Evil

ScumLord

Do you still believe in evil? I normally don't get annoyed by a word but this one does get under my skin when I hear it used. Many still believe there is an evil force controlling people that do bad things I think the word is highly misleading and conveniently ignores the real issues behind the problem.

I do think that all people are inherently good. I don't think there's really a person on the planet that wakes up in the morning and wonders what evil acts he can carry out to make the world a worse place. I think that those that do wrong often believe they are doing good, their just ignorant/misguided and/or brainwashed into doing bad things.

pierrot

ScumLord wrote: »

I do think that all people are inherently good.

agree with most of OP except this. People just do deeds.

Zillah

No. Good and evil are shallow attempts at highjacking objectivity for a subjective view. Entirely useless and disingenuous concepts.

Ickle Magoo

I don't really believe there is such a thing as evil in the traditional sense but I'm not at all offended or upset with the use of the word.

It's come to mean someone who doesn't have the same levels of empathy, comprehension of human suffering or whose decisions do not cause them the same guilt, abhorrence or morality issues of the average person. I think that's more of a biological/electrical wiring issue impeding emotional development than some kind of doomed & blackened soul as a result of satanic malevolence tho.

studiorat

It's a useful word, as a concept it's overrated IMO.

Zillah

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's come to mean someone who doesn't have the same levels of empathy, comprehension of human suffering or whose decisions do not cause them the same guilt, abhorrence or morality issues of the average person.

It would be a far more useful word if that was the case, but in my experience people use it as a cheap way of lending objective validity to their personal and subjective opinion. People who have abortions are evil, people who deny women the right to control their body are evil, US soldiers are evil, Iraqi insurgents are evil, Republicans are evil, liberals are evil. Evil evil evil. So sick of it.

A King sacks the capital city of their rivals, to his own people he is a divine and just saviour, to the conquered he is wickedness incarnate.

I'm just not comfortable with this veneer of objectivity.

studiorat wrote: »

It's a useful word

I disagree. There are always much better and accurate words to use. I think he's selfish/sadistic/uncaring/narrow minded/short sighted/anti-social etc. "Evil" is the sledgehammer of the sinister toolbox.

Ickle Magoo

That's very true Zillah, I hadn't thought about the way the word is thrown around like that to lend clout to a negative opinion - I was thinking more of what pops into our minds when someone says it.

studiorat

Well who you be more afraid of? Dr. Evil or Dr. Short-sighted?

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

Good and evil are shallow attempts at highjacking objectivity for a subjective view.

In fairness though, most adjectives in general are subjectively used. It's a moot point.

I wouldn't be for condoning any form of newspeak here, I believe any adjective, irrespective of its subjectivity, has it's place in speech and the written word, including argument and debate.

Personally, as I accept the subjectivity of adjectives I don't accept that anything said to be evil is such. However, if I wish to live and raise children in a society that views certain traits and acts as evil, counter to its stability, peace and freedoms of its citizens (again all subjective) then I will adhere to them.

PDN

I find this interesting. What about Stephen Weinberg's quote? “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
I know both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris quote it approvingly.

I think Zillah's position is consistent and logical. As I understand him, he believes that there are no absolutes of right or wrong - so therefore concepts such as good and evil become meaningless. That would certainly seem to be a logical conclusion given his starting position.

Goduznt Xzst appears to be arguing that, although there are no absolutes, in order to live in a society you have to accept that society's standards of good or evil. The problem with that position is that, for most of human history, it would have involved accepting homophobia and slavery as good, while rejecting tolerance as evil. Does anyone really feel comfortable with that?

The OP seems to be rather inconsistent in that he/she (probably 'he' since I don't know too many females who would call themselves ScumLord) wants to retain 'good' as an absolute but to reject 'evil'.

Are there any atheists around these parts who actually believe in 'good' and 'evil' as absolute qualities rather than subjective social constructs?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The problem with that position is that, for most of human history, it would have involved accepting homophobia and slavery as good, while rejecting tolerance as evil. Does anyone really feel comfortable with that?

I'm not how something can be labeled good, simply by virtue of it being legal.

Also I wouldn't define "tolerance" as a virtue that can be generically termed as good or evil, either in history or now. There are times to 'tolerate' and times to act.

The Mad Hatter

PDN wrote: »

Are there any atheists around these parts who actually believe in 'good' and 'evil' as absolute qualities rather than subjective social constructs?

Yup. Wait, I'm lying. Is that evil?

(I hold entirely with Zillah's post.)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Are there any atheists around these parts who actually believe in 'good' and 'evil' as absolute qualities rather than subjective social constructs?

Not me anyway.

Most, if not all, cultures have developed their own notions of good and evil and these adjectives are applied to two broad, if occasionally fuzzy or overlapping, categories. The first one is shared almost universally and covers actions which physically affect other people (murder + theft on the bad side, generosity and honesty on the good side). There is a general understanding amongst evolutionary biologists regarding why these specific physically-related notions of good and bad arise.

The second category is culture-specific and covers actions which are viewed as having (for want of a better word) a "moral" content. Depending on culture, you could view as good or bad things like female genital mutilation, sex education, gay male sex, cutting out the beating heart of a sacrificial victim with a stone knife, pretending that bread is human flesh, thinking that humans reincarnate etc. The only thing which can say whether the action is good or not is the culture itself, and generally for eccentric historical reasons.

BTW, while I agree with Weinberg's general point, I think it would have been better phrased with the word "bad" instead of "evil". Weinberg seems to have first produced this sentiment at a talk in 1999, full details here.

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

In fairness though, most adjectives in general are subjectively used. It's a moot point.

I wouldn't be for condoning any form of newspeak here, I believe any adjective, irrespective of its subjectivity, has it's place in speech and the written word, including argument and debate.

Personally, as I accept the subjectivity of adjectives I don't accept that anything said to be evil is such. However, if I wish to live and raise children in a society that views certain traits and acts as evil, counter to its stability, peace and freedoms of its citizens (again all subjective) then I will adhere to them.

Really? You're telling me that you're not sick and tired of hearing people state that something is evil in just the same way they would state that the sky is blue? Maybe you're just giving them the benefit of the doubt, but when I hear a the Lt Col in charge of the assault on Fallujah describe the inhabitants as servants of Satan who have to be destroyed I really cannot consider that he means that as a subjective opinion.

PDN wrote: »

I find this interesting. What about Stephen Weinberg's quote? “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
I know both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris quote it approvingly.

It sounds clever and I can forgive the use of the objective terms via poetic license, but mostly I don't think it means anything beyond being a witty conceit.

I think Zillah's position is consistent and logical.

Thanks

As I understand him, he believes that there are no absolutes of right or wrong - so therefore concepts such as good and evil become meaningless.

Yup.

Goduznt Xzst appears to be arguing that, although there are no absolutes, in order to live in a society you have to accept that society's standards of good or evil. The problem with that position is that, for most of human history, it would have involved accepting homophobia and slavery as good, while rejecting tolerance as evil. Does anyone really feel comfortable with that?

I think that they'd claim we've only recently got it right. All past cultures, and most future cultures, and a great deal of modern cultures, still have it wrong. In fact, whatever society they happen to be a member of at the moment happens to be virtually the only human society in space or time that finally worked out what exactly was evil, and what was good.

Your example gives me a chance to further explain my subjectivity argument. I truly believe that people at the time considered homophobia as morally good (in the same way modern society considers rape to be immoral). As an example, consider a future society where no one would dream of walking past a homeless person on the street (in the same way we wouldn't pass a rape taking place on Grafton Street), or where no animals die to feed our appetite. How barbaric we must look, surrounded by human suffering and glutting ourselves on the life of other creatures, but I'm sure we all have our rationalisations.

Are there any atheists around these parts who actually believe in 'good' and 'evil' as absolute qualities rather than subjective social constructs?

Which of course begs the question, what about you? I assume you maintain some form of theistic objectivity when it comes to morality? Needless to say, it's a tricky position to hold on to.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

I find this interesting. What about Stephen Weinberg's quote? “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
I know both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris quote it approvingly.

