it is indeed a method of solving a problem and is forcely believed so, so as to mask the intent which indeed could be the same problem that he is trying to "solve".

If that problem is masked in such a way that it gives rise to said problem with intent, then that could be said to "do evil for evils sake". "

Yet said evil is not sought even here for it's sake, only so that the benefit that is gained may be achieved. That is to say, the evil is not done so that the evil may be done and nothing may be taken from it, nor might so it might be grieved, so that the value might be always be attained in the act.

Consider when people are ill. Why is it considered a bad thing? Because it is harmful to the self and frustrates one's aims. People in general thus do not seek illness. People then desire to be well, so they might be freed from such frustrations and pains, and might be happy and relieved, that they might benefit from well-being. Thus we say that wellness is good, whereas sickness is evil (or at the very least, bad).

It is only ignorance which drives a man to do acts of evil to others, even though he is misunderstands good for himself (at least in a limited sense, as no evil good on the scale of good).

I'm surprised no one gave an example of something they find to be evil yet. Sure its easy to talk about how evil is merely this and that. But when the day is done you'll still shit your pants if you meet up with real evil. Look at the Moors' couple who brutally murdered some 15 children.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40749000/jpg/_40749156_bradyhindleypaok.jpg

Your talkin the talk, but your too scared to walk the walk aintcha!

They look surprisingly alike, that is what first comes to mind. Were they related closely? Perhaps incestuous?

EVIL.... is the desire to 'rule' over ones enviorment. (controlling nature, not being part of it.)
acts of EVIL.... are acts which inact or effect that rule and control over some part of our enviormental reality, REGARDLESS of ethical or moral consequences.

EVIL plans... are plans designed to fascilitate that rule and control.


all acts of evil, be it rape, murder, stealing, or oppression... all, are the result of ones desire to forcably control things, and make them happen by nothing more than the strenght of our testosterone and muscles..... throwing aside all considerations for fairness or kindness or concerns for hypothetical feelings of others.
Acting without a heart.

To commit evil acts, is unfortunately, an easy, and often natural thing to do.

Hence the need for the principles of behavioral training which is found naturally in the habits and ways of all the major world religions.. Training the mind, to aviod evil.

-MT

evil is born from fear. there's nothing to fear in the world, but because people think there is something... people think others want to hurt them... so they defend themselves already before anything has happened. defence becomes offence.

nothing should be feared except the fear itself.

Look at the Moors' couple who brutally murdered some 15 children.
they had good reasons to murder them. poor sick people.

but there are a lot more evil things than that in the world, just use your imagination.

all acts of evil, be it rape, murder, stealing, or oppression...
murder (killing) isn't always evil.

"It is only ignorance which drives a man to do acts of evil to others, even though he is misunderstands good for himself (at least in a limited sense, as no evil good on the scale of good)."

Or rather, evil = trying to achive good, but failing due to ones failure to grasp how to achive this. And ignorance causes people to stop learning, leaving them less capable to achive their ideals.

For example, this guy, call him Piers, is in a bar, and drunk as a duck. Some guy starts toa annoy him and he decides to pop one on him (that is, punch him). He does, and leaves muttering "that oughtta teach 'im". (so he gets arrested and gets fines etc etc)

The key word here is "teach", which implies that Piers tried to teach, or enlighten the man. And as stated above, ignorance leads to suffering; this is then a noble goal. But does anyone think Piers actually learned anything from said lesson? I doubt it, unless it was "lawyers can sue you for punching someone". So Piers tried to acchive something good, but failed, and propably made things worse, at least for himself. There is Evil (according to me).

(also an important lesson about anger: Anger seems then to be a somewhat compassionate force; though it often causes hurt, it is often done in good intentions. The ability to accept anger, but accept that the simplest way of solving things most often fails, gives birth to PASSION; a driving, nonviolent, force. Also, without anger, people are as so much sheep; unable to think for themselves. Suppress yor anger and you suppress yourself.)

But of course anger leads often to violence, due to ignorance, so it has been named "evil", although it is that only when tempered in ignorance. This, amongst others, created the view that good and evil are just two opinions, or that both are justified. I'd just argue that all these things are good, and evil should just be defined as imperfect action, not as a set of actions. Any action, perfectly done, would wield good things.

Oh look, we're at page two already! *browses*

"I'm surprised no one gave an example of something they find to be evil yet." -nicholas1M7

Real monsters don't exist. So, okay, some really cracked and weird people do, but I don't think that's evil. That's more like a reaction to evil. If we're talking about a couple of psychos, just give FBI more funding. Insanity is always a reaction to the surrounding environment.

Real evil is some five million people who just go lah-de-dah through their life, trusting that "someone will tell me what is right, someone will take care of the problems or tell me if I'm needed, someone will protect me anyway", whether this is Dad, God, the Government or Superman. Then some guy comes and says "oh no, the economy is in ruins, let me take care of everything", and everyone votes him. Next thing you know, your burning Jews, and being happy about it. And at war with the rest of the world.

I think that people like the Moors just kind of look at the world, and despair. Then, when they think, and realize how meaningless these people are, they just figure no one would miss them if they're gone; or that they've got the right, or whatever.

So okay, that's evil too, but it's relatively easier to take care of, and ultimately not the Root of Evil. How can you change the minds of some 6 billion people, before they destroy themselves?

edit:I think Nieztche was the first filosophist, who discovered this; that basically there were smart, good people, and then some people, who just let everyone decide everything for them. And I've read that he had great deal on anxiety and emotional problems because of this.

(Also they're more scary, because they represent a view of the world we don't want to see; we're afraid they're right. We're not scared of them, but rather what this happening means. Everything can't be alright if these people are trying to do good, like anyone else.)

Mosheh Thezion:

So what you are claiming is that control and power are not in and of themselves evil, but only become evil when we throw aside other considerations? But well, what do you rest these other considerations upon?

C7ityi_:

"nothing should be feared except the fear itself."

Quoting Roosevlet? I'd pay to see you quote Hitler in context.

Ogmios:

"Or rather, evil = trying to achive good, but failing due to ones failure to grasp how to achive this. And ignorance causes people to stop learning, leaving them less capable to achive their ideals."

Yes. In essence, evil is caused by the seeking of good without wisdom.

"The key word here is "teach", which implies that Piers tried to teach, or enlighten the man. And as stated above, ignorance leads to suffering; this is then a noble goal. But does anyone think Piers actually learned anything from said lesson? I doubt it, unless it was "lawyers can sue you for punching someone". So Piers tried to acchive something good, but failed, and propably made things worse, at least for himself. There is Evil (according to me)."

Yes. Misapplication and ill-conceived answerings.

"(also an important lesson about anger: Anger seems then to be a somewhat compassionate force; though it often causes hurt, it is often done in good intentions. The ability to accept anger, but accept that the simplest way of solving things most often fails, gives birth to PASSION; a driving, nonviolent, force. Also, without anger, people are as so much sheep; unable to think for themselves. Suppress yor anger and you suppress yourself.)"

I agree. Anger often provides the impetus to many good things, so long as it is taken under control and not allowed to spark into an unquenchable fire. It is when the reigns of the bull are loosed that there is trouble.

"But of course anger leads often to violence, due to ignorance, so it has been named "evil", although it is that only when tempered in ignorance. This, amongst others, created the view that good and evil are just two opinions, or that both are justified. I'd just argue that all these things are good, and evil should just be defined as imperfect action, not as a set of actions. Any action, perfectly done, would wield good things."

I would in general agree with this.

"EVIL.... is the desire to 'rule' over ones enviorment [...] REGARDLESS of ethical or moral consequences." -Mosheh Thezion

Yes. The bad guys tend to play safe, not to have random variables in their game, believing these to be always against them. But often we see people, who refuse to plan, or plot, or to take control of his enviroment, because he belives in freedom. Or they belive that "Love cures all", or some other bs.

But while it is the means, which justify the end, the better man always wins. So what does it tell, that the good guys haven't yet won? (to speak metaforically) While lying and manipulation is out the window, does it still mean that no form of control should be used? Should we just trust the goodness of the people, or god, or fate (or karma) to just to work? Or does the gods help those who help themselves, and hence should we not just use whatever means necessary, as long as we do not cross over?

Not to avoid "evil" (as defined as a opposed set of virtues), but to emrace it; and then to see which parts of it to ignore, by cross-refering it to "good" (defined as a set of virtues). I think talk of self-discipline is complitely ridiculous. Don't stop youself from doing anything; just try to seek BETTER ways of achieving the same goal.

(Having said that, you might want to avoid doing anything, before you know why you want to do it. Though sometimes you have to do it in order to find out. Just trust your heart, or subconsious mind..)

