"Evil"

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Nicholas I. Hosein, Jul 21, 2004.

  1. Nicholas I. Hosein Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24
    We begin by looking at the common definitions of evil:


    dictionary dot com

    Quote:

    e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
    adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
    Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
    Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
    Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
    Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
    Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

    n.
    The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
    That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
    An evil force, power, or personification.
    Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


    If evil is exclusive to human civilization then we can argue that it is competely based on perspective.

    If evil is based on perspective, then the one percieving it has either qualifyingly or unqualifyingly judged it based on some concept or perceived violation of justice. Therefore, "evil", although it may be a purely subjective term, still is modelled after some well-formed or tautological truth in the mind of the person who witnessed it. Hence, it becomes a question of what standards one has in their concept of good relative to the evil witnessed. The standards are normally set by the "utilitarian good" or the greater good as defined in Benthamite philosophy.

    But in this case our semantic concept of "evil" is not yet complete if we consider evil as a defiance in perspective of the greater good. Which leads us to ask, from what is this perspective in each individual born of? If it is born of the primal survival instincts then it can be attributed to territorial disputes, in regards to humanity and not any other animal this is meant in the sense of what is commonly expected of us and what we expect others to live by per society.

    In nature there exists the hierarchy of beings and of this, the food chain. From the bottom to the top of the food chain we see a gradual rise in command each being has over every other. If every creature has a survival need of every other, then the scenario of cheating and abuse of power may arise. This would be a case in point of a "natural evil". If a person kills an animal without reason, then it would be an accident since the act was in absence of choice. Where nature can be called the judge, this would be the mens rea. However, if the same person kills an animal while conscious that the value of personal gain is significantly less than the value of the animal's life, then the person has committed a natural evil. In other words, a non-predetermined act of evil would suggest that evil can be considered to be fairly subjective, and an act of evil based on choice is truly evil. Since nature is only partially predeterministic, then there is both true evil and subjective evil.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Since when was evil exclusive to the human civilization? Ever hear of fallen angels?

    The evil that pertains to humanity is concerned with the law and our conscience which bears witness, between ourselves our thoughts accusing or else excusing our actions. All variations, as you have stated, only go to demonstrate human imperfection, as we are incapable of keeping the law, and yet need it to distinguish evil.

    Hope I made sense..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    What we have here is a failure of intellectual imagination.

    Once you got as far as thinking in terms of Civilization, you should have realized you had the veritable Key to the distinction between Good and Evil. Civilization is made possible only by Goodness -- the willingness of People to cooperation and share -- to effectively treat others as themselves. Civilization is the physical manifestation of the Golden Rule.

    Evil is not just a matter of perspective. Evil is the barbarian impulse to pillage civilization in order to exult the individual.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Nicholas I. Hosein,

    Very interesting topic (and nice job BTW). I wanted to share a different
    view on the subject. My observations of how nature works vs. what people
    consider 'good' and 'evil' lead me to a very interesting conclusion. In nature,
    there are two very factual behaviors that our world's various species exhibit.
    One is altruism and the other is exploitation. For either behavior you can
    have a complete absence of it (i.e. a neutrality so to speak); hence, there
    are 4 states that can be derived if we consider altruism, exploitation, and
    neutrality.

    1. Altruisim
    2. Exploitation
    3. Altruisim AND Exploitation
    4. Neutrality

    Throughout our lives we pick out various forms of the above states and label
    them with the words 'good' and 'evil' (notice that there are only 2 labels).
    Existing picks may change labels over our lives while new picks are constantly
    made. While this constant flux exists, our society / parents / cultrue /
    religion / etc. heavily influence how we label any new picks and even allow
    us to make predictions on how some people's picks will change labels over
    time.

    In other words, 'good' and 'evil' are man-made labels that subjectively
    express individual tolerances of various forms of the above states. This
    also means that there is no such thing empirical 'good' and 'evil' in the
    universe.

    I feel it would be a really cool thing if some day we could have a more
    definitive moral structure based on altrusism, exploitation, and neutrality.
    Some of the benefits it could potentially have are to mitigate moral / ethical
    disagreement and incoherency while eliminating the dependency of fairly
    tale practices (ex. Religion) as a source of morals and ethics.
     
  8. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Nicholas,

    Ignore this indivual's insults. Arrogance, empty assertions, and fallacy
    are not a substitute for a thinking.
     
  9. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Altruism is the real Good. Exploitation is the real Evil. The Bibles Prophecy of The Beast and Antichrist anticipate that the Real Moral Compass will be reversed, just as it is Today.

