NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Members,

I wonder what is really evil, or have we purely experienced evil is evil an assumption? or have we been told what evil is but never realized it? Please do not say anything bad or get mad about me not understanding this I just wanna to really see what other people say about it.

evil is persecution

Barbara Streisand

I'm evil. :D

Evil is a sociological concept designed to act as a guide for your actions. It is decided by the culture you're born in, and has no reality outside of it's own abstraction.

Evil is a sociological concept designed to act as a guide for your actions. It is decided by the culture you're born in, and has no reality outside of it's own abstraction.
:eek: thats confusing....

Hmm.. I suppose that depends. True evil is all together different than what most people would consider "evil." The definition given by Nasopotomia suffices when one is considering the evil that is familiar to most of us, however, when faced with the concept of true evil, one must look beyond the confines of humanity. True evil, as a principle, seeks to undo, pervert and destroy that has been created by the benevolent forces of the universe. It seeks to, for purposes beyond our understanding, completely dismantle the standing cosmic system and mutilate the overall Plan. Hopefully, no one of this earth has ever encountered true evil, and will never have to.

Thank you for listening to me rant. I love metaphysics! :D

*Dances away*

Read this post. It's pretty damn evil.

How brutal Huntaer is (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8489353&postcount=16)

this post is actually no where near how evil the Kirtir are.
The Kirtir(Sith) nearly wiped out the Malkir(Jedi) from their origonal 100 something thousand, down to 20 something.

Hmm.. I suppose that depends. True evil is all together different than what most people would consider "evil." The definition given by Nasopotomia suffices when one is considering the evil that is familiar to most of us, however, when faced with the concept of true evil, one must look beyond the confines of humanity. True evil, as a principle, seeks to undo, pervert and destroy that has been created by the benevolent forces of the universe. It seeks to, for purposes beyond our understanding, completely dismantle the standing cosmic system and mutilate the overall Plan. Hopefully, no one of this earth has ever encountered true evil, and will never have to.

Thank you for listening to me rant. I love metaphysics! :D

*Dances away*
Then I'm true evil....

Evil is the Numa Numa dance.

Then I'm true evil....

I seriously doubt you are. It's more likely that you've just decided that you'd like to sound badass. Now run along and pretend to kill things on your computer. :D

Hmm.. I suppose that depends. True evil is all together different than what most people would consider "evil." The definition given by Nasopotomia suffices when one is considering the evil that is familiar to most of us, however, when faced with the concept of true evil, one must look beyond the confines of humanity. True evil, as a principle, seeks to undo, pervert and destroy that has been created by the benevolent forces of the universe. It seeks to, for purposes beyond our understanding, completely dismantle the standing cosmic system and mutilate the overall Plan. Hopefully, no one of this earth has ever encountered true evil, and will never have to.

Then again, it also probably doesn't exist anyway.

Then again, it also probably doesn't exist anyway.

Hm, you do make a point. However, in my humble opinion, you can't have something without its opposite. Without creation, there can be no destruction, without chaos there can be no order, and without good there can be no evil. So, by denying the existance of true evil, are you also denying the existance of true good?

Evil can basically be defined as hate, specifically hate for life, love, joy, creation, etc.

Lets stop using all these big words all right? Evil is the easier path in most cases.

Evil is communism and anarchism and most variants thereupon. Oh and rape.

Evil is a label people put on things they want to distance from themselves, and cast in an extremely negative light. This can either be unconscious or conscious (i.e. Axis of Evil).

Hm, you do make a point. However, in my humble opinion, you can't have something without its opposite. Without creation, there can be no destruction, without chaos there can be no order, and without good there can be no evil. So, by denying the existance of true evil, are you also denying the existance of true good?

Yup. No such thing as true Evil or True Good. They imply forces with a morality of their own that transcend humanity, but are also part of the fabric of reality. Which is ludicrous; it's like trying to find out Gravity's favorite colour.

Oh, and Chaos and Order are the same thing, by the way.

Yup. No such thing as true Evil or True Good. They imply forces with a morality of their own that transcend humanity, but are also part of the fabric of reality. Which is ludicrous; it's like trying to find out Gravity's favorite colour.

