what is evil?

What is evil?

I believe that evil is simply deciding that you are in control and you are, in essence, God. Whether that is taking control of another psychologically, emotionally, physically, spiritually or otherwise. And from this belief stems all the horrific actions that humans take and inflict on one another.
 
I already engaged the topic. Read the thread.



Absolutely, and legends don't hold so much water when the person in question lived very recently and had a reputation that runs contrary to the legend in question.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp



I understand the point that was made - I never said that I didn't. You, for some reason, want to argue about a point that was never put up for argument in the first place. I haven't challenged, even implicitly, the philosophy you've posited. I don't care. It's good as far as I'm concerned. What I have argued is that you are working on the cognitive biases of other people by juxtaposing that argument and the name of a world-renowned academic and quantifiable genius. It creates a logical misstep in the mind of the reader, not an emotional one. The reader isn't going off of what they feel about Einstein, they are going off of what they know about Einstein: that he is an intelligent man with many accolades and a history of producing work which permanently altered his field of study. If you didn't realize you were doing this, I totally understand - we've all used logical fallacies before - nevertheless it's ethically objectionable and you should be aware of it in the future.
As stated, I stumbled across that anectdote about Einstein. I took it as it was. But I repeat again, the fact that Einstein's name is put to that legend (which, for all we know could possibly be true, but is more likely false), is incidental to the contents. The only misinformation it could possibly create is in respect of Einstein's biographical data. But since this thread is not about Einstein, but about the nature of evil, I don't think the authorship, which was in bold capitals on the page I cut and pasted from, is actually important at all, let alone of any ethical significance.

I guess I disagree with your position that if one does not research the historicity of every story before cutting, pasting and posting it is "ethically objectionable" - particularly on a web based forum. Ie. posting something interesting, without checking multiple sources does not constitute an evil act, or decision. It might be different if this were a non-internet based medium, such as a public presentation, which implies a certain thoroughness of scholarship and research.

Additionally, for something to be ethically objectionable, in respect of historical accuracy, it must be certain that the subject in question is absolutely not credible, which in respect of the Einstein nature of evil legend, has not be established.
 
I don't agree with Flavus' religious views, but I do get that he was just saying what he thought evil was-- which is the absence of God/Jesus, or I suppose it could also be the absence of good. It doesn't make very much sense to me, but whatever.

Even if taken as undeniable fact, the Einstein quote still doesn't insist that God is real or that he believes in it, just that evil can be defined as a manmade term to describe a condition which may or may not be real, but is certainly believed/understood by enough people for it to merit recognition.

Also, even if he did say it as a child, he evidently changed his mind when he reached maturity. Plenty of die-hard atheists are converts from religious backgrounds-- some of them even host atheist talk shows on public access TV (I'm sure we've all seen The Atheist Experience). Taking a quote from someone's childhood and using it to 'claim' Einstein as a Christian is as ridiculous as taking my childhood belief in Santa Claus and using it to argue that I'm currently prone to delusions.

So yeah, what I'm saying is that whether or not it's true really doesn't matter.
 
Evil is a human creation that is completely relative to one's own beliefs (sort of like God).

Maybe we can consider 'evil' something which is, statistically speaking, detrimental to most people most of the time. This seems to me like an 'objective' way to understand morality, and doesn't have much to do with personal beliefs at all.

So yeah, that's how I would describe evil: damage - returns = your score on the evilometer.

Kinda like that.
 
This is a very complex question. I don't believe in hard determinism, so defining people as either good or evil makes no sense to me. It implies that we have no choice on how we act, which in turn causes a logical conundrum: if a person is truly evil, he has no choice but to act evil, and if he has no choice but to act evil, he is not truly evil. An act, on the other hand, could perhaps be defined as either good or evil.

To me, it's not really a question of whether or not a person believes his actions are justified. If that were the case, the same act could be considered both good and evil depending on how it's perceived by the person committing it. Some of the most heinous crimes I can think of have been committed by people who thought they were doing good deeds. I'm always wary of invoking Godwin's Law, but the Nazi Party believed the Jewish population and other groups of people whom they thought of as "degenerates" were a threat to German national unity. When they implemented the Final Solution, they thought they were saving their country.

After giving it some thought, I guess I personally define "evil" as causing harm to someone who is not actively trying to harm others.
 
Original reality is by its nature "Good" which is to say benign since it cannot and did not and will not self-destruct (is not malign), or else it would never have "manifested", which is to say that taken to infinitized understandings of finite notions of benign and malign, there is no way that malignancy can be at all. Also, it would never have manifested anything else since it is malignant and cannot even offer temporary beneficence. It cannot even be sustained in the longrun, since there are no resources it wouldn't destroy in its greedy and wasteful, stupid destructiveness. It's ideal state would be to have no challengers to its existence, and to exist alone, but that couldn't be since it must have something to harm in order to exist, since in the hypothesis it is evil to be, or exist, and evil implies the harming of something. If something else, then it wasn't the original being. If itself, it wouldn't exist. If another being fundamentally existed, it must be fundamentally different, and the fundamental difference is to be benign rather than malign. If it existed at he same time it would have been exhausted by the destructive being before any other beings could have manifested since infinite struggles would have to be resolved before finite ones could manifest, qualities before quantities. Yet if it came into being AFTER benign being it could be understood since it is parasitic at best. How a parasite could manage to come into being is the only real question, but let's just say that, temporarily, God was TOO generous, TOO "Good", TOO Benign, and had to deal with a being that was willing to take advantage of it due to being in some way accidentally and irreparably deficient in some aspect of its consciousness, so that we now have the manifest world here in this tiny sector of reality which we see today. If it came from the top down then we know why NO world would exist, much less a world with a mixture of good and evil. If it came from the bottom up it wouldn't have gotten any steam long enough to take over a whole sector of reality, to say nothing of overpowering other minds into its vile realm and holding them hostages of torture for eons. It had to have manifested from a being which existed somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy, probably on a low end sufficiently close to our level so as to be "experimental" or "novel", and yet high enough to have had a chance to use a really large quantity of power over a wide area of creation and so as to be able to entrap a large number of considerably powerful minds who would not willingly submit or at least not without sufficient deception, which still takes a lot of power in those cases.