Yes but for this statement, certain liberties are taken in regards to the definitions of good and evil. Namely, they would of adhered to largely western and secular ideological views of good and evil. An individual will either agree or disagree with his subjective statement depending on which ideologies they personally accept.

PDN wrote: »

Goduznt Xzst appears to be arguing that, although there are no absolutes, in order to live in a society you have to accept that society's standards of good or evil. The problem with that position is that, for most of human history, it would have involved accepting homophobia and slavery as good, while rejecting tolerance as evil. Does anyone really feel comfortable with that?

My stance is more nihilist in origin, rather than atheist. So I wouldn't define it as a general, if even common, atheist opinion. Further, I was not defining how anybody else should choose to exist in a given society, which is why I started that statement with "personally..." as it's particular to myself, and my own set of ideologies.

However, people have found and do find homophobia and slavery to be good, would you agree with this? So how do you reconcile this fact with your opinion that there are "good" and "evil" qualities that are supposed to be absolute?

Zillah

Also, PDN mentioned Harris which reminds me of something. He believes in some form of objective morality, or at least pretends to for simplicity, and he has lambasted moral relativists in the past. However, I want to draw a distinction between myself and the kind of person he was criticising with the following statement: The fact that I am aware that my moral position is subjective in no way limits my ability or willingness to defend that moral position.

I won't say a child rapist is evil, it would be far more accurate to say that I find such a person disgusting, selfish and dangerous, and should I be in a position to, I will stop them, to the point of violence if necessary.

You don't need to believe you are objectively right to be willing to fight for your corner.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I find this interesting. What about Stephen Weinberg's quote? “With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.”
I know both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris quote it approvingly.

Not sure Weinberg meant his quote to be taken as support for the idea of a universal concept of evil that exist independently to human opinion or assessment, if that is what you are asking?

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Also, PDN mentioned Harris which reminds me of something. He believes in some form of objective morality, or at least pretends to for simplicity, and he has lambasted moral relativists in the past. However, I want to draw a distinction between myself and the kind of person he was criticising with the following statement: The fact that I am aware that my moral position is subjective in no way limits my ability or willingness to defend that moral position.

I won't say a child rapist is evil, it would be far more accurate to say that I find such a person disgusting, selfish and dangerous, and should I be in a position to, I will stop them, to the point of violence if necessary.

You don't need to believe you are objectively right to be willing to fight for your corner.

Was going to say something similar

I believe in subjective morality that should be applied universally.

I find the assertion that because my morality and Hitlers morality are both subjective I should some how respect his or that he has a "right" to carry out his morality as he sees fit bizzare

Phototoxin

Yup. Wait, I'm lying. Is that evil?

Heil Hitler. Good day Herr unt Frau, Do you haff any ov ze jews in your attic ?

I won't say a child rapist is evil, it would be far more accurate to say that I find such a person disgusting, selfish and dangerous, and should I be in a position to, I will stop them, to the point of violence if necessary.

I wouldn't say BIFFO/YOREMA/Dawkins/Elvis is evil, it would be far more accurate to say that I find such a person disgusting, selfish and dangerous, and should I be in a position to, I will stop them, to the point of violence if necessary.

I don't see how you are in a position to judge if the child rapist is selfish disgusting or dangerous. You may perceive him/her to be but that perception does not necessarily make it so, nor does it justify the use of violence. You may think he is these things but that does not make it accurate. I may think that the clouds are made from fluffy marshmallow, but again it does not mean that it is true.

You don't need to believe you are objectively right to be willing to fight for your corner.

I agree but it helps. I'm sure there's some quote about zeal being a virtue and then the origin of zeal coming from a hebrew(or is it aramaic) word for assassin or something..

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

Really? You're telling me that you're not sick and tired of hearing people state that something is evil in just the same way they would state that the sky is blue? Maybe you're just giving them the benefit of the doubt, but when I hear a the Lt Col in charge of the assault on Fallujah describe the inhabitants as servants of Satan who have to be destroyed I really cannot consider that he means that as a subjective opinion.

