Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on August 08, 2021, 06:49:53 AM
-
Hi Everyone,
What is Evil? Is there an absolute Evil?
Is it only animal instinctive behavior (cannibalism, killing rivals, killing cubs of rival males etc.) that we call as evil when seen in humans?
Is there more evil in humans (meta conscious pleasure seeking, child and human trafficking, pedophilia, torture and cruelty) than animal instinctive behavior indicates?
Is pure rational thinking (eugenics, weeding out disabled persons) also responsible for some Evil?
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/evil/
Any views?
Sriram
-
Hi Everyone,
What is Evil? Is there an absolute Evil?
Is it only animal instinctive behavior (cannibalism, killing rivals, killing cubs of rival males etc.) that we call as evil when seen in humans?
Is there more evil in humans (meta conscious pleasure seeking, child and human trafficking, pedophilia, torture and cruelty) than animal instinctive behavior indicates?
Is pure rational thinking (eugenics, weeding out disabled persons) also responsible for some Evil?
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/evil/
Any views?
Sriram
Evil doesn't exist. It's not a thing. What we have are behaviours and all behaviours lie on a spectrum from self-centredness to selflessness.
-
Evil doesn't exist. It's not a thing. What we have are behaviours and all behaviours lie on a spectrum from self-centredness to selflessness.
And yet people who would here agree with you would elsewhere argue against the evils of racism, homophobia or for the intrinsic righteousness of mouth foaming, get the bastards!!!!!!!antitheism.
-
And yet people who would here agree with you would elsewhere argue against the evils of racism, homophobia or for the intrinsic righteousness of mouth foaming, get the bastards!!!!!!!antitheism.
The reason is straightforward - the word 'evil' is shorter than saying'behaviour of the very worst' or something similar. A new short word to take the place of the word evil would be a very good idea.
-
And yet people who would here agree with you would elsewhere argue against the evils of racism, homophobia or for the intrinsic righteousness of mouth foaming, get the bastards!!!!!!!antitheism.
Goodness me. There is probably a fancy word (someone more learned than me will know it) for behaviour when somebody displays the very traits they decry.
Wanders off thinking they really should have devised tablets for people who foam at the mouth so readily.......
-
Like Torri I don't see evil as a thing and I tend not to use the word as it has religious/supernatural connotations. However, occasionally I might use it as an emotional expression of strong distaste against what I would consider to be extreme immoral behaviour.
-
Evil doesn't exist. It's not a thing. What we have are behaviours and all behaviours lie on a spectrum from self-centredness to selflessness.
Raping and murdering 3 year old children is being self centred? Watching with glee videos of little children being raped repeatedly is being self centred?
Selling and buying children and women for use as sex slaves is being self centred? Advertising for...butchering and eating up people is being self centred? Killing millions of men, women and children just because they belong to a particular community is being self centred?
Of course, Evil exists! I am only trying to understand its source.
-
Raping and murdering 3 year old children is being self centred? Watching with glee videos of little children being raped repeatedly is being self centred?
Selling and buying children and women for use as sex slaves is being self centred? Advertising for...butchering and eating up people is being self centred? Killing millions of men, women and children just because they belong to a particular community is being self centred?
Of course, Evil exists! I am only trying to understand its source.
Yes the above are cases of people indulging their own desires to the detriment of others. Some people enjoy inflicting 'unnecessary' pain and such behaviours are best understood in terms of sociopathology. The language of 'evil' or 'sin' dates from way back earlier times before we understood such things as pathologies of the mind.
-
Yes the above are cases of people indulging their own desires to the detriment of others. Some people enjoy inflicting 'unnecessary' pain and such behaviours are best understood in terms sociopathology. The language of 'evil' or 'sin' dates from way back earlier times before we understood such things as pathologies of the mind.
You just want to use a different word for it. What has the idea of Evil got to do with religion?!
Your problems with religions have colored your thinking in so many ways that it has in general made some of you quite confined in your thinking..... You people are always watching out for religious concepts....
-
Yes the above are cases of people indulging their own desires to the detriment of others. Some people enjoy inflicting 'unnecessary' pain and such behaviours are best understood in terms sociopathology. The language of 'evil' or 'sin' dates from way back earlier times before we understood such things as pathologies of the mind.
Another quote of the week type post. So well said.
-
Another quote of the week type post. So well said.
