Is there a thing called evil?

[Nehru]

If not, how do we characterize sadism, torture, and actions which give us no material gain (and which are done simply for amusement)?

[¿Que?]

I named my cat evil, so yes there's definitely a thing called evil, it just happens to have four legs and likes to pee on the carpet.

But seriously, you describe torture and murder as being evil by definition. What you have to understand is that without human beings to interpret certain actions and words as evil, there is no such a thing. Evil is a human construct, it has no ontological reality outside of that which human beings create, it is real, however, in the sense that human beings make it real.

[citizen of industry]

It's definitely a social construct. Different societies in different periods define different things as evil. It just depends on the social norms of the society. Some things are more common than others, murder, for example, because society wouldn't function very well if everyone could just kill anyone they wanted.

Adultery, is defined as evil in modern capitalist society, but not in societies with different sexual norms. Take Native American societies, with non-monogamous relationships.

[ZeroNowhere]

I named my cat evil, so yes there's definitely a thing called evil, it just happens to have four legs and likes to pee on the carpet.


Evil is — the cat. The devil therefore has no horns or cloven hoof, but claws and green eyes. And Goethe committed an unpardonable error in presenting Mephistopheles as a black dog instead of a black cat. Evil is the cat! That is morality, not only for all worlds, but also — for cats.

(Anti-Duhring.)

[ComradeOmar]

Yes there is obviously such a thing as evil if you have a religion

[ВАЛТЕР]

Morality is objective. The things we as a human race view as "immoral" for the most part are things that are counterproductive for society as a whole. Things such as murder, theft, etc. etc. These are viewed as counterproductive and therefore labeled as "immoral".

[Queercommie Girl]

Homosexuality was also (and still is by some religious people) considered to be "immoral", "evil" and "counterproductive to society as a whole"...

[ВАЛТЕР]

Homosexuality was also (and still is by some religious people) considered to be "immoral", "evil" and "counterproductive to society as a whole"...

So were womens rights at one time..the point is, as society develops our ideas of morality change...

[Queercommie Girl]

So were womens rights at one time..the point is, as society develops our ideas of morality change...

Therefore it's not "objective" relative to society, but rather a social construction that has an objective social reality. It's objective relative to the individual, but not to society as a whole.

[The Jay]

Evil is what we label it, what is categorized as immoral or wrong in one's moral framework. If you are asking if there's some ethereal entity called Evil, then there's no evidence for it and I reject it thusly. That's my speil. :che:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Therefore it's not "objective" relative to society, but rather a social construction that has an objective social reality. It's objective relative to the individual, but not to society as a whole.

It is still objective because there are still people who think blacks are inferior, abortions are wrong, etc etc. However, individual beliefs do not affect societies beliefs. In the end, all of society decides what is wrong or right. Even if there are people who disagree, their ideas are outweighed by the majority....

[Kitty_Paine]

I don't know if "evil" is entirely constructed by humans or in that matter a social construct either (in a basic sense anyway). Animals have a sense of pain and fear also. Which I'd consider part of this "evil" in some ways.

Is the dog not evil to the cat for causing it pain and fear? It might not think about it as "evil" in its brain (because it doesn't have higher cognitive function) but it certainly has the same emotional affect. The cat will get scared and frightened because of the dogs presence, it's fear and I might bet if the cat could talk it'd say the dog was evil. :lol:

[The Jay]

It is still objective because there are still people who think blacks are inferior, abortions are wrong, etc etc. However, individual beliefs do not affect societies beliefs. In the end, all of society decides what is wrong or right. Even if there are people who disagree, their ideas are outweighed by the majority....
Watch your terminology, culture can prescribe a set of morals, and society can consist of many cultures. Taking that into account, "evil" is only as wrong as a culture deems it. There can be no objective evil in the same way that integers are objectively evenly spaced.

[hatzel]

As we've already covered, there's definitely a thing called evil, inasmuch as we call things evil, but that doesn't mean that what we call evil actually is evil. Or, objectively evil, though it is most definitely subjectively evil...

