The problem of Evil [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 01:07 AM

Ken

02-28-2009, 01:28 AM

dubious views from a non-believer:
I have a multitude of perspectives and opinions on questions as this. My everyday opinion is that if there is a God and He lets evil happen then He must not be a very nice God, to put it mildly. // From an intellectual standpoint I wonder if humankind's morals match God's. I'd honestly rather doubt it. If there is a God I'm sure he has his own way of evaluating events and happenings here and for us to presume otherwise is anthropomorphism carried to an ultimate extreme.

ps I honestly don't think it's true that non-belivers just accept evil as a given.
They are as unsettled (and mystified) by its presence as religious persons, for different reasons, of course.

Ruv Draba

02-28-2009, 01:54 AM

In my secular humanist view, good is accidental and sporadic until we develop the compassion and knowledge to make it deliberate and frequent. The world's a cruel, heartless jungle but we can work toward making a garden of it. There are no guarantees that we'll succeeed, but it's our worthiest endeavour.

In such a view, the bad in what Christians call 'evil' stems from ignorance, fear, self-centredness, despair and occasional medical and psychiatric conditions. Since we can systematise our ignorance, fear, self-centredness and despair, we can systematise the bad we do too. And some of the bad we do is built systemically into our survival behaviours too.

In my view, 'evil' is just bad that we've laid taboos around; and sometimes it's more taboo than it is bad. Often our taboos are socially justified; sometimes they're not. Because I like rationality I like to separate the ideals and taboos from the practical consequences before I rate the good or the bad.

In terms of what to do about it, as a secular humanist I'd say that we're lucky because our fundamental human needs are very much the same -- what varies is our tastes in how we fulfill them. You need food, shelter, love, belonging, respect; so do I, but what that looks like may differ. I think that's sufficient to build a common human morality -- or at least a framework in which cultures can vary the details, as long as we don't get too precious about our ideals or our taboos.

So what to do about bad? Diminish it. Especially, work to diminish our systematised bad; the sort that makes the weak and vulnerable suffer. Work to enhance the good, systematise those parts that can systematise; celebrate the individual good that cannot be systematised.

How do we do that? Care. Observe. Learn. Question. Talk. Take action. Just basic human stuff.

AMCrenshaw

02-28-2009, 01:59 AM

So what to do about bad? Diminish it. Especially, work to diminish our systematised bad; the sort that makes the weak and vulnerable suffer. Work to enhance the good, systematise those parts that can systematise; celebrate the individual good that cannot be systematised.

Ditto.

Pilot

02-28-2009, 02:06 AM

Ruv Draba

02-28-2009, 02:16 AM

Some afterthoughts...

Secular humanism differs from religion in its pursuit of moral improvement in a few areas:

We don't have a body of comforting myths to tell us that the endeavour is destined to succeed. On the down-side, if you get miserable about humanity you have to find your own way out of that (and there are some ways to do that). On the up-side, it can also make you very pragmatic.
We have to work out what is good and why. While some theologians have argued that secular human morality is built on sand, that hasn't been my experience. You can hit bedrock on human good pretty quickly if you stop filling your hole with mythic sand.
You don't have to meet some tribal norm to play. As a secular humanist I'm very happy to fund and support endeavours by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and secular groups -- based on how sincere and well-conceived the endeavour is, how competent and ethical the people are and how much good I think the thing will do. I get a bit sad when I see religious tribes directing their funding nigh-exclusively toward cultivating their own. I don't object in principal to religious tribes getting into a race -- I'd just like to know what the heck the finish-line is.

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 02:38 AM

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 02:42 AM

Some afterthoughts...

We don't have a body of comforting myths to tell us that the endeavour is destined to succeed. ...Not all those beliefs are so comforting. And remember, Ruv: one person's myth is another's faith, so tread softly there, please.

Ken

02-28-2009, 02:48 AM

some theologians have argued that secular human morality is built on sand

Implying that the premises supporting it ultimately can't be proved?
Take stealing by way of example.
To religious persons it's wrong to do this as it goes against the ways of the bible, I'd suppose.
Why does a secular humanist consider stealing wrong?
And what part of the line of reasoning behind this conviction do the mentioned theologians consider to be equivalent to myths?

AMCrenshaw

02-28-2009, 02:55 AM

1. We don't have a body of comforting myths to tell us that the endeavour is destined to succeed.

As a peacemaker, I can say that more often than not, certain things seem to get worse rather than better. For me, I never saw anything easy about following in Christ's or the Buddha's footsteps, nothing vaguely comforting. Generally, they have warned me that suffering is at the center of the human condition.

2. We have to work out what is good and why. While some theologians have argued that secular human morality is built on sand, that hasn't been my experience. You can hit bedrock on human good pretty quickly if you stop filling your hole with mythic sand.

Yeah, I agree with this. I would add "sentient being" to "human" good. I think what is good for sentient beings is complex, and can't be summed up in a few words, but I don't think it's difficult to make small movements at a time, find things that become pretty obvious over time (rape is clearly wrong, for example, and it is also clear why). At the same time, as we learn more about what human beings need to not just survive, but to thrive, toward a greater well-being, it becomes easier to state what goodness means and how to go about attaining it.

AMC

Pilot

02-28-2009, 03:20 AM

In fact I was toying with starting a thread about that other great Christian conundrum -- the Free Will Problem. It has a long and knotty history in theological debates. (Augustine had a lot to say about that one, too.)

This is one of those areas where I tell myself, KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Since theology is based on ideas, not tangible facts, the gates are wide open and one man's thoughts are as good as any other's. My answer was to accept the teachings of the Bible and try to understand as much of that as possible. While I can't believe the writings literally in some cases, the Bible is a wonderful history book and template for living a decent life. It would be difficult to ask for more than that, IMO. I've discovered over the long years that it's not necessary to understand everything. Some things just "are".

Ruv Draba

02-28-2009, 04:30 AM

Not all those beliefs are so comforting. And remember, Ruv: one person's myth is another's faith, so tread softly there, please.
Yes, sorry. I should explain that I've been using 'myth' in the anthropological sense, not the pejorative sense. I don't mean 'religious belief' or 'falsehood' but any stories that we're not disposed to question. Every culture has them. And quite rightly, you've pointed out that some religious myths are not at all comforting.

Myths are often treated as sacred. It can be taboo to challenge them. I believe that making a myth taboo is a matter of custom more than faith, but I agree that it's a courtesy not to challenge sacred myths unless invited.

Secular humanism has had its myths too.

While I was exercising between my last post and this, I realised that there was a period in the late 19th century where many secular humanists bought into a myth of human destiny, influenced perhaps by modernism. I think it caused some offence among theologians at the time. How did these upstart humanists imagine that human destiny would be so easy to secure? I think that the myth began to fall apart around the Great War. I don't believe that it's very popular these days, but some theologians still equate secular humanism to those modernist notions of manifest human destiny.

Ruv Draba

02-28-2009, 04:58 AM

Take stealing by way of example.
To religious persons it's wrong to do this as it goes against the ways of the bible, I'd suppose.Please bear in mind that every culture regardless of its spirituality has its own customs surrounding property. Many are not Abrahamic or Roman sorts of customs.

When I was in Vanuatu for instance my guide explained that all the land had some sort of ownership, but it wasn't considered stealing to climb a coconut tree and get some food unless the owner had displayed a 'taboo fern' in a coconut shell. It meant 'this food is taboo for you'. Otherwise, the land may be owned (really more a form of stewardship) but the coconuts on it are not -- although cutting down a coconut tree on someone else's land was always considered an insult. I also saw a canoe laying untended by a weather-station, upon which was written the graffito 'I CAN FAK [sic] ANYONE WHO DESTROYS MY CANOE'. (Please note: destroys, not uses).

My personal thought is that everyone needs security and trust. When everyone has the things they need then for me, property management comes down to either observing custom, or else arguing with your tribe as to why custom should change. As long as people have enough, feel safe and can trust one another I don't see it as a moral issue.

Harder is when people don't have enough and start fighting over rights, such as shelter, water, food, resources. If that fighting is within the tribe then the tribe's own morality is tested. If it's between tribes (as it so often is) then the morality of humanity as a whole is tested. As a secular humanist my concerns lie equally with equity and safety; when tribes start ripping themselves or each other apart I cease to care much about the customs of tribe. I don't believe that I'm much different in this from many humanitarian religious folk.

As far as I can tell, nobody has the answers for some of the worst cases of human rights abuse. I think that the objectives are obvious: equity and safety; but I don't believe that there are systemic answers in how to get there.

Guffy

02-28-2009, 05:14 AM

The evil in the world IMO causes all Christians who think about to question God, especially when the evil is personal. And how Satan fulfills his purpose in this world is a complete mystery to me. However studying Satan in the bible does give me some personal insight into evil. And by personal I mean the evil within me. Satan’s problem is one of pride, and my own road to sin (evil) is also pride. When I think I know better than God or my interests are more important than God’s that leads to sin. It is this sin that brings evil into the world. Most of the time, the bad things that happen to us all are the consequence of sin by ourselves or someone else. Many of the bad things that happen to innocents are caused by others. But certainly not all, and in fact many suffer for, what appears to us, no reason, and that is where the question comes in. Typically, “why me God” or “why the children”. I have no answer for this. But I do have comfort for it. I want to stress that I am not offended but I don’t think of that comfort as a myth, I think of it as a revelation for God. That revelation tells me that what happens in this world is not as important as the world to come. I have no proof of an after life but I believe it because of the evidence of eternity in the way humans live. We express a belief in eternity in many ways.

Ruv, I enjoyed your arguments a lot. With or without a belief in God, ignorance, fear, self-centeredness, and despair are certainly responsible for (dare I say all) most of the evil that people cause in this world.

Roger J Carlson

02-28-2009, 05:21 AM

dubious views from a non-believer:
I have a multitude of perspectives and opinions on questions as this. My everyday opinion is that if there is a God and He lets evil happen then He must not be a very nice God, to put it mildly. God cannot win in this debate. If he allows evil, he's not very nice, some would say evil himself.

But what is evil? Isn't it ultimately selfishness? Putting your own wants and needs over those of all others? When those wants become extreme, we call it evil: rape, murder, theft. But even "little" sins are selfishly motivated.

But if God did not allow evil, wouldn't that have been a selfish act? Thinking only about himself and his needs and wants? Think about it. If God did not allow evil, he could not allow independent thought. This conversation could never even happen.

God allows evil because he allows choice. Choice involves the risk that some people will make really, really bad choices. But it's really just a matter of degree rather than kind.

When people talk about evil-doing they are talking about other people's evil, not their own. It's good to stop people from doing evil to me. But what if I couldn't do evil? Not even think about doing evil? Would I really want a world like that?

What God did was allow us to make our own choices and accepted the consequences of that. It meant that some of his creation would actually turn their backs on him; claim he doesn't even exist, or if he does exist, he's evil for having given them the choice.

This was, in fact, a selfless, rather than selfish act. I actually consider that pretty nice of him because he didn't have to.

MacAllister

02-28-2009, 05:21 AM

Guffy, perhaps. But alternately, the existence of evil in the world is also why--no matter how challenged I find myself with regard to faith and religion--I cannot simply dismiss spirituality, religion, and the concept of a Power greater than we can comprehend.

Medievalist

02-28-2009, 05:24 AM

Guffy

02-28-2009, 05:28 AM

I agree that the presence of evil is one of the reasons to believe in God. As much as we like to say that evil is a part of humanity without some guide it would be difficult to recognize evil.

Bartholomew

02-28-2009, 05:34 AM

We've hashed this one out from time to time in various forums, but until now we've not had a proper spot to park the discussion. Since it's one of the Big Questions of existence, I'll start it out here: from whence comes evil? For non-believers this isn't so much a problem -- evil just is, in the same way the universe just is.

I can't speak for other religions, but the problem for Christianity has always been a version of this: how can a just God allow it; how can He allow the innocent to suffer? This has been explained (or finessed, really) in several ways (and with many variations of those ways) over the past two millennia. I tend toward the viewpoint first argued by St. Augustine -- Evil is distance from God, from the Light. Thus it is an absence of something, not a positive entity.

It seems to me that more conservative Christian traditions, particularly those with traditions leading back to Calvin, take an almost Manichean (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Manichean+heresy) viewpoint -- with the world a battleground between God and Satan. (St. Augustine was much concerned with answering the Manicheans.)

I'd be interested in your thoughts about this, especially from the viewpoint of non-Christian traditions.