Seconded
-
Yes the above are cases of people indulging their own desires to the detriment of others. Some people enjoy inflicting 'unnecessary' pain and such behaviours are best understood in terms sociopathology. The language of 'evil' or 'sin' dates from way back earlier times before we understood such things as pathologies of the mind.
hmm.. I don't think it helps to categorise pathological behaviour as just "self centred". We can all be self centred, indeed it is expected ... but "evil" behaviour is in a different class and almost always due to psychological malfunction or disturbance.
-
My view is that what is termed evil is related to morality. Morality is basically social habits inculcated to preserve an individual self or a collective self such as a tribe, nation, religion or political persuasion. The word 'evil' tends to be reserved for extreme forms of what is considered immoral behaviour and is a relative term rather than an absolute, as morality is changeable according to the prominent desire of the individual or collective group. It is often motivated by the desire for pleasure and the fear of pain. I'm not sure that I would say it emanates from psychological malfunction but perhaps in many cases from psychological conditioning.
-
The most important thing to remember is that 'evil' is simply a word, formed of four characters; it is not a thing.
-
I tend to think of evil as being a synonym for 'bad things' that result in suffering of some sort.
-
You just want to use a different word for it. What has the idea of Evil got to do with religion?!
Your problems with religions have colored your thinking in so many ways that it has in general made some of you quite confined in your thinking..... You people are always watching out for religious concepts....
Notions of good and evil run through the heart of the Judeo-Christian mindset. Admittedly not so much in Eastern religions, but western civilisation derives from Judeo-Christian thinking and these concepts are still alive and well. You will often see our own Mr Burns for instance describing the world in terms of a battle between the forces of good and evil being played out through human lives. I find this simplistic nonsense worth challenging with a more realistic rationale wherein all behaviours have roots and understanding those roots will eventually yield better outcomes, rather than simply labelling people shortsightedly as 'evil'.
-
Notions of good and evil run through the heart of the Judeo-Christian mindset. Admittedly not so much in Eastern religions, but western civilisation derives from Judeo-Christian thinking and these concepts are still alive and well. You will often see our own Mr Burns for instance describing the world in terms of a battle between the forces of good and evil being played out through human lives. I find this simplistic nonsense worth challenging with a more realistic rationale wherein all behaviours have roots and understanding those roots will eventually yield better outcomes, rather than simply labelling people shortsightedly as 'evil'.
In the materialistic world, there can be no roots - just inevitable reactions whose consequences are beyond any form of control other than the laws governing particle physics. In such a scenario, where is the power to bring about better outcomes?
The reality which you constantly try to deny is that we (humans) have the power to choose between good and evil.
-
In the materialistic world, there can be no roots - just inevitable reactions whose consequences are beyond any form of control other than the laws governing particle physics. In such a scenario, where is the power to bring about better outcomes?
The reality which you constantly try to deny is that we (humans) have the power to choose between good and evil.
Which says nothing at all about what is evil(or good) which is the subject of Sriram's enquiry.
And as you know very well particle physics is simply our best way of describing what goes on at the atomic/sub atomic level. It makes good sense to think that the choices we make are the result of reasons, and, therefore, given that we had exactly the same reasons, we would make the same choices, unless, of course, you think that a random element is also present. (Yawn).
-
Of course, Evil exists! I am only trying to understand its source.
The same source as Good.
-
In the materialistic world, there can be no roots - just inevitable reactions whose consequences are beyond any form of control other than the laws governing particle physics. In such a scenario, where is the power to bring about better outcomes?
The reality which you constantly try to deny is that we (humans) have the power to choose between good and evil.
So when did you last choose evil over good and why? What would have led you to make a different choice?
-
In the materialistic world, there can be no roots - just inevitable reactions whose consequences are beyond any form of control other than the laws governing particle physics. In such a scenario, where is the power to bring about better outcomes?
The reality which you constantly try to deny is that we (humans) have the power to choose between good and evil.
Nobody denies that we make choices; simply that you cannot resolve a choice without reference to what has gone before. Without that cause and effect, we would be unable to resolve any choice at all.
-
Notions of good and evil run through the heart of the Judeo-Christian mindset. Admittedly not so much in Eastern religions, but western civilisation derives from Judeo-Christian thinking and these concepts are still alive and well. You will often see our own Mr Burns for instance describing the world in terms of a battle between the forces of good and evil being played out through human lives. I find this simplistic nonsense worth challenging with a more realistic rationale wherein all behaviours have roots and understanding those roots will eventually yield better outcomes, rather than simply labelling people shortsightedly as 'evil'.
The extent to which religious concepts affect and channel your thoughts (albeit negatively) is amazing....
