Define "Evil."

[spazzhands]

I don't know if i am just regurgitating relativism, but bear with me.

I believe that 'good' and 'evil' are purely based within the self. A thing done to you that makes you 'feel bad' is "evil". a thing done to you that is makes you 'feel good' is "good". If you are given sweets (candy) by a stranger (and it is not spiked with rohypnol!) it is "good", however if it turned out that several days ago that stranger killed a baby and took the sweets that he/she subsequently gave to you. does that make it good or evil? Because to the baby it sure as hell is "evil", but to you because you are ignorant to the relevant facts about infanticide it is "good".

If you saw the baby being killed it would be "evil" because you would empathise with the infant and would feel pain for their misfortune.

I am just throwing ideas around. its not my life beliefs.

[Hadokaner]

I think the most basic concept of good and evil have to do with fairness, boling down to "it is evil to harm others without just reason." The "without just reason" part makes all sorts of violence permissible: if someone is part of a group of people that is threatening you or your group of people, you should have the right to defend yourself. The "just reason" exception is the part that is open to human interpretation, which to the cynical fosters the illusion that there is no true good or evil, but I believe this simple law is present in all human beings, whether from divine guidence or a type of herd mentality.

Take the First Crusade, for example. (Please do not let this devolve into a discussion over religion or historical accuracy, I working from memory and just using this to prove a point.) The Muslims who attacked the Byzantine Empire believed they were doing so under the favor of God. Having an exception to the ban on killing from God, the source of all rules, was for them a just reason. Furthermore, if they could convert the Byzantines to the true faith of Islam through conquest, it would actually be a great good in the long-term, eternal, spiritual sense for the Byzantines. The Chistians, on the on the other hand, viewed the attack as unjustifed and launched what could be construed as a defense of the lands that rightly belonged to the true faith of Christianity. If they could establish a Christian kindgom in the Middle East, would not that be for eternal good and the glory of God?

The fact that both sides thought in terms of good and evil and felt the need to justify actions that would otherwise be evil points to a basic human understanding of good and evil, with both sides lacking omniscience (as an earlier poster said) and trying to interpret what a reasonable exception was. Clearly, the actions undertaken were either good or evil posing as good. If one knew everything, one could say both sides were evil because both religions are false and they were killing under false pretenses, that the Muslims were good because they were fighting under God's favor, the Christians were good because they were fighting under God's favor, or that both sides were evil because even though one of those religions is true they were not following God's will. Evil is a matter of interpretation, not strictly opinion.

[Cybren]

In D&D terms evil is simply defind as egoism, and good, altruism. Getting deeper than that, many say there's no such thing as true altruism.

[Dynamite220]

Originally Posted by Cybren

Getting deeper than that, many say there's no such thing as true altruism.

People like me.

That being said, this is how I choose to believe.

Originally Posted by Robert A. Heinlein

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnessecarily. Hurting yourself isn't sinful, just stupid.

Please note that by sinful, I mean an act that is evil and am in no way aluding to religion, though that is where the word is most used. What is nessecary is mostly a matter of oppinion, but I think we can all agree that it encompasses anything that would keep you or someone you love alive by removing artificial threats to your/their lives (artificial meaning not a work of nature, such as disease or old age). If you can't agree with that then i'd like to see where your priorities are.

[Dante]

I doubt any two people will ever be able to agree on a definition for evil, mainly because we judge what is evil thrpough the lens of our experiences and mindset. Ergo, everyone's idea of evil will differ. There may be similarities, but sometimes the concepts won't even come close.

Environment plays a part in shaping this lens. The laws we have, for instance, influence what we think of as right or wrong. During the Spanish Inquisition, for example, torture was widely condoned as a means of shriving the soul and allowing sinners to receive redemption. We may laugh at this now, but in those times when the power of the Church was that much stronger, they would have thought differently.

But if I had to come up with a definition for evil, here is how I see it.

Evil - Deliberately acting in such a way that the sum total of the consequences resulting from one's actions are bad for him.

Good - Deliberately acting in such a way that the sum total of the consequences resulting from one's actions are good for him.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

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.

Let's forget about God, and go with the universe, because we can look at how the universe reacts to things with a kind of concrete answer and begin to look at morality in regards to the universe (not to mention the whole, "No yapping about God, you goddamn heathens," rule).

Murder: If a society decides that all people outside of said society are undeserving of life, does that society suffer? Only if it acts in the extreme. If it moderates it se, has a good military (the power to follow through), and doesn't make its opinion known it can get away with this easily. Take the US, for instance. We could pretty easily start another empire with our military might. We just have to set up 'protectorates' around the globe with our troops in third world countries, and use the new resources to get stronger and continue onward. Once we'd done enough we could even begin slaughtering people of other nationalities indiscriminately and the universe would completely condone the act.

Rape: A society can function decently well with rape existing within it. Maybe not as well as it could without, but those who aren't victims can support the society, and those who are would eventually recover well enough to help. Further, if it was accepted and considered normal, it's doubtful victims would even suffer as far as their contributions to society goes (emotionally and physically, they, of course, still would). A good example would be the middle east. Their women are still items owned by the men, and their society does very well, when you consider they mostly have greedy demigogues and no natural resources except oil.

Equality: Completely unneccessary. America flourished with slavery. So did Africa. Women's rights didn't make our society any stronger or weaker. Nor would taking away men's rights and making men owned objects.

Theft: If you steal and get away with it, you'll be fine. If an entire society steals from another society and gets away with it, it'll be fine. They'll probably even become richer and more powerful.


Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the 'absolute' that these early philosophers believed in comes down to this: "If you don't get caught you're golden," and "Might makes right." The universe doesn't care about real morality (except maybe incest: it fucks up the species's gene pool). People do.

I've always liked the Taoist idea on good and evil.

"We see good and say that is good, and therein lies evil.
We see beauty and say that is beautiful, and therein lies ugliness."

Evil is merely the opposite of good, and good the opposite of evil. They are man made constructs of the mind. They mean nothing.

[Nikkoru]

If you listen to the theory of binary opposites it would state that well evil and good may not exist in reality we as people are naturally inclined to make certain determinations regarding this. Whether something is good or evil is - as is everything - a matter of perspective, so if you believe it is evil or good than it is really just that, thinking on the matter may change your opinion and reverse your original opinion to make something good to bad or bad to good. As there is no-one who is truely objective - worrying about whether something is actually objectively good or evil is irrealivent.

[Robot Jesus]

So in the end relativism is the only viable option... I could have told you that

[spazzhands]

There is debate with no real conclusion as to whether the entire universe exists! How can we possibly come to a conclusion with something as apparently artificial as morality!
You saw my argument at the top of page3, its all a feeble construct of our minds in my opinion!

Am I the only one that might remember a thread of the exact same nature?

I'll look it up and find the link for it.

Edit:

Yeah, I couldn't find the other thread. Might have overlooked it, though. I think Druid started it, but I could be wrong. I just remember posting something about it in another thread.

Regardless, I still maintain the same stance.

There is no such thing as good or evil as a whole, but only to the individual. In other words, everything is about personal perception, and this topic is not exempt. So, what the one thinks is good is simply that, because to the one that is all that should matter.

Yeah, I think that covers it.