Evil

[Dimentio]

Do you believe that there is a phenomenon which could objectively or subjectively be called "evil"? How would you define it then?

[Pirate Utopian]

Subjectively yes.
But subjectively anything can be called evil.

[Dimentio]

Subjectively yes.
But subjectively anything can be called evil.

If you had to define something as evil, how would you do it then?

[Pirate Utopian]

What we see as something that does harm to what we percieve as good.

[Dimentio]

What we see as something that does harm to what we percieve as good.

So its rather effects than causes and intentions which should be defined?

[Pirate Utopian]

To quote Funkadelic "If You Don't Like the Effects, Don't Produce the Cause".

[JimmyJazz]

No I don't. I'm not a dogmatic utilitarian (case in point: I would definitely walk away from Omelas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas)), but the idea of any act being inherently wrong no matter what the circumstances strikes me as absurd, and always has.

[Diagoras]

Not objective, no. For there to be objective evil, we would have to say that there is something that could be considered a moral "fact" in the universe. Even if something could be considered universally good or bad amongst humans, it still would not fit the label of "objective" evil.

Something can be considered subjectively bad (in preferential utilitarian fashion), which to me seems to carry a less universal implication than the term "evil". When I think "evil", I think of a more Kantian notion of morality... i.e.- lying is always wrong, even if you are hiding Jews in your attic and the Nazis are at the door asking you if Jews are hiding there. This would not be acceptable to me ;). Where you stand concerning the morality of an issue/situation tends to depend on where you sit... differing interests and values based upon circumstance and background determine one's subjective evaluation of whether an occurrence is good or bad. A comet speeding into the earth is not inherently good or bad... it simply IS, and the universe has no opinion on the matter. It is judged as bad by most of us (except, perhaps, primitivists ;)) because the outcome opposes what we perceive to be in our interests.

[Dimentio]

Not objective, no. For there to be objective evil, we would have to say that there is something that could be considered a moral "fact" in the universe. Even if something could be considered universally good or bad amongst humans, it still would not fit the label of "objective" evil.

Something can be considered subjectively bad (in preferential utilitarian fashion), which to me seems to carry a less universal implication than the term "evil". When I think "evil", I think of a more Kantian notion of morality... i.e.- lying is always wrong, even if you are hiding Jews in your attic and the Nazis are at the door asking you if Jews are hiding there. This would not be acceptable to me ;). Where you stand concerning the morality of an issue/situation tends to depend on where you sit... differing interests and values based upon circumstance and background determine one's subjective evaluation of whether an occurrence is good or bad. A comet speeding into the earth is not inherently good or bad... it simply IS, and the universe has no opinion on the matter. It is judged as bad by most of us (except, perhaps, primitivists ;)) because the outcome opposes what we perceive to be in our interests.

And a person who wants to inflict pain and suffering upon one humans or upon a group of humans or upon humanity as a whole due to some idea of that causing a "general good"?

[Dr Mindbender]

I think the term is abused and kicked around like an emotive football.

Ultra-conservatives are often quick to brand all communists as 'evil' because they don't subscribe to their ideas.

[Decolonize The Left]

And a person who wants to inflict pain and suffering upon one humans or upon a group of humans or upon humanity as a whole due to some idea of that causing a "general good"?

I'm not sure how your question relates to the post. It seems to me that such a person would be acting in such a manner that could be deemed by numerous moral systems to be 'bad' or 'evil.'

- August

[Lynx]

Do you believe that there is a phenomenon which could objectively or subjectively be called "evil"?
An action motivated by sadism.

[brigadista]

Do you believe that there is a phenomenon which could objectively or subjectively be called "evil"? How would you define it then?


no

[Pirate Utopian]

An action motivated by sadism.
Unless percieved by a masochist.

[Qayin]

No I dont

[Diagoras]

And a person who wants to inflict pain and suffering upon one humans or upon a group of humans or upon humanity as a whole due to some idea of that causing a "general good"?

Except in self-defense (which a revolution against the state and capitalism would fall under), such a thing would be indefensible. I will assume that you were reacting to the term "utilitarian" when mentioning the "general good", but do notice that I said "preferential utilitarianism", which avoids the pitfall of "classical" notions of majoritarian utilitarianism that persons like Le Guin (and other anarchist writers) criticize. Preference utilitarianism, a la Peter Singer, advocates the satisfaction of individual preferences and desires as the measure of the fulfillment of good/utility. So, rather than the "greatest good" for a group being determined at the potential expense of individual actors, it is the maximization of each individual's goals, preferences, etc. without being detrimental to other individual preferences that becomes the target outcome.

[dissipate]

Do you believe that there is a phenomenon which could objectively or subjectively be called "evil"? How would you define it then?

Subjectively, yes, objectively, no way.

[Comrade Anarchist]

there is no evil or good these things are nothing more than our animal insticts acting out whether it be helping an old woman across the street or shooting someone in the head.

[Vahanian]

Do you believe that there is a phenomenon which could objectively or subjectively be called "evil"? How would you define it then?

No, evil doesn't exist because it is subjective to each persons definition of evil

[Rebel_Serigan]

maybe some say there is nothing that is evil, I would normaly agree but I thought it over and I decided there is one thing that is always evil, wether the poor fools realize it or not. Oppression of will and ideas is evil.Even something small like a school takes a article about pro-Choice out of the school newspaper it is evil. Every other thing in the world can be rationalized and even called neutral(never good, because nothing is ever unquestioningly good) but dumbing down the already borderline catatonic youth (which I am surrounded by all the damned time) it is creating a oppressive tyranical situation. it is the tactic of dictators everywhere; keep the people stupid so they just swing to the Right wing and agree with whatever the government says. That is evil, perhaps even that is subjective but as far as I can see( which in itself is subjective) that is the only deffinate evil, oppression.

[Elect Marx]

The only true evil is back & white (absolutist) thinking.

[Yazman]

To quote Funkadelic "If You Don't Like the Effects, Don't Produce the Cause".

Oh my god you quoted Funkadelic in a politically relevant way, you are awesome :D

[ibn Bruce]

There are no Good or Evil people, only Good or Evil actions. One cannot claim an objectivity about either. For me, subjectively, good is any action that inclines towards either justice, or mercy. The most absolute Good action is one done without self.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

If a man eats another man to survive then this is survival.But if a man eats another man just because he feels like it then this is considered evil?I think evil is a man made idea as it dose not exsist in nature.

[Louise Michel]

Objectively obviously there is no evil. But as revolutionaries who want an end to oppression and injustice we should have our own (subjective) morality. At a very simplified level that which serves the freeing of the oppressed is good that which prevents it is bad. Obviously real life is much more complex.

Do the ends always justify the means may also be an interesting topic.

[brigadista]

i thought that evil was a religious concept?

[Rebel_Serigan]

That is a common mistake seeing as how organized religieon is evil. hehheh.

[ComradeG1967]

Do you believe that there is a phenomenon which could objectively or subjectively be called "evil"? How would you define it then?

As somebody has mentioned, subjectively definately, but objectively? That's a tricky one. I'd say fascism is evil, but then I am hardly objective. In addition are fascist's really evil, or do they believe in some sort of fascist utopia in which members of their society are more prosperous (however one may define that - spirtitually, materially, intellectually, whatever), which is only achievable by purity of race, etc. They may argue that the end justifies the means.

Now there are definately people who enjoy doing evil things - sadidstic murderes, for example - but the dilemma here is are they evil or mad? I'd like to think they are insane.

[NecroCommie]

The concept of evil has shifted and changed during human history, and continues to change still. One can try some loose definition of the current, what Richard Dawkins would call, social "zeitgeist" of evil, but it will propably change during time and therefore is not very useful in pfilosophical conversation. However I think that some form of definition is legitimate when talking about society and real-life actions.