Evil (immoral, wicked) exists. We can't shy away from that merely because Christianity talks of evil!
As I have said, much of what we consider as Evil could be related to animal instinctive behavior that is unacceptable in human societies. But there is much (listed above) that lies outside animal instincts. There is more evil in humans....in the sense of enjoying the suffering of others....than in animals.
It is simplistic to attribute all this to mere pathological reasons. Evil is not just a disease.
There are probably genetic reasons for evil. Circumstances and upbringing alone cannot be responsible for evil because there are many people who live in very poor and oppressive circumstances but are very good ....even saintly....people. It is peoples nature of reactions to their circumstances rather than the circumstances themselves that result in evil.
-
The extent to which religious concepts affect and channel your thoughts (albeit negatively) is amazing....
Evil (immoral, wicked) exists. We can't shy away from that merely because Christianity talks of evil!
As I have said, much of what we consider as Evil could be related to animal instinctive behavior that is unacceptable in human societies. But there is much (listed above) that lies outside animal instincts. There is more evil in humans....in the sense of enjoying the suffering of others....than in animals.
It is simplistic to attribute all this to mere pathological reasons. Evil is not just a disease.
There are probably genetic reasons for evil. Circumstances and upbringing alone cannot be responsible for evil because there are many people who live in very poor and oppressive circumstances but are very good ....even saintly....people. It is peoples nature of reactions to their circumstances rather than the circumstances themselves that result in evil.
I dispute the language that describes evil as if it were a force in the world, somehow influencing people to do bad things. it is misleading. What we have, is behaviours, and behaviours can be good or bad, helpful or unhelpful and we can describe bad behaviours as evil. It is just the lazy notion of evil being a thing in itself that is well past its sell by date.
-
Raping and murdering 3 year old children is being self centred? Watching with glee videos of little children being raped repeatedly is being self centred? Selling and buying children and women for use as sex slaves is being self centred? Advertising for...butchering and eating up people is being self centred?
Ultimately, yes - it's putting self-fulfilment above the needs of others or the community.
Killing millions of men, women and children just because they belong to a particular community is being self centred?
After a fashion - it's putting your preference for those you feel (rightly or wrongly) are similar to you over the rights of others who you feel (rightly or wrongly) are different to you.
Of course, Evil exists! I am only trying to understand its source.
Evil only exists within a cultural context. There are some behaviours that seem pretty much hard-wired into humanity which range across cultures - murder of your own children seems to be a fairly consistent one - but I'm not sure you could extrapolate that to some sort of overarching universal evil-ness?
As to a source - whether you think evil is absolute or relative, the source is simple: people. Some people, it turns out, are scum.
O.
-
As to a source - whether you think evil is absolute or relative, the source is simple: people. Some people, it turns out, are scum.
O.
But if people are just a continuum of the physical reactions of a material universe, the people cannot be deemed to be a source of evil.
Earthquakes happen as an inevitable, unavoidable consequence to previous events, but earthquakes are not deemed to be evil.
And from a purely materialist view, I am constantly reminded that our apparently conscious choices are also just an inevitable reaction to previous events. So how can evil be a reality in such a scenario?
The only way for evil to be a reality is for the cause of evil to be generated by a consciously driven act of intent. Intent to indulge in self gratification with full knowledge that it will do unwarranted harm to others. It is a personal choice, not an inevitable reaction to past events. It is the conscious act of intent which is deemed to be evil - not the consequence.
-
I dispute the language that describes evil as if it were a force in the world, somehow influencing people to do bad things. it is misleading. What we have, is behaviours, and behaviours can be good or bad, helpful or unhelpful and we can describe bad behaviours as evil. It is just the lazy notion of evil being a thing in itself that is well past its sell by date.
Not necessarily. Depends on where you are coming from. Starting from a materialistic view with the human brain and physiology as the only sources of human behavior....that is obviously the conclusion one would come to.
But if you think of Consciousness as the source of the material world (as more and more people are coming around to) then it opens up a very different Pandora's box. Consciousness has many levels and it is possible that at one level it is Evil.
-
But if people are just a continuum of the physical reactions of a material universe, the people cannot be deemed to be a source of evil.
It's a description of their behaviour - evil isn't a 'thing', it's a characterisation. It's like 'blue' - there isn't a source of 'blue', but in certain situations some things have the property of 'blue'.
Earthquakes happen as an inevitable, unavoidable consequence to previous events, but earthquakes are not deemed to be evil.
I'd agree, although I'm not sure what point that was making?
