metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Jun 10, 2010 19:36:11 GMT -5
Ok so I know I stole the title from Nietzche, and I am not going to pretend that I understand everything he talks about, but I do like this question he raises to his readers: Does evil exist? This is what I want to discuss: Does it exist? How do we know what is evil? Is bad misrepresented as evil? What are some criteria for determining if an act is evil (if evil exists)? Is evil subjective? Should the label of "evil" be abandoned? Is it possible to separate an act from a person (i.e. can someone do something evil without being evil themselves)? These are the kinds of questions I would like to discuss (and please feel free to pose your own), however instead of completely directing the conversation at the beginning I want to see what some of you think. I definitely have my opinions of course, but I don't want to start things off on a biased note. So please let me know what you think!
(oh, and I enabled the retract vote option. In a discussion like this I think it is very important to be open minded and able to change your stance. Not saying you will, but the option is important)
Happy posting!
|
|
|
Post by metallica210 on Jun 10, 2010 19:38:39 GMT -5
evil and bad mean the same things, right?
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Jun 10, 2010 20:24:41 GMT -5
I don't think so. Bad: "Of poor quality, inferior or defective." Evil: "Profoundly immoral and malevolent." Those are two base definitions you can choose to jump from. The big difference is, perhaps, a combination of intent and outcome. Think of it this way: Bad is something that causes more harm than good; evil is something that is wholly and totally destructive in intent and outcome (i.e. no positive result for anything or anyone). However you bring up a good point. Perhaps we should decide on definitions for both bad and evil before we start debating. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 10, 2010 20:56:28 GMT -5
From an objective viewpoint, no, evil does not exist. Anything that labels someone's moral standing as good, bad, or anything else is inherently false.
Now, I personally don't think this means morals don't exist, because I think subjective morals are integral to civilized society.
But objectively, there is no moral difference between slaughtering an infant and helping an old lady across the street.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Jun 10, 2010 21:14:03 GMT -5
It's hard to say, I don't know if there is something "Profoundly immoral and malevolent", people who do "evil" (in the eyes of an observer) things, often do them for their own cause thinking that is what is good to do, I think there is such thing as amoral, but I can't say that it is the same as evil. Maybe if a person acknowledges that what he/she is doing is bad, amoral and/or wrong, but still decides that she/he wants to continue doing those wrong things and acknowledges him/herself as some sort of monster but doesn't care, then maybe that's evil.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jun 11, 2010 0:50:26 GMT -5
Evil, like morals, is an opinion. So clearly it exists, and evil to one person is dependent on what they hold as their morals. To say that a person is evil, is to say that in your moral code that person is extremely immoral. To say that an act is evil, is to say that that act breaks morals and is extremely malevolent. Evil acts don't make evil persons, for what evil is, is clearly subjective (from my reasoning above).
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Jun 11, 2010 2:02:42 GMT -5
So I had a nice thought out response typed up and then my session timed out and I lost it. So this has to be brief and hurried but I will see if I can cover my bases. All the definitions I have found for morality have painted it as a relationship between good and bad, not good and evil. Good and bad can be determined. If you look at an action as life- preserving, species-preserving, species-rearing and life-legnthing then it is fairly easy to figure out what is good and what is bad. The issue with the word evil is it's tone of broad sweeping application. It carries with it a since of universal badness. However, no action is universally bad. If you look at the world in terms of conflict, then this is easy to understand. Ultimately we are all striving for the same goals (not necessarily the same destinations, but the same goals). Since we are all competing to achieve the same things, then how can actions be evil? Yes if someone cheats to get ahead it can be defined as bad or immoral, but evil does not fit. Ultimately we all want to win, however in order for that to happen others must loose, and reasons for loosing are often considered evil. The way evil is often applied in language is badness with intense emotion attached to it. But this is not a proper use for the word. The only context I could see the word fit into is one of religion, however that is a whole other bucket of worms.
Also, I would argue that morals are not opinions but perspectives. Morals are defined by society to promote cohesion and it is a very rare thing for someone to break from that. Since morals are socially defined, the majority rules and the outliers are immoral. However, even if morals are the same between two groups, depending on the affects of a given action, one group can define the action as good while the other can define it as bad. These aren't two different opinions, they are different perspectives. This leads to disprove evil even more since the classification of something as evil would require an understanding of what it is in its entirety, something a single perspective lacks. Thus, it would be unfair to label things as evil because we just don't understand all of an actions reasons and effects. Badness is more appropriate, making the idea of evil obsolete.
Alright I have to hit the hay. I hope the ideas make sense. I wrote the hurriedly and there may be some flaws. I will reread it when I have time and correct any errors.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jun 11, 2010 11:19:26 GMT -5
KipEnyan is correct, however from the same objective viewpoint there is nothing 'delicious' or 'beautiful' as these are also opinions. Evil is, by definition, a subjective term. If you think there are people who are evil, then to you evil exists. Otherwise, to you it does not. Either way, your neighbour may hold a different opinion, and neither of you are necessarily wrong for it.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 11, 2010 11:52:23 GMT -5
Exactly, Nakor. The fact that measuring the goodness/badness of anything consistently varies from person to person means that, objectively, none of it exists. Like I said, that doesn't mean I don't think they're important personally, but from a logical standpoint, saying someone is evil is nonsense.
