Define "Evil."

[Azisien]

I think you'll have to settle with absolute relative definitions, because they are most logical from any direction I can examine them. Evil and Good mean different things to different people.

There's the set in stone stuff, which you'll find if you follow D&D by the book. It basically says Hitler is as evil as a common street thug. Evil is evil and good is good. Bull if you ask me, but whatever.

My evil is your good, your good is my evil.

[Bongo Bill]

Originally Posted by Robot Jesus

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

I'm trying to move the relativism back a couple spaces, see. Trying to make it less like "Evil is whatever we say it is" and more like "Evil is X, Y, and Z, and Y is whatever we say it is and Z can't really be quantified." There is at least some absolutism involved in it.

[Hadokaner]

I think of the concept of good and evil as something like the first amendment to the American Consistution: although it is an intangible concept, it does indeed exist in that it has an effect on people who live under its power. Since Bongo Bill started this topic to define evil, I'll give my overly wordy speil about how I think evil can be defined.

Some things are clealry wrong: it is clearly wrong to cause undue harm to someone. I think things under this category would be murder (revenge and war are murky moral issues; acting under the influence of drugs or emotion simply dull judgement and I do not feel they are valid excuses morally) and rape. Even in societies where rape is only is only a crime against property (Medieval Europe, for example), I have never heard of any society that actually condoned rape. Even when militaries overlook cases of rape in times of war, it is seen as a necessary evil, not a virtue.

Many types of evil are what we say they are. I would put theft in this category: it is not possible in a society where property does not exist (Communism, for example). While few people call theft a good thing, it can be forgiven; few people would condemn a poor man for stealing food to feed himself or his family. Likewise, most people could watch a movie about a city of thieves without any moral qualms, but not a city of murderers or rapists. War and revenge would go in this category, as some people believe both are undue harm are others believe there is an adequate justification. Other things in this category would be disloyalty (impossible in an anarchist society, forgiveable for those with divided loyalties who must choose the most meaningful), adultry (only possible in a society that recognizes marriage and condemns extramarital sex; those trapped in an abusvie or loveless marriage can be forgiven), and lying (no one says lying is a virtue, but "white lies" are so much a part of human life that they cannot be expunged; there are very few people who would condemn a person for lying to save someone's life.)

Much evil cannot be quantified because it relies on religious faith or abstract moral principles that go beyond the simple harm principle that seems to dicatate the earlier laws. This argument is based somewhat on natural law, and I feel there is nothing in the human psyche that leads us to naturally believe that it is wrong to disrespect the Sabbath (whatever day of the week it really is, if the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is real) or discriminate against someone because of their gender, race, or religion. Arugments over homosexuality and abortion (because we honestly can't quantify when human life begins) would fall in this category.

I think we should be very weary of defining evil by result rather than intent. If we argued result alone, the South in the Civil War was good in upholding slavery because their doing so lead to its collaspe sooner than it would have naturally, Hilter might be called good because the horrible apocolyptic World War II may have ingrained a weariness of war in the world's consciousness for generations to come that saved countless lives, and (if the American plans work out) bin Laden is good because 9-11 because it eventually resulted in democracy and liberty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Terex4]

Originally Posted by LordTobias

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.

That thread was in general. I posted the link in either page 1 or 2 of this thread.

[Sato]

hadokaner, if I interpreted your post correctly, Hitler was not good because we had to act on him, he just influenced us to be better people so we don't stoop down to his level.

[gizmodude4]

Evil is like cold, or dark.

Cold is just the absence of Heat.

Dark is just the absense of Light.

And Evil is just the absence of Good.

[Terex4]

And Evil is just he absence of Good.

So if I'm not performing a good deed or doing something to increase the wellfare of my fellow man I'm doing evil by default?

Buaha I'm going to sit on the couch and do nothing! Beware my evilness!

I think we should be very weary of defining evil by result rather than intent. If we argued result alone, the South in the Civil War was good in upholding slavery because their doing so lead to its collaspe sooner than it would have naturally, Hilter might be called good because the horrible apocolyptic World War II may have ingrained a weariness of war in the world's consciousness for generations to come that saved countless lives, and (if the American plans work out) bin Laden is good because 9-11 because it eventually resulted in democracy and liberty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But on the flip side, if you look at intent those people were also fighting for what they believed to be good and right. Evil is like history, its determined by the winners.

[gizmodude4]

Originally Posted by DruidoftheDead

So if I'm not performing a good deed or doing something to increase the wellfare of my fellow man I'm doing evil by default?

Buaha I'm going to sit on the couch and do nothing! Beware my evilness!

Although it would be great if this whole good/evil thing worked that way, that's not really what I meant. There's a balance between the two. There's good, neutral, and evil. Good being doing good, neutral being doing nothing having to do with good or the lack thereof, and evil being doing something with an utter lack of good.

[Elmer J.]

Words are inadequate to describe concepts, first of all.
So whatever we say about intanibles will inevitably be, to a certain extent, wrong.

That said, good makes us happy.
Things that make people happy are good.
"But," say Elmer's doubters, "What about cocaine and whatnot? Those arre certainly not good, but they make us happy..."
To which I say, "Therein lies the rub."
Being good does not preclude being evil.
Evil things make us unhappy.
So cocaine makes us happy, so it is good, but it also makes us unhappy, so is evil.
Somethings are purely good.
True love, good friends, etc.
I don't really believe in pure evil, though.
There is also a certain amount of relativity in there, too.
Some people are only made sad by something that makes someone else happy and sad, or just happy.
So the person who only becomes sad sees it as evil.
Ther person who is happy and sad see's it as a shade of grey.
And the person who is only happy sees it as good.
There you go.

[RedScar]

This isn't exatlly good/evil but just saying. Everything is done with a good intention. If you give someone money you trying to help them. If you steal someone's money your getting money. If you make frineds with an enmey you no longer have an enemy. If you kill an enemy you no longer have a enemy. Everythhing has a somewhat good intention. Even if it's a selfishly stupid intetion. Hitler had a good intetion, at lest he thought he did. He didn't according to most everyone else. So Everything has some, if very little, some good. And I leave you with this.

Many people die every day from car accidents. Wear a seatbelt. I bet Hitler didn't wear a seatbelt. You don't want to be like Hitler do you? So be safe, wear a seatbelt.