But deliver us from evil

[The Void]

Is there such thing as evil? At what point do things stop being bad and start becoming evil?

 

[Oryx]

I've never considered my definition of evil, which is really the first question you have to ask yourself when you answer a question like this. My initial definition would be an action that does lasting harm to a person and is either deliberately harmful or the person knows that it's harmful and chooses to do it anyway. Although I would make an exception for the latter point, if the justification was good enough, for lack of a better term; the phrase that comes to mind there is "necessary evil".

Evil exists in that it's an abstract concept; as long as the world believes that some things are evil and some things aren't it will exist. Calling something evil doesn't change the actions. As far as if my own definition of evil exists, it's hard to say for certain because I can't be in someone's head but I would guess that in at least one of the tens (hundreds?) of billions of humans that have ever existed someone has met that definition, simply by probability.

 

[Blu·Ray]

I don't think that any person is evil. A person's actions can be evil, but unless the person is insane - as in mentally ill - the person will have to have some kind of reason for doing this "evil". Also, a person can turn around and regret their evil deeds, which is why I don't think we should ever call any person evil.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Considering how objective "Evil" is, it's pretty obvious that evil is something that is more of a construct than anything to help people define their moralities and stuff.

 

[BadPokemon]

So I searched through my bible for "evil". I have concluded that
1. Evil exists
2. Places can be evil
3. People can be evil (wicked)
4. Actions can be evil

 

[maccrash]

So I searched through my bible for "evil". I have concluded that
1. Evil exists
2. Places can be evil
3. People can be evil (wicked)
4. Actions can be evil

listen, I don't mean to be judgmental or anything here, but with the amount of times you reference the Bible and say that you've scoured your Bible for an answer to something it just makes me feel like you're a troll. I'm not saying you are for certain but you kinda come off that way. I'm not damning you for being a Catholic either: frankly, I couldn't care less, you can believe what you want, but I don't think you need to relate every single D&D topic back to the Bible somehow. (and yes, I realize that evil is touched upon a lot in the Bible.)

as for me, actions can be evil but people are not inherently evil. there are awful people in the world but they more than likely started out as a child who had no intention to engage in Hardcore Debauchery, they just kind of grew into it by falling into the wrong group of friends or something to that effect. things stop being bad and start becoming evil when people are harmed from the consequences of your actions.

 

[BadPokemon]

listen, I don't mean to be judgmental or anything here, but with the amount of times you reference the Bible and say that you've scoured your Bible for an answer to something it just makes me feel like you're a troll. I'm not saying you are for certain but you kinda come off that way. I'm not damning you for being a Catholic either: frankly, I couldn't care less, you can believe what you want, but I don't think you need to relate every single D&D topic back to the Bible somehow. (and yes, I realize that evil is touched upon a lot in the Bible.)

as for me, actions can be evil but people are not inherently evil. there are awful people in the world but they more than likely started out as a child who had no intention to engage in Hardcore Debauchery, they just kind of grew into it by falling into the wrong group of friends or something to that effect. things stop being bad and start becoming evil when people are harmed from the consequences of your actions.

I am displaying my opinion, and I generally base that off of the Bible. I'm Presbyterian, not Catholic (both are Christian denominations). I'm not a troll. Who would I be trolling? For what reason? Why would I use the Bible to troll? While you may get your opinions from a news article, your brain, or whatever, I get mine from the Bible. Different, yes, but same purpose. I could judge you for using other sources I dorm prefer, but I don't.

 

[£]

Matthew 5:39 - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Can we avoid retorts regarding the bible please? Let the sinner have his way. Let them slap all of our cheeks. We'll see who has the last laugh.

 

[maccrash]

I am displaying my opinion, and I generally base that off of the Bible. I'm Presbyterian, not Catholic (both are Christian denominations). I'm not a troll. Who would I be trolling? For what reason? Why would I use the Bible to troll? While you may get your opinions from a news article, your brain, or whatever, I get mine from the Bible. Different, yes, but same purpose. I could judge you for using other sources I dorm prefer, but I don't.

ya it may have been ignorant for me to call you specifically a Catholic; should've worded that differently.

only key difference is that with news articles and sources like that, the source is more reliable and less people question it. I'm not trying to say that your source is wrong or questionable, per se, I'm just saying that there are better ways to get information across than to just quote the Bible all the time. you'll find that it doesn't hold much weight in a debate in a place like this.