And from a purely materialist view, I am constantly reminded that our apparently conscious choices are also just an inevitable reaction to previous events. So how can evil be a reality in such a scenario?
Equally, how can it not - once within that cultural milieu, exhibiting those behaviours will always be identified as 'evil'. At the fundamental level I don't think 'evil' behaviour is any more of a choice than 'good' behaviour, but socially we operate as though it were, and I was engaging in this discussion on those terms. I appreciate that it involves some convenient shorthand, but I'm not sure it would be fair to hijack this conversation to recreate the determinism debate that's ongoing elsewhere.
The only way for evil to be a reality is for the cause of evil to be generated by a consciously driven act of intent.
I'm not sure I'd agree - institution racism is an 'evil' in the world, but in many instances the specific examples that contribute to it are not deliberate or malicious acts, they're examples of thoughtlessness or ignorance.
Intent to indulge in self gratification with full knowledge that it will do unwarranted harm to others. It is a personal choice, not an inevitable reaction to past events. It is the conscious act of intent which is deemed to be evil - not the consequence.
Whether or not it's a choice or an inevitable result of who you are at that point in time is the other debate, but I'd agree that the intentional examples of deliberate malice are the ones that I feel are the worst.
O.
-
Not necessarily. Depends on where you are coming from. Starting from a materialistic view with the human brain and physiology as the only sources of human behavior....that is obviously the conclusion one would come to.
But if you think of Consciousness as the source of the material world (as more and more people are coming around to) then it opens up a very different Pandora's box. Consciousness has many levels and it is possible that at one level it is Evil.
Makes no sense. You cannot have disembodied evil floating about or evil consciousness floating about. 'Evil' is not a thing it is a description, a quality of something. Adam Peaty can swim fast, so does that mean 'fastness' is a thing, and Adam somehow managed to get entangled with it ? If I raced against him in the pool, I'd probably get tired. Is that because I got entangled with some disembodied tiredness that was floating about ?
-
Makes no sense. You cannot have disembodied evil floating about or evil consciousness floating about. 'Evil' is not a thing it is a description, a quality of something. Adam Peaty can swim fast, so does that mean 'fastness' is a thing, and Adam somehow managed to get entangled with it ? If I raced against him in the pool, I'd probably get tired. Is that because I got entangled with some disembodied tiredness that was floating about ?
These are meaningless examples. If consciousness can produce good behavior it can produce evil behavior also. How and why it does all this is not known.
You are obviously coming from a materialistic point of view and your conclusion is the natural one from that angle. However, if Consciousness is independent of the brain and physiological process, similar to a person sitting in a robot, then it is a very different situation.
If a robot is consistently used for evil purposes, the reason is obviously because the person inside is evil....not because the robot has some software glitch.
-
These are meaningless examples. If consciousness can produce good behavior it can produce evil behavior also. How and why it does all this is not known.
You are obviously coming from a materialistic point of view and your conclusion is the natural one from that angle. However, if Consciousness is independent of the brain and physiological process, similar to a person sitting in a robot, then it is a very different situation.
If a robot is consistently used for evil purposes, the reason is obviously because the person inside is evil....not because the robot has some software glitch.
Your idea that a 'person' can be understood as a robot with another person ('consciousness') inside him leads nowhere useful. That would imply an infinite regress of inner persons being required to explain the next outer level, like some sort of Russian doll. Straight out of the reality deniers playbook, it is a way of avoiding understanding things from the bottom up, things as they actually are, it just deflects real understanding by positing an unfalsifiable magic being inside to account for things are are too hard to be easily understood.
-
Your idea that a 'person' can be understood as a robot with another person ('consciousness') inside him leads nowhere useful. That would imply an infinite regress of inner persons being required to explain the next outer level, like some sort of Russian doll. Straight out of the reality deniers playbook, it is a way of avoiding understanding things from the bottom up, things as they actually are, it just deflects real understanding by positing an unfalsifiable magic being inside to account for things are are too hard to be easily understood.
It doesn't have to be infinite regress. It could be final at some point...that we are unable to understand from our limited perspective.
There is no magic about it. It is just a fundamental reality that you have gotten conditioned against due to your materialistic and anti religious cultural environment.
-
It doesn't have to be infinite regress. It could be final at some point...that we are unable to understand from our limited perspective.
There is no magic about it. It is just a fundamental reality that you have gotten conditioned against due to your materialistic and anti religious cultural environment.
That applies to you - your beliefs about reality are something you are conditioned into because of your cultural environment. You are not free from the influences of your culture.