I'm guessing you meant objective right. In argument, yes I think it is a cop out. But then so are terms like good, bad, right, wrong... etc. None of these can be given as a proof for a given action as they lack absolute definition.

But it is a term that has personal merit. An individual knows in themselves what they view as evil, so I would not deny them that right, however biased and subjective it may be.

If a man came into my home and murdered my wife would I call him evil? Yes, under my subjective definition of the term he would be evil. Is he de facto "evil"... no

Zillah wrote: »

You don't need to believe you are objectively right to be willing to fight for your corner.

I would also agree with this. Although it seems like a dichotomy from your original stance. On one hand you are saying you are sick of people using subjective terms, like evil, to defend their position, but on the other you are saying a person does not need to be objective to defend their position.

So if a person fights for their corner by subjectively saying they are fighting against evil then why do you have a problem with it?

Wicknight wrote: »

I believe in subjective morality that should be applied universally.

May I ask, who defines this subjective morality that should be applied universally?

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

May I ask, who defines this subjective morality that should be applied universally?

Me. I thought that was obvious

Who else? God?

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So if a person fights for their corner by subjectively saying they are fighting against evil then why do you have a problem with it?

I'm not sure you're quite grasping what I'm saying. The problem with the term "evil" is that it has pretensions to objectivity. That the crux of my problem with it. If someone says "That man is evil" and means "In an entirely subjective sense that man has traits that I disapprove of and I will summarise these traits under the term 'evil'" then I have no problem. But what I encounter actually happening is that someone says "That man is evil" as if evil has an objective existence of it's own, in the same way that water is wet or the sky is blue, and if anyone thinks otherwise they are wrong. Like the servants of Satan in Fallujah. It's not that the Lt Col really dislikes them and is willing to oppose them, it's that he thinks they are evil.

Phototoxin wrote: »

I wouldn't say BIFFO/YOREMA/Dawkins/Elvis is evil, it would be far more accurate to say that I find such a person disgusting, selfish and dangerous, and should I be in a position to, I will stop them, to the point of violence if necessary.

I don't see how you are in a position to judge if the child rapist is selfish disgusting or dangerous. You may perceive him/her to be but that perception does not necessarily make it so

Nothing makes it so. That's my point. I'm clearly expressing a subjective opinion, not making claims as to objective reality.

nor does it justify the use of violence.

Nothing justifies or condemns violence. I am merely stating what I am willing to do, nothing more. It's not good or evil, justified or condemnable...that's my whole point.

You may think he is these things but that does not make it accurate.

These things are by their nature subjective opinions and therefore cannot be accurate or inaccurate...that's my whole point.

I may think that the clouds are made from fluffy marshmallow, but again it does not mean that it is true.

That's an inaccurate statement about objective reality, not a subjective opinion. Clouds are objective, they are made of water vapour. We cannot make similar statements about subjective value judgements.

I agree but it helps. I'm sure there's some quote about zeal being a virtue and then the origin of zeal coming from a hebrew(or is it aramaic) word for assassin or something..

Oh certainly, convincing yourself and others that your opinion is objective truth can be very useful!

ScumLord

PDN wrote: »

The OP seems to be rather inconsistent in that he/she (probably 'he' since I don't know too many females who would call themselves ScumLord) wants to retain 'good' as an absolute but to reject 'evil'.

I wouldn't say good is an absolute, it's just not bad, and I is a man.

Evil is an absolute.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

The problem with the term "evil" is that it has pretensions to objectivity.

Ah ok... but this is not unique to this term. The same could be said for someone who says "it was the right thing to do" in defense of an action. It is an inherent problem with trying to find objectivity in values, which are neither mental nor physical. Objectively, you can never say whether anything is right or wrong, good or bad.. etc, as objectively, nothing matters.

It is not uncommon for individuals to elevate their personal opinions and prejudices into absolute values. You might say that your Lt Col is being objective as he has agent-relative reasons for presupposing the people he is about to order his men to kill are evil.