 

[twocows]

Ethics is a pretty well-explored and yet still hotly debated field. As such, a lot of the stuff you're going to see non-experts saying about the subject are things that have already been picked apart, analyzed, and often found to be lacking.

There are several popular rationalist theories of what good is, and evil is usually just an inversion of that, provided the inverse isn't something completely neutral. One popular theory of ethics purports that to do good is to increase good things (e.g., happiness). Thus, to do evil would be to decrease good things (e.g., lessen happiness or increase misery). Another theory proposes that it is only the intent to do good that is important, so doing evil would be acting with ill-intent (don't ask what sorts of intentions are good in this theory, the explanation is like five pages long and a lot more debatable than the general idea of intent as the basis for good).

I'm not really committed to any particular view. They all have their pros and cons. When I'm making a decision, I try to keep more than one angle in mind, though I do tend to subscribe more to the view that it is intentions, not consequences, that are the basis for morality (if you're interested, this is what I mean by intentions-based ethics and this is what I mean by consequences-based ethics; the theories I mentioned earlier specifically were Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics).

 

[Tek]

Evil is a construct. It's as simple as that, really. There is nothing in nature that is inherently good, evil, long, short, heavy, or light. All of those things are products of thinking and not of experience.






That said, I am so sick of the culture warfare. Yes, the scientific approach has merit. This doesn't mean that other approaches do not have merit. Science is not the final or even the most deep source of truth. Evolution moves on - has moved on - and will continue to do so.


What actually doesn't hold any weight is assuming that because you've followed a scientific process, or gathered data from what you consider to be a reliable source, that your answer trumps and invalidates answers obtained from other methods. When you arbitrarily decide that you've collected enough data, or when the time has come to decide, you simply decide, spontaneously. Fundamentally, it's no more and no less arbitrary than I Ching or Tarot readings.


I will say again that the scientific method has merit. Specifically, it allows human beings to find common ground regardless of creed. Science makes claims that are falsifiable, allowing for verification of observations. And I will say again that other methods have merit. Specifically, mythology (aka shared values and beliefs) allow human beings to find common ground regardless of kinship and blood lineage.


Mythic-membership belief systems continue to be a source of meaning and value to many people. In fact, when you look at the developmental level of populations the world over, mythological systems are more common than rational ones. What is to be gained by destroying the only thing that makes sense to these people? Are you going to somehow use external means to force an inner change to come about? And most importantly, how can you expect people to reach the higher floors of human knowledge if you are hell-bent on demolishing the staircase?


UGH. /rant

 

[£]

Morals are relative. Ethics are subjective. Evil is a concept that belongs in a children's movie.

Each culture sees different things are being worse than others. Is there an absolute truth? Nope. But there is a truth for our society and for our human perspective. In our eyes, murder of people is wrong (generally), killing insects is of little consequence (generally; but people would probably value the life of a ladybird over a wasp because we have a good gauge of what values their lives hold) and anal sex is acceptable/outrageous (oh the controversy!)

Our specie have a habit of thinking we are deeper and more important than others and my god we can make the world revolve around us. Hence we're clearly the dominant specie on the planet. We use morality often to get our way about things. Evil is very political, influential term. "Look at them, they're evil. They're atrocious." Are they? Well, it depends. Maybe that person is indeed awful from a human perspective, or maybe they're not. It's very easy to rally a war when you have a unified belief that the opposition are evil. It's easy to oppose something that is "evil."

So many people have righteous high horses, and I'm no different. I have my own morals, probably pretty standard ones to have for someone from my upbringing and such, normal from my perspective anyway. Perhaps they're evil in the eyes of some. At the end of the day though, I don't perceive anybody as evil. As a ♥♥♥♥? Sure. I hold the opinion that some people are ♥♥♥♥s. I don't expect people to have the same ethical/moral views as me; and while I won't respect some outlooks, I understand that people are going to have them and I think that's normal.

tl;dr: just read the first line don't bother with the rest you get the idea

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Matthew 5:39 - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Can we avoid retorts regarding the bible please? Let the sinner have his way. Let them slap all of our cheeks. We'll see who has the last laugh.

That would only generate a fantastically hilarious slap-a-thon, which perhaps is the most evil thing in existence.

That said, I am so sick of the culture warfare. Yes, the scientific approach has merit. This doesn't mean that other approaches do not have merit. Science is not the final or even the most deep source of truth. Evolution moves on - has moved on - and will continue to do so.


What actually doesn't hold any weight is assuming that because you've followed a scientific process, or gathered data from what you consider to be a reliable source, that your answer trumps and invalidates answers obtained from other methods. When you arbitrarily decide that you've collected enough data, or when the time has come to decide, you simply decide, spontaneously. Fundamentally, it's no more and no less arbitrary than I Ching or Tarot readings.


I will say again that the scientific method has merit. Specifically, it allows human beings to find common ground regardless of creed. Science makes claims that are falsifiable, allowing for verification of observations. And I will say again that other methods have merit. Specifically, mythology (aka shared values and beliefs) allow human beings to find common ground regardless of kinship and blood lineage.


Mythic-membership belief systems continue to be a source of meaning and value to many people. In fact, when you look at the developmental level of populations the world over, mythological systems are more common than rational ones. What is to be gained by destroying the only thing that makes sense to these people? Are you going to somehow use external means to force an inner change to come about? And most importantly, how can you expect people to reach the higher floors of human knowledge if you are hell-bent on demolishing the staircase?

I really appreciate you posting this. Although BadPokemon's posts fall pretty flat in scientific threads, pretty much anything else it is completely acceptable to take your point of view of something from the Bible. There seems to be an obsession with abolishing religion when you're on the internet and it's irritating because people forget the value of religion. It's not about "making people sheep" or "blind faith" or something stupid like that, religion has value in that it has a sort of meaning to the world. The reality is, is that we all are people and we all have the choice to believe one way or another. If I have one problem with BadPokemon's posts outside of scientific threads, it's that he shows an unwillingness to be perceptive of other people's beliefs, but that's to be said about a LOT of people here, not just BadPokemon. It's a little depressing really.

 

[Kameken]

I don't think any people are actually evil. To me, at least, evil is when someone causes harm to someone else without at least believing that they have a justifiable reason to do so. That's something that's inherently against human nature, especially since humans are pack animals. There are certainly bad people, but for the most part, we won't just go killing each other because we can. People can act evil, based on my definition, but not be evil overall.

 

[twocows]

Evil is a construct. It's as simple as that, really. There is nothing in nature that is inherently good, evil, long, short, heavy, or light. All of those things are products of thinking and not of experience.

You're implying something here that's not entirely clear to me, so I'm going to guess as to what you mean. It may do well for you to clarify what you mean.

If you mean that the fact that ethics is something created by humans makes it less valuable, then I disagree. The fact that something is constructed by humans does not mean it does not have value. Love is a human construct, yet it holds value.

If you mean that the fact that ethics is something created by humans means it cannot be logically constructed or described, then I still disagree. Fiction is created by humans, yet we're still able to logically construct what makes some fictive works good and others not so good. Heck, this arguably applies to art in general. The fact that something is man-made does not mean it has no objective, rational basis.

That said, I am so sick of the culture warfare. Yes, the scientific approach has merit. This doesn't mean that other approaches do not have merit.

I assume you mean the rational ("scientific") approach to ethics, specifically. Science doesn't quite seem like the appropriate term to describe it, since we're not examining data or testing hypothesis, we're merely constructing theories based on logical reasoning.

In that case, would you care to back this claim up? Specifically, could you provide an example where an "alternative" approach to ethics provides a result that is superior to existing rationalist theories of ethics?

Science is not the final or even the most deep source of truth.

Science is a description of what is (the practice of science is a bit more involved, but this definition is sufficient to describe its essence). Therefore, science is always truthful unless our observations are inaccurate or "what is" is a lie.

If, rather, you meant reason instead of science, then you are denying logic as a source of truth. This is impossible, as logic is, by definition, a means of using existing truths to find other truths. You would be saying that truth is not the source of truth, which is a contradiction.

Evolution moves on - has moved on - and will continue to do so.

