Define "Evil."

[shiney]

I don't know if this topic will ever go anywhere. I don't think you can concretely define an relative concept.

I'll leave it open provided it doesn't get religious. Feuermachtspass - religion isn't allowed in discussions because of the volatility it creates.

[Sato]

Evil=bad

No, but really, evil is how you perceive it, like any other word in the world of language.

[Terex4]

I made a thread for this awhile ago here. There's a lot of commentary there so consider it a rather large extension to this post.
Thinking about it though. Evil is an artificial concept. There is no evil in nature, only in society.
Evil is anything that directly opposes what we believe to be good, yet lets us appreciate good by letting us know just how "good" good is. Good is as artificial a term as evil (in the sence of good vs. evil). It all boils down to point of view.

Hitler was evil to those who opposed him, yet was considered good to those who followed him. He did what he believed to be right (no I'm not trying to justify Hitler's deeds I'm just giving an example.)

My point: There is no true good or evil.

[Bongo Bill]

I'm aware that everybody thinks that evil is in the eye of the beholder. I'm trying to say that that's because nobody's ever created or established a more concrete definition than "That's not fair. Must be evil!"

If you ask people what "hube" means you'll get answers like "It's meaningless" or "Whatever people say it is." That's only because the word "hube" has no definition. Likewise, "evil" has no definition that is not a total cop-out.

My point is, the concept of "evil" has such a powerful effect on society that it deserves meaning beyond what people say "evil" is or is not, and I'm trying to give it such a meaning.

So, I'll say my proposition again, slightly better this time. "A phenomenon is 'evil' in proportion to the degree to which it deprives any entity(ies) of anything to which it(they) is(are) entitled and which it(they) want(s).

What do you think of it?

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Well... I'm doing a philosophy minor in university, and I agree with Bongo Bill on one major point. I'm also sick of people being relativists simply because its in nowadays to be relativists. Standing from a philosophical point of view, relativity only exists simply because we do not know everything. Most people actually believe that there is definites to every question, the only problem is how can we as finite beings understand true knowledge which is comparatively infinite.

First of all, I'll say that good and evil does not depend on your own personal beliefs. It is also not just a word. A word that can have many different meanings is not a word at all and therefore defeats its own purpose for existing.

Something which is "evil" is deemed "evil" because it's not good - or rather it works against the good. What is good is deemed by society, hence society also chooses what is evil.

Thats only in certain cases. Does a society which believes cannibalism is "good" have the right to infringe its concept of morality on a society which believes it is "evil"? Early philosophers including Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, and John Locke believed in something called a natural law. Much like a law of physics except with one difference... a natural law is the way something is SUPPOSED to be, but with free will we can choose to act otherwise. Murder, slavery, incest, etc, were all examples of something they considered taboo by the universe. They believed "true good" was respecting the rights and freedoms granted by God/universe/natural law to other people, and true evil was to violate those rights. So whether you believe murder is morally acceptable or not, it is evil to perform the act on someone who believes murder is morally not. Locke in particular believed that a society would flourish if it acted in a moral fashion, and that a society with a perverted concept of good and evil would eventually crumble or face constant disaster since evil was disruptive.

On the end of that, I believe true good and evil can only be certain in one way. Good and evil is what you would think was good and evil if you knew absolutely everything. There is a definite answer, but since we as people know very little of everything there is to know, who are we to determine what morality is. That's why people usually turn to belief in a god. I'm a christian, and I do believe in God and I do believe in absolute morality. This makes sense... since we as mortal, imperfect beings do not have the power within ourselves to determine morality, or create it for that matter, someone or something else must have. Of course, thats a big stretch to getting God as the answer but this isn't about God's existance... this is about morality.

My personal definition of morality was this in first year philosophy... the prof liked it:
-Good is doing as little harm to as few people as possible and then attempting to help them ONLY if it does not cause harm to anybody else.
-Evil is willingly and knowingly violating the rights and privileges of another person through doing harm, or violating the laws of a society intended to protect the concept of "good".

[Samwize]

Evil is using force or deception to alter the world around you for your benefit and another's detriment. It's the natural extension of treating the world as a zero-sum game.

Please note, that this definition is a bit more subtle than may appear at first glance. I'm not saying you shouldn't use force in self-defense or to protect another; preventing another's evil gain is not, in itself, evil. Someone who hurts others for no discerable gain is either doing it for personal pleasure (certainly a gain and evil) or because they are not sane (poor learning, conditioning, or imprinting).

I'm also including "satisfaction of biological impoerative" as a personal gain: If you punch someone because "you're really mad", your gain is that you're following the easy path of un-self-control; because "it feels good" to listen to the hormones and neaurotransmitters telling you to fight.

This is, of course, all an aproximate working definition. I'm a relativist, certainly, but just because I accept the validity of other points of view in no way implies the invalidity of my own.

[Thanatos]

Evil and good are completely relative and are defined by the individual mind. Most of us would agree that Hitler was evil, especially those of jewish descent. However, Hitler saw the Jewish people as evil, and likewise those who supported them. Who was right? Had Hitler won, he would be right. But he lost, so we are. But there are still people out there who don't see what Hitler did as evil. No one believes that what they do is evil (unless they purposely seek to do evil), they are going to see it as good, and those that oppose them are evil.
There are however certain societal Taboos that for the most part all people in a particular culture deem evil. For instance, Caniblism. But there are cultures that believe that eating the remains of a respected citizen is a great honor. In these cases what is good and what is evil is based upon the societal norm. But when we talk about lesser things such as smoking, drinking, even overeating; it is up to the individual to decide whether they want to call this evil or not.

[Robot Jesus]

Originally Posted by ApathyMan

Something which is "evil" is deemed "evil" because it's not good - or rather it works against the good. What is good is deemed by society, hence society also chooses what is evil.

If candycanes were consitered evil, and I were to promote candycanes I would be evil for promoting such a vile product. If I were to eat candycanes I would be evil because I would be breaking the uniformity of society's definition of good and evil (the agreement of society's evils would be consitered "good").

And how does society determine what is acceptable. Primarily this is done by those in power. The pope/king/president/Dali Lama decrees something to be evil based on his own beliefs. It is then discouraged by law. Eventually the law becomes second nature and the society accepts them as a norm. in the end we are mealy slaves to those with power so long as we continue to think in such terms as “good” and “evil”.

[Feuermachtspass]

i would have to disagree. think of, say, the iraqis under hussein. they knew he was evil. they didnt fight against him, but thats cuz they were scared poopless. the very fact that he had to resort to torture and murder shows that even though he was in power the people did not believe him to be right or good.

in other words, i dont think that you give the people enough credit, robot. they will NOT accept the wielder of power as the decider of what is evil and what is good.

[Napoleon98]

They will only accept those in power to decree what is legal and/or illegal, but they may still know that the laws are evil. So it's not always up to whoever is in power to decide what is 'good' or 'evil', but yea...
The only thing that sort of boggled me about your definition i_like was your definition of good... "doing as little harm to as few people as possible and then attempting to help them ONLY if it does not cause harm to anybody else." While it sounds good I can't help but think about unintentional neglect. I mean, think about it, if you do anything you risk causing harm to someone else (unless you meant physical harm in which case yu can still be really 'evil' even if you never kill someone, steal their identity etc.). I mean, by that defiantioin the war in iraq (and every war, from EVERY perspective) was evil. If we go to war, we cause harm, and are evil, but if we don't go to war and just watch an entire continent of people being killed aren't we doing something evil as well? I agree that war is bad, but not 'evil' there has to be some side that is fighting for the sake of others, and I do not think that is evil if you are willing to sacrifice your life so that others don't die senselessly. By your definition you are saying that anyone who ever got in a fight or war is evil, because even if they went to war to protect others, they still caused harm to someone else, ergo they're evil. Seeing as your father or grandfather (most likely the latter) then he must be evil. And your grandmother since she was helpign supply the troops which were causing harm to the Axis troops... sorry for that rant....
Basically while I admire the thought put into that definition, you are saying that 99% of the people in the world have done evil acts, and are possibly evil. Of the few that haven't done evil, they may have unintentionally done evil through their inaction.

-The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
~Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, first Baron Lytton,
Richelieu (act III, sc. 1, l. 49)