It is very rare for anyone to get objectivity right in regards to values, and most arguments that claim it, merely have pretensions to such.

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

Ah ok... but this is not unique to this term. The same could be said for someone who says "it was the right thing to do" in defense of an action. It is an inherent problem with trying to find objectivity in values, which are neither mental nor physical. Objectively, you can never say whether anything is right or wrong, good or bad.. etc, as objectively, nothing matters.

Er...yes, exactly. We're not disagreeing any more, right?

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

Er...yes, exactly. We're not disagreeing any more, right?

I agree that yes, using terms such as "evil" has pretensions to being objective. But I do not have an issue with it in regard to trying to objectively argue values. When dealing with values, the arguments tend to largely be subjective.

Handsome Bob

ScumLord wrote: »

Do you still believe in evil? I normally don't get annoyed by a word but this one does get under my skin when I hear it used. Many still believe there is an evil force controlling people that do bad things I think the word is highly misleading and conveniently ignores the real issues behind the problem.

Do I believe in evil? No. I see the word "evil" as too much of a simplistic word. I don't think anyone is born evil or to commit evil deeds, rather people are often shaped by their environment.

I do think that all people are inherently good. I don't think there's really a person on the planet that wakes up in the morning and wonders what evil acts he can carry out to make the world a worse place. I think that those that do wrong often believe they are doing good, their just ignorant/misguided and/or brainwashed into doing bad things.

To say everyone is born inherently good is unchartered territory as people can be brought up in good environments yet will end up being murderers, rapists and sociopaths. How do you explain that?

ScumLord

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Do I believe in evil? No. I see the word "evil" as too much of a simplistic word. I don't think anyone is born evil or to commit evil deeds, rather people are often shaped by their environment.



To say everyone is born inherently good is unchartered territory as people can be brought up in good environments yet will end up being murderers, rapists and sociopaths. How do you explain that?

Is a sociopath a normal person though? Would he not have an illness that allows him to be bad?

Murders happen for all sorts of reasons and it's not without consequence. Most normal people that kill end up racked with guilt for the rest of their life's. Many can't deal with it. Even people that accidentally kill people often can't deal with what they've done.

Rape is the same. It takes a special kind of person to be able to do that to someone, sick in the head. There are allot of men that have little respect for women, they do see them as second class, it could be conditioned in, but those that don't aren't nice people all round and are probably capable of anything but as I see it their broken people. There often is a reason they ended up like that. Under developed part of the brain or upbringing.

Zillah

ScumLord wrote: »

Is a sociopath a normal person though? Would he not have an illness that allows him to be bad?

Murders happen for all sorts of reasons and it's not without consequence. Most normal people that kill end up racked with guilt for the rest of their life's. Many can't deal with it. Even people that accidentally kill people often can't deal with what they've done.

Rape is the same. It takes a special kind of person to be able to do that to someone, sick in the head. There are allot of men that have little respect for women, they do see them as second class, it could be conditioned in, but those that don't aren't nice people all round and are probably capable of anything but as I see it their broken people. There often is a reason they ended up like that. Under developed part of the brain or upbringing.

You have extremely naive notions about normality and criminality. There are plenty of perfectly sane rapists and murderers in the world. They're not sick, they're not born evil or broken or wrong...they're just selfish and nasty. And a great deal of them sleep fine at night, because the bitch was asking for it. I've sat in the same room as a man who had just weeks before bashed in the skull of another man with a hurl because he owed him money. He wasn't a sociopath, or crazy or anything like that, he just had very little respect for the lives of others. I could have easily shared a pint with him in a pub and have had no idea what he was capable of.

Zillah

For anyone who feels very secure in their objective morality: Click

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

You have extremely naive notions about normality and criminality. There are plenty of perfectly sane rapists and murderers in the world. They're not sick, they're not born evil or broken or wrong...they're just selfish and nasty. And a great deal of them sleep fine at night, because the bitch was asking for it. I've sat in the same room as a man who had just weeks before bashed in the skull of another man with a hurl because he owed him money. He wasn't a sociopath, or crazy or anything like that, he just had very little respect for the lives of others. I could have easily shared a pint with him in a pub and have had no idea what he was capable of.