Quoting Roosevlet? I'd pay to see you quote Hitler in context.

no, i read it in a donald duck comic... i don't know who roosevlet is, but i googled it a bit and i guess he's a president, and i guess you mean he was a bad guy.

but hitler was a nice guy, he was just a little sad, and people were mean to him... so he decided to become the bad guy, so that he could get revenge on the world.

in reality there are no such thing as evil spirit. everyone has good intentions, everything is necessary, and it eventually leads to peace. then fear and evil is born from the peace again, and so on, the process repeats itself, indefinitely.

i don't know why you would pay me for quoting hitler... i don't know any quotes of him anyway, and i don't need money.

the entire universe is just an eternal battle between the good and bad guys, and no one ever wins, because they're both the same, and the battle is already over.

While lying and manipulation is out the window, does it still mean that no form of control should be used? Should we just trust the goodness of the people, or god, or fate (or karma) to just to work? Or does the gods help those who help themselves, and hence should we not just use whatever means necessary, as long as we do not cross over?

we are gods, and the karma works. nothing has to be done, you are free can do what you want (nothing=everything/anything)

c7ityi_, I rather meant that do we just trust karma to do it's job or do we take a stand at it's side. Do we just watch, how people suffer for their actions, or do we actually do something to prevent people from doing stuff which causes Karma to retaliate.

Also we're not gods, but there are no other gods doing our job for us. There are, I think, gods doing their own job, but they couldn't care less for wimps, who come around whining for them to do their job also (or so I believe. Can't prove anything.)

But the real good point you raise is that people were mean to Hitler, so he took revenge on people (ironically by giving them exactly what they wanted..). It describes bitterness and cynicism beautifully. We're all good; some are smart, other are stupid and others have just given up on trying and accepted "the facts". These (the last) would be the Moors couple, Hitler and numerous others, who just got bored of carrying the weight of the world, but still couldn't return to ignorance or subservience of the normal people.

Think about Cypher; the guy from Matrix, who wanted to return back to matrix, disgusted by the fact that good guys had worse pay. The metaphore isn't exactly right, but something like that.

c7ityi_, I rather meant that do we just trust karma to do it's job or do we take a stand at it's side.

We are also tools of karma. But karma will do the job if we don't, it will come to us if we don't stand at it's side.

Do we just watch, how people suffer for their actions, or do we actually do something to prevent people from doing stuff which causes Karma to retaliate.

If we could change ourselves and the world we would do it. But we can't because we need time to evolve. We must first experience all kinds of karma, then we are free from karma.

Also we're not gods, but there are no other gods doing our job for us.

I guess it depends on what you mean by gods. I mean they're just creators, and I think we created the world. Everything in the world is my (everyone's) fault, but it's not my fault that it's my fault, because I didn't choose to exist.

There are "other gods", like the God who makes earthquakes, but it's actually just us... the omnipresent life. There is only one God, one self, in infinite forms.

-The gods inside us makes us do what we do-

I mean... suppose that you cut yourself with a knife... the wound will heal... why? Because the minigods inside you are repairing it. In the same way, the universe (or earth) is a big creature, and if it's hurt, we heal it.

Everything works because everything strives for survival. When we're trying to survive, we help the great universal being. We strive for survival because the mini-beings inside us strive for survival which causes us to strive for survival. They cause our feelings, and humans are controlled by their feelings.

And yeah... the universe acts like it acts because we (universe, omnipresent self) make it act like that, with our actions... and we act like we act because the beings inside us do the same.

Worlds within worlds, life within life.

There are, I think, gods doing their own job, but they couldn't care less for wimps, who come around whining for them to do their job also (or so I believe. Can't prove anything.)

Wimps whine because they have courage. Wimps are not wimps and evil is not evil.

We are all the same ultimate being, so if we don't help others, we don't help ourselves. Egoism is created because people think there are several beings. There can only be one being, one existence, one nothing-everything. There are infinite bodies. The consciousness -of- the body is not the body, although the body is made of self/consciousness.

Everyone does the job for everyone-- I do the job for me.

/'nothing-everything'

EVIL.... is the desire to 'rule' over ones enviorment. (controlling nature, not being part of it.)
acts of EVIL.... are acts which inact or effect that rule and control over some part of our enviormental reality, REGARDLESS of ethical or moral consequences.

EVIL plans... are plans designed to fascilitate that rule and control.


all acts of evil, be it rape, murder, stealing, or oppression... all, are the result of ones desire to forcably control things, and make them happen by nothing more than the strenght of our testosterone and muscles..... throwing aside all considerations for fairness or kindness or concerns for hypothetical feelings of others.
Acting without a heart.

To commit evil acts, is unfortunately, an easy, and often natural thing to do.

Hence the need for the principles of behavioral training which is found naturally in the habits and ways of all the major world religions.. Training the mind, to aviod evil.

-MT


Subsititute the word "power" for "evil". If I start singing, Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat,
Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat,
Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, call your clicks

Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, call your clicks,
Spit your game, talk your shit,grab your gat, call your clicks, squeeze your clip hit the right one, pass
That weed I got to light one,

does this make me evil?

They look surprisingly alike, that is what first comes to mind. Were they related closely? Perhaps incestuous?

I believe they had two different last names.

Ogmios:

So you suggest what precisely? That when met with evil, we ought to use all means we can to circumvent and overcome it? That we should not feel restricted in our aims?

c7ityi_:

"no, i read it in a donald duck comic... i don't know who roosevlet is, but i googled it a bit and i guess he's a president, and i guess you mean he was a bad guy. "

Well he was a Communist bastard, but no, he wasn't that horrible.

And was the comic based off "Der Fuhrer's Face"? And Donald Duck truly is hysterical.

"but hitler was a nice guy, he was just a little sad, and people were mean to him... so he decided to become the bad guy, so that he could get revenge on the world."

Actually, he came to his political ideas less so over sadness and moreso over frustration with the Communist threat and cultural undermining he saw as part of the Jews. He actually lived an okay life beforehand, including becoming quite the honoured soldier on the battlefield.

"i don't know why you would pay me for quoting hitler... i don't know any quotes of him anyway, and i don't need money."

Extreme amusement.

nicholas1M7:

"does this make me evil? "

No, but I guess you think you're "gangsta" or something.

I myself am just pimpin' James.

"I believe they had two different last names. "

I'll look up more about them.

nicholas1M7:

"does this make me evil? "

No, but I guess you think you're "gangsta" or something.

I myself am just pimpin' James.

I'm on sciforums. Look at who I'm talking to boss. How does "gangsta" fit into this?


"I believe they had two different last names. "

I'll look up more about them.

Hindley... Brady.

Evil is materialism, greed, ignorance, weakness, society.

Nothing is evil. Nothing is good. Without a universal will, there is no universal truth. With subjective morals, everything is up to the definition given by the individual. In the english language, the word "evil" is used to describe something that involves wrongdoing.

Evil? We all have about 75 to 80 years to figure it out. After that, all bets are off.

Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse.*

I superimposed your quote simply because it was the most convenient basis with which to discern my thoughts on "evil". After reading each response, this is my rejoinder. Please exonerate my moderate fallacies. *By that premise, every single carnivore is "evil". However, I assume the theme is applied in provisos authenticating what is "evil" of/in humans civically. Thus I retain prudence of the aforesaid notion.

Than surely, Nature, throughout its cumulative prolongation, must be unequivocally "evil". Could that not be inferred from the affects of the massive earthquake and subsequent tsunamis that devastated Indonesia and proximate regions in 2004, killing multiples of, tens of thousands of people without contrition? Or for that matter any other natural event of disaster killing a human, such as a lightning strike? Since we are coexistent with Nature, and Nature can resist us at any seemingly infinite moment, whilst time is elongated, would we not than be a mine of "evil" with which Nature refines?

If not controlled, fire engulfs without restraint, made up of oxygen, necessitated fuel, and high temperature, which of course we are composed of. We breathe oxygen, burn fuel, and emit heat. Interestingly, fire needs air that contains at least 16% oxygen; the earth’s atmosphere is 21%. Please, correct me if I’m mistaken on that figure. Maybe a puritanical formula is a reactant précising "evil". If morality in human performance is the only avenue being taken to account for the chemistry of "evil", than it will be pacified as a diversion to the act, or eulogizing, of what is institutionalized as being “good.”