Oh, and Chaos and Order are the same thing, by the way.

While I don't agree with you, I've decided one thing.

I like you. :D

But seriously, you do make some excellent points. Although, while the gravity analogy made me laugh, it doesn't really follow. To say that a force that is part of the fabric of reality couldn't have an ultimate goal or purpose is very presumptuous. Everything has a purpose, on some level. I suppose this is just a clash of very different philosophies.

Oh, and Chaos and Order are opposites. They can exist within one another, but one does not equal the other.

I'm evil. I'm an evil viking. I am the dark. HATE IS MINE.

Perhaps it is just doing the wrong thing according to a set of values defined in place and time.

Dear Members,

I wonder what is really evil, or have we purely experienced evil is evil an assumption? or have we been told what evil is but never realized it? Please do not say anything bad or get mad about me not understanding this I just wanna to really see what other people say about it.
Aren't those the little bugs that live in cotton bolls?

While I don't agree with you, I've decided one thing.

I like you. :D

The feeling's entirely mutual, I assure you.

But seriously, you do make some excellent points. Although, while the gravity analogy made me laugh, it doesn't really follow. To say that a force that is part of the fabric of reality couldn't have an ultimate goal or purpose is very presumptuous. Everything has a purpose, on some level. I suppose this is just a clash of very different philosophies.

To assume that a force can have a goal is equally presumtuous. Always find in the negative unless there is evidence, and in this case there is none.

Anyway, the concept of Good and Evil as seperate transdimensional forces doesn't explain why they have wildly different connotations in differing cultures. Surely Good can't want one culture to sacrifice children in one country, and yet also want other countries to just eat fish on Fridays?

Oh, and Chaos and Order are opposites. They can exist within one another, but one does not equal the other.

Ah, but Chaos is just Order in a fashion you can't precieve. It still follows rules, and in doing so it must adhere to an order. Look up some Complexity Theory; those crazy kids come up with some amazing ideas.

i personally think that rape and the killing of animals for sport is evil others on the other hand find it great some say its good to be evil others say its good not to be evil evil is defined by everyone in a diffrent way that others like i think killing of certain people is good you may say it is bad hitler thought he was doing good but most of the jews said he was evil so there its our own definetion

choas and order is also defined different by different people

by the way please dont correct me on gramitical or spelling errors thats annoying and I think its EVIL because im not in school at the moment and shouldnt have to deal with that

To assume that a force can have a goal is equally presumtuous. Always find in the negative unless there is evidence, and in this case there is none.

Anyway, the concept of Good and Evil as seperate transdimensional forces doesn't explain why they have wildly different connotations in differing cultures. Surely Good can't want one culture to sacrifice children in one country, and yet also want other countries to just eat fish on Fridays?

Now you see, I always believe in something until it can be proven otherwise to me. That way, I never end up looking arrogant or closed-minded. :D

But as for good wanting one culture to do one thing and another to do something completely different, good is relative. As long as you believe you are doing good, you are, in a sense, doing good. There is no sin without intent. If you think you're doing the right thing, well, I might think you're wrong, but that doesn't neccesarily make you EVIL. Evil must be a purposeful act.

by the way please dont correct me on gramitical or spelling errors thats annoying and I think its EVIL because im not in school at the moment and shouldnt have to deal with that

Something tell me you're in the WRONG place.

Evil is a sociological concept designed to act as a guide for your actions. It is decided by the culture you're born in, and has no reality outside of it's own abstraction. You clearly haven't met some of the people with whom I work. :(

what is evil?Evil means never having to say you're sorry.

I feel the following things are evil:
Murder
Rape
Child Molestation
Child Abuse
Manslaughter
Atheism
Using profanity (especially on the sabbath)
drunkenness
Killing of any animal life unless part of the body goes to serve some useful purpose

Always find in the negative unless there is evidence, and in this case there is none.

Now you see, I always believe in something until it can be proven otherwise to me. That way, I never end up looking arrogant or closed-minded.

