I don't believe in evil

[Larry L.]

Hmm. I'd say any philosophy by which the ontological existence of evil (in any definition) can be abnegated is itself quite evil.

Nice summary, Wolfen, but I am also curious as to your philosophical background.

[Lance D. Allen]

I've taken two classes (still in the midst of the second, Logic) and most all of what I posted was covered in the first class: Ethics. I've recently begun to notice a bit of a difference in how I was taught, and how others have been taught. I'm taking the class at a local community college, Paradise Valley Community College, for those genuinely curious.

I wouldn't say my instructor (Professor Surrendra Gangadean, for those who really care) is "hard" anything. Rational Presuppositionalism, rather than Rationalism, if anything. There is a decided Protestant bias, but much of what he covers is in direct defiance of what most Protestants, from the most casual to the most zealous "knows" to be true.

What I did there was mostly to parrot what I could remember, in my own words. I'm still working through the areas that seem fuzzy to me, those which I disagree with outright, and others where I think it is spot on. I'll try to see if I can sum up what I do agree with.

I believe rationality is less than sufficient to define human nature, but I do believe it is necessary to the definition. I do believe everything has natural and moral consequences, both innate and imposed. To call those consequences "Natural Evil" and "Spiritual Death" works well enough for me. I also believe that anything that contradicts human nature is "Evil". To choose to do anything without thought or in spite of what rational thought tells you is evil. It may be a minor evil (squashing a bug) or a major evil (genocide), but it is still evil.

What is also evil is that I need to go to Calculus now, and so will have to try to finish this convo later.

[Nev the Deranged]

I don't believe in absolute good or evil. There is, imho, no cosmic guideline by which anything can be judged, AT ALL. The universe cares not a whit about cruelty, suffering, murder, etc. Nor does it care about happiness, love, truth, or any other such manmade concepts. That's all they are, as far as I'm concerned.

That said, if I happen upon you molesting a child or beating a pedestrian or something, I will promptly kill your ass without compunction or remorse (assuming I can do so without risking injury myself), because to my relative standpoint, such acts are evil and cannot be tolerated. But that doesn't mean I think the universe gives a shit whether you committed the act, or whether or not I did anything about it. The lack of a cosmic law to govern our interactions in no way interferes with my (and everyone else's) right to impose whatever restrictions and guidelines we see fit. Not because we "should", but simply because we CAN.

Because that's really the only absolute truth.

As for relative truth, which as I say is still quite important despite the lack of cosmic backing, if I had to define "evil" myself, I would venture to replace that word with another: "avarice".

The point at which simple greed (which is just a developed desire to stockpile resources and thereby ensure greater security) becomes "evil" is when you have enough and yet still take from others.

That's just my take *shrug*. I apologize for not being as coherent as I'd like, I've pondered this a lot, but I have trouble forming thoughts clearly unless I've actually been pondering the subject recently, and I haven't.

[Jack Aidley]

Cool, lot's of interesting comments and points of view.

In reply to some:

I don't believe in good as an objective reality either. I do believe in free will and personal responsibility, but not in quite the convential fashion.

As Victor has correctly pointed out, evil is a more complicated subject than that which my initial post deals with. I'm talking specifically about treating evil as if it were an objective thing and treating evil as an explanation. As a concept it's both interesting and useful in the various arts.

I find the notion that evil is the simple lack of good lacking. Partly because good is itself not an objective reality, and people's subjective notions of good differ markedly to the point that they can actually oppose one another. And partly because evil is quite clearly more than the simple absence of good. It would be good of me to help the (hypothetical) old woman living next door with her gardening when I see her struggling, but to actually commit evil I'd have to go further than simply ignoring her. I'd need to go round and (say) beat her up and steal her trowel in order to have crossed over to evil.

I find Philosophical notions of natural and moral evil flawed because they're based on ill-conceived notions of what is man's nature. It's quite clear from any kind of anthropological study that man's nature contains plenty of things we would consider evil, and that plenty of things we consider good, or neutral, go against it.

It is, as several people have mentioned, possibly to take a definitional approach to evil and go from there. The trouble with this approach is that ultimately all we've done is change words. If by evil we mean 'sufficently different from societal norms' (for example) then assigning the label 'evil' to something or someone gives us no further information than the information that allows us to apply the definition in the first place, and we're back to the original problem - applying evil as a category tells us nothing about the world.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Evil is, to rephrase (and, I think, subvert somewhat the underlying philosophy of) Sartre, other people.

Good as well.  Occasionally, disturbingly, the same other people.

Gordon

[Lance D. Allen]

Jack,

How do you mean "ill-conceived"? From what I've seen thus far, the idea of rationality as being one of, perhaps even the primary, defining features of human nature is hardly ill-conceived.

The nature of a class is the most basic thing or things that all members have in common. Morality fails, because it differs based on culture. Physical features generally don't qualify, because they can differ wildly from culture to culture, and in individuals as well. (though I think certain universal physical traits do count, all the same) Love, hate, values, everything else is variable. The potential for rational thought is one thing all members of the class "human" have in common. Whether that potential is used in all cases by all persons, or whether or not the ability is impaired (as in the cases of retarded or brain damaged people) is a less basic issue, only definable in light of the potential's existence.

Anthropological study can find many things which could be considered the nature of individual men or cultures, but I think those same studies will also support the fact that the potential for rational thought exists in all mankind.

As for whether "we" would consider given things evil, that argument is pretty well invalidated because "we" has to be defined, and differing definitions of "we" will have differing perceptions of what is considered evil. When you talk about the nature of some class, it has to be objective and true in all cases, or else it is not the nature of the class.