I've met people like that too. There is allot of bravado to dismissing it. There are those that just seem to like it. They are a minority though. Their abnormal, there is something wrong with them and often they know it. There is a messed up logic in their head, sometimes I honestly think they're just primitive and wouldn't be surprised if bit's of they're brain's where missing. Even the one's that come off as smart. It takes a different type of intelligences to be social and nice.

Zillah

What exactly does "something wrong with them" mean? Other than you wanting to portray them as some sort of erroneous deviation from a species filled with otherwise inherently good people, of course. Like, parts of their brain missing? Where do you get this stuff?



Also,
"Their" signifies ownership.
"They're" is short for "They are".
"Were" is the past tense of "is".
"Where" refers to location.
An apostrophe signifies a missing letter or possession.

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

What exactly does "something wrong with them" mean? Other than you wanting to portray them as some sort of erroneous deviation from a species filled with otherwise inherently good people, of course. Like, parts of their brain missing? Where do you get this stuff?

Feral children that grow up without human intervention often have underdeveloped brains because they don't get the right stimulus at the right time, I'm going off memory here but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. They can be thought the basic's of language but can't develop complex sentences and it's the same with their morality from what I remember.

It could be that people that do these things have an underdeveloped part of the brain, I'm not saying all, some of them. One little part that could contribute to them killing someone where another would hold back.

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

Also,
"Their" signifies ownership.
"They're" is short for "They are".
"Were" is the past tense of "is".
"Where" refers to location.
An apostrophe signifies a missing letter or possession.

Also,
'Allot' isn't a word; neither is 'alot'

Dave!

Also,
'Allot' is a word

:pac:

http://www.answers.com/allot

Zillah

ScumLord wrote: »

Feral children that grow up without human intervention often have underdeveloped brains because they don't get the right stimulus at the right time, I'm going off memory here but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. They can be thought the basic's of language but can't develop complex sentences and it's the same with their morality from what I remember.

It could be that people that do these things have an underdeveloped part of the brain, I'm not saying all, some of them. One little part that could contribute to them killing someone where another would hold back.

Er, yes, people who grow up without contact with other human beings do not develop their ability to communicate or successfully interact with other humans very well. What does this have to do with otherwise normal people who are capable of rapacious murder? (It doesn't...)

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

He wasn't a sociopath, or crazy or anything like that, he just had very little respect for the lives of others.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if he has a lack of respect for the lives of others a sociopath is exactly what he is. Add a bit of organised behaviour and maybe a higher than average IQ and we could maybe even stretch it to psychopath.

MrP

Zillah

MrPudding wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but if he has a lack of respect for the lives of others a sociopath is exactly what he is.

The very fact that you had to rephrase "very little" to "lack of" would demonstrate why this is incorrect. There's is a difference between viewing life as cheap and having no concept of empathy. He was a thug, not a Patrick Bateman.

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

Er, yes, people who grow up without contact with other human beings do not develop their ability to communicate or successfully interact with other humans very well. What does this have to do with otherwise normal people who are capable of rapacious murder? (It doesn't...)

Well is it not an example that shows an underdeveloped or damaged part of the brain can cause a person to act inhuman?

Zillah

Since when are rape and murder inhuman? It's an odd claim considering they're so common, today and throughout history. Your argument is turning a little circular. You define humans as essentially good, and therefore anyone that acts contrary to this goodness is inhuman, and therefore people are inherently good because the evil ones are inhuman.

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

Since when are rape and murder inhuman? It's an odd claim considering they're so common, today and throughout history.

They're not exactly uniquely human though. They've been around since the dawn of time and are completely common in nature. What is unusual about the human animal is that we don't do it more often, it's not a normal everyday occurrence to kill someone because they wander into your town. It never really has been, it's happened because of ignorance or misleading hatred.

Your argument is turning a little circular. You define humans as essentially good, and therefore anyone that acts contrary to this goodness is inhuman, and therefore people are inherently good because the evil ones are inhuman.

I don't mean inhuman as if their a sub species, I mean inhuman in that they are not living up to their potential or can't due to illness. Humans are more than just the sum of their parts I think we are conditioning our selves to be good despite nature.

karen3212

Zillah wrote: »

What exactly does "something wrong with them" mean? Other than you wanting to portray them as some sort of erroneous deviation from a species filled with otherwise inherently good people, of course. Like, parts of their brain missing? Where do you get this stuff?

Surely that would be from scientific research.

Wasn't there a recent paper in the UK discussing injections to make people more ''moral'', isn't it all about the brain? Some people really are born different, in that they are more likely to cause harm to other members of society, whatever their environment.

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not sure you're quite grasping what I'm saying. The problem with the term "evil" is that it has pretensions to objectivity. That the crux of my problem with it. If someone says "That man is evil" and means "In an entirely subjective sense that man has traits that I disapprove of and I will summarise these traits under the term 'evil'" then I have no problem. But what I encounter actually happening is that someone says "That man is evil" as if evil has an objective existence of it's own, in the same way that water is wet or the sky is blue, and if anyone thinks otherwise they are wrong. Like the servants of Satan in Fallujah. It's not that the Lt Col really dislikes them and is willing to oppose them, it's that he thinks they are evil.

Is it reasonable to suggest that evil can be objectively defined as "that which is collectively subjectively deemed contrary to the dictates of the society of which the user of the term is a member"? In this way can certain deeds not accurately and objectively agreed to be evil?
Since most societies have similar tenets when it comes to moral or immoral (and by association good & evil) the above definition could provide a common ground to an essentially subjective term? (e.g. in all but the most contrived societies, random murder would have a commonly agreed label of "evil")

Zillah

Yes, certain groups of people can agree on a definition of evil. I'd make two observations; 1, It's still a group of people having similar but subjective opinions, rather than objectivity and 2, the real problem is "contrary to the dictates of the society", which implies a single position on which a whole society takes in these matters, which simply isn't true. Hell, we'd be hard pressed to find a group of ten people that can reach complete agreement.

Even in the case of random murder I don't think the word "evil" is inappropriate. Someone who commits such an act might be schizophrenic, in which case they're more unfortunate than "evil". Even if such an act was carried out due to selfishness, or an uncontrolled temper, or revenge, I still think there's better and more specific words to describe it.

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, certain groups of people can agree on a definition of evil. I'd make two observations; 1, It's still a group of people having similar but subjective opinions, rather than objectivity and 2, the real problem is "contrary to the dictates of the society", which implies a single position on which a whole society takes in these matters, which simply isn't true. Hell, we'd be hard pressed to find a group of ten people that can reach complete agreement.

So do you believe that things can be classified as good and evil, even if only subjectively? Or do you think that without an objective basis, the words/concepts have no meaning?

Even in the case of random murder I don't think the word "evil" is inappropriate. Someone who commits such an act might be schizophrenic, in which case they're more unfortunate than "evil". Even if such an act was carried out due to selfishness, or an uncontrolled temper, or revenge, I still think there's better and more specific words to describe it.

Ok, well it's hard to argue this point as I've already asserted that these concepts are subjective in nature so it's easy to find a context in which any act can be defended. I was just pointing out that where there is a collective subjective agreement of "right" and "wrong" amongst a large group of people (a fundamental basis of a "society" I'd speculate) then it's possible under that context to classify something (albeit crudely) as good and evil. E.g. "Random Murder is evil" seems a generally reasonable assertion under the dictates of our society. The same statement doesn't hold for 15th century Aztec society (ritual sacrifice), but this fact doesn't change the veracity of the statement now.

ChocolateSauce

Zillah speaks wisely on this subject, I must say. Although I like to look at humans as being good, I'm aware this isn't actually an intrinsic trait of our species. We are moral as a species, but for ultimately selfish reasons. We're good because it suits us as a whole, not because of some noble idea we're instilled with at conception.

