What, exactly, is evil?

[DanishDynamite]

Okay, just to play "Devil's advocate" (yes, pun intended!! ) here on this statement, if there is no "evil", does that mean that there is no "good"?

Or is "good" just the same thing as "evil" only perceived as more accepted and enjoyed by the majority of people? And by the same token, is "evil" is just the same thing as "good" only perceived as less accepted and more rejected by the majority of people?

...am I making sense????

You make perfect sense.

There is no evil and there is no good.

There are only people who are generally good and people who are generally not.

 

[porch]

I'm pretty wary of the word "evil". It only exists subjectively. I do use it; I use it to mean morally wrong to a great degree, or with a quality which I find particularly chilling or emotionally repulsive in some other way.

Thank you, gdnp, I agree, I meant to- but didn't- specify that an evil act can only be committed by a human actor, not by any other sentient being. Would it be allright to then give that 'human' the designation of 'sub-human'?

Isn't this the only 'usefulness' that comes from pinning a definition on evil and applying it to a person as a whole? To see the evil person as the other, as less than human. Not only do I think there might be an ethical problem with that, there's also a danger with this line of thought to use the label of evil as point to stop inquiry. Once deemed Evil, no further explanation is required. Meanwhile, calling someone evil doesn't explain much at all.

 

[Fronzel]

I tend to agree with Granny Weatherwax. Evil is seeing people as things.

 

[Hooloovoo]

Evil exists the same way beauty exists, or love exists. It's been said by plenty of posters here already that it's a subjective term. I believe it exists, but what it is is different to each individual. Just because it isn't an easily defined word doesn't mean it can't exist. It might not be a very scientific word, but lots of words aren't.

I just use the word to mean "really really nastily bad", like the month old chicken salad I forgot about in the back of my fridge. The dried out cheese might be bad, but that chicken salad is evil. Most people would understand what I meant by that.

Course, I don't believe in evil as some sort of force or power that has anything to do with supernatural beings fighting over our immortal souls. That's just plain silly.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Evil is a journey, not a destination.

 

[gdnp]

Sounds like my commute.

 

[Tricky]

To me, evil, if such a thing commonly exists, has to be intentional. We all harm others, depending on how you define "harm" and how you define "others". For it to be truly evil, you must know not only that you are harming others, but also know that it is unnecessary. You must take joy in, or at least be indifferent to doing harm.

As such, there really aren't many evil people. I think most people, even those who are naive, misguided, short-sighted or delusional, believe that they are doing the right thing.

Only a person like Sylvia Browne, who must know she is a fake and yet does her best to take the money of believers with no regard for their suffering, can be truly classified as evil.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

As a moral relativist, "Evil" is nothing more than an ill defined standard that we each individually define by our own made up moral code. I don't believe there is such a thing as evil.

Evil doesn't exist. Obviously. It has never existed and never will.

These people are moral nihilists, who believe that there is no such thing as good or evil. (Paximperium thinks he's a moral relativist but he's wrong about the correct label to apply to his beliefs. A moral relativist believes that evil is whatever people define it to be. A moral nihilist believes that good and evil don't really exist).

I think an evil person is someone whose actions are deemed as morally unacceptable by the vast majority.

This person is a moral relativist. This is an inherently contradictory moral philosophy. It's pretty easy to see why if you think about it.

If an act does more harm than it does good, then that act is evil.

The problem is quantifying the harm and the good.

Evil is intentionally or negligently causing a bad outcome. Intentionally vague, because this is subjective.

I define evil as willfully or negligently causing harm to the innocent.

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.

These people are utilitarians, who believe that pleasure (or preference fulfillment, or happiness or some such measure) is morally good and that pain/suffering/death are morally bad, and that good or evil actions are ones that knowably bring about such outcomes.

Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer and most economists are utilitarians.

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.

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).

I tend to agree with Granny Weatherwax. Evil is seeing people as things.

These people are deontologists (duty based moral theorists) who believe that it is good to act on selfless or public-spirited bases, and evil to act in ways that privilege your interests over those of others. Granny Weatherwax, in fact, is articulating the moral theory of Kant, the most famous deontological moral theorist.

What you guys are doing here is trying to figure out for yourself the stuff that is covered in any first year moral philosophy or ethics course. If you find this stuff interesting, pick up a first year textbook and read it. Odds are, anything you think up about this stuff has already been thought of and discussed to death in the philosophical literature.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

What you guys are doing here is trying to figure out for yourself the stuff that is covered in any first year moral philosophy or ethics course. If you find this stuff interesting, pick up a first year textbook and read it. Odds are, anything you think up about this stuff has already been thought of and discussed to death in the philosophical literature.

I heartily disagree, not with your facts, but with your advice. Sitting around thinking about this crap oneself and discussing it with others is a far more satisfying experience than reading about it in a book.

Certainly, if anyone is interested, check the literature. Just don't expect to find anything there more conclusive than what others are saying here. Mill really has no more claim to the definitive answers on evil than does Piggy, and Piggy's more fun to read.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I heartily disagree, not with your facts, but with your advice. Sitting around thinking about this crap oneself and discussing it with others is a far more satisfying experience than reading about it in a book.