I don't believe in something until it's proven to me, yet I don't rule out the possiblility. It's the only way to be sure that you don't look like a fool now and you won't look like a fool when someone proves you wrong.

i personally think that rape and the killing of animals for sport is evil others on the other hand find it great some say its good to be evil others say its good not to be evil evil is defined by everyone in a diffrent way that others like i think killing of certain people is good you may say it is bad hitler thought he was doing good but most of the jews said he was evil so there its our own definetion

choas and order is also defined different by different people

by the way please dont correct me on gramitical or spelling errors thats annoying and I think its EVIL because im not in school at the moment and shouldnt have to deal with that

If you want people to take you and your opinions seriously, then you will deal with that.

Evil is communism and anarchism and most variants thereupon. Oh and rape.
evil is capitalism and corruption, oh and exploitation.

Cthulhu is evil, cause he/she/it/that thing will slowly eat all mankind!

evil is capitalism and corruption, oh and exploitation.
So you're basically saying all humans are evil?

Please respond more.

Definitely, evil is all about perception.

Personally, I think its evil to allow the human race to continue to exist. Surely there are others (most definitely a LOT of others, considering not many yearn for extinction) that disagree with me.

And sometimes I even disagree with myself. When I witness a true act of kindness (which is rare) hope lives again, if only briefly. Then I think about fossil fuel (what it has done to us and our planet, what it is doing, and what it will continue to do until it's all gone), war (always pointless in the grand scheme of things), religion (lots and lots of reasons for my beef with this little gem), and a plethora of other things, inane to insane, that make me want to vomit our species into the blackness of space.

...

Okay, sorry about that. Sometimes I can be a little depressing.
Happy happy! Lookit the smiley! He's digital Prozak! :D

What is evil? Read 1984. Besides that, I don't think evil has any objective representative.

Evil is almost indescribable without examples, and it's hard to understand even with examples, but it definitely exists. Examples of evil include The Holocaust, The Gestapo (and other aspects of the Nazi regime...), the treatment of POWs by the Japanese in WWII, genocide (examples other than The Holocaust include a lot of stuff in Africa), Pearl Harbor, Terrorism, civilian shields...I guess the thing all these events have in common is a complete disregard for life, combined with a malice that just allows people to do horrible things!

The number 17!

the japanese never considered their treatment of POWS evil, because they believed they were doing right, that the POW had surrendered, a heinous act, and they deserved punishment for it.

Evil, Dark Side of the Force it is!

*ducks* Sorry.

Evil is greed. It wants, it wants so much that it would rather destroy whatever it is in order for none to posess it rather than itself. It wants not to cherish or value, but to possess. all acts of evil stem from this wanting.

the japanese never considered their treatment of POWS evil, because they believed they were doing right, that the POW had surrendered, a heinous act, and they deserved punishment for it.
Or was it not evil because they did not believe it to be evil?

evil = awesome

the japanese never considered their treatment of POWS evil, because they believed they were doing right, that the POW had surrendered, a heinous act, and they deserved punishment for it.

Surrender is a heinous act, but burning 150 helpless people alive isn't? Starving and working people to death, not giving them basic medicine isn't? And there is no excuse, the Japanese withheld food (red cross parcels) that was intended for the POWs in the first place. They would execute people for minor breaches of the rules, having an extra blanket, getting two rations of food (a ration of food, for the entire day, by the way, was half a cup of rice with a little salt in it). They beat people to death as routine practice, and even when they didn't beat them to death, they beat them to the point where they were unrecognizable, often for no reason! If you were sick and you couldn't work as hard as they wanted you to, they beat you. In the Bataan Death March, anyone who collapsed was killed on the spot, and to do this, they would simply cut a zig zag through their intestines with a bayonette to ensure that they would die, eventually, but not quickly. I'd highly reccomend watching The Great Raid (now out in theaters) for a (sugar coated) depiction of the events, don't get any history from Bridge on the River Kwai, it's completely historically inaccurate. When these people got out of the POW camps (the ones that survived, that is, a very small minority; the numbers of POWs who died in those camps was staggering) they didn't look any better than the Holocaust survivors, and that's not evil?! You can't justify those actions with "culture" or whatever, murder is never noble, torture is never justified. I also find it very hard to believe that the Japanese culture condones these things to the extent to which they were taken, because disrespect and torture/murder are completely different things. I only mentioned the POWs because they'd been in my mind recently because the movie is coming out, but they treated everyone under their control in horrible ways. The treatment of the Chinese, Koreans, Phillippinos, etcetera was also deplorable, good example: Rape of Nanking. Pardon the long post but I think the actions of the Japenese in WWII is one of the least understood, most forgotten, brutal tragedies in recent history.