To convince someone else that your idea is reality rather than unevidenced faith influenced by your particular cultural inputs, you would presumably need to provide something that could be subject to testing rather than based on individual faith. Vague, unformed ideas and conjectures based on subjective feelings usually aren't very convincing. It's a bit hit and miss - it might appeal to some people and not to others like flavours of ice cream- that's not particularly surprising is it if your culturally influenced ideas don't appeal to some people?
-
However, if Consciousness is independent of the brain and physiological process, similar to a person sitting in a robot, then it is a very different situation.
And if consciousness is just toe-cheese flaking off the skin of some extra-dimensional pangolin... There are an infinite number of 'if' situations, especially if you're not even going to try to restrict to concepts which have some basis in reality. If there's no reason to think one of them has validity, why bother focussing on it? If you do, why choose that one?
If a robot is consistently used for evil purposes, the reason is obviously because the person inside is evil....not because the robot has some software glitch.
But if the robot simply conducts its programmed tasks, and the people around it decide that, in that context, the behaviour is evil...? Is the robot evil? Is the programming evil? If the programming is spontaneously developed with no overall guidance, where is the evil being 'put in' to the system?
O.
-
And if consciousness is just toe-cheese flaking off the skin of some extra-dimensional pangolin... There are an infinite number of 'if' situations, especially if you're not even going to try to restrict to concepts which have some basis in reality. If there's no reason to think one of them has validity, why bother focussing on it? If you do, why choose that one?
But if the robot simply conducts its programmed tasks, and the people around it decide that, in that context, the behaviour is evil...? Is the robot evil? Is the programming evil? If the programming is spontaneously developed with no overall guidance, where is the evil being 'put in' to the system?
O.
The source of all intent is consciousness. That is the driving force. So evil also should have its source in some level of consciousness. That is the idea.
-
The source of all intent is consciousness. That is the driving force. So evil also should have its source in some level of consciousness. That is the idea.
I would be more inclined to believe that its source or driving force emanates from sub-consciousness like pent up anger, vengeance, repression, religious and political indoctrination. Who decides what is evil and on what basis - motive? means? end result?
-
The source of all intent is consciousness. That is the driving force. So evil also should have its source in some level of consciousness. That is the idea.
Deepity.
Absolutely baseless, apparently, but certainly a deepity.
You are suggesting, it seems, that someone somewhere consciously chooses evil, which makes no sense whatsoever, no-one thinks they are the bad guy, no-one is out there trying to be more evil than someone else. They're out there doing what they feel they need to to, or what makes sense to them with limited understanding or information, or they don't care that it hurts someone so long as they get what they want, but there aren't moustache-twirling bad-guys out there cackling with glee at how deliciously malicious they are being.
O.
-
I tend to think of evil as being a synonym for 'bad things' that result in suffering of some sort.
Yep. I think that's about the size of it.
But also, people often ue the word "evil" for certain behaviour when they don't understand the reasons behind the bad thing r don't want to confront the reasons behind the bad thing.
-
Ultimately, yes - it's putting self-fulfilment above the needs of others or the community.
I'm intrigued about this. Isn't th bigger question "why do people find raping three year olds self fulfilling?"
-
Deepity.
Absolutely baseless, apparently, but certainly a deepity.
You are suggesting, it seems, that someone somewhere consciously chooses evil, which makes no sense whatsoever, no-one thinks they are the bad guy, no-one is out there trying to be more evil than someone else. They're out there doing what they feel they need to to, or what makes sense to them with limited understanding or information, or they don't care that it hurts someone so long as they get what they want, but there aren't moustache-twirling bad-guys out there cackling with glee at how deliciously malicious they are being.
O.
There are two ways to approach life. One is in a materialistic way in which everything is seen as originating in material or physical systems. The other is non-materialistic in which we presume that there are influences beyond the physical world that lead to many aspects of life.
This is true even of consciousness. I presume that Consciousness is a non physical phenomenon that merely uses the physical world for its purposes....like a person uses a robot.
Given this situation, all states of consciousness should have extra physical origins....which also obviously applies to Evil. What it is and why it is there, I have no idea.
-
This is true even of consciousness. I presume that Consciousness is a non physical phenomenon that merely uses the physical world for its purposes....like a person uses a robot.
Given this situation, all states of consciousness should have extra physical origins....which also obviously applies to Evil. What it is and why it is there, I have no idea.
Assertion and presumption supported by a large dose of wishful thinking.