It would be likely, that everyone profits from both “good” and “evil.” If one advertently decides to cut a man down with sword, for no other reason than to shed blood, it is an "evil" thing indeed. Yet the result of this action does not define what is "evil", the ultimate product is “good”; bought, sold, or enslaved in the commerce of manners seen fit in our container(s) or threshold for substantiating life. The funeral home or crematorium, would receive benefit, the employees making their living would be assured service, and one contributing factor to this would the “evil” act. Perhaps the slain man’s kin would compensate the “evil”, by cosseting “good,” “good” which might not otherwise have been transparent, resulting in nix “evil” and nix “good.” Thereafter, one may theorize the manifestation of hominid nekton.

Each act is hand in hand, just like every spec of life is obligatory to the entire aspect of the universe. Many believe that humanitarian aid is "good", and war is innately "evil". Reciprocally, they are subterranean in a motley sense, yet one would not be the same without the other, and both are extremely different acts. Still, we can decide to act in neither, in one, in the other, or in both. If war did not exist, and still starvation/disease did, humanitarian aid is still “good”, and starvation/disease would be a dominating “evil” in the vanguard of debacle. In a bland pathological sense, “good” and “evil” are conveyed by the actors portraying in lieu of neither, of one or the other, or of both……………………….Alas, cadit quaestio.

"What is Evil?"

a word. define it as you like.

C7ityi_, I agree with what (I think) you mean. But not with the words you're saying. And improper definitions tend to cloud the mind. I'm merely trying to offer another point of view, to be used as one wills.

"Wimps whine because they have courage."
Sure, as opposed to those, who say nothing, they are brave (=willing to risk something to help others), but I define courage as willingness to risk EVERYTHING in order to do the right thing. It wouldn't "the right thing" to get killed in an attempt to stop a non-violent robbery though, that would be foolhardy. Real courage would require knowledge of what you should do. But which is more brave; the man who says nothing, the man who says something or the man who DOES something.

"If we could change ourselves and the world we would do it."
Only too true. This is not an argument for passivity. There's an old tale about a convict (during reneissance, propably...), who said that he is not responsible for what he had done; It had been his fate. The guard simply replied "sure, and it's my fate to bring you to court, the judges fate to sentence you and the executioners fate to kill you."
We cannot achive what we cannot achive, but a fate we cannot choose we must ignore. It has no use to us, but to give us an excuse not to do what we should. Too much talk of such a fate, and you will no longer change yourself, and hence cannot evolve.

"We must first experience all kinds of karma, then we are free from karma."
And that is why we should seek confrontation and bravely do whatever we will, in order to succeed, or be corrected if we fail. Also why we must hate those who fail; how else would they know their failure?

"But karma will do the job if we don't,"
No, don't think it will. It might project itself through someone else, but then again the perfect moment for perfect action might already have passed. Also I don't think Karma can do much on it's own, it merely empowers us when we try to do the right thing. And come against us when we aren't. THAT, I think would be Death.

"it will come to us if we don't stand at it's side."
More like it's always there. But our choices remain our own; karma can't force us. But standing against it is like standing against the wind; You either stand tall and break, or bow and never touch the sun as others rise above you. To bend and rise where appropriate seems sensible. "If I meet an 80 year old man I can teach, I will. If I meet an eight year old child that can teach me, I will learn." -Some zen-buddhist monk.

"I mean they're [gods are] just creators"
'k, but as you pointed out, this basically makes a god out of everything, hence making the term rather useless. Mine gods are just powerful creatures constantly connected to karma, and hence immortal (by mundane hands, or in the face of time). And by helping gods, I meant gods trying to make us do the right thing. They're propably called angels these days (since this terming of the word "god" makes it pretty pagan).

"Egoism is created because people think there are several beings."
Only if you're short sighted. It's rather that the whole universe tries to "play team", since it's more efficient. And those who won't are either ignored, or punished if they try to harm "the team" (taking and not giving, murdering etc). But since the universe is TOO DAMN BIG, it's on our shoulders to take care of it. Just that if we punish more than necessary, we'll be the ones taking and not giving. We do our BEST, and Karma better take care of the rest, cuz' we just can't do any better ("Do it bester!"?).

(and having said all that, I'll just say I have no proof of any of this, hence feel free to ridicule. I'll just say nothing proves it WRONG, and hence it remains a theory, that cannot be disputed. And it seems right to me :P )

Look at the Moors' couple who brutally murdered some 15 children.
Your talkin the talk, but your too scared to walk the walk aintcha!

Somewhere in the world those children would be considered heathens and death was the rightous end for them (regardless of whom carried out the act... 'God' works in mysterious ways). Maybe those children would have damaged the gene pool had they been allowed to reproduce and the Moors did the world a great service. Maybe those children kept the Moors from bombing entire buildings?

IMO the Moors probably killed for pleasure and those children weren't adaptable enough to survive the onslaught.

In the universe, matter / energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Only changed from one form to another. Life; however, can be destroyed and has a process to persist. That process weeds out the variants that cannot adapt. Both the Moors and the children played a role in that very necessary process.

Outside your own subjective tolerance, where is the objective evil? That's correct, it just doesn't exist.

Prince_James,
"So you suggest what precisely? That when met with evil, we ought to use all means we can to circumvent and overcome it?"
Well...Yes. If we know perfectly what good and evil is. And since we don't, we should exercise caution, and fight what we know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY. But even then..

"That we should not feel restricted in our aims?"
I said it somewhere, Means justify the Ends. "ends justify the means" sounds neat, but in reality every action is its own entity ("an entire thing, in and of itself, without requireing anything outside it"), every action has ITS OWN ENDS ("all the consequences of an action"). Hence every mean, or action, create an effect alone, which others merely stop or contribute to. You could say that achiving some goal is good enough that any side-effects can be ignored by the virtue of the achivement, BUT it could also be said that had the means been more perfect, the actions taken would have been BETTER.
Hence a good action cannot be an action we could've done better; and vice versa, if we did our best, we couldn't have done it better. And if someone is telling us we should have done it better, we have failed; and we should do it better next time (once corrected, it can no longer be considered best, ne?)

Uhhhmm to answer your question; no. We should be restricted in our actions, in order to not cause more "evil" in side-effects than we cure by taking "good" actions. But neither can we say we did good, if we ignored alternative ways of doing it. And if the bad guys keep coming back, then clearly we are doing something wrong. We should be able to cure them before they come at us.

And following X-men 3 theme, maybe what we percieve as "evil" is not some kind of disease, but a new way of doing things. Obviously, they're doing something wrong, as well, since they haven't "won". So we learn what we can from them, while at the same time hang onto what we have. The parts that won't fit must go; the parts that can't go without crippling the ideology behind the force, fit. It is my personal belief, but it is based on personal experiences of success.
(these are, of course, based on what I have said at my first post. So they might seem bit out of context. For example, I have refuted the concept of "good fighting evil, eternally". The best man wins, period. And if there is no victor, then neither is more right than the other.)

In a word, we just have to find things we can do, while following BOTH ideals. And be creative about it. Othewise, we have not done our best. (and karma can't compensate enough)

ALSO
Tyler, the question below the topic was how to define it, so you haven't really said anything.

Rantaak, if there is no universal will, why is there order in it? You're not gonna dispute the laws of physics?

Novacane, funny but true. Still, we have to take action in the mean time, and we might as well start counting the odds (here, hey?), since no one has told me cheatingf was forbidden :)

Oniwit... I'd comment, but on a deep level, I can't find an argument..wait, society? What?

Ogmios:

"Well...Yes. If we know perfectly what good and evil is. And since we don't, we should exercise caution, and fight what we know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY. But even then.."

It is indeed wise to recognize that our perception of any event is not absolute. But yes.

"I said it somewhere, Means justify the Ends. "ends justify the means" sounds neat, but in reality every action is its own entity ("an entire thing, in and of itself, without requireing anything outside it"), every action has ITS OWN ENDS ("all the consequences of an action"). Hence every mean, or action, create an effect alone, which others merely stop or contribute to. You could say that achiving some goal is good enough that any side-effects can be ignored by the virtue of the achivement, BUT it could also be said that had the means been more perfect, the actions taken would have been BETTER.
Hence a good action cannot be an action we could've done better; and vice versa, if we did our best, we couldn't have done it better. And if someone is telling us we should have done it better, we have failed; and we should do it better next time (once corrected, it can no longer be considered best, ne?)"

Assuredly. A good action cannot rightfully be said to be improved, whereas all actions which are lacking can indeed. Some much moreso than others.

"Uhhhmm to answer your question; no. We should be restricted in our actions, in order to not cause more "evil" in side-effects than we cure by taking "good" actions. But neither can we say we did good, if we ignored alternative ways of doing it. And if the bad guys keep coming back, then clearly we are doing something wrong. We should be able to cure them before they come at us."

