What is evil?

[Rob Lister]

Once again, you are being circular.

My definition is not circular and...I should add...eliminates subjectivity through personal objective decision. I suggest my definition is the one you really use, as it is you that makes the final determination as to innocence, and no other. None can meet any of your subjective definitions of innocent, moral, bad, wrong, wickedness in the eyes of all, only in the eyes of you.

My definition is correct and honest. Yours is not.

 

[slingblade]

Oh, goodie, another argument that threatens to go for pages and pages.

 

[Mephisto]

Oh, goodie, another argument that threatens to go for pages and pages.

'Fraid not, slingblade. Who can argue with Rob's narrow, self-serving definition. I might add to my definition of evil . . . It seems the world is too concerned with what benefits them most without concern for others.

It's how we can justify bombing civilians and setting apart people different from ourselves as worthy of violence.

 

[Rob Lister]

'Fraid not, slingblade. Who can argue with Rob's narrow, self-serving definition.

A period was the correct puctuation. But bare in mind, it is not only self-serving to me, it is self-serving to all.

 

[fuelair]

Life is evil. Every living minute of it, from birth to death. The false hope, the fake encouragement, the lying platitudes and simplistic assurances of success if you just work hard at it.

All lies. All evil. All the time.

Those things are indeed evil - though for the most part their intent is not. I stay happy mostly because I recognize that they are false and I really like little children and always hope their lives will go better - but even if not, they are fun to watch.

and I wish you well in the job hunt - and would even if you had not had such uncaring evil done to you (a perfect "banality of evil" scenario).

 

[andyandy]

lol..... i guess i could've posted this in the philosophy forum.....

seeing as it's here now, should politicians talk in terms of "good" and "evil" ?

isn't it true that "evil" is committed when perpetrators dehumanize their victims (eg. slavery, Japanese colonial atrocities, the holocaust etc etc)

and isn't the label "evil" itself a dehumanizing tool? Thus, does the use of the term perpetuates the act it defines.....?

and when GWB talks about "evil" does his acknowledged evangelical streak make this a term which really should be avoided?

 

[HeavyAaron]

lol..... i guess i could've posted this in the philosophy forum.....

definately

seeing as it's here now, should politicians talk in terms of "good" and "evil" ?

Sure, why not? Certainly seems to be part of their job to me.

isn't it true that "evil" is committed when perpetrators dehumanize their victims (eg. slavery, Japanese colonial atrocities, the holocaust etc etc)

I'm not certain that these acts were evil BECAUSE they dehuminized. But, sure, they were evil.

and isn't the label "evil" itself a dehumanizing tool? Thus, does the use of the term perpetuates the act it defines.....?

You've used inductive reasoning, which is renoun for false conclusions. If calling someone evil or calling an act a person performs as evil is dehumanizing, then you've broadened the meaning of the word to include things your inductive reasoning did not. In short, you've made a logical error.

and when GWB talks about "evil" does his acknowledged evangelical streak make this a term which really should be avoided?

Why should he acknowledge something that may not even be true, even if it is? And then why avoid the term evil for things that are virtually universally agreed upon as evil?

Aaron

 

[Soapy Sam]

It's a word.
Anagrams vile, live, veil.
Like any word, it means what people want it to mean.

 

[andyandy]

definately



You've used inductive reasoning, which is renoun for false conclusions. If calling someone evil or calling an act a person performs as evil is dehumanizing, then you've broadened the meaning of the word to include things your inductive reasoning did not. In short, you've made a logical error.

well, i believe i was asking questions rather than arguing a logical progression......

but i don't see the logical error....

1) It would seem (to me) that "evil" acts occur when the perpetrators have first successfully dehumanised those against which they commit their "evil" acts.

2) "evil" itself is a term which (in my opinion) dehumanises an individual, group or society,

3) Therefore one could argue that the use of the term "evil" in itself makes "evil" acts more likely to occur.

if there is a logical error in that, i'd be more than happy to discuss it

 

[andyandy]

definately

Why should he acknowledge something that may not even be true, even if it is? And then why avoid the term evil for things that are virtually universally agreed upon as evil?

Aaron

because the term "evil," when used by GWB is in a Christian context. It therefore would seem a poor choice of word - seeing as there is a long christian tradition of using "evil" as a justification for persecution, bigottry and predujice....

 

[HeavyAaron]

well, i believe i was asking questions rather than arguing a logical progression......

but i don't see the logical error....

1) It would seem (to me) that "evil" acts occur when the perpetrators have first successfully dehumanised those against which they commit their "evil" acts.

2) "evil" itself is a term which (in my opinion) dehumanises an individual, group or society,

3) Therefore one could argue that the use of the term "evil" in itself makes "evil" acts more likely to occur.

if there is a logical error in that, i'd be more than happy to discuss it

Let me see if I can create a parellel argument for you:

1) This week Mickey Spillane, Ruth Eckerd, and Ray Manley all died. They were all old before and when they died.