Socrates might agree with you about that.

My view is that this is a bit like sitting around discussing amongst ourselves how many atoms of hydrogen there are in a water molecule. It would be excellent fun and very educational to design and conduct an experiment to find out for oneself, but only if you did it knowing that you were reinventing the wheel for the sake of the mental exercise. If you just want to find out what the answer is there are easier ways.

That's not to say that there are definitive answers in meta-ethics, just that any non-definitive answers you come up with have almost certainly come up before.

 

[Nosaj]

JFrankA,

To me, evil is a word that certain individuals or groups use to describe certain things that they do not like, things that harm, repulse, scare or shock them. I know, for example, that there are plenty of things I would consider evil, e.g., child abuse, Dick Cheney, the Final Solution, Yo Gabba Gabba, etc. The problem is, the things that are labeled by certain individuals or groups as evil are often seen to be good or, at the very least, necessary by others.

Therefore, the way I see it, there does not seem to be a purely objective basis for judging what is evil; although, there does appear to be a general consensus of what constitutes evil that is influenced, at least in some way, by a variety of cultural, historical, poltical, religious, and social circumstances of the time. I guess that makes me a moral relativist of sorts, which is interesting because I have never really considered this kind of question before.

Jason

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Socrates might agree with you about that.

My view is that this is a bit like sitting around discussing amongst ourselves how many atoms of hydrogen there are in a water molecule. It would be excellent fun and very educational to design and conduct an experiment to find out for oneself, but only if you did it knowing that you were reinventing the wheel for the sake of the mental exercise. If you just want to find out what the answer is there are easier ways.

That was the analogy I was expecting...

That's not to say that there are definitive answers in meta-ethics,

...and that was my intended counter. Well-played.

I will admit that it's nice to have words to affix to the ideas. Once so grounded, new avenues of inquiry become a bit easier to spot. For instance, it has always seemed to me that humans generally have a strong inherent bias towards utilitarianism, but that it is a quite basic and naïve utilitarianism that leads us to all sorts of troubles with the tragedy of the commons and related issues where it is not individual, but collective, action which leads to results which we might term evil, or at least unwanted.

 

[Pardalis]

What, exactly, is evil?

I'm not sure, but I do know it has a face.

 

[PaKu]

Socrates might agree with you about that.

My view is that this is a bit like sitting around discussing amongst ourselves how many atoms of hydrogen there are in a water molecule. It would be excellent fun and very educational to design and conduct an experiment to find out for oneself, but only if you did it knowing that you were reinventing the wheel for the sake of the mental exercise. If you just want to find out what the answer is there are easier ways.

That's not to say that there are definitive answers in meta-ethics, just that any non-definitive answers you come up with have almost certainly come up before.

Especially with the advent of internet, everything has been discussed, and will be discussed again. Everything has been asked and answered already, and will be asked again and, hopefully, be answered again.
But, every now and then, something will crop up you didn't know of hadn't thought of before, something that wasn't covered in the first year textbook.
And that makes it worthwhile. A good thing.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

These people are moral nihilists...
...snip...

So we’re moral nihilists, moral relativists, utilitarians, an deontologists.

As a reader of textbooks (), where do you stand?

 

[quarky]

my cat is evil

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So we’re moral nihilists, moral relativists, utilitarians, an deontologists.

As a reader of textbooks (), where do you stand?

Down deep I'm a utilitarian, because I don't much care for moral theories that can't be cashed out somehow in terms of scientifically verifiable stuff. If I declare the biochemical state of happiness as the thing I want to maximise in this universe, then at least in theory I can check to see if my moral theory is achieving the goal I set for it.

Day to day, making utilitarian calculations about how my actions will affect every morally relevant entity is too much of a pain in the backside so I muddle along with the usual mess of moral heuristics valuing making people happy, acting pro-socially, seeking just outcomes and looking after myself. If I wanted to stick a polysyllabic label on it I'd call it a sort of pluralist deontology-of-convenience.

If I see a bad utilitarian outcome approaching as a result of my day-to-day behaviour, however, my tendency is to put my utilitarian hat on and discard deontological rules temporarily.

To drag this reply back on topic my personal definition of evil would be doing things that unnecessarily inflict, spread or encourage suffering or misery, either knowingly or through culpable self-deception.

 

[SaulOhio]

There is a very objective standard for good and evil. Good is that which serves human life. Evil is that which voluntarily destroys it.

 

[Piscivore]

There is a very objective standard for good and evil. Good is that which serves human life. Evil is that which voluntarily destroys it.

Bad news for all those in any military service, then.

 

[SaulOhio]

Bad news for all those in any military service, then.

Not really. If killing is necessary in order to defend life from people who would kill many others, then it is justifiable. But defense of life is the ONLY moral justificiation for killing. Ever.

Just sitting by like a pasifist while some psychopath or tyranical dictator goes around killing people is not a way to practice the principle of the sanctity of life. By taking out such a person, you are serving life, even if you need to kill the killer to do it.

BTW, Piscivore, I am keeping my distance from you. I was born in the middle of March.