• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Definition of Evil

Beth

Philosopher
Beth
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
5,598
I was watching this video of Christopher Hitchens in which he describes the Rev. Billy Graham as evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hl2jdfIiA&feature=related

It occurred to me that the Rev. Billy Graham might also describe Mr. Hitchens as evil. It got me thinking about what it means when someone describes someone else as evil.

The definition I arrived at is that 'evil' means the person being described is perceived as moving their common culture in a direction the person applying that label does not like.

It's kind of awkward, but I think it would cover both the people Hitchens denounces and the people denouncing Hitchens.

I'd be interested to hear other poster's ideas on what it means to describe someone as 'evil'?
 
My suspicion is Hitchens sees Graham as evil for pushing people to something he likely doesn't believe himself. And Graham would see Hitchens as evil for "pushing' people to something he does believe himself.
 
I think it depends on how you define "evil" looking at a woman's body can be considered evil,or not paying the tax or running away from a taxi cab while you did not pay after sending you to the place you want to go. Well if you murdered, or worshipped the devil he can be officially technically called "evil"
 
Evil is arbitrary. It's not real, except in stories which really on archtypes, which seem to be a very pure sort of aesthetic concept. These archtypes pervade into our every day lives as we romanticize life out of an appreciation we have for aesthetic concepts, which comes from morality I'd say in many ways. Morality being something evolved out of living in groups and finding a lot of success in grouping. The things which most offend us, the purest concepts of harm and selfishness.
 
Beth said:
I was watching this video of Christopher Hitchens in which he describes the Rev. Billy Graham as evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1hl2jdfIiA&feature=related

It occurred to me that the Rev. Billy Graham might also describe Mr. Hitchens as evil. It got me thinking about what it means when someone describes someone else as evil.

The definition I arrived at is that 'evil' means the person being described is perceived as moving their common culture in a direction the person applying that label does not like.

It's kind of awkward, but I think it would cover both the people Hitchens denounces and the people denouncing Hitchens.

I'd be interested to hear other poster's ideas on what it means to describe someone as 'evil'?
Click to expand...
I think that there is a problem with your definition: not all evil people operate at the level you are describing. Some are just individually evil, not evil because of their effect on a culture.

An example would be Charles Manson. I consider him evil, but don't see where he would fit in your definition. He influenced a few people, but I don't think he could be considered to have moved a common culture in a direction I don't like.

So to me it seems your definition is incomplete. There needs to be more to allow for individual evil. I hope I made sense, I feel I'm not explaining very well, sorry.
 
We already have a clinical terms for evil people: malignant narcissist or psychopath. If you want to understand the definition of "evil" just get to know such individuals.
 
Halfcentaur said:
Evil is arbitrary. It's not real, except in stories which really on archtypes, which seem to be a very pure sort of aesthetic concept. These archtypes pervade into our every day lives as we romanticize life out of an appreciation we have for aesthetic concepts, which comes from morality I'd say in many ways. Morality being something evolved out of living in groups and finding a lot of success in grouping. The things which most offend us, the purest concepts of harm and selfishness.
Click to expand...

i think evil is real. if a person murdered someone, that can be evil. or it is really evil. the intensity of evil is not dependent on how we percieve it to be.
 
piojunbabia said:
i think evil is real. if a person murdered someone, that can be evil. or it is really evil. the intensity of evil is not dependent on how we percieve it to be.
Click to expand...

If an objective quality exists, one apart from how humans feel about something, it can be measured objectively. If it can't then we have no business stating that it exists.

What is the objective test for evil?
 
Cavemonster said:
If an objective quality exists, one apart from how humans feel about something, it can be measured objectively. If it can't then we have no business stating that it exists.

What is the objective test for evil?
Click to expand...

Evil cannot be done to inanimate objects and neither can inanimate objects do evil, as they have no experience or intent. Evil can only be done to subjects and be perpetrated by subjects. Ergo, there is no 'objective' test of evil absent some assessment of subjective factors.
 
Last edited:
AkuManiMani said:
Evil cannot be done to inanimate objects and neither can inanimate objects do evil, as they have no experience or intent. Evil can only be done to subjects and be perpetrated by subjects. Ergo, there is no 'objective' test of evil absent some assessment of subjective factors.
Click to expand...

I don't believe inanimate objects can contract diseases either, but we do a pretty good job of testing for those independantly of how a patient emotionally feels about it.

I can't imagine you've hung around the forums this long and you somehow think that an objective test is impossible if living things are involved.
 
Cavemonster said:
I don't believe inanimate objects can contract diseases either, but we do a pretty good job of testing for those independantly of how a patient emotionally feels about it.

I can't imagine you've hung around the forums this long and you somehow think that an objective test is impossible if living things are involved.
Click to expand...

Thats not actually what I'm saying. I'm saying that evil, malignancy, disease, etc. only exist relative to subjects. They can be objectively identified but their nature is inherently subjective. See what I'm gettin' at? :)
 
AkuManiMani said:
Thats not actually what I'm saying. I'm saying that evil, malignancy, disease, etc. only exist relative to subjects. They can be objectively identified but their nature is inherently subjective. See what I'm gettin' at? :)
Click to expand...

The nature of specific diseases is not inherently subjective.
I can test for streptococcus without at all referring to the emotioanl state of the patient. See what I mean?
:)

Either evil is a subjective quality that is dependant on human opinions, or it is an objective quality that can be measured.

What is the objective test for evil?
 
Murder is a great evil only insofar as it is irreversible. So, too, causing pain. Without either, life would be akin to a video game, where gunshots don't hurt, and death is just hitting the spacebar to respawn, a minor irritation.
 
Cavemonster said:
The nature of specific diseases is not inherently subjective.
I can test for streptococcus without at all referring to the emotioanl state of the patient. See what I mean?
:)

Either evil is a subjective quality that is dependant on human opinions, or it is an objective quality that can be measured.
Click to expand...

I think the confusion comes in when people equate 'subjective' and 'opinion'.

Opinion means: "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."

Subjective means:"existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought."

If a person is suffering thru torturous pain their experience of pain is subjective but it is not a product of opinion -- it REALLY frackin' hurts. Similarly, evil is a subjective quality but it's reality does not rest upon opinion, human or otherwise.

Cavemonster said:
What is the objective test for evil?
Click to expand...

I think already have a working criteria for evaluating whether an individual is evil; its whatever clinical criteria we have for identifying malignant' character disorders', such as psychopathy. Irrespective of any political and religious opinions these individuals are just plain bad.
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
If an objective quality exists, one apart from how humans feel about something, it can be measured objectively. If it can't then we have no business stating that it exists.

What is the objective test for evil?
Click to expand...

murder can be considered an objective test, isnt it? or a satan worship can be counter too.. am i right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom