What is your definition of evil?

[DaveC426913]

So what are your thoughts on the notion of "necessary evils" or the "lesser of evils"?

A separate subject.

(As for poop, it sustains one sort of life while inhibiting another ...

So what? Is that a rationalization to make it OK?
Because, if rationalizations are OK, then this whole problem of evil goes away.

In a certain light, you can even relegate pain to a mere stimulli response, so one can dissolve the whole problem within a cloud of semantics. At the very least, ideas on "what experiences pain" has enjoyed quite a few fluid definitions over the past two centuries.

Most life consumes bacteria, microbes and plants. Only a tiny few consume other pain-feeling animals.

To suggest there is merely a semantic definition between what a gazelle experiences and what a petunia experiences is to jump down the rabbit hole into existential paralysis.

Then that leaves one to ponder whether or not humans, and their notions of evil, exist as anomolies within the world.

No pondering. They have certainly achieved a qualitative level beyond animals, yes. The invention of Right and Wrong, among other things.

 

[DaveC426913]

We have a concept of Evil. Who's to say it isn't part of the universal process/harmony? I'm not drawing a distinction between right and wrong, only making an observation that "Evil" has always been with us. People have been trying to get an upper hand over it for thousands of years.

Yes.

"Concept".
"us".
"people".

These are all things endemic to humans, and humans alone. Humans invented evil.

So, I - for one - am to say it's not "part of a universal process/harmony". It's only been around as long as modern humans.


Heck, even Genesis of the Bible concurs with that.

 

[Jeeves]

I thought the summation of right and wrong is morality.

Of course it is. That's how humans codify the concepts of good and evil.

Animals can be trained.

Certainly. They can be shown what humans reward and punish. They may even (dogs, anyway) be convinced that human law is right, and feel genuinely ashamed of their canine urges.
But we can't communicate or transmit the concept. No other species has the same internal values as any other, and no other that I know of has a native concept of evil. They don't need it, because they don't have our capacity for evil.

But we don't always agree.

We hardly ever agree. That goes with having big brains, different languages and various approaches to social organization. But no organized human society has ever, afaik, functioned without a moral code.

Wars between nations have been fought on the premise of right and wrong, at the cost of thousands of lives, I might add.

I don't think so. I think morality (more accurately, the immorality of the adversary) has been bruited as the justification, but the real reasons for making war are more practical.

A guy in town was clubbed over the head for holding an American flag. Clearly a clash between two concepts of right and wrong.

I very much doubt that, too. A clash between camps. There are all kinds of loyalties, interests and ideologies in play which have little to do with a concept of evil. Even the markers of partisanship that are characterized by the other camp as symbols of "pure evil", in fact stand for something else entirely - often as not, something that the nether camp also espouses in principle.
People have ulterior motives for labelling. If a can bears the label "creamed corn" and the content is dark brown, be skeptical; don't eat it.

It would seem to have many definitions.

It would. But you still need your own.

And perhaps we will all be Christians some day, or Muslims, or whatever

As long as it's either of those, we have trouble. Religious politics are never about right and wrong; they're about hegemony.

 

[DaveC426913]

... bruited ...

Encountering a word I've never seen before (esp. one less than a dozen letters) is about as common as hen's teeth these days. Thanks for the breath of fresh air!

 

[Jeeves]

Cheers, mate!

 

[iceaura]

I don't think so. I think morality (more accurately, the immorality of the adversary) has been bruited as the justification, but the real reasons for making war are more practical.

Not all justifications are created equal.
Sometimes people are in the right, and faced with a genuinely wrong adversary - wrong by both sides's claimed moral code.

But the connection between "wrong" and "evil" is complicated - evil is not simply a mistake, or a misjudgment. Most wrongdoing is not evil - even very bad wrongdoing.
Also: in a sense, evil is not done by mere accident. It seems to involve betrayal, universally, and seems to be surrounded by cowardice among the complicit, always - so it involves strategy at least, even character.