Your last sentence really puts the nail in the coffin. You have no idea. Thanks for articulating that so well.
-
There are two ways to approach life. One is in a materialistic way in which everything is seen as originating in material or physical systems. The other is non-materialistic in which we presume that there are influences beyond the physical world that lead to many aspects of life.
No, there are two ways to approach life; basing your understanding on demonstrably effective, consistent, methodological bases, or just accepting any old notion that strikes your fancy.
This is true even of consciousness.
Yep.
I presume that Consciousness is a non physical phenomenon that merely uses the physical world for its purposes....like a person uses a robot.
I don't presume. I see that there is a vast array of demonstrable tests to reliably affirm how the physical world operates, and from which we can deduce viable ways in which consciousness could emerge, and I don't see anything that validates notions of 'soul', 'spirits' or these 'quasi-physical' phenomena that you talk about. So I don't presume they exist, I ignore them as one of any number of possibilities that lacks any supporting argument and reserve the right to update that understanding if the situation changes.
Given this situation, all states of consciousness should have extra physical origins....which also obviously applies to Evil.
Except for the part where you haven't in any way demonstrated your unsubstantiated assertion that consciousness has some extra-physical origin, you're absolutely right except that you've not shown that 'evil' is some independent thing either. So apart from your premise and your conclusions, I agree entirely with... well, I think the only bit I can agree with in that was the ellipsis.
What it is and why it is there, I have no idea.
Again with putting the cart before the horse. Demonstrate that it is something before you start trying to explain what it is.
O.
-
There are two ways to approach life. One is in a materialistic way in which everything is seen as originating in material or physical systems. The other is non-materialistic in which we presume that there are influences beyond the physical world that lead to many aspects of life.
Fortunately, this isn't true, is it? This is a religion and ethics forum where approaches to life might reasonably be taken to mean approaches to living life rather than speculating about its origins. I accept you might consider speculative knowledge of life's origins indispensable to how we approach existential matters but, if that is the case, it would be helpful if you explained the necessary connection. I have several times in the past asked you to tell us why these preoccupations of yours actually matter - in respect of the actual business of living - and so far you have refused to engage. Perhaps you haven't worked that one out for yourself yet.
This particular thread highlights just how confused you have made yourself by trying to fit the world through the small aperture of your own beliefs, which might suggest that life would be a whole lot easier for you if you stopped doing this. Apart from anything else you wouldn't have to spend so much time and energy criticising others for not agreeing with you. So that's a third approach to life you might consider if you ever tire of your own imaginings.
-
Evil is just a word, often used with emotional overtones, which describes certain assumed abhorrent behaviour which causes intense suffering, especially, but not exclusively, in human beings. It is usually those of a broadly religious disposition(such as Sriram or AB) who like to give it some sort of non material existence. In the case of AB it becomes something which is projected on us with intent by an entity called the Devil, whilst Sriram likes to think of it as part of his all encompassing non material consciousness idea, which also has purposes and intents. Not really a million miles away from AB's ideas, I suggest. :D
-
It does seem to be very human - and perhaps especially a tendency of the religious mind - to insist that our thoughts and longings be reflected in the fabric of the universe itself. Thus the idea of evil isn't simply one of the ways we carve up reality and then project our own values on the entities and categories we have established. It must inhere in the world independently of us, be a thing in its own right, either personified like the devil or somehow woven into the fundamental structure of nature. It is in its way fascinating to witness the lengths some folk will go to to cling on to this view. Is it just a need to make everything about us or does it perhaps represent an attempt to reconnect with the world, to find some renewed sense of belonging in it?
-
no-one thinks they are the bad guy,Don't you think that might be the reason whysome people obviously are. For example You, Hillside, The R&E posse have spent a few days trying to portray and get me to think of myself as the bad guy? Heavy duty self contradiction on your part? no-one is out there trying to be more evil than someone else. They're out there doing what they feel they need to to, or what makes sense to them with limited understanding or information, or they don't care that it hurts someone so long as they get what they want, but there aren't moustache-twirling bad-guys out there cackling with glee at how deliciously malicious they are being.
This is what, in another context, we used to call the good bloke hypothesis......Known in some quarters as British Humanism.
As an alternative to the phrase evil, perhaps we can think in terms of psychological cannibalism or human parasitism.
-
Don't you think that might be the reason why some people obviously are.
It's probably why they do things I'd consider evil, yes.
For example You, Hillside, The R&E posse have spent a few days trying to portray and get me to think of myself as the bad guy?
You mean because you're a homophobe trying to defend institutional homophobia? If you realise that's a horrible thing, then you can maybe decide what you're going to do to change it; if you decide that you feel it's justified, then either way it's you not thinking that you're the bad guy.
Heavy duty self contradiction on your part?
Not that I can see, certainly not that you've in any way demonstrated, but you've never let something like that stop you before.
This is what, in another context, we used to call the good bloke hypothesis......Known in some quarters as British Humanism.
I'm not sure that even qualifies as a straw-man, so much as just so ridiculous even you can't surely believe that to be the case.
As an alternative to the phrase evil, perhaps we can think in terms of psychological cannibalism or human parasitism.
Vlad in pointless neolgism shocker!
O.
-
It's probably why they do things I'd consider evil, yes.
You mean because you're a homophobe trying to defend institutional homophobia?
I am not defending an institute and it is a bit ridiculous at theend of the day to say you've defended God, I'm not happy at the case of homophobia and even if it were God can hardly be called an institution. Being called evil by a chap who elsewhere argues there is no such thing as evil is, as most things you come outwith these days , laughable.
Vlad in pointless neolgism shocker!
Shut up.
-
I am not defending an institute and it is a bit ridiculous at the end of the day to say you've defended God, I'm not happy at the case of homophobia and even if it were God can hardly be called an institution.
You aren't happy about the homophobia, but you'll defend it?
Being called evil by a chap who elsewhere argues there is no such thing as evil is, as most things you come outwith these days , laughable. Shut up.
There is no such things as an absolute blue, but there are sure as hell blue things. Evil is not an entity, it's a recognition of a pattern (and within a context, at that). I'm not sure there are enough words to convey how little your consideration that I'm laughable concerns me, but as to shutting up?
Nah.
O.
-
Deepity.
Absolutely baseless, apparently, but certainly a deepity.
You are suggesting, it seems, that someone somewhere consciously chooses evil, which makes no sense whatsoever, no-one thinks they are the bad guy, no-one is out there trying to be more evil than someone else. They're out there doing what they feel they need to to, or what makes sense to them with limited understanding or information, or they don't care that it hurts someone so long as they get what they want, but there aren't moustache-twirling bad-guys out there cackling with glee at how deliciously malicious they are being.
O.
What do you mean...'someone somewhere consciously chooses evil'? We all are driven by consciousness. That is what Life is. Consciousness has different levels some of which happen to be Evil (pleasure seeking, power seeking and deriving pleasure from the suffering of others). The people who are driven by these levels of consciousness cannot help being evil.
-
What do you mean...'someone somewhere consciously chooses evil'? We all are driven by consciousness.
I'd think that was readily apparent from the context, but within their own rationalisation of events I don't think anyone genuinely rationalises their own activities as 'evil' - they might recognise that society at large would, but internally they'll have their own justification.
Consciousness has different levels some of which happen to be Evil (pleasure seeking, power seeking and deriving pleasure from the suffering of others).
In what way is pleasure seeking 'evil'? I like to read, it brings me pleasure - how is that 'evil'?
The people who are driven by these levels of consciousness cannot help being evil.
We'd characterise as evil people who put their own desires above community standards, generally, but those community standards can vary - some societies would see manifestations of individuality as at least questionable, whilst others would see a community intent on forcing conformity to be undesirable. Both would label each other as 'evil' to some extent - it's a characterisation of behaviour in a given context, it's not an absolute, in at least some instances.
O.
-
You aren't happy about the homophobia, but you'll defend it?
No what's happened is after centuries of holy marriage defined as between one man and woman. You have decided it isn't and that everyone who thought that, was homophobic until they think like you.
What also happened is after centuries of marriage defined as between any number of men with any number of women you have decided it isn't and that anyone who has thought that, was homophobic.
When did you realise then that you were a homophobe then under your own definitions? Or have you retconned your life to edit Your previously held definitions out?
-
Evil is not an entity, it's a recognition of a pattern (and within a context, at that).
You what?
-
You what?
Evil is an aesthetic judgement of behaviour, not a measurable manifestation of anything. You can't 'detect' evil, you can't 'measure' evil, different cultures have different opinions on where the boundary of evil and non-evil behaviour.
O.
-
Evil is an aesthetic judgement of behaviour, not a measurable manifestation of anything. You can't 'detect' evil, you can't 'measure' evil, different cultures have different opinions on where the boundary of evil and non-evil behaviour.
So why then should people be vilified or even executed for evil if it is all just a matter of taste?