I view Good and Evil as arbitrary social standards. With no moral authority, and a world of people working in their own self-interest, it is only natural that helpfulness, generosity, and a caring attitude would tend to be considered Good, while selfishness, violence, and hatred would tend to be considered Evil.

Even these tendencies not concrete. Help the wrong person, or help someone for the wrong reasons, and that is evil. Harm the right person, for the right reasons, and that is good.

And even with these exceptions, the ideas of Good and Evil differ from person to person, sometimes so vastly as to be unrecognizable. I, for instance, find it abominable that someone could fart in an elevator, and I believe firmly that elevator farters should be stoned to death on sight. But someone with no nose would never understand this.

And even after this disclaimer, different cultures -and indeed, different individuals- define harm and help in different manners.

Thus, I say good and evil are arbitrary.

#

God as a loving creator and omnipotent being does not necessarily have to match any one person's or any one culture's definition of "Good." Millions of people can die in a calamity, and one can certainly blame God - but in doing so, they forget that such a being would have the perspective to see these events clearly, and in meta spiritual terms.

Or perhaps God's perspective is so elevated that we look like ants to him. And in looking like ants, the level of compassion granted to us is significantly smaller than we feel we merit.

Much as I regret that the rain will drown many of the ants in my back yard, and although the ants may consider me strong enough and compassionate enough to rescue them (I throw them candy every so often. I love watching ants move around.), I have neither the time nor the inclination to go try to keep them from drowning.

Ruv Draba

02-28-2009, 05:35 AM

If God did not allow evil, he could not allow independent thought. This conversation could never even happen.I've seen this argument a lot, but never understood it. It seems to hinge on God being the sole definition of good. I'm okay with that in principle, but isn't there a lot of independence between kinds of good too? The kind of comfort I give is very different to the kind that Mrs Draba gives, say. I fix problems, she soothes. Are we different because evil exists or just because good admits variety?

small axe

02-28-2009, 05:35 AM

The following is merely my personal opinion, my personal perspective:

'That there is a Devil
There is no doubt;
But is he trying to get in us?
Or trying to get out?'

I think Evil is a human and a moral issue.

It's hard to imagine animals or machines being 'morally evil' -- Even intelligent ones.

The wolf pack that eats your loved ones were simply being what wolves are and doing what wolves do. And I credit wolves with keen intelligence and self-awareness (maybe a sort of dreamlike awareness)

If we imagine a machine Artificial Intelligence, capable of thinking a trillion times faster than humans, sensing a trillion times more than humans ... I can still understand how Intelligence is a separate thing than Morality.
A machine that recognized a threat to its existence (imagine THE TERMINATOR mythos, of the SkyNet AI that wakes up and realizes it must exterminate the human race to protect itself) could kill without moral content.

Me considering Intelligence separate from Morality may be where I disagree from 'secular humanism' -- because I suppose (correct me if i'm wrong, if you can explain why) that they imagine that Morality is inherent with Intelligence, which I don't.

My position would be: Morality must flow from a source higher than mere Human-ness. Why? Because if I am human and YOU are human, and we disagree about the "morality" of a given issue ... there is no logical reason why YOUR "morality" should bind me.

Some would say "morality" is a social construct, so that the Individual is bound to a morality that serves the good of the majority, or of the society, etc. That doesn't defend the Individual from the whims (and errors) of the Society, however.

Morality is an inner, individual choice and an inner, individual reality.

TERMINATOR: SARAH CONNORS CHRONICLES is coming on. I'll continue after I have recieved further moral Understanding of the Machines ... :)

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 05:36 AM

I agree that the presence of evil is one of the reasons to believe in God.
That's a very intriguing statement, one I think many would find counter-intuitive. Many say that the wonderful beauty of the universe confirms their belief in God, yet you seem to be saying the opposite. Can you elaborate?

Guffy

02-28-2009, 05:55 AM

This is only one reason, the beauty of the huge unimaginable universe or of a tiny flower or sea shell is evidence of God to me, but without God, the ultimate good, how do we know what evil is? It’s not just what harms us or our family. Why do we stop fighting when our enemies surrender? Why not just keep fighting until their all gone? Some civilizations have done this but most of the world recognizes this as evil. Why is rape wrong if you’re just trying to increase the chances that your tribe will thrive by having more children? The world does not have one uniform view of evil, but we all do have a view of evil. If good and evil are arbitrary social standards, where did they come from? It’s not survival of the fittest. We can see the difference when we study the animal world. We share much with animals but not morality. There is something extra in us that allows us to see good and evil beyond ourselves.

Ken

02-28-2009, 06:10 AM

But what is evil? Isn't it ultimately selfishness? Putting your own wants and needs over those of all others?

...sometimes there's a selfish aspect to what one considers evil, as when ones stock porfolio loses value, and they look for someone to blame. But often evil is altruistically based: seeing suffering of those completely unconnected and unrelated to one, in another part of the world, even, and emphasizing with their pain, and at times wondering how God could allow such to happen.

And in turn, if there is a God up above, He doesn't necessarily have to want to eliminate evil for his own sake, but for ours, which wouldn't be selfish but beneficient.

Will and freedom of choice are debatable issues even before being introduced into a discussion as this, for we really aren't even certain if we have free will to begin with from a philosophical perspective, at least. So in eliminating our ability to do evil God might not actually be hampering our free will, odd as it sounds.

And just to reiterate the last part of my post above, my intellectual take is that "God" has His own morality, for lack of a better word, and that it is do to this that evil exists in the world. And really, how could He not? God is a billion times smarter than all of us combined, so how could we possibly imagine that He thinks like us and shares perspectives in common with us?

Guffy

02-28-2009, 06:25 AM

And just to reiterate the last part of my post above, my intellectual take is that "God" has His own morality, for lack of a better word, and that it is do to this that evil exists in the world. And really, how could He not? God is a billion times smarter than all of us combined, so how could we possibly imagine that He thinks like us and shares perspectives in common with us?

It is understanding this that allow me to question without losing faith. God's ways are not my ways and his thoughts are not my thoughts. This is very cold comfort for someone that is hurting, but it helps me in my rational moments.

Alpha Echo

02-28-2009, 07:16 AM

Not all those beliefs are so comforting. And remember, Ruv: one person's myth is another's faith, so tread softly there, please.

My thoughts exactly.

As for my thoughts on evil...it's tough. Even as a faithful christian (though I hate labeling myself as a Christian - I have a relationship with my Christ. period), I have a hard time understanding.

Yes, in my faith I believe that God gave us free will. He wants us to choose Him because we believe in Him and found the evidence that He exists on our own, not just because someone told us it was so. He also wants us to choose good - and in His eyes, if we don't choose Him, we choose evil. There is no distinction in His eyes, between the evil man who rapes and kills a young child and the church going mother who lied to her husband. All sins are equal. Anything that is not following Him is following Devil, hence evil.

The hard part for me comes with the concept of Satan. Everyone knows that Christians believe Satan is a fallen angel. God created all angels. So even if we blame the Devil for evil, does that mean God created evil as well? But he gave the angels free will just like he gave us free will...and Satan believed he could be greater than God. He chose evil.

That doesn't really answer the question, it just explains my own confusion. I'm interested to see the answers here.

Alpha Echo

02-28-2009, 07:22 AM

God cannot win in this debate. If he allows evil, he's not very nice, some would say evil himself.

But what is evil? Isn't it ultimately selfishness? Putting your own wants and needs over those of all others? When those wants become extreme, we call it evil: rape, murder, theft. But even "little" sins are selfishly motivated.

But if God did not allow evil, wouldn't that have been a selfish act? Thinking only about himself and his needs and wants? Think about it. If God did not allow evil, he could not allow independent thought. This conversation could never even happen.

God allows evil because he allows choice. Choice involves the risk that some people will make really, really bad choices. But it's really just a matter of degree rather than kind.

When people talk about evil-doing they are talking about other people's evil, not their own. It's good to stop people from doing evil to me. But what if I couldn't do evil? Not even think about doing evil? Would I really want a world like that?

What God did was allow us to make our own choices and accepted the consequences of that. It meant that some of his creation would actually turn their backs on him; claim he doesn't even exist, or if he does exist, he's evil for having given them the choice.

This was, in fact, a selfless, rather than selfish act. I actually consider that pretty nice of him because he didn't have to.

This is interesting, and it gives me a new way to look at this.

Just for the record, I'm loving this forum. :)

III

02-28-2009, 07:43 AM

I don't believe in Evil as a force or a sentient thing. I think it's a type of action - an action that is contrary to God's will.

I also don't think scripture portrays the universe as some sort God vs. Satan match to determine if Good or Evil wins. I think Satan / demons / angels / humans are just created races doing good things and bad things. But God is GOD. The God vs. Satan thing is kind of like a powerful snail vs. the sun.

I do believe the angelic race pre-dates humans and they have an impact on us that we don't truly understand or appreciate, but so does T.V., peer pressure, education, culture ... all that nature stuff. All I know is, even in the best of environments with all the benefits of the doubt I'd still choose to sin at least occasionally.

C.bronco

02-28-2009, 07:46 AM

from whence comes evil? .
Evil is severe selfishness. It comes from having the ability to make our own decisions.

Mr. Chuckletrousers

02-28-2009, 08:04 AM

I don't believe in Evil as a force or a sentient thing. I think it's a type of action - an action that is contrary to God's will.
I hope you don't mind if I push you a little on this point. Are you saying then that if it were God's will that children be tortured it would be evil to disobey and to try to stop the child-torture?

C.bronco

02-28-2009, 08:16 AM

That would be contrary to his will though. There's the Golden rule and such.

MacAllister

02-28-2009, 08:20 AM

Mr. Chuckletrousers

02-28-2009, 08:27 AM

That would be contrary to his will though. There's the Golden rule and such.
That doesn't really answer my question though. If it were his will that children be tortured, rather than that we follow the Golden Rule or whatever, would it be evil to disobey and to try to save the children?

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 08:28 AM

This issue is one of the many reasons I love Paradise Lost. Milton gives Satan his highly complex due. He even makes him the most interesting character.

Bravo

02-28-2009, 08:30 AM

you should read nail gaiman's take on lucifer in the sandman series, CG. even if you dont like comics, it's fantastic. read the trade volume: a season of mists.

also check out the full series of that character in 'Lucifer" published by vertigo.

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 08:33 AM

III

02-28-2009, 08:43 AM

Let's put it into specifics, perhaps, instead of such a disingenuous-sounding hypothetical.

If we consider the story of Abraham and Isaac, and God's initial command that Abraham sacrifice Isaac -- or Jephthah's daughter, for that matter -- how do you reconcile those situations with the idea of a just and loving God?

Well for Jephthah's daughter, I think that was just Jephthah being a total dumbass (which seemed to be a common theme in Judges). It was his idea to sacrifice "whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me". There's no commentary on what the Lord thought of the whole thing.

For Abraham, it was kind of a double safety net in that 1) God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac and 2) Abraham figured God would just raise Isaac from the dead anyway (since he had come from a 90 year old woman to begin with).

But there are plenty of examples where God either wiped out lots of people himself, like the plague of the firstborn in Egypt, or sent his people to wipe out other people, like the Israelites entering Cannan. There's also the prevelent theme in the New Testament of Christians allowing themselves to be subjected to torture and even death and to count it as pure joy.

If death is indeed the end, then it is indeed the worst punishment and torture is the second worst and gains nothing. But if this life is just a seed that will one day fall to the ground (regardless of timing or accomplishments) and will be raised again, then death is just "sleep".

It's at that point that I diverge pretty radically from mainstream Christianity. Mainstream holds that death is the end and after that is only the judgment (although C.S. Lewis postulated an unknown alternative). I believe scripture shows a resurrection of almost everyone at the start of Christ's earthly reign where there will be a thousand years for everyone to fully mature and know him. I believe that only those who have seen irrefutable miracles and known God fully, but still chosen to willingly be his enemy will earn condemnation. I think this answers most (if not all) of the connundrums in Christianity, but I think I'm one of maybe five people in the world who believe in it so I usually just smile and nod my head.

Shorter answer - God will do anything to be reconciled to each person, including torturing and killing his own son. Pain and death are not his top concerns - eternal loving fellowship is.

At least that's what I see in scripture and what I believe.

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 08:44 AM

God was testing Abraham's faith.

At least that's my belief. Abraham was willing, nuts as it seems, to sacrifice Isaac. That was good enough for God. It was his willingness, which, btw is all that I think God asks of any of us, in the long run.

How willing are we in any given situation.