So therefore you propose a flexibility of action that adapts itself upon the situation?

"And following X-men 3 theme, maybe what we percieve as "evil" is not some kind of disease, but a new way of doing things. Obviously, they're doing something wrong, as well, since they haven't "won". So we learn what we can from them, while at the same time hang onto what we have. The parts that won't fit must go; the parts that can't go without crippling the ideology behind the force, fit. It is my personal belief, but it is based on personal experiences of success. "

Meaning that even amongst evil people, we might find something in their actions or aims that are worth adopting, even if greatly adapted?

"(these are, of course, based on what I have said at my first post. So they might seem bit out of context. For example, I have refuted the concept of "good fighting evil, eternally". The best man wins, period. And if there is no victor, then neither is more right than the other.)"

So you admit only to victory as the source of determination of which cause is right and which is wrong? Or even good and evil? In essence: Might is the ultimate justification of right?

Nicholas1M7:

"I'm on sciforums. Look at who I'm talking to boss. How does "gangsta" fit into this? "

True, true.

"Hindley... Brady. "

I guess my conjecture was wrong.

Jonny5:

You speak of natural evil in your post. That is to say, earthquakes, ravaging fires, et cetera, et cetera. What you fail to distinguish is that in each of these cases of natural evil, the cause is blind. That is to say, it is committed by a system which simply acts according to its laws and we humans are the ones whom are in the way. Can such a system, which neither has consciousness nor any freedom to act outside its natural laws, be accorded morality? It is only if such weather phenomena were in control of a being - God or whatever - that we could claim them evil, and then only in the manner a murder's weapon is the instrument of his evil. In essence: Their destructiveness - or benefit - is completely outside the realm of morality. They are simply facts which must be accorded a status of inevitability until (or if) we have the capacity to control them.

Moreover, I would ask you something: Though benefit may be taken by any action by one person or another, can not we speak of greater benefit? For just as you say the pallbearers and the cremators gain a new customer, we could say that were this man alive, a slew of other services would have benefited from his patronage. Similarly, a throng of other things could be said about what could be done when he was -alive-. Therefore, we must ask whether or not we can justify murdering him for the supposed benefit that can result from this, not to mention whether or not such limited benefit can be construed as a foundation for murdering that which is supremely unique (an individual life).

Prince_James:
You speak of natural evil in your post. That is to say, earthquakes, ravaging fires, et cetera, et cetera. What you fail to distinguish is that in each of these cases of natural evil, the cause is blind. That is to say, it is committed by a system which simply acts according to its laws and we humans are the ones whom are in the way. Can such a system, which neither has consciousness nor any freedom to act outside its natural laws, be accorded morality?
Amiably noted. The association I made between natural acts and “evil” was a mere attempt to genuinely understand “evil” by simply suggesting that the epitomes of natural acts, however acute, correlate with humanistic conduct. In no way was I inferring that Nature could follow the same moral principles festooned by individual life with a constitution of mental cognizance. I might have believed you to think me a deuteragonist, if I was not aware of how ineffective I seemingly applied this gauche assertion.

Natural acts are defined and in accordance within the laws of the universe, on the slightest subatomic level, akin to everything else. The cause(s) of a, or of natural acts, is/are blind. A lightning bolt is not aware or conscious of where or why it struck, it is not an individual life, it is energy made up of individual particles. The concussions of the act and the subsequent reactions are not in accordance with morality, they are following the inflexible randomness of a flexed natural reaction to components girding the stimulus of environment. Using your words, “the cause is blind.”

One might state that we are all products of a milieu innate with Nature. Would not then our ritualistic behaviorisms be in some way incubated in Nature? The laws governing the systematic impulses of natural acts are the elicitations that reveal human life, and perhaps, informally, causes of human behavior. The regulations defining morality are synthetic since we, as humans, have the freedom to act outside of the determined margins established in accordance with the guidelines we are appropriating for our behavior. We resist what is deemed “evil,” and encourage what is deemed “good,” accordingly the process of which we judge individuals and the vindications of their expressed demeanor.

It is only if such weather phenomena were in control of a being - God or whatever - that we could claim them evil, and then only in the manner a murder's weapon is the instrument of his evil. In essence: Their destructiveness - or benefit - is completely outside the realm of morality. They are simply facts which must be accorded a status of inevitability until (or if) we have the capacity to control them.

In reversal, one could argue, if “God or whatever,” was in control of the demeanor of weather phenomena, we could claim such events as “evil,” and attribute the method of the murderous utensil to the adage “I’ll give you something to cry about.”

I shall try a somewhat different approach. The laws of Nature, of the universe, of anything, are encrusted in the echelons of a metrical gridiron. The laws themselves are materials making up that which they govern. For instance, the Earth is made up of three focal layers, the crust, mantle, and core. Regarding this logic, in terms of the cause of/for “evil” in/of Human beings, I have incorporated this ambiguous theory.

The crust, is the act of evil as determined by the transparent results perceived by the moral implications for such and such an act. The mantle, is the conscious impetus and pledged decision to facilitate the act of “evil” in reality. Finally, the core, is the actual cause of “evil.”

In summation, utilizing this ambiguous theory, I shall define acts of “evil” as physical and or psychological injury to human beings ensuing in anguish and/or death. The implications of morality regarding the acts of “evil” are programmed and advocated so that human beings can and may accommodate themselves to indulge in all aspects of realty. The cause of “evil” is a paradox in the form of morality.

Moreover, I would ask you something: Though benefit may be taken by any action by one person or another, can not we speak of greater benefit? For just as you say the pallbearers and the cremators gain a new customer, we could say that were this man alive, a slew of other services would have benefited from his patronage. Similarly, a throng of other things could be said about what could be done when he was -alive-. Therefore, we must ask whether or not we can justify murdering him for the supposed benefit that can result from this, not to mention whether or not such limited benefit can be construed as a foundation for murdering that which is supremely unique (an individual life).
If the composition of a humanely umbilici is destroyed, certainly the quantification of produce that life might have bared and sowed is tragically insoluble. For the loss of life institutes no collateral in return for the spoils inundated in the collective moral fiber. The agitator of “good,” in all likelihood, would not show an inch of concern for the consequence of murder.

More likely, culprits of “evil” might emit particular flippancies, stemming from their mental terra firma. The justification for “evil” is implemented by individuals ethically sound, more or less. A slaughterer might justify the “evil,” but the cause would always be vaporous to anyone in pursuit. Is “evil” or the cause of it communal, or is it reserved in its concealed state, to the seemingly random hosts imposing “evil” actions?

Actually, he came to his political ideas less so over sadness and moreso over frustration with the Communist threat and cultural undermining he saw as part of the Jews. He actually lived an okay life beforehand, including becoming quite the honoured soldier on the battlefield.

you can't know the inside of people. you can't know how he felt in reality, and how his life really was. you only see the outside. being an honored soldier wouldn't make me any happier, "nothing" would. i'll become like hitler, because ptahhotep said so.

Prince_James,
"So you admit only to victory as the source of determination of which cause is right and which is wrong? Or even good and evil? In essence: Might is the ultimate justification of right?"
Oh, umm.. It sounded better when I said it.

It's just not justified to say we use other as tools; although we do. But we do it while also caring for them, and act in the intrest of common good (or "the team"). And saying "might makes right, fight fight fight!" is kinda already on the wrong side of the edge, kinda, since it can be taken in a wrong way. And even while we use others, we don't do it by code "use others as tools", but rather "do good any way you can", from which we derive the use of others. But by saying this, I already seem worse than I am.

Also, I see a problem. I often think in "good vs. evil"-fight-on, and talk the same way, which explains the whole "means-to-an-end" questioning. But what I'm saying is that all means are free, when doing ANYTHING. Fight evil, yes. Get a beer, still yes. "Ends" is a silly definition. Since ends don't justify anything, only thing that matters are the means. (if you define evil as "strives for suffering", you get Hitler, who might have done it all in good faith, and then wouldn't be evil. Everyone tries to be good = they just fail = Evil is in the means)

Umm so might makes right, sure. But to use my favorite example, Rome was freaking mighty, so it was kinda righty too. But it fell, eventually. So It's might was flawed. And so was their reasoning. As I said somewhere, evil is more often shortsightedness than intention. Right action, by my definition, cannot backfire or come back to haunt you; everything that does, is evil; but since we cannot do better than our best, mistakes are okay.

I can't remember where I heard this (on some movie..?): "It's not wrong to make mistakes; but it's repeating them that gets me".
Hence, action is not good, if it isn't perfect, and it's not evil if you had no way of knowing better. But ignorance (ignoring stuff because it's not "true") is no excuse in the courts of man, nor at the higher places. (So I consider knowledge the ultimate virtue.)