I don't understand the relevance of this statement.

What actually doesn't hold any weight is assuming that because you've followed a scientific process, or gathered data from what you consider to be a reliable source, that your answer trumps and invalidates answers obtained from other methods.

That is correct. That alone does not "trump" other answers, in that it does not necessarily make those other answers false. However, in argument, the party making an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof. If those bearing other answers wish to convince anyone, they must be able to reason as to why their answers are right.

When you arbitrarily decide that you've collected enough data, or when the time has come to decide, you simply decide, spontaneously. Fundamentally, it's no more and no less arbitrary than I Ching or Tarot readings.

I think you're over-explaining based on this whole "science" thing you've come up with; like I said, ethical theory is more based in reason, not so much in evidence and data. I do find it odd that you would suggest that a decision made based on historical data would be "as arbitrary" as a decision not based on data, though.

Ethical philosophy is, in essence, an attempt to rationally construct what is a subconscious understanding in most of us. Now, since many of us understand things in different ways, you may claim that it is impossible to come up with a "right" answer, and I wouldn't deny that. But people do share a common understanding of many things. The same sorts of things do, for example, tend to make us laugh (jokes) or make us cry (getting punched in the face). Now, certain people may have more nuanced responses to various things that others don't share, but the core of our understanding tends to be somewhat similar. That leaves room for us to try to describe that common understanding. To that end, looking to the past ("data") can provide us with some important context. But it's by no means central to what we're trying to do.

But it is not arbitrary. It's fuzzy, sure, but there are "more right" answers and "less right" ones. We don't know everything. We don't even know what it is exactly that we're trying to describe. But it is based on a rational interpretation of what is, even in all its fuzzy and nuanced glory. And moreover, it has value. We are better off as a result of the pursuit: our imperfect answers have spawned plenty of "good" by almost any metric of "good."

I will say again that other methods have merit. Specifically, mythology (aka shared values and beliefs) allow human beings to find common ground regardless of kinship and blood lineage.

A rational basis would also have that effect, and I don't see many people going off on crusades to evangelize Kant. Plus, it has the added bonus of being a conclusion you can come to logically. If someone asks you why, you can explain why. With religion as the basis for ethics, your only reason for your belief is because that's what's written there. You tend to run into a lot of problems when different gods (or even the same one) say conflicting things; the only argument you can really use is "my deity's right and yours is wrong," followed by either grudging tolerance or a lot of gunfire.

Mythic-membership belief systems continue to be a source of meaning and value to many people. In fact, when you look at the developmental level of populations the world over, mythological systems are more common than rational ones. What is to be gained by destroying the only thing that makes sense to these people? Are you going to somehow use external means to force an inner change to come about? And most importantly, how can you expect people to reach the higher floors of human knowledge if you are hell-bent on demolishing the staircase?

I think people are free to believe what they will so long as they're not causing problems. I won't try to take their beliefs away, though I would be very happy if they would come to appreciate a rational basis for morality in the same way I do. But that's a pipe dream.

However, when it comes to a debate about ethics, you need to be able to substantiate your beliefs. To believe is not enough in a debate, where you are trying to convince other people why you are right. "Because God said so" is not a sufficiently convincing reason to anyone who doesn't believe in your religion. "Because happiness is the only universally desirable factor" or "because intent is the extent of what man can control" are much more convincing arguments for why your theory is better.



To paraphrase: there can be at least some rational basis for morality and the pursuit of such a basis is a positive thing; also, morality from religion is a force of good for many people but that isn't an argument for why it's correct.

 

[Kameken]

Spoiler:

Oh boy, pseudo-intelect!

Not even most scientist tend to think science dictates morals. Like you said, science is the study of what is, not of what it should be. That's what philosophy and the like is for. Science isn't supposed to make guesses about things like morality and whether choices will have overall negative or positive outcomes, it's meant to learn and find out about things that can be truly measured or observed. You seem to think science can determine a clear-cut answer for literally anything, next you'll be arguing that my favorite game is bad because I didn't write a thesis and clear quantitative observations on why it's good.

Also ignore the thing in the spoilers because it's just me being a butt and I don't actually feel that way.