Which brings me to what metoyou said. Even with the prerequisites of life-sustaining, propagating, etc., who can say that this action is good? This is assuming that the preservation of life as a whole is good, which there is no objective reasoning to assume this from. Obviously this is a bit of extreme relativism, but still, you really CAN'T decide that.
EDIT: In that same vein, I disagree with the poll at the top of the thread. I'm closest to agreeing with the last option, but even that is not complete enough to elaborate my viewpoint on the matter. The clause about them still being bad, I disagree with. Harmful acts are neither bad nor evil.
DOUBLE EDIT: Also, I think the people who chose the first option in that poll are the wrongest of the wrong. Hitler and Stalin were decidedly NOT evil. Regardless of the consequences, they were doing things solely for the advancement of themselves, the destruction they caused was largely a side-effect, not a goal, even the Holocaust.
|
|
|
Post by shinigami345 on Jun 11, 2010 11:59:16 GMT -5
Evil exists and through mathematics we can prove that girls = evil. First we define girls = time * money since they require both time and money. Second we define that time = money. Thus, girls = money * money by the law of substitution. We also know that money = sqrt(evil) since money is the root of all evil. Thus we know that girls = sqrt(evil) * sqrt(evil). Simplifying the radical we get girls = evil. It's not sexist cause it's math.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 11, 2010 12:09:34 GMT -5
I retract all previous statements. Shinigami is entirely correct.
Societal givens: 1) money = sqrt(evil 2) time = money 3) girls = time * money
Math: 4) money^2=evil (Square 1) 5) girls = money * money (Substitution 2,3) 6) girls = money^2 (Combine like terms 5) 7) girls = evil (Substitution 4,6)
Solution: Girls = Evil
Brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on Jun 11, 2010 12:13:02 GMT -5
It depends on how you use the word. Is evil a universal concept, or is it culturally sensitive?
|
|
|
Post by Ferrrrrre on Jun 11, 2010 12:33:22 GMT -5
I always disagreed with the statement;
"Every human being is born good or is good. People who do bad things are sick/crazy"
Evil/Good is something we expressively try to seperate but we actually don't really have a definition and I'm afraid you'll never be able to come up with a firm one.
Good and evil are indeed VERY subjective AND influenceable (spelling?) and I guess mostly formed when we grow up.
So if you were let's say told EVERY single day that all things that are red must be avoided then after a period of time you tend to believe so. Thus our education is very important from the beginning and that's what makes us us and it's also the thing that helps us determine whether something is a evil/good thing..
People who others would describe as evil are according to me not really sick people but rather people who had a different education than the people saying so.. because something is bad for person A doesn't mean it's bad/evil for person B.. (subjectivity)
We often have the urge to descrive something that isn't the idea of THE GROUP as bad.. and actually that's bad..
Plus our definition of evil/good often seems to fade when you get a problem like; "You just had dinner in a restaurant, when you get the bill you notice that they haven't charged you for a dish. Would you tell?"
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jun 11, 2010 15:03:58 GMT -5
I agree with Kip in saying that the poll is way to...well not good to describe it.
I voted Yes to evil existing - ignoring the part about Hitler and Stalin, who by definition - followed their moral codes and to themselves were not evil.
An opinion is "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter " and a perspective is "A view or vista." So really an opinion is just a perspective on a particular matter - the two are basically one in the same. Morals may be defined by society - but individuals hold morals and the morals that each individual holds are their opinions on what is good and bad. From the definition of evil, if something is profoundly immoral then it is evil, so evil is completely subjective. As with all things that are subjective - they exist.
Yes people do mistake bad for evil - and the word is misused - but the concept is what we debate over, not the use of the word. And without a shadow of a doubt, the concept of evil is as true and existent as life.
So - in summary:
1. change the poll options 2. evil exists 3. yeah people use the wrong words
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Jun 11, 2010 15:42:25 GMT -5
What Ferre said reminded me of a quote from Walden: "The greater part of what my neighbors call good, I believe in my soul to be bad, and if I repent any thing, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?" Our society defines good, bad, evil, etc., and generally people just go along with these ideas without ever questioning them. Very few of us question these societal norms. I saw this TEDTalk, and I agree with what he says, that morality is objective. (Start watching at 14min.) There's no reason for ethics to be subjective. While I agree that we can absolutely say that certain actions are bad/evil/immoral, I'm not so sure that this makes the person doing these actions an "evil" person. People are generally the result of their environment, so if a person does something which we consider evil, but his environment says is acceptable, we can't blame him specifically. (watch 10:20 of that TEDTalk). Evil actions are the result of ignorance. So "evil" people aren't so much evil as they are ignorant. Um.. I've been writing this for a long time and I don't really know what I'm trying to say, so I'm just gunna stop. >_<
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 11, 2010 16:54:47 GMT -5
"While I agree that we can absolutely say that certain actions are bad/evil/immoral"
Could you give me a couple of examples of these actions?