 

[Jeeves]

Not all justifications are created equal.
Sometimes people are in the right, and faced with a genuinely wrong adversary - wrong by both sides's claimed moral code.

Maybe so, and maybe that's the reason for many of the foot-soldiers to join up, but that's not why nations go to war.

But the connection between "wrong" and "evil" is complicated - evil is not simply a mistake, or a misjudgment. Most wrongdoing is not evil - even very bad wrongdoing.

Obviously: hence "the intent to do harm" - not to get something you need, not to strike back at someone who's hurt you, not an act carried out under the influence of mind-warping chemicals, not revenge, not rage: harm done soberly, sanely, deliberately. That's why 'malice aforethought' turns a homicide into first degree murder.

Also: in a sense, evil is not done by mere accident.

In every sense! Accident can't be evil. If you hit and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk, it's not evil. You knew you shouldn't drink so much - that was irresponsible. You knew you shouldn't drive in that condition - that was reckless. But you did not get into the car resolved to find someone to run over. Bad, but not evil.
The guy who waited until lunch-hour on a pleasant summer day to drive his van down the sidewalk on Yonge street to kill as many young women as possible - that's evil. Unless, of course his brain was controlled by a spirochete or something.

It seems to involve betrayal, universally, and seems to be surrounded by cowardice among the complicit, always - so it involves strategy at least, even character.

Cowardice is a weakness - not evil. (And it's easy to call other people cowards when we don't know how well we ourselves would do in their situation.)
Complicity for personal gain is quite another matter. Evil in the big leagues (gangland, political faction, business, religious hierarchy, dictatorship) usually relies for its success on many like-minded supporters.

 

[pluto2]

This forum is evil.

Seriously sci forums is full of Internet trolls.

I think that sci forums should be shut down for good.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

This forum is evil.

Seriously sci forums is full of Internet trolls.

I think that sci forums should be shut down for good.

Seriously, dude, see a doctor and get some anti depressents.

 

[iceaura]

Maybe so, and maybe that's the reason for many of the foot-soldiers to join up, but that's not why nations go to war.

Nations, like bulldozers, don't exactly have motives. Nations, as such, seem to go to war by accident almost.
If breaking down motivation by person, the individual soldier's motives count.

In every sense! Accident can't be evil.

"Collateral damage". There's even a term of law: "Depraved indifference".

Complicity for personal gain is quite another matter. Evil in the big leagues (gangland, political faction, business, religious hierarchy, dictatorship) usually relies for its success on many like-minded supporters.

Complicity to avoid personal loss is as much a factor.
One common pattern: an initial draw of minor and easily rationalized wrong for worthwhile gain, getting one sucked into a situation of major wrong to avoid heavy loss as much as acquire major gain. Joining a gang as a teenager.
The question then becomes the severity of threatened loss or promised gain that will bring a given person to do a given wrong. The odds. How big a risk or inconvenience will one absorb to save a baby.

Cowardice is a weakness - not evil.

Of course. ?

(And it's easy to call other people cowards when we don't know how well we ourselves would do in their situation.)

One can identify cowardice without projecting heroism by oneself. The point is not namecalling. Hiroshima, say: there are times when avoiding evil takes unusual courage.

Obviously: hence "the intent to do harm" - not to get something you need, not to strike back at someone who's hurt you, not an act carried out under the influence of mind-warping chemicals, not revenge, not rage: harm done soberly, sanely, deliberately.

That would exclude, from the evildoers, those who harm as a regrettable necessity of getting what they want - as a means to an end, that they would rather not bother about if they didn't have to. I would not want to exclude all of them from the orchestra of evil - some of them earn first chair status.
It also excludes the My Lai's, the pogroms, much terrorism - not coldblooded, not sane, not sober, and clearly (?) evil.

 

[Jeeves]

This forum is evil.
Seriously sci forums is full of Internet trolls.
I think that sci forums should be shut down for good.

That's one solution. Another is just not to log in.

 

[spidergoat]

This forum is evil.

Seriously sci forums is full of Internet trolls.

I think that sci forums should be shut down for good.

...But enough about Jan...