Tell me, if surrender was such a crime in their culture, how can you justify Japan's unconditional surrender at the end of WWII?

Hmm.. I suppose that depends. True evil is all together different than what most people would consider "evil." The definition given by Nasopotomia suffices when one is considering the evil that is familiar to most of us, however, when faced with the concept of true evil, one must look beyond the confines of humanity. True evil, as a principle, seeks to undo, pervert and destroy that has been created by the benevolent forces of the universe. It seeks to, for purposes beyond our understanding, completely dismantle the standing cosmic system and mutilate the overall Plan. Hopefully, no one of this earth has ever encountered true evil, and will never have to.

Thank you for listening to me rant. I love metaphysics! :D

*Dances away*

hmm.. acording to your post anything that seeks to destroy the cosmic harmony of the universe is evil, that would make me evil, but I already knew that.

Evil is the destruction of or the infliction of harm to sentient life without justification.

but we define evil, then we're limiting its capabilites.

Dear Members,

I wonder what is really evil, or have we purely experienced evil is evil an assumption? or have we been told what evil is but never realized it? Please do not say anything bad or get mad about me not understanding this I just wanna to really see what other people say about it.


Evil is bad stuff. Have you ever had someone take away a piece of candy or an ice cream you were eating? The person who did that was evil. My definition if evil = bad stuff.

I don't think we can say things like '_______ is Evil.' No matter what, there will always be different circumstances making the ________ more or less 'evil.'

I believe Evil cannot be given any other name than the one it has. Not even hate, because sometimes hate can be justified.

Now comes the time when I must make my point.

Evil takes form in negative emotions or actions that are not justified.

Evil is anything that contradicts righteousness. In otherwords, anything that is wrong is evil. All that is against the guidance of your concience is evil. All that causes more harm than good in the end is evil. I think that's all you really need to know.

Come on. Evil is totally arbitrary. As far as im concerned evil is a word used to encompass anything that the utterer considers wrong. Whether clutching a bible or addressing parliament. "ITS EVIL I TELLS YA!"
I think that evil is something that is considered wrong universally.
Murder is not evil. Sure in most cases it is but most of us would kill to protect our loved ones would we not? Or at least consider it a reasonable excuse. The only thing i can think of that is irrefutable are crimes of a sexual nature. Rape, molestation etc. There are no times where this is ok.
All this other stuff about not swearing on the sabbath, communism is evil and whatnot is purely your own view. I refuse to believe that yelling out FUCK! when i stub my toe on the door makes me any less of a person and certainly does not make me an evil one - sabbath or no sabbath.

Dear Members,

I wonder what is really evil, or have we purely experienced evil is evil an assumption? or have we been told what evil is but never realized it? Please do not say anything bad or get mad about me not understanding this I just wanna to really see what other people say about it.
There is no such thing as "evil".

EDIT: I should say something more helpful. "Evil" is about as much a non-concept as we have in the secular Western world, right up there with "sin". People define it in terms of synonyms ("bad," "harm," "Hiter," etc.) or a generalization of all "wrongness", but, except for the religious context that puts it in contrast to "good", it has no real defintion. It means something different to everyone, evidenced by this thread.

Evil is all about perception.

To the Satanist, evil is live spelled backwards.

My own personal definition of evil is: The act of breaking the law.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Tell me, if surrender was such a crime in their culture, how can you justify Japan's unconditional surrender at the end of WWII?

They were nuked! Remember that little incident when America dropped atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? 120000 dead and twice as many over time? 95% civilians? Ring any bells?
Geez if you want an example of something evil there it is.

Evil is the European Union.