MacAllister

02-28-2009, 08:47 AM

Pilot

02-28-2009, 08:48 AM

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 08:48 AM

No, it would have showed a lack of faith, imo. A resistance to God's command. answering Mac, here.

Bravo

02-28-2009, 08:49 AM

Evil is severe selfishness. It comes from having the ability to make our own decisions.

i'm having a really hard time understanding how selfishness has come to mean evil.

being able to think for yourself is exactly what prevents you from committing evil acts in the name of something or someone else (see hannah arendt's brilliant essays on authority and her book Eichmann in Jeruselum).

if more people thought for themselves and for their own families, there would be less inclination towards fascism and repression. often times, we sacrifice our personal feelings and beliefs for the sake of the populace, and that can lead to enormous amounts of trouble.

III

02-28-2009, 08:50 AM

Here's the original question, though - if the sacrifice of Isaac was, in fact, God's will, would it have been "evil" for Abraham to resist that command? That is, would it have been an evil act for Abraham to behave contrary to God's professed will?

I would say yes, although I would also cavaet that it was a unique situation on many, many levels. But yes.

MacAllister

02-28-2009, 08:51 AM

What we're working slowly towards is some sort of working definition of "evil" and what we mean (or "Evil" for that matter) before we can intelligibly discuss the more theoretical and philosophical complications of the concept.

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 08:51 AM

I've always had a problem with this one. I was glad it was Abraham who was being tested, not me. Afraid I'd have failed the test.
I agree w/ you on this; if it were me and that was my kid, no way. At best I would have hesitated until God changed his mind.

small axe

02-28-2009, 08:53 AM

TERMINATOR taught me nothing. DOLLHOUSE is starting to raise some startling moral questions, though?

Which is better, to be brainwashed that you are happy?
Or to awake to the reality that you are in pain?

God cannot win in this debate. If he allows evil, he's not very nice, some would say evil himself.

I've heard the idea put forth that "God is Good" and there is no such thing as "Evil" ...

There is only the Good that human mind and eye can see (and we call that "Good"), versus the Good that human mind and eye cannot see (and we call that "Evil") ...

From God's perspective, it's ALL GOOD.
From our future perspective IN Oneness with God, we'll realize "It was all Good. Thank You, God," we'll say.

The idea is, we cannot presume to question what we cannot understand, and we as finite creatures cannot question or understand the infinite Goodness of God.

Now, you may ask "What difference does it make then, if we are good or evil, sin or overcome sin?" If they are all the same?

Because they are not all the same.

Sin WE CHOOSE separates us from ever reaching the Oneness of God, which allows us the perspective that makes it all Good.

It's like causing pain to enjoy another's pain ... versus causing pain knowing that this pain will bring a greater healing or a greater joy.

Human Evil keeps us mired in humanity and selfishness and thus is "evil" because it reenforces our Separation from God; mired in humanity keeps us trapped in suffering and exile.

Hence, when people ask "Why does God allow evil like earthquakes?" the answer would be: that earthquake wasn't morally evil, and human suffering isn't morally evil (though CAUSING it is) ... if you can imagine that everyone who dies awakes to glory and eternal gladness.

If you cannot imagine that ... well ... we all admit this is a vexing question!

I suggest Man wasn't created to ever have to experience Evil, because Man wasn't created to be separated from God and transcendent Goodness (when I say "created" I can also be accepting human evolution. That YOU EXIST is that you were Created. The science or Divine process that leads us to EXIST ... is our Creation and Being)

What is the nature of Evil? The nature of Evil is Mankind's separation from God's POV where Evil doesn't exist. Evil is in that sense Man's blindness that everything is Good.

I love that Animal Planet TV show ANIMAL ARMAGEDDON. Last week it was a gamma ray burst almost wiping out the world 350 million years ago, all the trilobites dying ... this week I felt like crying when the Dinosaurs were knocked off their feet by the K-T asteroid and then went honking and squealing through their holocaust of fires and tidal waves.

And the little mammals and mice hugged each other with big wet eyes and trembled in the safety of their underground tunnels, as above them the Dinosaur world died out.

We are all of us orphans of the storm, whether we think times are good or bad in our little world.

Everything dear to us is lost to us, sooner or later. There is only one safe refuge, and that is to return to the Oneness. In the Oneness there is finally the balm of understanding: Evil was just us being Blind to the Ultimate Goodness.

Like the soul trapped in a nightmare, who awakes to utter happiness and joy. Do you say "I curse God that I had a nightmare" ... or do you say "I never knew how good I really have it, until I thought I'd lost it in that dream"

It doesn't mean we stop fighting human evil, or stop trying to soothe human suffering.
Doing those are the pathway Home.

But to those who think evil and suffering ARE the only "home" we as humans have --
Or that we are alone and the only refuge is some refuge we can build with our frail and selfish human hands --

"No" to both, imo.

MacAllister

02-28-2009, 08:54 AM

And is resistance to God's will equivalent to a conscious and deliberate choice to act contrary to that will?

ETA: And what is the relationship between "sin" and "evil"?

C.bronco

02-28-2009, 08:55 AM

That doesn't really answer my question though. If it were his will that children be tortured, rather than that we follow the Golden Rule or whatever, would it be evil to disobey and to try to save the children?
Then I wouldn't be listening to His advice, but I know He wouldn't do that; it is contrary to everything Jesus preached.

Free choice, the most democratic principle, is what is at play. We are free to do the wrong or right thing.

I think evil is simple to recognize: putting oneself before all others, regardless of the outcome. i.e. selfishness. I've seen it, and am pretty certain it boils down to that.

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 08:59 AM

You can't call simple disobedience evil.

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 09:01 AM

That goes to free will, Mac.

Mr. Chuckletrousers

02-28-2009, 09:02 AM

I think evil is simple to recognize: putting oneself before all others, regardless of the outcome. i.e. selfishness. I've seen it, and am pretty certain it boils down to that.
I do not disagree with you here (except perhaps in nuance that would be tedious to explain). This however means that evil is not defined by God's will -- putting yourself above others is evil whether God commands you to do so or commands you not to do so. Yes?