 

[twocows]

Not even most scientist tend to think science dictates morals. Like you said, science is the study of what is, not of what it should be. That's what philosophy and the like is for. Science isn't supposed to make guesses about things like morality and whether choices will have overall negative or positive outcomes, it's meant to learn and find out about things that can be truly measured or observed. You seem to think science can determine a clear-cut answer for literally anything, next you'll be arguing that my favorite game is bad because I didn't write a thesis and clear quantitative observations on why it's good.

1. Many scientists believe morality can be rationally constructed. Even if this wasn't the case, it's not a logical argument to the contrary; argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority are both logical fallacies.
2. I didn't say science dictates morals, I said morality can be rationally constructed using a system of logic. We can appropriately describe our intuitive understandings of right and wrong by using logical processes and potentially even surpass our understanding to create better systems that more appropriately protect the things we find valuable.
3. Science and math are descriptions of what is. If our existing scientific theories or mathematical equations fail to properly describe a phenomenon, then either our observation of what occurred was faulty or our existing theories and equations are inadequate and require adjustment. That does not mean that there is not a sufficient explanation for what occurred, merely that we've yet to come up with one. If you observe an object inexplicably falling upwards, that does not mean physics is wrong, it means your understanding of physics (or our collective understanding of physics if you perfectly understand our theories of physics) is inadequate.
4. Logic and reason can be flawed, but correct logic and correct reasoning cannot be by definition. I don't feel this warrants an explanation; it is self-explanatory. If there is fault within the reasoning behind a moral theory, then explain the fault in the reasoning. Explain what it is that makes that theory an inadequate description of what good is or should be.
5. You're free to think whatever you want about your favorite game, but if you want to convince anyone else that it's good, you're going to need to be able to back it up. This doesn't have to be completely objective, but you do have to explain which things are a matter of personal taste. Some people may enjoy the same things as you and explaining what it was that entertained you is a valuable statement; likewise, some people may not derive enjoyment from those things and would benefit from knowing that their taste may differ. This is much as it is with morality. There may not be any universally correct answer, but that does not diminish finding answers that fit certain shared understandings. Additionally, having a rational, logical description of what we understand to be "right" can help us act consistently and even, in some cases, improve our system for determining what is "right."

The quest to better understand our reasons for believing something to be right or wrong is a useful one. Our ethics are not purely arbitrary and certainly not worthless. I might not be able to perfectly describe why or how I believe this, but I think I can at least give a counter-example as to why our ethical beliefs are not arbitrary and worthless.

Consider a world in which there is no rational basis for ethics, in which good and bad utterly arbitrary. Murder could be tolerable in this world, possibly even encouraged. Rape, torture, theft, etc. And all of the things we understand to be good could be bad: altruism, loyalty, compassion, empathy. After all, morals are arbitrary: there is no rational basis for them, so they may as well be random, assigned out for no reason whatsoever. Do you think our understandings of ethics are equally random, equally arbitrary, equally useless? Or do you, like me, think they hold some bit of value, some useful purpose, that they seek to safeguard important?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

The only thing that's truly evil is our own consciousness, which is what made us become self-aware of our surroundings and rid of our natural animalistic instincts to be more "civilized", only to negatively harm our ecosystem via artificial selection the smarter we become, unless we were intended to be civilized, and that it's the other animals' fault for failing to adapt to the changes we've made and are becoming extinct.

 

[Vix Axiom]

One question: Do evil people think they are evil?

Also consider your own standpoint from their position.

 

[twocows]

The only thing that's truly evil is our own consciousness, which is what made us become self-aware of our surroundings and rid of our natural animalistic instincts to be more "civilized", only to negatively harm our ecosystem via artificial selection the smarter we become, unless we were intended to be civilized, and that it's the other animals' fault for failing to adapt to the changes we've made and are becoming extinct.

Is our ecosystem the only thing of value? I say our consciousness is, itself, of value. In fact, I would value it significantly over our environment, with the caveat that if we harm our environment too much, we may end up self-destructing, which would kill us (which, by extension, would kill our consciousness).

One question: Do evil people think they are evil?

Also consider your own standpoint from their position.

Likely not, but given any rational theory of ethics, we can say (with respect to that theory) whether they are correct in their belief or not.