"So therefore you propose a flexibility of action that adapts itself upon the situation?"

Well, NO. Actually yes, but I disagree with the way you say it. I'm saying ALL MEANS ARE ALWAYS FREE. No action (charity, kindness) is right, always and in every situation. And no action (hate, violence) is wrong in every situation. Which makes me kinda go "means to an end" again. hmm.. (see, if I say now that "it's what your trying to achive", means-to-an-end follows)
That is to say, means JUSTIFY the ends. Wrong means (the kind that backfires) spoil your End. But ANY means that do not backfire are okay.
Or more like: what you achive is more important than how you do it. Or why you did it (what you TRIED to achive).
(more later, sleep overtakes)

Jonny5:

"Amiably noted. The association I made between natural acts and “evil” was a mere attempt to genuinely understand “evil” by simply suggesting that the epitomes of natural acts, however acute, correlate with humanistic conduct. In no way was I inferring that Nature could follow the same moral principles festooned by individual life with a constitution of mental cognizance. I might have believed you to think me a deuteragonist, if I was not aware of how ineffective I seemingly applied this gauche assertion. "

Your true intent is now understood. My thanks for such elucidation.

"One might state that we are all products of a milieu innate with Nature. Would not then our ritualistic behaviorisms be in some way incubated in Nature? The laws governing the systematic impulses of natural acts are the elicitations that reveal human life, and perhaps, informally, causes of human behavior. The regulations defining morality are synthetic since we, as humans, have the freedom to act outside of the determined margins established in accordance with the guidelines we are appropriating for our behavior. We resist what is deemed “evil,” and encourage what is deemed “good,” accordingly the process of which we judge individuals and the vindications of their expressed demeanor."

A question I must pose to you regarding this: Are you asserting an analogue or a connection here betwixt the enticements of behaviour and the natural laws? That is to say, are you implying that the system is only similar to how the magnetic force shall manifest in the presence of a magnetic field and thus shall we find magnetic phenomena (metal sticking together, lightning storms) resulting from such? Or are you claiming that just as magnetic properties will produce the aforementioned phenomena, so too shall the impetus to acts elicit a reaction as certain as the resultant force manifestations?

"I shall try a somewhat different approach. The laws of Nature, of the universe, of anything, are encrusted in the echelons of a metrical gridiron. The laws themselves are materials making up that which they govern. For instance, the Earth is made up of three focal layers, the crust, mantle, and core. Regarding this logic, in terms of the cause of/for “evil” in/of Human beings, I have incorporated this ambiguous theory. "

So you postulate that the moral law permeates the different strata of conscious action and result in a manner analogous to how the natural forces reside and act within all levels of matter?

"The crust, is the act of evil as determined by the transparent results perceived by the moral implications for such and such an act. The mantle, is the conscious impetus and pledged decision to facilitate the act of “evil” in reality. Finally, the core, is the actual cause of “evil.”"

A degree of elaboration is required in regards to the core. When referencing it as the "actual cause of the 'evil'", are you here speaking of the action the evil is being wrought in response to? If not, then what of?

"In summation, utilizing this ambiguous theory, I shall define acts of “evil” as physical and or psychological injury to human beings ensuing in anguish and/or death."

This is generally a well-received presentation of morality, but one which it behooves us to ask whether or not is viable and proper. For consider that, though in general it is claimed that we oughtn't bring harm upon another, the notion of harm is held not to be itself evil, in that it is allowed as a means of insuring one's self-defense and other such things. Similarly, in moral instruction one may rightfully induce psychological harm in order to correct the behaviour of someone whom is acting improperly, that is, the employment of shame to assure conformity to morality, specifically amongst children. Would then it be enough to classify evil simply as harm resulting in anguish and/or death? It does not seem thus!

"The implications of morality regarding the acts of “evil” are programmed and advocated so that human beings can and may accommodate themselves to indulge in all aspects of realty. The cause of “evil” is a paradox in the form of morality. "

To "indulge in all aspects of reality" implies what? Similarly, in what way do you propose evil is a paradox resulting in morality?

"If the composition of a humanely umbilici is destroyed, certainly the quantification of produce that life might have bared and sowed is tragically insoluble. For the loss of life institutes no collateral in return for the spoils inundated in the collective moral fiber. The agitator of “good,” in all likelihood, would not show an inch of concern for the consequence of murder. "

So you thus proclaim that whether or not a life may have produced more alive then death is irrelevant, because those would be but potentials but the resultant increase in the benefit to the undertakers and other funery professionals would be actual? That consequently, the murderer would conceive of his actions then as good?

"More likely, culprits of “evil” might emit particular flippancies, stemming from their mental terra firma. The justification for “evil” is implemented by individuals ethically sound, more or less. A slaughterer might justify the “evil,” but the cause would always be vaporous to anyone in pursuit. Is “evil” or the cause of it communal, or is it reserved in its concealed state, to the seemingly random hosts imposing “evil” actions?"

And thus it would seem to be that we are lead back to the point that no man seeks evil for the sake of evil, only good under evils considered such by others. But even if this is said, it would seem that morality in order to be of any use and to extend beyond the descriptive to the normative, must not end simply at "all men always seek the best end", but also add strict rationalization and consideration of every moral action. That is to say, if we wish to truly seek the good, we must do so by applying the innate drive "of the best" to rational ends which truly facillitate an attainment of "the best", as opposed to an unskilled and ignorant understanding of such.

I shall respond to the other posts later.

c7ityi_:

"you can't know the inside of people. you can't know how he felt in reality, and how his life really was. you only see the outside. being an honored soldier wouldn't make me any happier, "nothing" would. i'll become like hitler, because ptahhotep said so."

Who is Ptahhotep?

And ontop of that, I was taking his views mainly from his own words, that is to say, from "Mein Kampf" and the like.

Ogmios:

"It's just not justified to say we use other as tools; although we do. But we do it while also caring for them, and act in the intrest of common good (or "the team"). And saying "might makes right, fight fight fight!" is kinda already on the wrong side of the edge, kinda, since it can be taken in a wrong way. And even while we use others, we don't do it by code "use others as tools", but rather "do good any way you can", from which we derive the use of others. But by saying this, I already seem worse than I am."

Well it depends greatly on what you mean by "use others as tools". There are many types of tools, as it were. Similarly, is "the good of all" a necessarily morally demanded goal?

"Also, I see a problem. I often think in "good vs. evil"-fight-on, and talk the same way, which explains the whole "means-to-an-end" questioning. But what I'm saying is that all means are free, when doing ANYTHING. Fight evil, yes. Get a beer, still yes. "Ends" is a silly definition. Since ends don't justify anything, only thing that matters are the means. (if you define evil as "strives for suffering", you get Hitler, who might have done it all in good faith, and then wouldn't be evil. Everyone tries to be good = they just fail = Evil is in the means)"

This would indeed go well with the conception that all strive for good, yet at the same time, are not all actions done for an end? For whilst you are correct that it is the action, and not necessarily the goal, which is considered evil, if it were not for the goal said actions would not take place.

"Umm so might makes right, sure. But to use my favorite example, Rome was freaking mighty, so it was kinda righty too. But it fell, eventually. So It's might was flawed. And so was their reasoning. As I said somewhere, evil is more often shortsightedness than intention. Right action, by my definition, cannot backfire or come back to haunt you; everything that does, is evil; but since we cannot do better than our best, mistakes are okay."

So then, anything which is succesful, is by definition, right?

"I can't remember where I heard this (on some movie..?): "It's not wrong to make mistakes; but it's repeating them that gets me".
Hence, action is not good, if it isn't perfect, and it's not evil if you had no way of knowing better. But ignorance (ignoring stuff because it's not "true") is no excuse in the courts of man, nor at the higher places. (So I consider knowledge the ultimate virtue.)"

So you would proclaim that ignorance does not even excuse us?

"Well, NO. Actually yes, but I disagree with the way you say it. I'm saying ALL MEANS ARE ALWAYS FREE. No action (charity, kindness) is right, always and in every situation. And no action (hate, violence) is wrong in every situation. Which makes me kinda go "means to an end" again. hmm.. (see, if I say now that "it's what your trying to achive", means-to-an-end follows)
That is to say, means JUSTIFY the ends. Wrong means (the kind that backfires) spoil your End. But ANY means that do not backfire are okay.
Or more like: what you achive is more important than how you do it. Or why you did it (what you TRIED to achive).
(more later, sleep overtakes) "

So then, you proclaim that it is in the skill of applying different responses to different situations to produce a good end that virtue is to be found? That is, if charity is -not- demanded, and in fact violence is, it wuld be folly to provide charity?

It's just not justified to say we use other as tools; although we do. But we do it while also caring for them, and act in the intrest of common good (or "the team"). And saying "might makes right, fight fight fight!" is kinda already on the wrong side of the edge, kinda, since it can be taken in a wrong way. And even while we use others, we don't do it by code "use others as tools", but rather "do good any way you can", from which we derive the use of others. But by saying this, I already seem worse than I am.
Crackheads are the opposite, and their good at it too.

Evil is like..........Hmmmm? How about someone putting adhesive glue on all of the toilet seats in a public restroom in a busy airport. The memory of that so-called 'evil' experience should 'stick' with you for a long time.

Prince_James,

I musta skipped some stuff...
A good goal (or End), according to me, is Life. Not mere survival, and also not some or other sub-part of it (like power or money or even knowledge). By Life I mean personal success and survival, but also anything included to life (happiness, success, safety, friends..). This has the advantage of explaining why some are selfish and others are not. So this would be an old way of seeing good and evil. But in reality it is in people's personal gain to help others, so they help him back; working as a team benefits all. Also, if you are altruistic, you must understand how it is in others intrest for you to live, and must therefore preserve yourself.

So, Evil is to seek the ultimate End (life) through actions which do not create it. Seeking money at the cost of friends, stacking safety at the cost success, friends at the cost of personal power (also, knowledge is power), etc, etc. And good would be to find how to achive these things without having to sacrifice youself at the process.

And since Good is achiving good Life, true Evil people would be lifeless wankers not worth mentioning. SO the people I call Evil are not complitely Evil, but rather people quite successful, but losing direction rapidly. These are dangerous, because they have power but not the wisdom to keep it. They waste it, and it does not flow back into society, hence creating powerless society. The money goes in, but doesn't come out; and the people expecting the money to circulate are left poor. The poor either rebel, turn to crime or simply rob the society of their own power by being powerless. So, my concern are the not-quite-good people, since they CAN achive, but not survive, and like a disease, drain resources until it dies, or kills the host.

I understand this must have caused a lot of confusion. Sorry.
So,
"This would indeed go well with the conception that all strive for good, yet at the same time, are not all actions done for an end? For whilst you are correct that it is the action, and not necessarily the goal, which is considered evil, if it were not for the goal said actions would not take place."

Um, action is also it's goal. Since every action has consequence, each mean produces its own end. We do these actions for the end, so if our actions fail, it is because
a)we mispercieved the ends of the mean (or the consequences of our actions)
b)we mispercieved the ends we wanted to achive.
Or, if we percieve that Life is always the goal we wanted to achive, only a) survives. (since all goals such as Money are only pursued in the thought that "if I have money, I can do anything" (or friends or wisdom or power))

Hence, if all people try to attain perfect life, they only fail when they do something stupid (make a mistake).

Then onwards to the actual explanation of "might makes right". As I said, mostly I'm concerned about the good-enoughs, people good enough to have power, but too bitter or proud to advance further. They, incidentally, seem to be successful in the world. Then we have the good-buts, who are good and nice people but don't seem to make it, at times. You could say the good-enoughs fight for money and power, and the good-buts fight for friends and happiness. Both seek knowledge, but only to a degree.

Since both have incomplete goals (only fractions of what makes Life), both fail to throughtly win the other. Of the two, the good-buts seem happier but poorer and somtimes vexed, while good-enoughs seem successful but unhappy with life. Still, both persist, and to me, this seems a clear sign that they are but two sides of the coin. (or at least two facets of a multifaceted gem; whatever).

Of the two I call Evil the Good-enoughs, because they use too much energy to survive NOW, and often fail at later age. Good-buts (or Good) survive (barely) now, but never really fall down. Their progress is steadily rising. You might say the girls date the bad guys, but marry the good guys ;)

But even the good-buts fall eventually, for while wiser, they refuse to dabble with Evil, and either spiral into bitterness or madness trying to fight the inevitable (becoming something of a fanatic), "lose their fate" (giving further and further power away to the unwise) or start spouting some garbage about morale relativism to escape the fact that even they are wrong. And refusing to take control of others, they eventually hand it over to those, who want it, believing in Karma, or God or Fate or in the Good of Humanity.

They, in a word, refuse to oppose the world, and are eventually destroyed WITH it ("The meek shall inherit the earth" didn't certainly help. Try to inherit a nuclear holocaust..).
So we have to learn from the "evil" while not giving up what makes us us. I'd have to quote Platon to justify this, but what makes our ideals are not the dozens of things we THINK makes up "Good". And when we discover the true essence of both sides, we will understand how they fit (Aristotle).
And, of course, we must. If Courage is risking all in order to do what we think is right, we must risk even our ideals in order to achive greater heights.

Am I making sense now?

maybe evil is not evil... maybe it's just a bit misunderstood.

Who is Ptahhotep?

And ontop of that, I was taking his views mainly from his own words, that is to say, from "Mein Kampf" and the like.

you can't know a person by their words either. i might not even believe the words i say here, or it might not be me who is writing them or someone might point a gun at my head and tell me to write them or i might be controlled by my feelings which make me write this...

ptahhotep was the son of god who lived in egypt a few thousand years ago.

ptah means god, hotep means son.
pharaoh means big house, the house of god, the temple of god.

Ogmios:

"I musta skipped some stuff...
A good goal (or End), according to me, is Life. Not mere survival, and also not some or other sub-part of it (like power or money or even knowledge). By Life I mean personal success and survival, but also anything included to life (happiness, success, safety, friends..). This has the advantage of explaining why some are selfish and others are not. So this would be an old way of seeing good and evil. But in reality it is in people's personal gain to help others, so they help him back; working as a team benefits all. Also, if you are altruistic, you must understand how it is in others intrest for you to live, and must therefore preserve yourself."

So life is to "live well"?

But yes, I shall agree with of the self-benefit to be had from acting "altruistically" and how this is ultimately the good people aspire to.

"So, Evil is to seek the ultimate End (life) through actions which do not create it. Seeking money at the cost of friends, stacking safety at the cost success, friends at the cost of personal power (also, knowledge is power), etc, etc. And good would be to find how to achive these things without having to sacrifice youself at the process."

In essence, evil are the actions which are ill condusive to "the good life"?

"And since Good is achiving good Life, true Evil people would be lifeless wankers not worth mentioning. SO the people I call Evil are not complitely Evil, but rather people quite successful, but losing direction rapidly. These are dangerous, because they have power but not the wisdom to keep it. They waste it, and it does not flow back into society, hence creating powerless society. The money goes in, but doesn't come out; and the people expecting the money to circulate are left poor. The poor either rebel, turn to crime or simply rob the society of their own power by being powerless. So, my concern are the not-quite-good people, since they CAN achive, but not survive, and like a disease, drain resources until it dies, or kills the host."

So the mark of the evil man is degeneration?

"Um, action is also it's goal. Since every action has consequence, each mean produces its own end. We do these actions for the end, so if our actions fail, it is because
a)we mispercieved the ends of the mean (or the consequences of our actions)
b)we mispercieved the ends we wanted to achive.
Or, if we percieve that Life is always the goal we wanted to achive, only a) survives. (since all goals such as Money are only pursued in the thought that "if I have money, I can do anything" (or friends or wisdom or power))"

Well I had meant "the intended end" as well as the "actual end". The distinguishing factor is that the intended end directly causes the action - despite wanting it or not -whereas the actual end is the results of the actions, whether in accords with the intended or not, and thus made by the actions.

"Am I making sense now? "

Yes. So basically, you see the world as composed, in the majority, of either those who have power but don't know how to use it properly, and those who may know how to use it properly, but have no power, yes? And that it is through both sides not realizing the fullness of both that they are incomplete.

c7ityi_:

"you can't know a person by their words either. i might not even believe the words i say here, or it might not be me who is writing them or someone might point a gun at my head and tell me to write them or i might be controlled by my feelings which make me write this..."

There is no indication Hitler was lying.

"ptahhotep was the son of god who lived in egypt a few thousand years ago."

Crom's only sons are the dooms, not fortunes, which he unleashes on the world! Silly C7.

"Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse." -samcdkey

I've been waiting to get to this, but I suppose I had to say what I have to found my points of views (or sound really hideous).

I assume by Harm she means any type of hurt or pain (or maybe despair..), physical or mental. By remorse I suppose she means "without pity".