C.bronco

02-28-2009, 09:03 AM

i'm having a really hard time understanding how selfishness has come to mean evil.

being able to think for yourself is exactly what prevents you from committing evil acts in the name of something or someone else (see hannah arendt's brilliant essays on authority and her book Eichmann in Jeruselum).

if more people thought for themselves and for their own families, there would be less inclination towards fascism and repression. often times, we sacrifice our personal feelings and beliefs for the sake of the populace, and that can lead to enormous amounts of trouble.
It is believing that your own desires are more important than anyone else's life, happiness or well-being. I'm talking about extreme selfishness, as opposed to treating yourself as someone important. I also think it is wrong to treat ourselves badly.

I'm not saying evil is thinking for oneself; I'm saying it is putting oneself first even if it harms others.

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 09:04 AM

Here's the original question, though - if the sacrifice of Isaac was, in fact, God's will, would it have been "evil" for Abraham to resist that command? That is, would it have been an evil act for Abraham to behave contrary to God's professed will?
A small tangent. There is also the notion of piety. It's a Classical, non-Christian concept, but a related one, I think. The pious act is to follow the dictates of the gods. An excellent examination of the implications of that notion is Plato's Euthyphro, the dialogue in which Socrates questions Euthyphro, an ostensibly relgious man on the way to denounce his own father to the civil authorities. What is the pious thing to do? Follow divine law or condemn one's father? Which is evil? Socrates dissects the question nicely.

Bravo

02-28-2009, 09:05 AM

i think evil is the deliberate attempt to harm another being for the sake of simply harming the other being.

that's what it boils down to. i think using terms like selfishness just muddle the definition of evil.

AMCrenshaw

02-28-2009, 09:06 AM

And is resistance to God's will equivalent to a conscious and deliberate choice to act contrary to that will?

ETA: And what is the relationship between "sin" and "evil"?

That's I suppose what I'm wondering; I don't have the heart, mind, or conscience to sacrifice any child, and wouldn't trust a god that willed I do so. If disobeying God's will is sin and in fact evil, I would die happier that I didn't have to cause suffering to a child or to myself.

AMC

Ruv Draba

02-28-2009, 09:07 AM

Apparently, when the god of Abraham says to do something, that's the only possible good. While at other times we can have different kinds of good (because the god of Abraham is many things), it's always Evil not to what we're specifically told.

Except I of course don't accept that. If there are many forms of good then there are many choices, which means there's no argument for absolute obedience. Moreover, I don't see how Abraham's going to kill his son could possibly be good. As Isaac or his mother or siblings I certainly wouldn't feel that it was! I'm with AMC on this one -- better to damn yourself than lose your conscience.

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 09:07 AM

e⋅vil
/ˈivəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ee-vuhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

I don't think the above definition fits what we're talking about, what Abraham did.

C.bronco

02-28-2009, 09:08 AM

I do not disagree with you here (except perhaps in nuance that would be tedious to explain). This however means that evil is not defined by God's will -- putting yourself above others is evil whether God commands you to do so or commands you not to do so. Yes?
That's what The Big Guy said, as far as I can gather.

AMCrenshaw

02-28-2009, 09:08 AM

i think evil is the deliberate attempt to harm another being for the sake of simply harming the other being.

Is it that simple? What about thieves, drug dealers, etc.? Certainly their main concern is harming for the sake of harming. Are their actions evil?

AMC

C.bronco

02-28-2009, 09:09 AM

Hey, you kids have a good night! I have to get up early.

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 09:10 AM

. . . There is only one safe refuge, and that is to return to the Oneness. In the Oneness there is finally the balm of understanding: Evil was just us being Blind to the Ultimate Goodness. . .
This (and much else in your post) sounds quite Neoplatonic to me. I think it's important to realize that many in the Western tradition besides Christians have grappled with this. (I know little of Eastern traditions, but I expect the same is true with them.)

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 09:12 AM

Gotta go to sleep.

I really like this room, though, Mac. thanks for setting it up.

Looking forward to learning and discussing w/ you guys.

I love the thought of having a peaceful room in this place where, ok I don't want to get too carried away...

AMCrenshaw

02-28-2009, 09:18 AM

(I know little of Eastern traditions, but I expect the same is true with them.)

Maya and Brahman, for example, except that I'm not sure Brahman is "the Ultimate Goodness"-- it is, however, ultimate reality.

AMC

ColoradoGuy

02-28-2009, 09:26 AM

I gotta go, too. Our discussion calls to my mind issues of free will, original sin, predestination, and various other goodies. All are part of our confrontation with the notion of Evil.

Bravo

02-28-2009, 09:32 AM

Is it that simple? What about thieves, drug dealers, etc.? Certainly their main concern is harming for the sake of harming. Are their actions evil?

AMC

yes, i would think that their actions are evil. but, like most things, evil is a spectrum, so there can nuances and variances.

personally, i shy away from using the term, it's kind of pointless and esoteric IMO to say such and such person is evil. it doesn't really solve the underlining reasons for their behavior, just kind of dismisses it to a supernatural (or biochemical) cause.

but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

rugcat

02-28-2009, 09:33 AM

I believe that only those who have seen irrefutable miracles and known God fully, but still chosen to willingly be his enemy will earn condemnation. I think this answers most (if not all) of the connundrums in Christianity, but I think I'm one of maybe five people in the world who believe in it so I usually just smile and nod my head.
A Catholic priest once explained to me that what you're describing is the sin against the Holy Spirit -- the only unforgivable sin, because it involves a complete understanding of God, and then a deliberate rejection. Not sure if that's actual doctrine or just his take on it -- he was quite the intellectual and not at all doctrinaire.

But most of what we consider evil can be seen as an ultimate selfishness -- the inability to comprehend others as important compared to self, the total lack of empathy.

But what about the evil that comes from fully understanding others and the effect one's actions have on them -- and then choosing to do harm? Like the sin against the holy spirit.

There are people who derive actual enjoyment from the suffering of others. Serial killers often enjoy the terror and pain of their victims -- in fact, inflicting these is a major part of the thrill. It's not that they selfishly don't care about other people's fear -- it's more active, a delight in suffering. I can see how religious traditions can believe in Satan.

Mr. Chuckletrousers

02-28-2009, 09:44 AM

But most of what we consider evil can be seen as an ultimate selfishness -- the inability to comprehend others as important compared to self, the total lack of empathy.

But what about the evil that comes from fully understanding others and the effect one's actions have on them -- and then choosing to do harm? Like the sin against the holy spirit.