What is evil?
The teletubbies... they're evile. And Barney... mustn't forget Barney... :D

The truth is: There is no evil and there is no good. There is just he human mind and its power to create myths...

in fact the plane that surveyed the destruction of hiroshima - flying along side the Enola Gay was called the "Necessary Evil."
Hah.
Necessary my ass. That was a war crime.

in fact the plane that surveyed the destruction hiroshima, flying along side the Enola Gay was called the "Necessary Evil."
Hah.
Necessary my ass. That was a war crime.Who knows? Maybe by showing the world how much getting hit by a nuke sucks is what made people think twice before starting a nuclear war?

That was not evil, that was just a disturbation of the human mind...

Evil is the darkness, the ebb and flow against the light. It is the end of the light, and the defintion of the light. Without evil how can you see good, without chaos how can you see order.

"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"

Evil is that darn Frog and the Jamster people paying for it to live!

Evil is also a society that makes you work for 5 days, and only gives you 2 days off (if that) :rolleyes:

The truth is: There is no evil and there is no good. There is just he human mind and its power to create myths...

I assume you are familiar with the story of Pandora, from Greek mythology.

Evil is that darn Frog and the Jamster people paying for it to live!
Evil is also a society that makes you work for 5 days, and only gives you 2 days off (if that) :rolleyes:

Naa, that's just semantics.

in fact the plane that surveyed the destruction of hiroshima - flying along side the Enola Gay was called the "Necessary Evil."
Hah.
Necessary my ass. That was a war crime.

Actually, it was necessary. If the U.S had gone ahead with it's invasion of the Japan home islands, Millions of U.S soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians would've been killed. Like it or not, the Atomic Bombings actually saved lives on both sides.

Actually, it was necessary. If the U.S had gone ahead with it's invasion of the Japan home islands, Millions of U.S soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians would've been killed. Like it or not, the Atomic Bombings actually saved lives on both sides.

Where are you from?! Maybe the first one was a "necessary evil" which, as Machiavelli said, may have been "an end justifying the means", but the second was by far and away a war crime, and was unnecessary, all that needed to be done was to then inform the Japanese that the US had more and were prepared to use it, but then not use it.
The second one was not in anyway justifiable.

Actually, it was necessary. If the U.S had gone ahead with it's invasion of the Japan home islands, Millions of U.S soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians would've been killed. Like it or not, the Atomic Bombings actually saved lives on both sides.It remains debatable whether Operation Olympic would have been necessary to get the Japanese to surrender.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder

Evil is just an invention of the human mind, used to describe someone who does something wrong from someone elses point of view. Good is exactly the same, they both don't really exist. People who did "evil" like Hitler and Saddam thought they were doing good, just as terrorists do now. We think they're evil, they think we're evil. What evil is varies from person to person, and as such there no such thing as evil.

Its like what some of the earlier posters have said.

evil starts with treating people as things, including yourself.

Actually, it was necessary. If the U.S had gone ahead with it's invasion of the Japan home islands, Millions of U.S soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians would've been killed. Like it or not, the Atomic Bombings actually saved lives on both sides.

I dont think thats justifiable at all.
Consider this.
For one the targets were heavily populated by civilians. In the days before the bombing of hiroshima american nuclear scientists argued that the destructive capability of the weapons could easily have been demonstrated without the taking of lives.
General Douglas MacArthur, the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific , was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) Major General Curtis LeMay and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet as well as General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific.)

Eisenhower later wrote in his memoirs:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act? During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment, was I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Furthermore, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded (after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japans surrender)
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Also (im not done yet) The US knew 3 months after V-E Day that the soviet union would declare war on japan, whereas the Japanese did not. This would have certainly had some effect on Japans surrender as it would have removed the possibility of the Soviets being a neutral mediator for peace and forced japan to deal with the largest active army in the world. Because no invasion was imminent, the US had nothing to lose by waiting to see what would happen. Rather than nuking civilians.
Another argument was that Japan was faced with occupation by the soviets and it was Stalins devastating mainland invasion that bought about the surrender.

Most disturbingly, scientists who had worked on the manhattan project later noted that they were pressured to finish the bomb by a set schedule, one which was timed to coincide with the Russian entrance into the Pacific, and one which additionally implied that the war could be over very soon.

