• 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.

What, exactly, is evil?

JFrankA said:
...snip...
Personally, I think that a person without remorse, like a serial killer, is evil and I think that hypocrisy is a big evil.
...snip...
Click to expand...

I'd argue that a lot of definitions in this thread are too inclusive. If a sociopath or schizophrenic kills without remorse due to a neurological disease or any kind of organic dysfunction, can we really call that evil?

To me, evil is...
1. Knowing you are doing wrong, having the option to choose better, but going with the wrong.
2. Being motivated to #1 for reasons of self-interest (including simple amusement).
 
gdnp said:
I would have to add "unnecessarily". For example, bombing the trains to Auchwitz would have killed innocents, but might have saved more. I suppose this could be defined as a "necessary evil" or "the lesser of two evils", but the person who performs such an act is not an evil person if there is no better alternative.
Click to expand...

Good point!
 
Blackadder said:
Acts that are intended to be selfish and/or unjust, harmful to others

I believe all humans have flaws, so a good person can do an evil deed and a evil person can do a good deed.

An evil person in my eyes is somebody who does many evil acts, a good person is somebody who tries to do none at all.
Click to expand...

There's two problems with that definition. The first is the issue of inaction. By your definition, doing nothing at all isn't evil, even when a minimum effort can be beneficial to everyone involved. It defines good as the absence of evil, like cold being the absence of heat.

The second problem is that no other definition can be more thorough while being so concise. :-p
 
Piggy said:
I define evil as willfully or negligently causing harm to the innocent.
Click to expand...

Then you have to define "innocent", and any being which is self aware, has memories, and can perceive the universe isn't "innocent" for all purposes except by some extremely tenuous religious grounds.
 
gdnp said:
I would have to add "unnecessarily". For example, bombing the trains to Auchwitz would have killed innocents, but might have saved more. I suppose this could be defined as a "necessary evil" or "the lesser of two evils", but the person who performs such an act is not an evil person if there is no better alternative.
Click to expand...

The lesser of two evils can still be evil.
 
cwalner said:
I think the Golden Rule is useful here. "Do onto others as you would want others to do onto you." Somebody who intentionally inflicts pain and suffering on others that he/she is not willing to take upon him/her self is evil and the act that does this is an evil act.
Click to expand...

That's a nice thought, but it falls apart when the masochists and the performance artists get involved.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Then you have to define "innocent", and any being which is self aware, has memories, and can perceive the universe isn't "innocent" for all purposes except by some extremely tenuous religious grounds.
Click to expand...

If you keep that up, you'll have to define every word in the English language.

ETA: I'm not using the word as an adjective to describe the person generally.
 
Last edited:
I think evil simply put is anything that causes pain or death. This is especially true if the infliction of pain or death is intentional and without remorse or reason. I think school bullys are evil for instance.
 
Evil is a choice. If you choose to do harm to others, it is evil. The strict definition I use is that which people vountarily choose to do which harms or destroys the life of a rational being.
Blackadder said:
Acts that are intended to be selfish and/or unjust, harmful to others
Click to expand...
Being an Objectivist, I have to take issue with your use of the word "selfish" to describe evil.

People act for their own self-interest all the time without causing anyone any harm. Eating a good meal, getting a good night's rest, and working at a well-paying job are self-interested. There is nothing wrong with any of these actions, or anything simply because somoene is acting out of self-interest.

What the word "selfish" does is lump all sorts of destructive, often self]-destructive acts, in with self-interest, which is actually contradictory. Most of the behaviors I have heard described as selfish and evil are actually self-defeating. Its a package-deal, an attempt to get people to associate things in their minds that have no logical connection.

The truth is that self-interest is at the very foundation of morality. Without superstitious religion and a belief in some God who will punish us in some afterlife, all we have to go on is the consequences of our actions in our own lives. If you treat your friends rudely and unjustly, you won't have any friends left. If you lie, cheat and steal, people will learn to distrust you, and you won't be able to benefit from living in a society of productive people.

The worst of it is that a vast majority of the evil committed in the world was from supposedly selfless motives. The Nazis talked about selfless service to the nation. The communists talked about selfless service to the proletariat. Theocrats of all kinds believed in selfless service to God.

Anyone ever hear the expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? This expression is only possible when selflessness is the standard for the good. It means that bad things happen when you mess with other people's lives, trying to do them good they neither want nor ask for.
 
As said above, it's just an emotive way of saying "bad". It's also subjective.

For example - I think that going to kill your own son because someone - regardless of who - told me to do so is Bad.
However, the bible teaches that if that someone is God, then actually this is good. And, presumably, to *not* do it is Bad.
 
SaulOhio said:
Evil is a choice. If you choose to do harm to others, it is evil. The strict definition I use is that which people vountarily choose to do which harms or destroys the life of a rational being.
Click to expand...

This relates to the "lesser of two evils" thought. If one chooses to do harm to do others in a utilitarian sense, when the alternative is "more evil," it qualifies as evil under that premise. For a thought experiment, if one were to hop into a time machine and kill Hitler when he was born, you possibly could have saved many others from harm. Yet it would qualify as "evil" since you are doing harm to another.

I guess I think that your definition shouldn't be so cut and dry. Many things viewed as virtuous acts have bad consequences or harm to others; be they direct or indirect.
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
I'd argue that a lot of definitions in this thread are too inclusive. If a sociopath or schizophrenic kills without remorse due to a neurological disease or any kind of organic dysfunction, can we really call that evil?

To me, evil is...
1. Knowing you are doing wrong, having the option to choose better, but going with the wrong.
2. Being motivated to #1 for reasons of self-interest (including simple amusement).
Click to expand...

I still thinks this leaves out willful ignorance. Knowingly pouring carcinogens into the environment because your profits are more important than other people's health is evil, but unknowingly dumping them because you couldn't be bothered to check if the stuff was harmful is also evil even if you had no intention of doing harm.

I would agree that evil requires a sentient being. Sociopaths are evil because they can understand their actions, but a schizophrenic who is delusional is not. It's a fine line. Man-eating lions and malaria carrying mosquitoes are not evil. Hurricanes are not evil.

Giant earth-destroying asteroids are not evil. Unless they were sent by a sentient being as punishment.
 
I think an evil person is someone whose actions are deemed as morally unacceptable by the vast majority.
 
I would say harming something that can be harmed just for the sake of harming it.

But by that definition, I don't think there is much evil around, because even terrorists and Kim-Jong-Il don't cause harm just for the sake of harm.

On a side note, thats why I think the "problem of evil" should be replaced with "the problem of contradiction" -- you can always redefine evil so that a religion explains it away, but you can't ever get rid of the contradictions.
 
gdnp said:
I still thinks this leaves out willful ignorance. Knowingly pouring carcinogens into the environment because your profits are more important than other people's health is evil, but unknowingly dumping them because you couldn't be bothered to check if the stuff was harmful is also evil even if you had no intention of doing harm.
...snip...
Click to expand...

I guess I'd argue that willful ignorance fits in with my #1. You're purposefully doing something you know is wrong -- not studying the matter sufficiently -- while having the option to do otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom