Today, I will mostly be taking a philosophical outlook.

I've been thinking about evil - kind of inspired by reading some people talking about the Pope having being a great and good man, and other's describing him as evil (no, I'm not going to talk about that debate). I've come to the conclusion that a) evil isn't real, b) doesn't help us understand the world and, usually, c) actually hinders our understanding of the world.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people involved in the holocaust you wouldn't know from Adam (or Eve) if you met them in the pub. They raised their kids, they looked after their families and friends, and they enjoyed a joke and a beer. They'd be the kind of people you meet everyday; some of them would be the kind of people who stop and help if your car breaks down, who offer directions if you look lost or who organise the church fete. Yet they helped, assisted, or turned a blind eye to one of the greatest atrocities of the last century. Why? The easy answer is to say they were evil. That it takes evil people to do evil things. Bollocks, says I. Not only does that answer tell us nothing, it actually harms our understanding of the world. By categorising them as 'evil' we can put them at arms length, safely in another category that we, and the people we know, don't belong to. It serves the same purpose as words such as 'nigger', 'fag' or 'kike' - it safely puts 'them' away from 'us'.

There was a story the other day about someone who stole the rings off a dying pensioner’s hand. Now I and I expect most of you, think that's a pretty evil act. But does adding that 'evil' tag to either the act or to the person who carried out the act actually help in anyway? Does it tell us any more about the act itself? No - although it does tell us something about ourselves and our moral model. Does it help us understand the actions of the thief? No. Does it help us predict the actions of others? No. Does it help us understand how to prevent others acting in the same way? No.

Evil isn't a property of the world; it's a property of our own views of the world. Projecting our views on to the world as if they were real doesn't help us understand the world; it hinders that understanding. And understanding why people do evil things is important if we are ever to make the world a better place.

So I don't believe in evil, and I don't think you should either.

Quite right. The only use the term serves is to obviate critical thought, It's a kind of emotional blackmail - once a thing or person has been identified as "evil", nobody is ever allowed to try to understand, or analyse, or examine. When someing is "evil", the only response is to kill it. Thus, ideologies of "evilness" (such as the alleged "axis of evil") themselves contribute to much evil.

So, you're making an ontological claim concerning all things that only have their origin in human "states"/actions. "Love", "evil", "good", "brutality", etc., are all psychological states or behaviors, and therefore do not exist?

Well, there may be a heavy underlining semantics issue here, or maybe you are a Naturalist (and hold that only "physical" things exist), or possibly you were not intending to speak technically?

Aside from this debate, however, I think the spirit of what you're saying has merit, and the ontological argument is less relevant than that. You're asserting that people demonize those who have done "evil acts" to guard themselves from moral association with "Evil". I agree with that.

Metaphysically speaking, however, I hold that mental states/human actions are as "real" (more relevantly real, in fact) as atoms.

I wasn't intending to make an ontological statement about the reality of mental states. I suppose I could have stated that evil is a property of the observer rather than the observed or that evil is a subjective assessment rather than an objective reality but it seemed overly long-winded to me.

Do you believe in individual free will, whether that be moral responsibility or the freedom to have done otherwise?

I'm not sure that it's as simple as that. I think the role of society and culture need to be included if we aren't to treat the individual as somehow detached from their situation.

In this context 'evil' might be seen as a description of a set of behaviours sufficiently removed from the norm of one social group as viewed from another rather than necessarily some choice by an individual.

The documentary Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus, did show "evil" people in the Deep South of the USA. In their background there seemed to have been a very real choice to follow the path of "evil", as defined by the Baptist Church. They had tried "good" but found it too difficult to stick with the programme. They seemed rather resigned to their fates as sinners but determined to make the best of "evil" whilst they had the chance, knowing that the eternal lake of fire was waiting for them in the end.

The anatomy of the concept of Evil is very complex; it has meant many different things for different people. A short and partial catalogue:

* Evil as a metaphysical force, opposed to good.
* Evil as sin, thus guilt, in which we all share.
* Evil as crime, as actions we ourselves would never take.
* Evil as irrationality, as madness.
* Evil as the Other of humanity, as the unthinkable opposite to humanity.
* Evil as weakness of character, the opposite of virtue.
* Evil as lust, as strength expressing itself.

Does evil exist? I do not think that is a question that can be answered. Is Evil a useful concept? Perhaps - but some uses of it are harmful, rather than useful.

"Evil" as a word distancing ourselves from other whose acts we condemn, as if to emphasise that we would never do that in any circumstances - that notion of evil is surely a conventient lie, a closing of the eyes to the tragic nature of our existence. (So I think I completely agree with Jack, as this was surely the point he was making with his holocaust example?) "Evil" as a word of condemnation that stops all further conversation, all attempts to get to understand the other - that notion of evil is surely a dangerous idea, with potentially destructive consequences. (This is where Bush' "Axis of Evil" belongs, I suppose.)

But other notions of "Evil" may be interesting and useful, in art, life and philosophy.

Oh.

I do.

yrs--
--Ben

Evil is the violation of the observer's aesthetic.

Christopher Weeks wrote: Evil is the violation of the observer's aesthetic.

Do you believe in good?

Let's see if I've learned anything in my Philosophy classes.

I've been taught that there are two types of Evil. Moral Evil, and Natural Evil. Natural Evil encompasses toil, suffering, strife and death, though I'm personally iffy about death. Natural Evil is imposed, and serves as a callback, a call to stop and think about what you are doing. I don't think this applies to the discussion at hand, so I'll leave it at that.

Moral Evil is defined as doing what is contrary to your nature, specifically the nature of being a rational being. Moral Evil is, specifially, Neglect, Avoidance, Resistance and Denial of rationality. The consequences of Moral Evil are not imposed, nor are they deferred.

The Consequences of Moral Evil are Innate and Present, and include Meaninglessness, Boredom and Guilt. These three things lead to acts which are considered "evil" by the populace at large; Meaninglessness causes you to either seek meaning in the wrong places, or to distract yourself from your meaningless existence. Boredom drives you to seek sensation, in increasing doses as you become numb to previous doses. Guilt leads to denial of guilt, or, again, distraction from guilt. Between the three of them, you are driven to excess, depravity and perversion. This is called Spiritual Death. The Wages of Sin, as it were.

Natural Evil as stated above restrains, removes and acts as a callback from Moral Evil. Natural Evil, especially death, limits the scope and duration of Moral Evil, and it's resultant acts. Natural Evil can remove the ability to commit Evil acts. The suffering, and the imminence of death frequently cause people to think about their lives, and sometimes to make a change, going away from Moral Evil, toward the Good.

So.. Yes, I believe in Evil. My definitions vary slightly from the above, but the above makes a great deal of sense to me.

Wolfen wrote: Let's see if I've learned anything in my Philosophy classes.

I think evil is what happens when there is an absence of good. It's much like darkness, cold, stagnation, and many other negative words. Darkness is realy just the absence of light. Cold is just the absence of heat. Stagnation is the absence of motion. Evil is the absence of good.

Why is stealing evil? Because respect for a person's property and the effort that went into securing it are good. Stealing is a lack of that respect. Why is murder evil? Because it's a lack of respect and love for human life. Why is lying evil? Because it's good to tell the truth and disrepectful to deceive.

In short, something's evil if it goes counter to what is considered good. In my mind, "good" has to do with love, respect, and sacrifice.

M.Scott Peck wrote a pretty interesting book called "The People of the Lie."

He starts out by stating that the elephant in the room of psychiatry/ology is that a great number of disordered persons get there due to things that were done to them, either in upbringing or as later trauma.
But that this root problem is, essentially, "eviltude," and as such lies outside any realm of scientific inquiry. Leaving us chasing down the symptoms but not addressing the cause.

He goes on to define "evil" as a willingness to sacrifice others' needs in order to meet your own. His argument is that, as a set of observable behaviors, evil certainly exists. And that, given this definition, evil can be discussed and dealt with.

It's a good read, I recommend it. He discusses some case studies, draws some interesting conclusions, and then goes off the deep end. Check it out.

-Matt
(Garbanzo, when I'm not too lazy to log in.)

On the topic of Evil, I can also recommend Rudiger Safranski's Das Bõse. (I do not know if it has been translated into English, although I do believe there is a French translation of the original German.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.