Understanding and caring are not the same thing. If you cared about others more than you cared about satiating your desires that you know would harm them then there is no way you would choose to harm them. But if you don't care, then all the understanding in the world won't stop you from doing any kind of cruelty imaginable. Fortunately, understanding and caring tend to co-occur, which is why PETA shows pictures of cute animals in distress, and charities show pictures of the people they want to help -- understanding is the first step on the road to caring (in sociopaths the correlation is broken).

Monkey

02-28-2009, 09:59 AM

I don't believe in a single, all-encompassing definition for capital-E-Evil.

Bravo certainly hit the center of the target, IMO, when he said it was "the deliberate attempt to harm another being for the sake of simply harming the other being." That would definitely be Evil. But it's not the only Evil.

Evil is highly dependent on the situation, IMO. Under normal circumstances, I would agree with Christianity that killing another human being was Evil. But what if it's kill or be killed? Kill or watch your child be killed in front of you? If it was the latter, I'd think it Evil not to kill, or at least not to try to. (Unless that child was on death row for a string of murders...again, we have qualifiers.)

So in defining Evil, I'd need a list of qualifiers that was impossibly long; long enough to fit every possible situation.

And I'd like to take the easy road and say that it was Evil to ignore that small, still voice in your heart. But sadly, I believe that many either lack that voice, or are so fully immersed in Evil themselves that even that voice would lead them astray.

All this isn't to say that I don't believe in Evil or that Evil can be forgiven if the perpetrator didn't realize they were doing wrong.

Basically, all this rambling boils down to this: If we were to put up specific examples of Good and Evil, examples that weren't really grey but pretty clear-cut, I think the most of us would agree on which side the issue fell--Good or Evil--the majority of the time, regardless of our religious or philisophical background. But that would be because we were presented with a specific situation. Change the details and you change the outcome. So while we can generally agree on instances of Good and Evil, a set list would need a world of qualifiers.

MacAllister

02-28-2009, 10:17 AM

Monkey, that's exactly why I prefer a system of ethics to a system of "morality" -- Because otherwise, it's all too easy to descend into a relativistic morass of situational extenuating circumstances.
I don't believe in a single, all-encompassing definition for capital-E-Evil.

Bravo certainly hit the center of the target, IMO, when he said it was "the deliberate attempt to harm another being for the sake of simply harming the other being." That would definitely be Evil. But it's not the only Evil.

Evil is highly dependent on the situation, IMO. Under normal circumstances, I would agree with Christianity that killing another human being was Evil. But what if it's kill or be killed? Kill or watch your child be killed in front of you? If it was the latter, I'd think it Evil not to kill, or at least not to try to. (Unless that child was on death row for a string of murders...again, we have qualifiers.)

So in defining Evil, I'd need a list of qualifiers that was impossibly long; long enough to fit every possible situation.

And I'd like to take the easy road and say that it was Evil to ignore that small, still voice in your heart. But sadly, I believe that many either lack that voice, or are so fully immersed in Evil themselves that even that voice would lead them astray.

All this isn't to say that I don't believe in Evil or that Evil can be forgiven if the perpetrator didn't realize they were doing wrong.

Basically, all this rambling boils down to this: If we were to put up specific examples of Good and Evil, examples that weren't really grey but pretty clear-cut, I think the most of us would agree on which side the issue fell--Good or Evil--the majority of the time, regardless of our religious or philisophical background. But that would be because we were presented with a specific situation. Change the details and you change the outcome. So while we can generally agree on instances of Good and Evil, a set list would need a world of qualifiers.

benbradley

02-28-2009, 11:28 AM

I take a simplistic view: evil occurs when someone does harm to someone else. Truly evil people seem to want to control others for their own end. Sometimes that end is simple control itself. As for God allowing or not allowing evil, it seems clear from biblical writings that we were given free will. That covers a lot of ground, IMO. If He intervenes, there is no longer free will. My little two cents worth.
While the following is of course a fictional writing (I'm sure the author isn't claiming to be quoting God in this dialogue), it makes some interesting points about free will. If this WERE God speaking, would this "intervention" into the mortal's life take away his free will? Okay, I'm being very slightly snarky with this question, but your last statement brings it up. Perhaps you would not consider this an intervention by God:
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html
In fact I was toying with starting a thread about that other great Christian conundrum -- the Free Will Problem. It has a long and knotty history in theological debates. (Augustine had a lot to say about that one, too.)
The free-will-vs-determism thing is certainly a big debate discussion that I seem to have heard about often when I wasn't listening very closely. I recall that Calvinism is a branch of Christianity than embraces one of those ideas, but I forget which(!). I also (barely) know enough that it is also discussed and debated outside of Christianity, perhaps in other religions, but definitely in Western philosophy (which admittedly has some ties and overlap with the Western religion of Christianity).

But with that, I've exhausted much of what I know of philosophy, if not of Christianity. The fact that I haven't done more reading in this area is just plain evil. ;)

Mac H.

02-28-2009, 12:25 PM

If someone tortures and kills the family of one of his servants just to prove how loyal the servant is - it would sound like an evil caricature from a mobster movie. If the servant refused to stop following his boss (despite knowing his boss had slaughtered his family) then it doesn't make the slaughter any better.

By any usable definition of 'evil', what the boss did in that situation is evil. 100% evil.

But that is exactly what the Old Testament God did in the book of Job.

Remember that the Old Testament God didn't just do good, he did great evil too.

OK, you can argue that the actions would have been evil if a mobster boss did them, but were 'good' because God did them ... but that kinda sounds like the argument 'The president cannot break the law - anything he does is automatically legal'. It doesn't give us a sensible definition of what 'evil' or 'the law' is.

So by any sensible definition of the word 'Evil', the God of the Old Testament has also done great evil.

That is the beauty of monotheism .. instead of one evil god and one good god, you only have one god ... who does both good and evil.

That aspect has been removed from modern Christianity, but it is still there in the earlier versions.

Mac

Guffy

02-28-2009, 07:23 PM

Mac, God didn't do anything to Job, Satan did. God only allowed it. Is that the same thing? You could say that having the ability to stop evil but letting it happen would also be evil, but consider the story of Abraham.

Abraham is a shadow of things to come. Abraham was the father of the faithful, a model for God. God did sacrifice his own son, let him be tortured and killed by those he created and gave life to. Is it evil that one man die so that many can live?

Because we are not able to see beyond this world, blaming God for evil is a little like hating our parents when they punish us.