Anyway, as this is in the religion section (but also because it's late and I'm far too tired to make my own sentences) I'll just quote some vaguely relevant stuff about the Forbidden Fruit. The first, from Lev Shestov's Kierkegaard and the Existential Philosophy, deals with evil as a concept entering the world only when humanity chose to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, whereby evil came into being through its being perceived (as in ¿Que?'s post):


f man must choose between good and evil, this means that freedom has already been lost; evil has entered the world and become the equal of G-d's [I]valde bonum. Man has, must have, an immeasurably greater and qualitatively different freedom: not the freedom of choosing between good and evil, but that of ridding the world of evil. [...] [T]rue freedom, which was lost to us at the moment when our forefather, under an incomprehensible and mysterious spell, turned from the tree of life and tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, will return only when knowledge loses its power over man, when he finally sees that the "eager striving of reason for general and necessary truths," i.e., for veritates emancipatae a Deo, is the concupiscentia invincibilis (unconquerable craving) through which sin came into the world. [...] Of what use was knowledge to the first man when he was entrusted with the power to give names to all things? Of what use was it for him to exchange the divine valde bonum, in which there was no room for evil, for a world in which both good and evil exist, and where one must be able to tell good from evil? [...] One might almost say that the sleep of the mind, which was, according to Kierkegaard, the state of existence of the first man, really means that he was not yet able to distinguish between good and evil.And here comes the second, from the rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner's Mei Hashiloach:


“And G-d commanded Adam, saying, ‘From every tree of the garden shall you eat. And of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil do not eat of it.’”

In the future, when the sin of Adam and Eve is fixed, the punctuation of the verses will change slightly to read as follows. “And G-d commanded Adam, saying, ‘From every tree of the garden shall you eat, and of the Tree of Knowledge of Good. And Evil, do not eat of it.’”

What this means is that G-d commanded Adam to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good. It was only the of evil of the tree that G-d forbade Adam to partake. And, in the future, G-d will show that this was, in fact, the case. Adam and Eve only ate of the Good; that the sin was an illusion and only in their minds. It was no more than the husk on a garlic and no more than that.I quote them both together because I feel they have a great deal in common, inasmuch as both argue that evil exists only as long as it is perceived and called 'evil' (with both linking the perception of evil with the eating of the Forbidden Fruit), and both seem to suggest that the negation of the Fall will come with the realisation of this illusionary nature of evil. Or something. More on this - some analysis or who knows - some other time, perhaps; it's time for bed! :)

[rightwingnutjob]

Yes, there is evil. Anyone who stands for the slaughter of innocent unborn babies, the abhorrent choices of sexually deviant people and accepting their actions as normal, most notably, accepting pedophila as a normal human function, are evil.

Nuff said.

[CommieTroll]

It all depends if you are a Capitalist or a Communist :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

These are very difficult questions. :unsure: But in order to identify evil, then we also have to identify good, because you can't have one without the other. So is there such a thing as good? Now, I think most people would have an idea of what is good on a basic level- so perhaps we should identify evil as the contrary to that? This is like the Yin Yang theory that is also reflected in some Judaic thinking, the Yetzer Tov and Yetzer HaRah.

The trouble I have with the whole "it's your perception" argument is that I'd have to question whether my perception of the Holocaust as evil is flawed- it is therefore not evil and only so because I think it is? This of course is an extreme example but I think it's a valid example too. But I don't honestly think we could argue that Holocaust as evil is just a perception because then we would have to argue a way for it to be good... which I sure am not going to argue and no other normal person is, I presume.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, there is evil. Anyone who stands for the slaughter of innocent unborn babies, the abhorrent choices of sexually deviant people and accepting their actions as normal, most notably, accepting pedophila as a normal human function, are evil.

Nuff said.

Clearly this guy understands the deeper more subtle questions on the topic :thumbup:


These are very difficult questions. :unsure: But in order to identify evil, then we also have to identify good, because you can't have one without the other. So is there such a thing as good? Now, I think most people would have an idea of what is good on a basic level- so perhaps we should identify evil as the contrary to that? This is like the Yin Yang theory that is also reflected in some Judaic thinking, the Yetzer Tov and Yetzer HaRah.

The trouble I have with the whole "it's your perception" argument is that I'd have to question whether my perception of the Holocaust as evil is flawed- it is therefore not evil and only so because I think it is? This of course is an extreme example but I think it's a valid example too. But I don't honestly think we could argue that Holocaust as evil is just a perception because then we would have to argue a way for it to be good... which I sure am not going to argue and no other normal person is, I presume.

The holocaust is only bad because we think it is bad. I'm sure there were some, but how many NAZIs do you suggest thought they were actively engaging in evil?
Now, in the sense that many prominent NAZIs were put to death for their actions, it becomes more objective.

But I think that your question "does good exist" is really what this thread should be all about. Evil generally shares the same characteristics, but good can be almost anything. Does good exist independant of individual subjecitveness?

Or....

Is it good because the Gods deemed it good? Or is it good, and that is why the gods deemed it as such?

[Misanthrope]

Evil is a word, an adjective. It is used to describe. There is no mental condition called 'evil'nor is there a Satan persuading people to do 'evil'.

[Revolution starts with U]

I now believe there is an objective thing called evil...
why? Because wolves just made his 666th post and said there wasn't. That means the devil must have said it :lol: