Evil

[Sriram]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[torridon]

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 ?

[Sriram]

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.   

[torridon]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[Outrider]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[ekim]

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? 

[Outrider]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?"

[Sriram]

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Bramble]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Bramble]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Outrider]

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.