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Jun 11, 2010 17:30:36 GMT -5
First I want to apologize for the poorly worded questions, they were not as thought out as they should have been. you are right to critique them and if anyone knows how to change them without deleting the thread please let me know. Otherwise disregard them or vote for the one closest to what you think and I will understand what you mean. It was really for my own personal interest anyway. Ryan: I would disagree with your perspective vs opinion argument. Yes the definitions you present for each are true and very similar, however they are incomplete. dictionary.com offers several different interpretations for each word (some apply to the argument and some do not), however I think that comparing the two reveals a fundamental difference between them. In the definitions, perspective is presented as a physical and factual view of something. Yes it applies to ideas as well, but it has the air of a systematic approach. It implies understanding of the topic or action being observed. Opinion on the other hand is defined right off the bat as a "judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." True this is the harshest of the definitions, but the others reflect the idea that an opinion is an attitude or prejudice, not an appraisal (the difference is a prejudice is the act of assigning a value to something while an appraisal is determining the value). I think this is key to the above argument. Good and bad can be determined. Yes it is subjective because an action that is bad for one person can be good for another, but determining good or bad on an individual level can be done systematically (something that produces more good results than bad can be considered good, and vis versa). However, evil has no standard. How can we determine when something is bad enough to be considered evil? What is the bar? There is no systematic way to appraising evil, it is merely a prejudice, i.e. an opinion. Furthermore I do not think that opinions are a basis for determining what we consider to be true. Perspectives sure, because something can be true for one person and not another, but to say an opinion can determine existence is to be too relaxed with our standards. I do not mean to offend or dumb down the argument with this example so please do not take offense, but if it were my opinion that there was a purple dragon flying around in space, then according to your argument it would exist, even if just for me. However this is of course not true, there is no reason to believe that claim, however it has the same merit as the one you present on evil. There is no standard, no way to measure it, it cannot exist. Edit: I mean we cannot determine if evil really exists. It is possible, I do leave the door open, but it seems the chance of it existing is so small that it should not be given serious consideration. Chelsea: I look forward to watching that, I love TED talks!
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on Jun 11, 2010 19:56:05 GMT -5
"While I agree that we can absolutely say that certain actions are bad/evil/immoral" Could you give me a couple of examples of these actions? Throwing acid in girls' faces... rape...
|
|
|
Post by swan on Jun 11, 2010 19:58:54 GMT -5
People are generally the result of their environment, so if a person does something which we consider evil, but his environment says is acceptable, we can't blame him specifically. (watch 10:20 of that TEDTalk). Evil actions are the result of ignorance. So "evil" people aren't so much evil as they are ignorant If people are the result of their environment and what they think is good is based on what their environment says is good, then how can anyone objectively consider whether something is good? In that TEDtalk the guy used how women are treated as an example and compared how they are treated in the middle east with how they are treated in the western world. Now I support women's rights and I feel they should be able to do anything they want provided they don't interfere with the well-being of someone else, however I cannot deny the influence my environment had in developing this view; I believe this because it was what I was taught by the leaders of my environment, not because of any logical reasoning on my part whatsoever. Now I think it's safe to assume that people in certain middle eastern countries may think otherwise due to growing up in a different environment, and I may think they are wrong but I cannot say they are ignorant without allowing the possibility that I am the one who is ignorant as well, unless of course I can provide a completely bulletproof logical argument, which I don't think is possible. (I must admit that I was fairly indignant while watching that TEDtalk so I may have missed it, but I don't recall any point where Sam Harris actually provides an argument against how women are treated in the middle east without simply appealing to emotions, which is a fallacy. All he basically says is "I don't think I have to point out why this is wrong, since we all know that it is wrong." It may seem weird to suggest that how women are treated in those countries could be right, but just because it seems wrong doesn't mean it is if we are to consider things in an objective sense.) As KipEnyan pointed out, it all comes down to what you value and actions can be objectively deemed moral or immoral within those values, but choosing those values is subjective. I cannot provide a solid argument as to why someone should prefer empathy to cruelty without using some form of circular logic or an appeal to emotions (if someone here can please do so). I've been writing for a while and I think I've lost focus of the point I was trying to make so I'm gonna stop here and maybe continue later.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jun 11, 2010 20:05:35 GMT -5
That precludes them from intentionally having committed evil, or having intended to be evil, but I don't think it precludes others from feeling that they were evil. Certainly there are a few out there who commit deeds knowing that they are 'evil' even in their own opinion, but I don't think that such is a requirement for others to call a person or action evil. I would say Hitler was, in fact, evil. This is of course my opinion and perspective, and Hitler would disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that to me (and most of the world) he was evil.
|
|