My argument is essentially based against people, who simply refuse to accept some or other fact. Mostly people who refuse to accept some crucial fact like "using nukes is not a good thing" or "hurting others is bad". Especially against people who hurt others. It's rather classical example of sentencing a murderer to death; it cannot be put to use without breaking the law, or allowing some appointed person to break it. (One could use this to argue against death sentences, whatever)

In a word, how do you change something without essentially destroying what it was? And since we're talking about living people, shaping their psyche can be painful at times. Should we then let them live in their delusions (we assume they have such things), since we cannot harm? Granted, if one looks enough, one finds a way, but during that time others are hurt as a consequence.

In a word; Is it right to hurt others to avoid a greater pain, and if so, is "Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse." a sufficient definition of Evil? (you could argue the "remorse" point, but I certainly feel no pity in correcting others behavior where I KNOW they cannot be right. And wouldn't you in this case harm IN remorse?)

"Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse." -samcdkey

I've been waiting to get to this, but I suppose I had to say what I have to found my points of views (or sound really hideous).

I assume by Harm she means any type of hurt or pain (or maybe despair..), physical or mental. By remorse I suppose she means "without pity".

My argument is essentially based against people, who simply refuse to accept some or other fact. Mostly people who refuse to accept some crucial fact like "using nukes is not a good thing" or "hurting others is bad". Especially against people who hurt others. It's rather classical example of sentencing a murderer to death; it cannot be put to use without breaking the law, or allowing some appointed person to break it. (One could use this to argue against death sentences, whatever)

In a word, how do you change something without essentially destroying what it was? And since we're talking about living people, shaping their psyche can be painful at times. Should we then let them live in their delusions (we assume they have such things), since we cannot harm? Granted, if one looks enough, one finds a way, but during that time others are hurt as a consequence.

In a word; Is it right to hurt others to avoid a greater pain, and if so, is "Evil is the capacity to harm without remorse." a sufficient definition of Evil? (you could argue the "remorse" point, but I certainly feel no pity in correcting others behavior where I KNOW they cannot be right. And wouldn't you in this case harm IN remorse?)



Harm
Noun
1. Any physical damage to the body caused by violence or accident or fracture etc.
2. The occurrence of a change for the worse.
3. The act of damaging something or someone.

Remorse
Noun
1. A feeling of deep regret

If your act will in some way damage or change the person for the worse and you can do this without regret, I define this as evil. Change is not the same the same as destruction. Change should be for the better. Any person/society that believes that damage can lead to progress is on the road to the destruction of humanity as we know it. It is possible to help and educate without damaging. The only time hurting someone can be considered acceptable is when it is in defense of self. What is "greater pain"? Is it for self? for a community or people? Or a country? That is the argument used by a terrorist. Do you believe a terrorist is justified in targeting civilians to make a point about his "greater pain"?

Every human being has... an attendant spirit.... If it does not always tell us what to do, it always cautions us what not to do. ~Lydia M. Child

I think people who lack this spirit are evil.

Okay, point clarified. I suppose I can agree that in clause 2. it would BE evil. I think the definition still needs some clarification, but hey, so what.

By greater pain I meant that if someones actions are not corrected, he will cause pain to others. Or to himself, or anyone really. It's generalised do I can't really define it better.

And regret, to me, seems a really bad word, since you regret actions you wouldn't have wanted to do. Which... actually makes sense. I argue that we just don't have time to do it right every time, not without causing more pain than we saved. But to regret that is actually good, since we would have done better, had we the chance.

So you are, in fact, right. A person who does not regret an action he could have done better, has convinced himself that he did the right thing, which is really a delusion.

As for terrorists.... Well, they could be doing something a lot better. But if they knew how, they would be doing it better. I would still argue that violence is a solution to every problem; Just the absolutely WORST solution to it. Their hatred comes from action we took, so they are justified (Just that our strikes at them also become justified. And you could say neither is right.). Fighting is better than taking it in, but fighting is worse than some other, unknown action they should be doing.

As for the spirits, they sure weren't present when some traders decided to copy imperialism (buy resource, sell product, get 150% profit) and to cause pain on the arabs. So the arabs are more right, just not right enough. It's never as easy as you said.

And I would rephrase that as "people who don't listen to their spirits are evil". If everyone has a spirit, how some wouldn't have them? And my spirit is more like the angry, nasty version of me, so...

Prince_James]: to Jonny5

A question I must pose to you regarding this: Are you asserting an analogue or a connection here betwixt the enticements of behaviour and the natural laws? That is to say, are you implying that the system is only similar to how the magnetic force shall manifest in the presence of a magnetic field and thus shall we find magnetic phenomena (metal sticking together, lightning storms) resulting from such? Or are you claiming that just as magnetic properties will produce the aforementioned phenomena, so too shall the impetus to acts elicit a reaction as certain as the resultant force manifestations?

Most cordial Sir. I am speculating thusly. Any act within the paradigms of Nature or humanistic behavior, be it considered ordinary or eccentric, is caused by the ignition of reactants in the crux of the fused amalgam enticed by the action. Humans are made up of the same biological rudiments manifesting from the earth. We, as individual selves, are pin-pointed with stupefying precision; we are compressed within our own practical bodies. Yes, a sort of quid pro quo correlation of essence betwixt. If all the required paraphernalia are collected and prepared, the labor shall begin. If one is convinced, out of reason from self- preservation, or political interests, or doohickey, (whatever the case), to commit atrocities, and atrocities invariance have already been incanted before, the cause is sustained in the network of all that exists. Similarly to how Nature imposes its perpetual sequences. No limitations; the cause of an act and the implications of the act it self, need not be regulated in terms of magnetisms.

If one injects heroin into the vain, surely that person’s actions will be a reaction to the chemical compound and its alteration of the psychological state. Certainly, our conscious and unconscious enticements for thought, and/or action are often times, yet not always, stranded from our individual mental stratospheres. They are crudely sketched against patterns representing already duplicated carbon behaviors of past eras. The only divergence is the adjustments of archaic conduct in order to promote the progressive state of civilization and the awareness of corollary in explicit behaviors. Nature is not self-serving other than to sustain its unadulterated continuums. We are self-preserving, because we are conscious, because we feel remorse, we feel grief, love, hatred, and so forth onward into the sentiments labyrinth.


So you postulate that the moral law permeates the different strata of conscious action and result in a manner analogous to how the natural forces reside and act within all levels of matter?

Not exactly, Sir. Moral law is more or less, the programming of a colander for mentality, to ensure that we acquaint ourselves with distinguished perspectives of our potential augmented behavior. Nature need not be concerned with its potential, for its engineering is evident of its melodiously perpetuated causes.

Nature is no way dependent upon us, it is self-sustaining, yet we are entirely dependent on nature. At the most fundamental level, the only substantial comparison with the laws of Nature and the laws of morality is that natural laws are expansive, and any non-human organism or natural event, need not enumerate behavior, for it is predetermined by the natural laws themselves. The laws of nature are not in dispute; they need not be enforced or retracted. The laws of morality are ridden with equations of the conscious, leaving the cause of the essence of “evil” obscured within the parameters of the act.

A degree of elaboration is required in regards to the core. When referencing it as the "actual cause of the 'evil'", are you here speaking of the action the evil is being wrought in response to? If not, then what of?

No, the tangible act itself would be the crust (The crossover from intent to distribution), which is wrought by the mantel (conscious impetus for “evil”). The core (cause of evil) represents the fermentation of all the properties that comprise “evil.” It is soldered in the very essence of our being. In other words the essence of “evil” is rooted in all of us. We all have this firing pin. The serious concern is the viable means with which to make the cartridges of “evil” discharge.

This is generally a well-received presentation of morality, but one which it behooves us to ask whether or not is viable and proper. For consider that, though in general it is claimed that we oughtn't bring harm upon another, the notion of harm is held not to be itself evil, in that it is allowed as a means of insuring one's self-defense and other such things. Similarly, in moral instruction one may rightfully induce psychological harm in order to correct the behaviour of someone whom is acting improperly, that is, the employment of shame to assure conformity to morality, specifically amongst children. Would then it be enough to classify evil simply as harm resulting in anguish and/or death? It does not seem thus!

No Sir, tis not a mere matter of attraction and repulsion. Tofu, which is protein augmented, generally mimics the taste of any food it is mixed with. It is extracted from soybeans. Our behaviors are extracted from our mental enticements and projected on ourselves, others, and nature. Our behaviors, in various ways, mimic, and deduct from, every single other identifiable behavior. Whether we, or anyone else, or nature, is enriched or otherwise affected by these actions, is dependent on the proprietors of how moral law is interpreted, or espoused, and by whom dispraises thusly, or is loyal to the code, and finally by how nature acclimatizes to our actions. I classified the action(s) of “evil” as harm resulting in physiological or physical anguish and/or death, not the essence or cause, and rightly sowed.