Also, you seem to be saying that you can make a judgment on something you can't detect, How do you think that works?
Since you are equating morality with aesthetics, which of the two concepts do you think it is safe and reasonable to make redundant?
-
So why then should people be vilified or even executed for evil if it is all just a matter of taste?
That's a significant question, and one to which I don't have an answer. As a determinist, I don't think the concepts of 'blame' or 'punishment' have any real meaning. The best I think we can do is either re-education or removing them from the collective for the benefit of the majority in the community.
Also, you seem to be saying that you can make a judgment on something you can't detect, How do you think that works?
The same way any aesthetic judgement is made; individual taste. We have musical preferences, but music has no measurable quality of 'goodness', there are simply some patterns we appreciate and others we don't. Other people have a different balance, neither of them is 'right'.
Since you are equating morality with aesthetics, which of the two concepts do you think it is safe and reasonable to make redundant?
Neither - one is a specific example of the other, both have a place. I suppose it's a matter of taste which you define it as in any given discussion.
O.
-
That's a significant question, and one to which I don't have an answer. As a determinist, I don't think the concepts of 'blame' or 'punishment' have any real meaning. The best I think we can do is either re-education or removing them from the collective for the benefit of the majority in the community.
.....
O.
If you are a determinist in that sense 'the best we can do' is a meaningless term. There is only what we will do.
-
If you are a determinist in that sense 'the best we can do' is a meaningless term. There is only what we will do.
Touche ;D
O.
-
No what's happened is after centuries of holy marriage defined as between one man and woman. You have decided it isn't and that everyone who thought that, was homophobic until they think like you.
What also happened is after centuries of marriage defined as between any number of men with any number of women you have decided it isn't and that anyone who has thought that, was homophobic.
When did you realise then that you were a homophobe then under your own definitions? Or have you retconned your life to edit Your previously held definitions out?
Words get re-defined in different ways by the people using them. For example various religious people have tried to define the word "sin" over the years and there will be plenty of other people (religious and non-religious) who might disagree with their definitions. Yet religious people still continue to use the word "sin" based on their understandings of the meaning regardless of any objections from those labelled as sinners.
Similarly, at least since the 2007 legislation, people have re-defined the word "homophobe" to be not just someone who has a fear or distaste for gay people but also includes things like indirect discrimination e.g. where a provision, criterion or practice, which is applied generally, puts a person of a particular sexual orientation at a disadvantage and cannot be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Society decided it is not legitimate to differentiate between almost all services provided to homosexual and heterosexual people. However, society/ the legislation did allow religious groups to discriminate in the religious marriage services they offer presumably because this discrimination was deemed to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? The legitimate aim seems to be the protection of religious practices and beliefs.
Why is this deemed a legitimate aim? Why are some genuinely held religious or philosophical beliefs about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour deemed to be worthy of protection? Maybe because throughout history humans have shown they are willing to kill or die for their deeply held beliefs. Governments have harnessed this to send people to war or to risk their lives based on a belief in some abstract concept or other e.g. fairness, morality, justice, freedom, patriotism, capitalism, communism. Laws are constructed around these emotional beliefs and there are going to be clashes between different beliefs.
Behaviour based on beliefs need to be regulated by society because left unregulated, the clashes between beliefs can lead to conflict and society seeks to maintain order in order to function. So I would think that one of the reasons why people are vilified or punished for behaviour that is deemed "wrong" or "evil" by other members of society is because the majority of humans are social animals and seem to have identified order as a means to collectively progress and to control the dangers they face from their environment.
-
Behaviour based on beliefs need to be regulated by society because left unregulated, the clashes between beliefs can lead to conflict and society seeks to maintain order in order to function. So I would think that one of the reasons why people are vilified or punished for behaviour that is deemed "wrong" or "evil" by other members of society is because the majority of humans are social animals and seem to have identified order as a means to collectively progress and to control the dangers they face from their environment.
Unfortunately many people confuse 'belief' with 'truth', probably because they are conditioned to do so from an early age and this has been encouraged by those seeking to exercise power over the many. It is reinforced by declaring those who do not follow the true way as infidels, apostates, heretics, enemies of the state. If they are comparatively few in number and seen to pose a threat to those in power attempts may be made to force them to see the errors of their ways as is seen in China with the Uighurs, or smaller numbers are forced to flee, or even smaller numbers executed or imprisoned. Control of the flock is imperative to them. Democracy is an attempt to persuade the majority of the flock to go in a certain direction with an agreement that all will follow the majority but the minority are allowed to continue bleating.