    In Modern Politics 'Exploitation' is called by the euphemisms of Freedom and Opportunity, while 'Altruism' receives the Curse of being deemed Liberal.

    Yes, moral perceptions can be perverted. We can see this from Jewish Scripture. Jacob was a liar and a cheat who swindled and defrauded his Eldest Brother out of his Birthright by lying to his Father. But because Jacob is considered the Patriarch of the Hebrew People, these moral outrages which would land any modern civilized person in jail, are considered 'clever' and justified. Jews over hundreds of Generations have slowly patterned themselves on Jacob and have effectively become a race of Jacobs. If you need somebody to lie and cheat for you, you can find no better choice. It is why they make such effective (I won't say 'good') lawyers.
     
  10. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Leo,

    Most people are not even fully aware of the concepts of altruism and
    exploitation. They just label things on the fly as 'good' and 'evil' and adjust
    these labelings over time. Within the scope of this event, people don't
    have an agreeable definition of 'good' and 'evil', and without recognizing
    how they are defining it now such an agreement would not be possible.
    In fact the way I am defining altruism and exploitation is based on a model
    of the factual and observable behaviors of Earth's species. More specifically:

    Altruism:
    Unselfish behavior targeted towards another individual / group that is for that
    benefit of that individual / group and may be detrimental towards the well
    being of the source of the behavior.

    Exploitation:
    Taking advantage of another individual / group that is detrimental towards
    the well being of that individual group without the agreement from that
    individual / group.


    The moral compass couldn't be changing because there is no existing
    compass to begin with. Ask people where 'North' is and fingers will be pointing
    all over the place. Perhaps society has matured to a point where it can
    come to some firm agreements of moral definition based on altruism,
    exploitation, and neutrality. We could have a compass with definitive
    directions based on behavioral fact. As to what direction people would
    choose, well that would be a decision of the individual with environmental
    influences; however, it could be very well shown that altruistic and neutral
    behaviors will produce greater benefit.

    Politics reflects many conflicts born of moral and ethical concepts lacking firm
    agreed-upon definiton. If someone exercises altruistic behavior towards
    the homeless then some individuals will recongnize the deed and others
    will condemn the homeless for being exploitive of the altruistic people helping
    them. The latter half would label the altruistic folks as 'Liberal'. Both Liberal
    and non-Liberal parties agree on the problem though and have different
    ways of solving it. It is possible to be altruistic and receive neutrality or
    even altruism in return.

    The concept of opportunity gets a raw deal if it is being considered exploitive.
    Consider two companies competing for business. If one company initiates
    a price war and wins, then the other company goes out of business and
    many people loose their jobs. That is not exploitation. When people accept a
    job, they are agreeing to compete for business and have their expectations
    set to the positive and negative consequences of the agreement. For
    example, if the CEO of one company finds a huge defecient feature in a
    competitors product then he will take advantage of this fact and decimate
    the competition. Did he take advantage of the competitors weak point? Yep.
    Did the competator agree to this? Yes! The moment they entered the market
    they made the agreement.

    Regarding freedom, the word has alot of meanings so we would have to
    agree upon one to discuss it.

    As far as Jews are concerned, I have seen some of the behaviors you
    are asserting; however, it is not common and I don't know for a fact that
    the ratio of such behaviors is greater in the Jewish population than in other
    religions.
     
  11. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    I don't think this is standard convention but it will make things a bit less confusing. Evil with the capital E is separation in relationship with God. Just plain "evil" refers to someone's individual actions that manifest Evil.
     
  12. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Does that mean someone without a relationship with god is Evil?
     
  13. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509

    Life is not a game. Who do you think made all these rules and agreements you are talking about? If the Leisured Rich decide to have a contest as to who can pillage greater part of the World, that does not make it right. Before we had Capitalist Barbarians, we had Warrior Barbarians. Then the Rules you love were to assemble Armies and invade and attack. Some would win and some would lose, but it was all quite fair since everyone agreed to it. Well, NO! The People never agreed to any of this destructive, exploitative and predatory crap.

    Here is something to think about. Productivity has gone up 700% since the Nineteensixties. But Americans are still working 40 Hour Workweeks. Now why on Earth do you think that the American Working Class wants to spend every weeking hours slaving for some Capitalist Bosses, when if you were to do the Math, then with the Productivity Increases figured in he really should only have to be putting in Six hours of work a week.

    Really, I don't think that ordinary people are quite so agreeable about being screwed over. The way Capitalist Control works is the People are effectively deprived of Control. Socialism was made the Enemy and every Communist was deemed a traitor to his Country. It is not much of a Choice when the System kicks the Living Crap out of anybody who will choose Door Number Two or Door Number Three.

