what is evil
 

what is evil for that matter what is good


i have no answer to this question other then to say they are terms we humans came up with to explain the complex in simple terms

Evil is an action against another that is destructive, intentional (in some weird cases it could be un-intentional), and meant to hurt or offend someone. It is just cold to think that evil doesn't exist, as well as just plain stupid. Sure one could argue that its a notion concieved by man, but it is also an action created by man. In the grand scheme of things, for our "existence", there has to be balance thus you have good and evil.

What's you point?

It is a concept concieved of men. It is an action committed by men. How that that prove that it's not a social construct?

Evil is when a human lives by a certain set of choices, knowing full well that another suffers for it, knowingly or unknowingly, despite having alternatives. Good is when the human lives by the alternative choices, even if that puts him/her at a disadvantage over those who chose the path of evil.

Evil can be manifested in the tiniest of decisions. You see someone drop a dollar and not notice, so you pick it up - do you return it to its rightful owner, or pocket it? They will never notice its gone, so why not keep it? A lack of moral principles, or a tendency to often bend them, leads people to evil.

Your opinion on the definition of evil is just that, an opinion. What is good, what is evil... what is pious, what is impious... right vs. wrong...

These are questions that have no universal answers. Each person has their own answer, and while society influences what we believe, we're individuals with our differing views on things

Interesting that you all put this in human only terms.

Or is that a limitation of this argument?

I think you can define an action or an outcome as "evil", but I'm not sure I believe in evil as a concept, as a force that "causes" people to behave in certain ways. I would think there are much more rational, empirical ways to identify the causes of behavior. Then again, I hear some stories that make me think twice about that and wonder how a human could ever be so twisted.

Personally, I subscribe to the utilitarian theory of ethics. Since I am not a philosopher, I'll quote wikipedia:

Utilitarianism is both a metaethical doctrine, and a theory in normative ethics. Utilitarianism holds, in its simplest form, that "the good" is whatever yields the greatest "utility". Utility has been understood in different ways - happiness, pleasure, preference-satisfaction, etc. - but it is always a naturalistic conception of an individual's good. As a metaethical doctrine, it holds that "whatever yields the greatest utility" is the meaning of the word "good" (thus it is a naturalistic theory of metaethics); while as a normative theory, it merely holds that "whatever yields the greatest utility" is in fact good, whatever the meaning of the word "good" may be.


Basically, a good act is one which causes the greastest amount of pleasure to most people*, while an evil one causes the greatest amount of pain.

*Some, myself included, would include animals.

[edit] linky
http://utilitarian.org/one.html

man is evil, and life is good.
For if there were no life, how could there be evil?

First things first, I know next to nothing about Utilitarianism, although I did browse the link you provided a bit. Unfortunatly, I just don't have it in me today to take it in properly. So-the above statement sounds like mob rule, to me. Is that the case?


back to the thread, now. For me, good and evil are dependent on the person. That is, it's an attribute we arbitraily assign as individuals, and the declaration of anything to be 'good' or 'evil' has no berring on the worth of the action/object/person etc. To put a fine point on it, I basicaly agree with syquestrd270.

Good and evil are social convention.

Take, for example, a hypothetical "evil" society in which the two are reversed. Good would be... well, not "evil" probably, just plain stupid. Evil would, however, be good. And hey, why not?

Every action causes pain or/and pleasure to some degree to everyone envolved. If there was someone who was completly moral and did absolutly everything to maximise the amount of pleasure to pain, he would have to look deeply at everything he did to understand if it was morally right or wrong. Nobody does this. Utilitarianism simply states that if you have the choice between helping someone and hurting someone, than its morally right to help someone and morally wrong to hurt someone. If you have the choice of causing 1000 people harm or 15 people the same amount of harm, than its morally right to cause 15 people harm. But nobody forces you to do the morally right thing. The only thing you'll have to live with is your own conscience.

Ok, that's much clearer to me, thanks much.

If you want to do some reading on the subject check out Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty by Roy Baumeister. It's appears to be well researched and supported, and is very interesting, if somewhat depressing. I can't really summarize in a forum post, but among the main points are that "pure evil" is primarily a myth and most instances that look that way are distorted in media reports, victim accounts, and even just the perceptions of those hearing about them.

thanks, Pennington - clear, concise, to the point, and indisputable.

evil is the opposite is good. Without good, there is no evil. Eliminate the good.

subjective

This is somewhat true, Hilter thought that he was doing humanity good by getting rid of tha parasitic races and some neo nazis today feel that he was morally right in killing millions of people. People that they see as less than human. That's the key though, they see them as less than human, and therefore aren't considered when maximizing utility. We know that what he did was wrong and evil, but some future society might see our killing of animals and fetuses as horrible and unforgivable acts against civilization. But to talk about what is "right" and "wrong" we have to be able to look at it objectivly and utilitarinism is the best system to do so, in my opinion.

evil is what hurts society and good is what makes society better. They are both terms made to make people understand what is better and worse for society as a working unit.

I don't think good or evil exists. It is just something humans made up. Take animals for example:

One animal kills another of the same species. Is that evil? I don't think so. One animal steals from another of the same species. Is that evil? I don't think so. For some reason, people have to think of humans as "better" than everything else. That is part of the power behind religion. It makes people feel special, and therefore better than animals. People like to feel superior because it feels good. They may not realise their desire to feel superior, but if you ask them if humans are above animals, they will say yes. Sure humans are more complex than other animals, but the level of complexity doesn't determine the worthiness of a living thing. Nothing deserves to life more than anything else. How does this have to do with the topic? Good is superior to evil. People like to be good, because it means they are better people than the evil people. They call people evil so that there is a living manifestation of the inferior that is evil. Everyone probably feels they are a better person than Hitler (with the exception of neo-nazis). It is build into you to want to be better than someone else. You want to be good, because it is better than evil. That is possibly one reason behind the concepts of good and evil. Right and wrong are different things.

I subscibe to the "greater good" way of looking at things. Everyone sees the world differently so there is no true definition for good or evil.

evil was given a name when someone didnt get their way
good was born when someone wanted to feel better about themself

actions described by the words are opinions
example:
generally, i think we can agree that itd be evil to mutilate someone
generally, its not considered evil to kill someone who is attempting to cause harm to others. can be considered good(defense)
but if you kill someone whos about to kill 500 other people, and you then proceed to mutilate his corpse, its debatable
you just saved people, but youre being indulgeant in your affairs there with the hacking and whatnot.

We <i>think</i> that what he did was wrong and evil. I suppose what we really think is that his assumptions were wrong and his actions were illogical. That his race was not superior, and had no right to kill the inferior races. Obviously if we agreed that this was the right path, we would not consider him to be evil. I don't think anyone can truly say that something is good or evil because there is no objective way to view such a thing. It is an inherently subjective judgement, a matter of opinion. Even if everyone agreed that something was good or evil, that does not make it objective fact. I didn't really understand your last sentance, I am unfamiliar with utilitarinism.

Then again, I think there's some law that once someone mentions Hitler on a thread, further discussion is pointless.

I'm not arguing that good and evil don't exist (they exist as much as other human constructs). Just that they are subjective.

Godwin's Law. I'm fairly sure it is not properly applied to discussions of philosophy, more that it is applied to flames.

Moonduck - in which case the thread is over? Just when it was getting interesting ;)

My question is: does anyone who is truly evil believe themselves to be so? And if they don't, what does this mean to those who say that morality is objective?

Morality is objective. It is objective simply because, by definition, morality is a societally-defined set of accepted behaviours. Whether an individual believes themselves evil or not is irrelevant. It is society at large that decides where one fall on the good-evil axis.

Moonduck - morality is objective but defined by society? Does this mean there are multiple objective moralities, one for each society with different rules?

evil is opening a hot coke

what is moral or evil is largely determined by what particular normative ethical theory you subscribe to.
Posting a picture of a 19 year old female with a dildo stuck in her pussy on the TFP would be moral to a utilitarian (in the sense that the degredation of one 19 year old is far offset by the pleasure derived by 3,000 TFP viewers)
But a person subscribing to Kantian ethics would ask "would I want my sister or daughter picture posted here?" and conclude that it was imoral or evil

People do what makes them happy.

Thats it.

It makes US Marines happy to roll into Iraq. Plus they get paid decently.

It made the 911 hijackers happy to take out their rage on America.

It made the firefighters who went in and bravely died happy to fight fires and help people inside.

It made the businesspeople inside happy to be making money, probably regardless of how they went about doing it.

Once thats taken care of its all a matter of majority opinion and whether not the way you get your kicks happens to seriously impede somone else's.

It is my belief that there is no absolute good or evil unless there exists some greater metaphysical truth that rationalizes absolute good or evil.

Interestingly enough, a study proposes that intelligent people tend towards altruism ("good") and less intelligent people tend towards selfishness ("evil.") On another note, various cultures do share similar conceptions of good and evil. The sanctity of life, for instance, is respected (or at least recognised, hence the pleasure/displeasure taken when defiling it) by most.

More intellegent people are more "good" because they have switched their view from egocentric, to ethnocentric, to sociocentric, to maybe even world centric. Meaning, they can understand the perspective of theirselves, their own race, their society, then eventually all beings on earth and possibly higher.

Less intellegent people don't develop those views, hence the selfishness

sin is evil, good is much harder to define

evil is richard simmons

I think too many people have this shifty, slimy view that good and evil are entirely malleable constructions created in their entirety by man and molded by society. I tend to think that while a "societal" or "majority" view is important, that good and evil are still something more absolute than the notions held by "most people".

Evil is relative....

Evil is when people continue to do what they know to be wrong.

or

Evil is what happens when good people refuse to act.

what is "wrong"? what is "good"?

Talk about skirting the issue!

Evil is that which is in direct contradiction to what is good.

Good varies greatly.

so therefore evil varies greatly.

stop with the non-answers already!

There is morality above society. Do a quick read on Kohlberg's 6 stages of moral development. I personally think that there is no good or evil. What people mistake for good is for lack of a better word, love.