2) Time makes people old.

3) Jean Benay Ramsey must have been killed by time.

See, the problem is that you've generalized what some evil things had in common, then assumed that anything that shared that trait must also be evil.

It's similar to the argument that apples kill. Didn't you know? Everyone who ate an apple in the 18th century is dead!

Aaron

 

[HeavyAaron]

because the term "evil," when used by GWB is in a Christian context. It therefore would seem a poor choice of word - seeing as there is a long christian tradition of using "evil" as a justification for persecution, bigottry and predujice....

What makes you think that he's using it in a Christian context? The context of his speeches containing the term "evil" does not suggest that to me.

Aaron

 

[Tailgater]

because the term "evil," when used by GWB is in a Christian context. It therefore would seem a poor choice of word - seeing as there is a long christian tradition of using "evil" as a justification for persecution, bigottry and predujice....

I think that sometimes he pushes the edge with that when he's talking about the holy war in the same sentence. It would sound funny if he said those "really bad people" or "the axis of meanies".

 

[Tailgater]

I think that sometimes he pushes the edge with that when he's talking about the holy war in the same sentence. It would sound funny if he said those "really bad people" or "the axis of meanies".

What would be a better way to describe the enemy? If your enemy does things for religious reasons, should you not define yourself and them as good or evil to everyone else?

 

[andyandy]

Let me see if I can create a parellel argument for you:

1) This week Mickey Spillane, Ruth Eckerd, and Ray Manley all died. They were all old before and when they died.

2) Time makes people old.

3) Jean Benay Ramsey must have been killed by time.

See, the problem is that you've generalized what some evil things had in common, then assumed that anything that shared that trait must also be evil.

It's similar to the argument that apples kill. Didn't you know? Everyone who ate an apple in the 18th century is dead!

Aaron

hmmm...but i'm not sure if that applies to this...

1) It would seem (to me) that "evil" acts occur when the perpetrators have first successfully dehumanised those against which they commit their "evil" acts.

2) "evil" itself is a term which (in my opinion) dehumanises an individual, group or society,

3) Therefore one could argue that the use of the term "evil" in itself makes "evil" acts more likely to occur.

because I'm merely defining (1) when in my opion "evil" acts occur and (2) what my opinion of the impact of the term is.....

because i'm providing my own definition for the term, and its impact, then it's not a logical fallacy to to suggest that if they both hold then (3) might be more likely to occur.

your example is somewhat disingenous, as you switch between "old" and "time" and because you change your conclusion from mine. A fairer analogy to my example might be

1) This week Mickey Spillane, Ruth Eckerd, and Ray Manley all died. They were all old before and when they died.

2) old age makes death more likely

3) One could argue that Mickey, Ruth and Ray's deaths were made more likely by their old age.

 

[X-COM]

Simple definition of evil: THEM!
This goes hand in hand with the definition of good "us". Problem is, it goes both ways. Evil and good are often just a matter of perspective.

 

[andyandy]

What makes you think that he's using it in a Christian context? The context of his speeches containing the term "evil" does not suggest that to me.

Aaron

because he's a christian.....and "evil" is a word with strong religious connertations....
I'd be surprised if he was using it say, in a scientology context....

 

[andyandy]

Simple definition of evil: THEM!
This goes hand in hand with the definition of good "us". Problem is, it goes both ways. Evil and good are often just a matter of perspective.

lol

nice post and welcome to the forum...

 

[andyandy]

What would be a better way to describe the enemy? If your enemy does things for religious reasons, should you not define yourself and them as good or evil to everyone else?

what's wrong with just "enemy" ? Why complicate things with an ill-defined term which carries with it a great deal of religious baggage?

 

[HeavyAaron]

I admit I'm doing a lousy job of making my point. To put it succenctly, you've brought together a set of evil things:

"slavery, Japanese colonial atrocities, the holocaust"
then said that they have something in common (dehumanization)

Then you state calling someone evil also dehumanizes (which is highly arguable without expanding the definition of dehumanizes greatly, but you can do that). Therefore it also belongs in the set.

And then declared "it's in the set!"

I'm saying that's in error. That set was supposed to be the set of things that is evil. By putting "using the term evil" in the set of evil things you've begged the question.

Simply because using the term evil has a quality in common with evil things (under your definition of said quality) is not enough to deem it evil.

How about this example: 3, 7, and 11 are in the set of odd numbers. They all have the property of being prime. The number 2 is also prime, therefore it belongs in the set of odd numbers as well. It's false reasoning.

In order to show that using the term evil is itself an evil act you need to define evil and show that using the term meets that definition. Merely showing that it might have a common trait with some other evil things is not sufficient.

Aaron