To "indulge in all aspects of reality" implies what? Similarly, in what way do you propose evil is a paradox resulting in morality?

To indulge in the potentiality of intellectual progression, to pamper ourselves with the fruits of our labor, to bask in the summer sun without being viscously persecuted by another, to take the lead when all else fails, to protect ourselves and loved ones with the utmost brutality if and when threatened, to submit, conform, distort, or isolate the awareness that we all have: Not all peoples are born into equality (in the broadest sense of the term.) To continue with such examples would be to sanction a tangent from legitimacy in accords with my argument thus far.
To do anything, anything at all, we can imagine and/or develop the capital to ratify. Sir, you have mistaken my suggestion. The cause of “evil” is a paradox in the form of morality because moral code masks the cause of “evil” with the pretentious belief and enforcement of “good” and it's clauses.

So you thus proclaim that whether or not a life may have produced more alive then death is irrelevant, because those would be but potentials but the resultant increase in the benefit to the undertakers and other funery professionals would be actual? That consequently, the murderer would conceive of his actions then as good?

Pardon me Sire naysayer. In plain terms, the loss of life is enormous, and the potential of that life will never be known or appreciated by anyone. Tis infinitely relevant. The remunerations are trivial. The only real “good” becoming of one dignified whom be slain occurring from an “evil” action, is the possibility that the beloved one’s followers (tribe, friends, family), might develop a profound inspiration to instill change for the betterment and the “good” of, and for, themselves and all peoples. If one was not slain, it would be the same influx of mystery, surrounding that individual’s potential in life if one had been. The murderer would be free from classifying the act as anything but mandate. If the culprit was honestly remorseful, than tentatively no, the murderer recognizes the action as “evil.” This also might be within the confines of what is determined to be necessary “evil.”


And thus it would seem to be that we are lead back to the point that no man seeks evil for the sake of evil, only good under evils considered such by others. But even if this is said, it would seem that morality in order to be of any use and to extend beyond the descriptive to the normative, must not end simply at "all men always seek the best end", but also add strict rationalization and consideration of every moral action. That is to say, if we wish to truly seek the good, we must do so by applying the innate drive "of the best" to rational ends which truly facillitate an attainment of "the best", as opposed to an unskilled and ignorant understanding of such.
If you tell a child, or someone who is maturely self-aware, not to do something, and give them a library of reasons why no such act should be committed; chances are that person might find morality to be the equivalent of a foreign language. They might not have the currency to procure the same toys as you, or the capacity of intelligence you sustain, or the quantum leap of love that you experience. Morality is coalescing for the disciplinarian. In a classroom, most students conform, yet there is always one who is exceptionally talented at disrupting the flow of learning for others. Utopia thus won’t ever be achieved. On a grand scale, the people that commit to “evil” are disproportionate to those convicts of “evil” being disciplined by morality. I’ve speculated too much, not enough, and too little. One might attempt to empathize with those crucified by and for “evil.” Perhaps then, a resolution would suffice, a universal maxim touching as many people as may be reached. It would seem that denunciations are oxygen that feeds the flames of the fires of life. Tis an enigma indeed, one that allomorphs me into a wee intellectual tetchier.

Cyperium:

"But the pleasure that he gains from such deeds are filled with evil desires!"

But benefit is never itself evil. It can be evil in relation to another thing - and thus why it is evil, though not sought for evil - but it is impossible to seek that evil as the good one seeks.Benefit can be evil, if the benefit is of evil nature. As he commits a crime to enable him to commit another one.

"It is the motivation that you talk about, sure a man needs motivation for doing evil deeds, a man needs motivations for doing any deeds, the motivation are in some cases self-induced, meaning that the motivation is sought by the person. "

Motivation surely has its roots in the self's desire, yes.

"The pleasure of pain, isn't the pleasure of the pain itself, it is the motivation that causes him to seek pain. The motivation he uses could also be calculated so that it masks the true intent, where the method of solving the underlying problem could be something nice, a method is instead used that isn't nice, and it brings pleasure because it is indeed a method of solving a problem and is forcely believed so, so as to mask the intent which indeed could be the same problem that he is trying to "solve".

If that problem is masked in such a way that it gives rise to said problem with intent, then that could be said to "do evil for evils sake". "

Yet said evil is not sought even here for it's sake, only so that the benefit that is gained may be achieved.Not when the benefit doesn't become real but the acts instead leads to the same problem again. In a way fooling the reward system.


That is to say, the evil is not done so that the evil may be done (...)But then evil is done so that evil can be done (evil leads to evil, and in the case I talked about it is done with intention).

(...) and nothing may be taken from it, nor might so it might be grieved, so that the value might be always be attained in the act.I don't understand.

Consider when people are ill. Why is it considered a bad thing? Because it is harmful to the self and frustrates one's aims.Bad thing, yes, but not evil (not evil by you).

People in general thus do not seek illness.No, but if someone seeks illness for you, then that would be considered evil (poisoning for example).


People then desire to be well, so they might be freed from such frustrations and pains, and might be happy and relieved, that they might benefit from well-being. Thus we say that wellness is good, whereas sickness is evil (or at the very least, bad).Sickness isn't evil, it is bad, but sickness is only evil if the sickness itself make you sick with intent. If someone gives rise to your sickness then that person can be considered evil (not allways though, sometimes illness can be used as vaccin and such, so it has much to do with intent and effect).

It is only ignorance which drives a man to do acts of evil to others, even though he is misunderstands good for himself (at least in a limited sense, as no evil good on the scale of good).What if everything evil could be explained by ignorance...

If a person misunderstands something, and tries to do good things, then that isn't really evil, not to my understanding at least, could even be described as a accident, that person may need help to sort out the misunderstandings or bad behaviours (that's why we send some people to mental institutions that have committed a crime).

Also, bullies can be felt to be evil, but they are probably trying to help the victim, it's a 'blind leading a blind' situation. That doesn't account for all bullies nesessarily.

Jonny5:

"Most cordial Sir. I am speculating thusly. Any act within the paradigms of Nature or humanistic behavior, be it considered ordinary or eccentric, is caused by the ignition of reactants in the crux of the fused amalgam enticed by the action. Humans are made up of the same biological rudiments manifesting from the earth. We, as individual selves, are pin-pointed with stupefying precision; we are compressed within our own practical bodies. Yes, a sort of quid pro quo correlation of essence betwixt. If all the required paraphernalia are collected and prepared, the labor shall begin. If one is convinced, out of reason from self- preservation, or political interests, or doohickey, (whatever the case), to commit atrocities, and atrocities invariance have already been incanted before, the cause is sustained in the network of all that exists. Similarly to how Nature imposes its perpetual sequences. No limitations; the cause of an act and the implications of the act it self, need not be regulated in terms of magnetisms. "

So that is to say, it is fallacious to speak of atrocity manifesting in the minds of individuals, for its cause is necessarily demanded to be "within the network of all that exists" and thus is it an effect with no genesial quality to support it as anything but? Moreover, would you go as far as to claim that we can speak of the apple as having the necessary cause of one's subsequent devouring of it?

"If one injects heroin into the vain, surely that person’s actions will be a reaction to the chemical compound and its alteration of the psychological state. Certainly, our conscious and unconscious enticements for thought, and/or action are often times, yet not always, stranded from our individual mental stratospheres. They are crudely sketched against patterns representing already duplicated carbon behaviors of past eras. The only divergence is the adjustments of archaic conduct in order to promote the progressive state of civilization and the awareness of corollary in explicit behaviors. Nature is not self-serving other than to sustain its unadulterated continuums. We are self-preserving, because we are conscious, because we feel remorse, we feel grief, love, hatred, and so forth onward into the sentiments labyrinth. "

Do you imagine that this manifestation of past behaviour is a characteristic of all natural life, or just humanity? For it would seem to me that in the absence of a culture - a trait peculiar to humans alone - that such a return to prior states would be impossible in the truest extent, for whereas a bear might accidentally act like a bear a thousand years ago, human beings are mentally exposed to rememberances of such figures a thousand years ago and can, both consciously and subconsciously, adopt such patterns as their own. Or to put it otherwise, all causal-relations necessitate locality, and in the absence of a culture, past events are outside the bounds of locality and thus cannot be sufficiently connected to the present to be the cause which provokes the effect of behaviour-modelling.

"Not exactly, Sir. Moral law is more or less, the programming of a colander for mentality, to ensure that we acquaint ourselves with distinguished perspectives of our potential augmented behavior. Nature need not be concerned with its potential, for