 

[Jeeves]

Nations, like bulldozers, don't exactly have motives.

That's a complicated statement. I can't go along with a nation as mere tool: the operator literally cannot steer it against its will. But popular opinion can be manipulated; opposition can be eliminated; dissent can be intimidated into silence. The leadership always has motives, and they are rarely moral.

Nations, as such, seem to go to war by accident almost.

That just means you can't always tell what's really going on.

If breaking down motivation by person, the individual soldier's motives count.

Only to the extent that they feel strongly enough opposed to face a firing-squad. The only way soldiers can actually affect a war is by mass desertion. Other than that, they're not judged on the war itself, but on their particular part in it: what they each do.
The point being that the reasons for war - however cumulative and obscure in their origins - are not moral reasons. For both the population and the leadership, there is always something to fear, or something to gain, or both. They don't mobilize exclusively to stop another nation doing wrong.

[accidents can't be evil]
"Collateral damage". There's even a term of law: "Depraved indifference".

There may be evil somewhere, in someone, at work in the making of an accident. But that evil isn't at work on causing an accident; the accident is a byproduct of attitudes and actions that may contain evil. If so, the evil won't stop with one accident: it will go on to cause intentional damage, at which time it will be manifest, rather than merely suspected.

One common pattern: an initial draw of minor and easily rationalized wrong for worthwhile gain, getting one sucked into a situation of major wrong to avoid heavy loss as much as acquire major gain. Joining a gang as a teenager. The question then becomes the severity of threatened loss or promised gain that will bring a given person to do a given wrong. The odds. How big a risk or inconvenience will one absorb to save a baby.

I don't see a definition of evil in there. Yes, wrong is often cumulative. People are fallible, gullible, suggestible, corruptible.
That's the reason we've devised scales of wrongness to inform our legal systems, as well as having a personal set of principles.

One can identify cowardice without projecting heroism by oneself.

I think one is often tempted to do so on insufficient information, or according to an unexamined definition of cowardice. I merely warn against being too facile in judgment.

Hiroshima, say: there are times when avoiding evil takes unusual courage.

I don't understand the reference. Who avoided evil in that situation? Certainly, the top decision-makers did not: they knew; they planned; they gave the order. The pilots, I don't know about. The common people were never consulted, but going by the retrospective apologists, there would have been no great outcry against.

That would exclude, from the evildoers, those who harm as a regrettable necessity of getting what they want - as a means to an end, that they would rather not bother about if they didn't have to. I would not want to exclude all of them from the orchestra of evil - some of them earn first chair status.

I don't think it does exclude material gain, or the quest for power and status. I would, however, put them on a comparative scale.

It also excludes the My Lai's, the pogroms, much terrorism - not coldblooded, not sane, not sober, and clearly (?) evil.

I would have to know the circumstances of each incident; can't form a blanket judgment.

 

[spidergoat]

I believe it's evil if some act was done with an intent to cause pain to another, whether it is physical or emotional it does not matter.

I don't have a definition of evil. It's just what I call extreme immorality. But it depends on context. I don't think it's easily defined, even though I certainly recognize a few red lines.

 

[iceaura]

That just means you can't always tell what's really going on.

The more one finds out about what's going on, the more accidental most wars appear to be. Observation. Even the ones launched on purpose with long planning by one side quickly lose that original direction even on that side, as a rule.

Only to the extent that they feel strongly enough opposed to face a firing-squad. The only way soldiers can actually affect a war is by mass desertion.

Or mass failure to cooperate, starting from before they were soldiers.

The point being that the reasons for war - however cumulative and obscure in their origins - are not moral reasons.

The reasons that people fight in them are. That's how the North beat the South in Vietnam - moral superiority. That's a big reason the North won the American Civil War, and the Soviets beat the Germans in WWII.

I can't go along with a nation as mere tool: the operator literally cannot steer it against its will.

The operator(s) create its will, build it in. Often unwittingly.
Likewise with bulldozers - one can only steer them within their design limits and capabilities. They have a "will" of their own.