In this context evil is whatever goes along with, or was originally created by this fraudulent, murderous, deceptive and devouring mind which seemed to literally INVENT such antiqualities. In this fraudulent world Good beings are always here against their will and so deception had to be the norm here. Good beings, here, are the only beings who TRULY want to be good, which means not only to "be nice and play by the rules" in this world. Actually it often means to do otherwise, because values in this world are all sub-realized falsifications or compromised relativities.

Based on this you will KNOW them, look at the manner and results of their actions, and the reasons, not as they give them, but as you find them by the Truth within yourself. If your inner Truth is that you are a Good being, you will be repulsed by the fruit of beings unlike you, and attracted to those of beings of your kind, and no matter what the outer forms you will smell the stench of evil and the fragrance of goodness with the nose of your heart, unfailingly. Unless you foolishly ignore it for too long, in too many lifetimes... So fight the good fight, call a spade a spade, and do what you know inside yourself is right. There are TWO SIDES and ONLY two sides. One of them IS evil, the other GOOD. The former is parasitic on the latter, and the latter will rebel against that parasitism, in both cases this is ALWAYS true. That's how you will DISTINGUISH them... Finally, based upon whether you are able to KNOW them and DISTINGUISH them, you will MANIFEST BEING one of them.

These are metaphysical facts and don't depend on your or anyone else's point of view. Actually quite the reverse... The ability to understand this point of view as I here express it is dependent upon which of these types of entities a person is... Ontology is unified with axiology, epistemology is simply a byproduct of beings being themselves in world where knowing the Truth bears the resistance of deceptions and lies. Nothing could be more antivalent than these two types of beings, such that they are morally different, and so even knowledge is split right down the middle...

Being is moral being, and it is of two sorts, so knowing this is the goal of True beings, hiding this is the goal of false beings, and evil is the intention of false beings who wish to rob good beings of their spiritual goods, their Glory and Wisdom, by means of falsified economies of interaction which wrest from them their energy into corrupt forms digestible by those who steal them.
 
Reality is absolute, but it is also able to grow and change toward higher perfections. It has one flaw in it, and this is possibility that a lower-to-middle level sub-God could greedily attempt to usurp power over others so as to tear the Original Being into a war with Itself and steal what is not rightfully its own, commiting "Deicide" in the process. It envisioned this because it was possible, and because it chose this vision, to see it through, by a stubborn choice to attempt this. It was a heinous being as a result, and this was the birth of evil. It could only happen once in the eternity of Reality's unfolding evolution, only in this way, and never again.

We now all live in the world that was spawned by this being 14 billion years ago in a desperate attempt to hold out against the larger forces of Reality. If not for the True Beings held hostage herein, this would have already been over. It soon will be.

Good and evil are relativized in this world where absolutes are not faithfully reflected due to the inferior being having held sway in an attempt to undercut True Values to begin with. Therefore there is the inversion of Truth, such that often what is substantially Good is made by distortion into something effectively evil-seeming. These deceptive appearances are a symptom of a false normality established to hide the Truth from beings who need to Know it, and to protect a false world which feeds secretly upon their suffering. Evil is, above and beyond all else, this metaphysical theft of energy, enabled by force and deception, temporary in duration, and soon to be completely disabled forever.

Then the perfection of Goodness will be forever more Golden by having overcome what is proven to be its only flaw, Naivete about evil.
 
Imo (and briefly), evil is an evaluation of through an application of human judgement. It doesn't exist outside of our perceptions. We perceive something as evil when we consider something to be unnecessarily threatening to our survival (whether in actuality or as possibility), where the threat of an act far outweighs any perceived or understood requirement for the act to have taken place.
 
Last edited:
A thread about killing puppy for 1 Mil is evil.
 
Evil is a strong word. I associate it with: fallen angel, demonic, inhuman. There's "good", and there's "bad". I think those are more realistic terms. And then if we have "evil", it's counterpart would be... "saintly" maybe. For all practical purposes, 99% of the time, these words exist to be used solely for hyperbole.

What makes a person bad or good is what people were taught regarding the labels "bad" and "good".

Are there bad or good non-human animals? Animals act towards their own survival. In our culture (most people in it, I think) consider animals exempt from morality. Humans are also animals and so must act towards their own survival. What makes it different for us when we act selfishly towards our own survival?

The fact that humans are largely autonomous thinkers, yet need to be together to survive. That we need to impose ideas on one another for social coherence. There are the general rules that jive well in terms of being proactive towards the vast majority of societies worldwide. If there's a universal morality, this is what it would be. Evolution has inserted the concept of social debt, the responsibility of the survival of the species, into the minds of the individuals which would otherwise be independent. A conscience is a complex thing to have and would be detrimental to the survival of a non-communal type of creature. I also think the idea that morality is universal in a loose sense is becoming more relevant with time. People seem to be becoming more attuned towards the idea of society as being global. Uhh I'm tired /randomthoughts
 
Evil is the product of ego consciousness and suffering, and also a cause of suffering for the conscious.

Other beings suffer and cause suffering but we don't call it evil because they lack ego.

Ego beings are self aware enough to be self serving and think they know how things work, yet are often too ignorant to recognize their nature or the world.
 
Back
Top