"If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."
-Leo Szilard

You know i think hes right.
I think ive said enough.

Evil is easy & has infinite forms.
~ some French dude.

Reminds me of a job I had at a printing company...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=437845

Actually, it was necessary. If the U.S had gone ahead with it's invasion of the Japan home islands, Millions of U.S soldiers and Japanese soldiers and civilians would've been killed. Like it or not, the Atomic Bombings actually saved lives on both sides.

This is more of an add-on to Zane's comment, but it's too long to quote.
A side note: Even without the threat of force, Japan would have to surrender. As their supply of oil was severed and would eventually bring their newly industrialized nation to a stand still. The only reason I see for America dropping an A-bomb, is to show the world not to mess with them. I totally consider that evil. Stock footage of their atomic tests would have sufficed.

it depends on what peoples own perception of evil is for example hitler/saddam/dictators believed what they were doing wasnt evil but to most of the world they were evil.Its all in the individual persons mind what is evil and what isnt. Oh and mcfly! :)

Dennis L. McKiernan's Voyage of the Fox Rider talks about evil and its meaning, has some really interesting discussions about it. plus it's a great book :)

Evil is mostly a subjective thing, but there is a level of 'objective' evil.

This is based on three things:

1) The inherent selfish nature of humans

2) Instinct

3) Reasoning

All of these are tied together to create an 'objective' whole in which most humans can agree is evil. Murder for example, is considered evil, because- a) Being killed is painful and ends our existence b) We don't want to die c) We rationalize that this is very likely the case for all humans d) Killing someone disrupts ordered society and has a detrimental social effect in most cases.

From all this, we can reason that murder isn't something that benefits society or the individual, and can lead to social breakdown, and therefore can more or less be objectively considered 'evil'.

The teletubbies... they're evile. And Barney... mustn't forget Barney... :D
i know something more evil than the teletubbies . . . it's that other show made by the same people who made teletubbies . . . i don't know what it's called, every time i see it on tv i'm too freaked out by it to check . . . *shudders* it's so creepy . . .

1.in most choices there are 2 paths,

Good

or

Evil

Evil could be regarded as the wrong choice


2. If something was to be evil it could be consdered as terrible, or bad

3.Evil has many different meanings, i guesse it all depends what/who you grow up with, what do you think?

"The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man." Albert Einstien

evil is a term used to describe something that is immoral

hence how gays can be "evil", liberals can be "evil", thatcherites can be "evil" and even cats or barney the purple wanker can be "evil"

it all depends on point of view and is ultimatley subjective

Evil is a sociological concept designed to act as a guide for your actions. It is decided by the culture you're born in, and has no reality outside of it's own abstraction.

Sarcasm aside. I have seen evil first hand. A woman in an apartment complex where I lived reported her four-year-old daughter missing. The child was later found, dead, behind a local elementary school. The entire neighborhood rallied around her, bringing her food, holding her hand, helping care for her other children while she cried and sobbed about her innocent daughter. I was found later that she, herself had killed the girl for $5000.00 insurance. That is evil.

Sarcasm aside. I have seen evil first hand. A woman in an apartment complex where I lived reported her four-year-old daughter missing. The child was later found, dead, behind a local elementary school. The entire neighborhood rallied around her, bringing her food, holding her hand, helping care for her other children while she cried and sobbed about her innocent daughter. I was found later that she, herself had killed the girl for $5000.00 insurance. That is evil.

I agree

The definition of what is considered "evil" otherwise may differ according to point of view. In the Western world, some philosophers reject the idea of evil, Plato, for example, argued that that which we call evil is merely ignorance, and that which we call good is merely that which everyone desires. Those who assert a more universal code of ethics view Plato's definition as one based merely on situation and based on on ethics or values. Plato's criticism is thus itself criticised as an attack on ethics itself, suggesting that philosophy can have meaning and value without ethics and the honor associated with ethical belief. Benedict de Spinoza was even more radical, according to him the concept of good and evil is merely one of personal inclinations: "Such things as please us, we denominate good, those which displease us, evil."

check out wikipedia

Evil is greed. It wants, it wants so much that it would rather destroy whatever it is in order for none to posess it rather than itself. It wants not to cherish or value, but to possess. all acts of evil stem from this wanting.
Besides evil being largely preception, this sounds like a good description of evil.

I agree with a few of the other poster, ultimately evil is just a concept of the human mind, used by a given person to cover what they would consider as wrong. It is not real. Even if god and even Satan existed, it would not be real. It is just a concept. Same goes for "good", in my view. These concepts are subjective.

i know something more evil than the teletubbies . . . it's that other show made by the same people who made teletubbies . . . i don't know what it's called, every time i see it on tv i'm too freaked out by it to check . . . *shudders* it's so creepy . . .
Beebops? They look like potatoes...:rolleyes:

Us Buddhists don't really have a concept of evil par se.

There is the enlightened mind, and when this is realised our actions are naturally compassionate, not out of desire to do good but because this is our natural state.

In turn, attachments and delusions such as greed, hatred and ignorance, obscure this mind from us and so our actions inevitably cause suffering.

Evil is following a codified set of morals without question.
Evil is refusing to question authority.

Us Buddhists don't really have a concept of evil par se.

There is the enlightened mind, and when this is realised our actions are naturally compassionate, not out of desire to do good but because this is our natural state.

In turn, attachments and delusions such as greed, hatred and ignorance, obscure this mind from us and so our actions inevitably cause suffering.

I agree, and that's interesting, I was just saying the other day in another post that "Until the very last shred of hatred, ignorance and greed is gone from the world, there will never be world peace."

I don't think evil is a force in itself, therefore acts cannot be inherently evil. Good, however, is personified by God, therefore I suppose whatever is part of God's 'nature' is would be the highest universal good...(love, hope, joy, peace, etc.)


When I say evil, I do not mean what various cultures think is wrong, but the idea of an absolute force of evil.

Evil is a word with several different connotations, but basically, evil is action taken 1) in contravention of that which produces flourishing in human beings, 2) with knowledge of what does produce flourishing in human beings, and 3) acting in spite of that knowledge.

While the above is a fairly complete definition, it can nevertheless be broken down into two subsets: circumstantial evils and eternal evils. Quite a few people, even on this board, do not think that there is such a thing as an eternal evil; I do, and I think with some justification. But that's still ahead; first, we need to say exactly what a circumstantial and an eternal evil are. Basically, a circumstantial evil is an evil taken in contravention of that which produces flourishing in human beings, but is an action that in other circumstances might yield flourishing. An eternal evil, by contrast, is an action that never yields flourishing in rational beings, and which no rational being would ever therefore choose for himself as a proper course of action.

Now that sounds very complex and hairy, but in reality we see and reason in such a manner all the time. For instance, we say that gluttony is evil because it is an action that creates destructive habits: consistently eating too much is an action that leads to deleterious effects on the body, like diabetes, obesity, and the like. Because those conditions impede the body's ability to function properly, and indeed in some sense to fulfill its function of maximal bodily efficiency, we say that the habits that lead to them are evil; hence, since gluttonous habits yield deleterious effects on the body, gluttony is evil. Nonetheless, circumstance must be taken into account before we say that, say, eating a twelve-pack of hot dogs constitutes gluttony. If someone always eats a twelve-pack of hot dogs for lunch, then yes, they are being gluttonous. If, however, they are eating it because they are starving, then it is not gluttonous; starvation, every bit as much as gluttony, is a condition that leads to deleterious effects on the body and prevents flourishing. As such, if by eating the hot dogs you are simply ameliorating the bad effects of starvation, you are merely trying to compensate for the effects of a bad condition; hence, the act is not gluttonous. So we could say that eating a twelve-pack of hot dogs is sometimes evil, and sometimes not, based on why you are doing it, and whether or not it is to cure or inhibit flourishing of the human machine. As such, it is a circumstantial evil. By contrast, the gluttonous act is always evil, as it always inhibits the natural end to which the body works: maximal efficiency and capability.