Some people are born different, for example lacking the ability to understand compassion and right or wrong. People who are born "wrong" are truly unfortunate beings, and in many ways can be less responsible for their actions than a "normal" murderer who does understand and just doesn't care. Having no respect for others is rarely something you're born with, it is something a person arrives at by living their lives without proper guidance.

It is also worth noting that being a psychopath doesn't mean you're going to be immoral. They might not understand morality and people, but they're not stupid and often recognise that it is in their best interests to obey the rules and get on with life. One of my family members knows a pair of sociopathic twin sisters. They're mean, they're unfriendly and they're not nice to be around, but they haven't murdered anyone and they live normal enough lives.

So, to add my 2 cent for the title, I don't think evil exists, except as a concept. Evil is an almost biblical concept, along with what might be called "good". Evil is something bad which has no purpose other than itself. Even the most reviling of acts, even the worse crime imaginable, cannot be evil. Even crimes that have no purpose, like an emotionless man killing an innocent, not for his own amusement, but just "because", is not evil, because evil implies some purpose which cannot be put to anyone's logic. Crimes can be for many reasons; pleasure, insanity, hate, a means to an end, and so on. Evil isn't the absence of good intentions, it isn't the presence of bad ones either. It is also subjective- what is evil for one might be good in the eyes of another. Evil would have to be some kind of universal constant which self perpetuates for its own sake. It goes far beyond anything humans have the ability to do.

"Random Murder is evil"

I wouldn't say so at all. Random murder is just random; stupid, immoral, pointless. Evil cannot be pointless, by definition, IMO.

Zillah

Naz_st wrote: »

So do you believe that things can be classified as good and evil, even if only subjectively? Or do you think that without an objective basis, the words/concepts have no meaning?

We can classify "evil" as anything yellow but that doesn't mean it's a useful word. Of course you and I could sit down and exhastively define what "evil" means for the purposes of our discussion, but I maintain that the word, as used day to day, is counter productive, especially when considering disagreements and conflicts, like Israel, Iraq or abortion.

I was just pointing out that where there is a collective subjective agreement of "right" and "wrong" amongst a large group of people (a fundamental basis of a "society" I'd speculate) then it's possible under that context to classify something (albeit crudely) as good and evil.

Such a consensus never exists. And most people who use such words mean it in some objective sense rather than the sense you are proposing.

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

We can classify "evil" as anything yellow but that doesn't mean it's a useful word. Of course you and I could sit down and exhastively define what "evil" means for the purposes of our discussion, but I maintain that the word, as used day to day, is counter productive, especially when considering disagreements and conflicts, like Israel, Iraq or abortion.

Fair enough.

Such a consensus never exists. And most people who use such words mean it in some objective sense rather than the sense you are proposing.

I agree. I was just wondering if there was theoretically a way to objectively define it, regardless of erroneous common usage, or if it is by defintion subjective.

Zillah

Naz_st wrote: »

I agree. I was just wondering if there was theoretically a way to objectively define it, regardless of erroneous common usage, or if it is by defintion subjective.

I think the problem is that by definition it refers to a non-existant objective concept. We can redefine it for our own subjective use in any given scenario, but generally I think it's a redundant term.

Húrin

ScumLord wrote: »

There often is a reason they ended up like that. Under developed part of the brain or upbringing.

This is just scientifically justified objective morality. As if a "fully developed" brain will cause right morality.

Goduznt Xzst

Naz_st wrote: »

I was just wondering if there was theoretically a way to objectively define it, regardless of erroneous common usage, or if it is by defintion subjective.

have a read of this if you are actually interested in the answer to that question, it really is worth a read trust me, actually a lot of Thomas Nagels stuff is worth reading

http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/nagel80.pdf

As I mentioned earlier, this is not unique to the term "evil" in anyway. Objectivity is severely limited when it comes to values.

For example, it is almost impossible to objectively say that pleasure is better than pain.

Ergo, being truly objective and looking at a situation from the outside with a complete detachment of all interests, you couldn't easily say a person has any reason not to put their hand in a fire.