[Hit The North]

Do you believe that there is a phenomenon which could objectively or subjectively be called "evil"? How would you define it then?

It depends what you mean by 'objectively'. This could mean a generally accepted, definitive definition.

Isn't there wide-spread agreement that evil actions are those which perpetrate undue suffering upon other conscious beings, resulting in either death or abject misery?

A good question is whether we can ever talk about a necessary evil.

However, if by 'objective' you mean a quality which is independent of human evaluation, then this would obviously be impossible

[Elect Marx]

Quite frankly, I am against the concept of evil, good or even appealing to any such paradigm. Creating a sense of objective judgment is intellectually reckless and socially destructive.

Was Hitler evil? Was the Holocaust an evil event? No. People commit atrocities for a reason. Hitler was mentally ill and didn't invent his disillusional beliefs. It takes a huge network of people to empower tyrants and perhaps we should wonder why reactionaries with no regard for human life are so often in control.

When we label such things in simplistic terms and just say never again, we loose all hope of understanding our vast social failure as human beings and as a society. Events led up to acceptance of suffering and death as the goals of such movements. To run away from evil without ever examining the causes of our social problems, is to allow them once again (even encouraging them). You cannot execute all murderers and rapists, and you cannot kill all terrorists. Oppression, violence and exploitation have material roots.

As a materialist, I hold firm to the view that such shallow concepts of good and evil hold us in mental bondage. Such bondage keeps us from truly understanding the world and from making any rational efforts to improve our lives.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I'm a utilitarian. Suffering is evil, happiness is good.

So yes, i believe in an objective morality.

[Hit The North]

Hitler was mentally ill and didn't invent his disillusional beliefs.

Is there any evidence that Hitler was mentally ill? I've not come across any. Besides, isn't "mental illness" being applied here as an easy label which is nevertheless a concept as devoid of content as the religious term "evil"?

[Hit The North]

I'm a utilitarian. Suffering is evil, happiness is good.



What if the suffering is for the greater good?

What if the happiness is founded on the suffering of others?

[Pirate Utopian]

So yes, i believe in an objective morality.
Your morality is your subjective meaning, not per se mine or any others.

[ZeroNowhere]

What if the suffering is for the greater good?

What if the happiness is founded on the suffering of others?
No, see, he's a utilitarian. He measures it in terms of how much suffering would be caused compared to the amount of happiness, IIRC. So if suffering would produce more than enough happiness to compensate for the suffering, it's justified, and if a dictator gets some entertainment from a roomful of people suffering, then it's unjustified, presumably. Of course, you can see how this would fail at pointing towards actions that one should carry out: happiness and suffering can't be measured. Also, utilitarians tend to stretch the meaning of 'pleasure' to the point of linguistic incoherence.

Of course, it can't be empirically verified, and is therefore neither true nor false. 'Objectively true'? Well, no.

[Cumannach]

what's the technical term for evil is against the common good (material welfare)?

[Elect Marx]

Is there any evidence that Hitler was mentally ill? I've not come across any. Besides, isn't "mental illness" being applied here as an easy label which is nevertheless a concept as devoid of content as the religious term "evil"?

No. Evil implies some sort of magic and/or ultimate source of pain and suffering. With evil, you can write people off and forget about them. Ironically, nothing makes it easier to kill or degrade than to employ the concept of evil. Mental problems on the other hand, actually have various causes and don't require any influence external to reality. Our language itself expresses our thinking and culture. Using such absolutist expressions doesn't challenge anyone, but instead lets them write you off in the same black and white method of otherization.

There is nothing but evidence that Hitler was mentally ill. Mental illness is a broad term that covers various physiological disorders. Hitler's obsession, his narcissism, disregard for human suffering and disconnect from material reality are all clear indicators.