Now, as I said earlier, many people don't think there is such a thing as an eternal evil. Clearly, I take the opposite view. The reason why I do is because 1) the moral relativistic view is, to my mind, based on two fallacies of thinking, and 2) is based largely on the denial of a God, as the general assumption is that the existence of an absolute morality must be based on Godly principles. Both of those lines of reasoning are incorrect, and I shall mention each in turn.

The two logical fallacies that relativists engage in are the A) naturalistic fallacy, and B) the absence of proof fallacy. Basically, relativists generally make the crucial assumption that because many different cultures have defined the same act as moral and immoral throughout history, it is clearly evidence that there is no overriding morality. Now, even supposing that there were no overriding values that have never been endorsed by any culture throughout history (there has likely never been a culture that prized cowardice in battle, for instance), that still is a fallacy of reasoning because what does happen in life has no necessary bearing on what ought to happen in life. To use an example, even if every culture in history had justified their own little Holocausts; it would not itself say anything about whether those Holocausts ought to have happened. Indeed, it is strikingly odd that the same people who talk about moral relativism as fact are usually also the one's most critical of, say, the Trail of Tears or American treatment of Vietnamese at My Lai, which suggests to me that deep down, they don't really believe what they are saying. As their evidence is based purely on is talk rather than ought talk, they have no justification for making any claims whatsoever about the moral ought. Furthermore, relativists usually cite the fact that there is no evidence for an overarching morality, but from there they make the logically unwarranted leap of claiming that it therefore does not exist. Unfortunately, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

As for the Godliness of an absolute morality, it should be noted that I never once justified my condemnation of gluttony as a universal evil by saying "God always condemns it". Rather, I justified it on the grounds that it is always a violation of man's natural ends and always inhibits his happiness by creating bad habits of action. As such, while I certainly beleive that absolutism indicates the existence of God, it certainly need not be that God justifies that absolutism through divine providence. As such, whether God exists or not is immaterial to whether something is always right or always wrong.

An eternal evil, by contrast, is an action that never yields flourishing in rational beings, and which no rational being would ever therefore choose for himself as a proper course of action.

Can you give an example of such an evil, and provide a explanation as to why it can be concluded solely on the basis of rationality that it is always evil?

Evil is as Evil does.


Oh.... and gravedigging is also kind of evil.

evil doesn't really exsist but it is a word created to mean wrong or what "should not" be there are a few ways to look at it passively and (can't think of the word right now but it means that you always look at numbers like for example (I'd kill 1 man to save 3). if you look passivly its more like you may never vicyomize the other. If you look at it the other way it's doing actions so that the greater good might continue.

p.s. i am sry for my horrible spelling i had to do this very quickly

Evil is the ultimate selfishness. Not the petty selfishnesses of which we are all guilty from time to time. But the selfishness of the person who feels that his/her gratifications are more important than another's life. This person feels nothing for any other person, they steal, rape, murder with no regard for anything except their own gratification. There is no empathy, no caring, no concept of love, no notion of regret, guilt or repentence. Hannibal Lecter is the perfect fictional personification of evil. Real life evil? - Try Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, Elizabeth Batory, Josef Stalin, Josef Mengele, and so on. The list is virtually endless.

On my opinion the is no such thing as absolute good or evil (nor absolute right and wrong). The concept of good and evil are both invented by man. It totally depends on social environment where one is raised, morality and religion among the other things.

Example if one is born and raised in police state among the elite the person might see no bad in hurting people below him because thats the way he was raised. On the other hand a peasant trying to survive in everyday life might see the government as pure evil because it doesn't give a s*it about the common people.

One one culture killing deformed children might be the right way to go and on a another culture that would be considered a atrocity.

George Bush's government have named they're enemies as axis of evil. Though i don't think that they're that evil at the least. One might even say that USA is the new incarnation of evil and doesn't many people call Bush as the Satan..

Hope you understand what i'm trying to say because by english isn't that good..

All humans are evil. Period.

happen to think that the singular evil of our time is prejudice. It is from this evil that all other evils grow and multiply. In almost everything I've written there is a thread of this: a man's seemingly palpable need to dislike someone other than himself.

ROD SERLING, Los Angeles Times, 1967

your own expression of morality..
Now i feel good

It does several connotation in different society that you can only define it as one thing, the opposite of what's regaurded as good.