    While we still have Religion, Usury was forbidden. Predatory Business practices were frowned upon. Guilds did not put other Guilds 'Out of Business' -- the Church would mediate Accomodations.

    What you are defending is just Modernized Contemporary Barbarism.
     
  14. Leo Volont Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,509
    Predators who prey upon their fellow Man are Evil.

    For everyone but a Mystic, God is just an intellectual abstraction. Virtually nobody has a relationship with God. Those who say they 'believe' in God are mostly just putting up a pretense. What they actually mean is that they would like to Believe in God. The difference is the same as between having a Million Dollars and wishing you had a Million Dollars.

    But people are put in the state of psychological duress. the Protestants scream at them that if they do not believe in God they will go to Hell, and at the same time they are told that believing in God is accomplished simply by saying the words, "I believe in God". So they say the magic words. But saying you believe in God does not make it so.
     
  15. Lemming3k Insanity Gone Mad Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    One simple reason, money, if you only do a 6 hour week you dont earn enough to live on, hours of work vary with jobs as does the money, also productivity might be 700% higher but if everyone only did 6 hours a week that would fall back down to what it was before and then perhaps demand has increased by 700% aswell and that would account for the rise in productivity, along with new technology and such.
    I asked a simple question yet fail to see an answer in all that you say, theres a few things that seem to divert away from the question but nothing that directly answers it, if your trying to say only a few people have a relationship with god and those people are 'good' then please explain how you can tell who has a genuine relationship with god and who doesnt?
     
  16. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Leo,

    When someone creates a product and sells it, that is not pillaging. In
    the U.S. you don't magically become 'rich'. You have to work for it. If
    you have a great product and work hard to sell it then you may become
    rich. If you are fortunate enough to attain great financial succes then you
    may choose to fund and guide others whom have product ideas that you
    feel may be sold. This has nothing to do with Barbarians.

    I don't see what prouctivity increases has to do with 40 hour work weeks;
    however, as to why people choose to work... it's simple. If you have a
    reasonable education then you can become quite wealthy by joining a
    company and being a high performer. High performance = salary increase.
    High performance and improved competency = salary increase and promotion.

    Really, people in the U.S. are not getting screwed over.
     
  17. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    @ Crunch Cat

    Ever heard of Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    You speak for yourself. All Christians I've met believe God is alive and that they have a relationship with God. That includes both Gospel and Presbiterian. Also, the catholics believe that too. Your statement is either ignorant or deceiving (i.e. a lie).

    Again, not true. All Christians I've met have had complete conviction of the existence of God. So far you don't refelct in any way the Christian way of thinking.

    That is once again completely wrong. Protestants by definition are the exactly opposite of what you have stated. The early protestants in Geneva had the exact opposite perspective that you show here. The perespective that you are showing belong to the Catholics, who believe that the grace of God has to be gained. But that is an obvious mistake, since grace, by definition, is the unmerited favour of God. In other words, the protestants (i.e. most non-catholics) believe that we are saved by grace, and not by our works. Protestants believe that they don't need to ask for God's forgiveness, while catholics believe that they should be constantly asking to be forgiven, which clearly contradicts the Word of God.

    That is also wrong - spetially for protestant churches. Pretestant churches tend to believe that faith is just one step towards victory. Protestants tend to believe that you first need to pray and then act in that faith and make it happen. So, once again you are seriously mistaken.

    Finally something accurate....
     
  19. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Yes. But there's degrees of separation. Alledgely, someone who doesn't know that God exists is unable to hate God. So the degree of separation in this case is less than someone who knows God exists and hates Him.
     
  20. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    TruthSeeker, Catholics believe that grace is unmerited as well. Look up grace in the catechism somewhere. The difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics believe that salvation is by grace alone(someone must act on their faith) and Protestants believe that salvation is by faith alone(true faith automatically produces action).

    As for asking for forgiveness, you will find some Protestants who say "yes," such as Evangelicals, and others who will say no.
     
  21. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: In the pre-biblical civilizations, is there any documented evidence of evil? I'm asking, I don't know.
     
  22. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    What do you believe, okinrus?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    *************
    M*W: Hasn't it been said that no one can really "know" God? I disagree with that, because I believe I "know" God or what God means to me. But how could anyone who believes in God hate God? It's beyond my imagination. To me, that would mean they hate humanity. I think that's impossible for a sound mind. Then that brings me to the point that, if someone hates their own creator, they must be mentally unstable -OR- they believe in something ungodly.
     

Share This Page