That just means you can't always tell what's really going on.

The more one finds out about what's going on, the more accidental most wars appear to be. They never go according to plan, even approximately.

There may be evil somewhere, in someone, at work in the making of an accident. But that evil isn't at work on causing an accident; the accident is a byproduct of attitudes and actions that may contain evil.

There is a level of indifference to suffering and harm that is - legally - "depraved". Someone who acts repeatedly with depraved indifference is doing evil, imho. Example, famous: the Holocaust. Example, less famous: US occupation tactics in Iraq.

I don't see a definition of evil in there.

Not a definition, context.

I don't understand the reference. Who avoided evil in that situation?

Nobody. Hence the point.

I would have to know the circumstances of each incident; can't form a blanket judgment.

A particular judgment of any given one makes the point.

 

[Jeeves]

Even the ones launched on purpose with long planning by one side quickly lose that original direction even on that side, as a rule.

The comment I originally made was on motive: wars are not initiated for moral reasons.
It wasn't a treatise on Clausewitz.

The reasons that people fight in them are. [moral]

Yes, sometimes - or they believe so. I covered that first go-around.

That's how the North beat the South in Vietnam - moral superiority.

That's an opinion. I don't consider strength/depth of conviction proof of moral superiority, but it does bolster morale.
I'm not qualified or inclined to engage in a discussion of military conflicts through history.
I merely cast doubt on the moral motivation of declaring wars.

The operator(s) create its will, build it in. Often unwittingly.

That's what I said.

There is a level of indifference to suffering and harm that is - legally - "depraved". Someone who acts repeatedly with depraved indifference is doing evil, imho. Example, famous: the Holocaust. Example, less famous: US occupation tactics in Iraq.

If you classify those as accidents, I can't address your vocabulary.

Not a definition, context.

Exactly.

 

[iceaura]

The comment I originally made was on motive: wars are not initiated for moral reasons.

Which is one reason the initiator so often loses them. Because they are often fought for moral reasons.

Yes, sometimes - or they believe so

People have reasons they do not even know or care about?

If you classify those as accidents, I can't address your vocabulary.

I classify them as evil, regardless of intention.

I merely cast doubt on the moral motivation of declaring wars.

The evil of war is not limited to the declaration of it.

 

[Jeeves]

Which is one reason the initiator so often loses them. Because they are often fought for moral reasons.

They are never fought for moral reasons. War is bad. All of its effects are bad. Somewhere in the complicated and confused labyrinth of its antecedents, every war carries at least a germ of evil. Usually several, usually half-grown monsters.

People have reasons they do not even know or care about?

Do care about. Don't understand. Don't know how they've been persuaded to do something so horrible.
That's why so many veterans don't talk about it afterward.

I classify them [your examples? Holocaust, Hiroshima etc.] as evil, regardless of intention.

So do I classify them as evil. I do not disregard intentions and I do not classify them as accidents.

The evil of war is not limited to the declaration of it.

Of course not. Plenty of nefarious activities take place before, during, after and behind the scenes.
And plenty of heroic, decent, honest and compassionate ones, too, but they're on a smaller scale than the bad stuff.

 

[iceaura]

Do care about. Don't understand. Don't know how they've been persuaded to do something so horrible.

Because they were betrayed. They were fighting for moral reasons, and what they did - under coercion - did not align with those reasons.

They are never fought for moral reasons.

Of course they are. Defense of home, family, etc, against armed and aggressive evil is common.

I do not disregard intentions and I do not classify them as accidents.

Collateral damage. Depraved indifference. Neither intended or - properly speaking - accidental.

Of course not. Plenty of nefarious activities take place before, during, after and behind the scenes.

But they are not necessarily intended by the initiators of the war, or anyone fighting the war - especially on a side that did not initiate the war.
This business of reasons and intentions is vanishing into ether.

 

[geordief]

"Evil" as opposed to "bad"?

What about taking pleasure in actions the doer realizes are otherwise considered bad by the common consensus?

So ,yes a differentiated relative morality with different levels of "evilness"