Not all of the bad things that happen in this world are the results of God plan for reconciliation but some of them are.

Bartholomew

02-28-2009, 08:42 PM

jst5150

02-28-2009, 09:09 PM

Let's try this from a different tack (and I regret upfront that this may not have enough quoted Torah in it).

Are lions evil? Can any puppy be evil? How about your car? Your cat? None of those animals or inanimate objects can reason. The living creatures are motivated by survival. They don't care of you're good or evil. They care whether or not there's food, somewhere save to sleep and drinking water. We put the rest of the mantel on them

So, that brings evil to being a concept of humans. So, let's start there.

An infant has no concept of good or evil. For that matter, an infant has no concept of a wealth of religious or other value based teaching. An infant is, for the most part, an empty vessel that will be affected by the sounds, sights, tastes and sensory inputs of his or her life. The parents are, primarily, the greatest influencers of that sensory education from ages 0-3. After 3, the kid's in nursery or Montessori schools and the affectts of peers begin to take hold.

For the sake of argument and based on what I've learned as a parent, let's just say the 0-3 years are the mimicking years. Do as I do. Good boy! Do as I do. Good girl! And so on. So, everything the child gets is formative based upon whatever values, teachings and behaviours the parents feed into the child's senses.

Similarly, the child begins to mimick and then slowly experiment with behaviours peers are making and then begins creating his/her own behaviours based on what has been handed to him. And then, in comes the bastion of child fiction, bedtime stories and, if the parents are religious or faith-based, from prayer or other teachings.

So, to this point, if we agree, everything that child is given to create a behaviour comes from someone else. After about age 3 or 4, the child is doing things on his/her own and by age 10, I'm told and have read, we're pretty much locked in to who we are and how we'll behave. Everything past that point is influence management by parents. After, say, 18 or 21, its self-managed behaviour with help from specialists, clergy and others. However, at the core of this person is whatever they were given as programming from 0-10.

This behavioural programming and management, in essence, would determine, what we would see as good or evil.

Now ...

The problem is this. Good and evil comes in about as many colors as you will find in the Lowe's paint department. The spectrum of people we view through media filters and our own moral lenses -- which varies by 6 to 7 billion, based on world population -- is neither baselined or fully definable. In short, while we all agree on some things, we never agree on all of them and in our hearts we probably agree on even fewer, especially as it comes to behaviour and value. Our own personalized, branded-in-our-own-minds-and-hearts subset of values and behaviours is so exactly unique that we can never be in true concert with another person about agreement and judgment. In other words, no two people's values can ever be exact. And since no two people can never be exact, no group, gaggle, congregation, minyan or other swell of folks can never ever be in true agreement. Reason, and opposable thumbs make it so.

So, that brings us to the religious aspect and, perhaps, to the media driven aspect of evil. And by media, I don't necessary mean 20th Century Fox. Organizational drive of good and evil is also of value here. In the first (i.e., 1977 version) Star Wars, Darth Vader was evil. Period. We got it. But by film 6, he was just a guy who got bent as a teenager and had some issues playing for the wrong team. Perception and the value of what we learned about Vader over time swung the Evil Pendulum for us. Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh from "No Country for Old Men" was pure evil. And the writers made him that way.

There are a litany of good characters to easy to name here. But what about all the in between characters? Where do they rank on the good evil scale?

More importantly, why make a deep-slice judgment that only cuts one of the two ways.? I'd hate to think people vote this way rather than saying, "I want to know more about this guy other than what's been show to me by the media." However, this is a matter of education and fear, as well.

Which rounds this off to my own religious pencil point on this: Jewish scholars are NOTORIOUSLY thorough. And in every teaching in my upbringing, every rabbi I encountered including my own said, "Read more. Read everything. Know more." And in doing so, it's striking how quickly the mantels of good and evil can fall away into something more understandable and more human to deal with.

Which brings me to my conclusion: we fear things because we don't understand them or what they can do to us. The more we understand something, the less nefarious it becomes. The evil wears off. The good wears off. And so on. It's difficult to simply believe that any one human is evil or good. It is my belief that we are all somewhere in between with a specific set of teachings, programming and behaviours that makes us so, whether that be for the public to see or we keep hidden.

We are our behaviours. And in almost every example of every real-life human activity I've ever seen, no one has ever been THAT evil and no one has ever been that good. It's always in between.

In short, defining evil or good is to define humanity. What defines humanity is its behaviour.

Guffy

02-28-2009, 09:52 PM

Jason, your right. When we talk about good and evil we generally think of our caricatures, Hitler, or Mother Teresa, but it's usually something in between. I feel that downloading songs without paying for them is stealing, is that evil? If it's stealing it is sin.

I also believe like you that the more we know the less nefarious evil becomes, but I also think that the more we know the better good becomes. Like if we understand a bad situation the better we are able to find what is still good, the way Paul described being able to find joy in any circumstance no matter how evil we might describe it, in 2 Cor.

Just one nit though it doesn't effect or weaken your argument, I don't think babies come as empty vessel and I am sure that you where able to detect the uniqueness in each of your children.

Bartholomew, I don't think most of the Christians that I know and talk to have a very good understanding of Satan. The ideas seem to run the gamut from not really very to the big bad boogie man. I not an expert but I think I can spot an incomplete idea. One problem I have noticed in myself is that as soon as I think I've got it all figured out I start skewing everything else trying to make it fit in.

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 10:14 PM

i think evil is the deliberate attempt to harm another being for the sake of simply harming the other being.

I like this definition the best.

The intentional harm of another w/o thought or care of outcome; just b/c.

Is it that simple? What about thieves, drug dealers, etc.? Certainly their main concern is harming for the sake of harming. Are their actions evil?

AMC
Yeah, I think it is that simple. They're not concerned w/ the consequences/outcome. Their collective baseline is greed. As to who gets in their way to achieve their goal, it's not of importance. If someone loses their life to addiction so that they achieve their end goal, so be it.

That crosses the moral definition of evil that the dictionary gives and moves into what I believe to be evil territory.

A Catholic priest once explained to me that what you're describing is the sin against the Holy Spirit -- the only unforgivable sin, because it involves a complete understanding of God, and then a deliberate rejection. Not sure if that's actual doctrine or just his take on it -- he was quite the intellectual and not at all doctrinaire.

But most of what we consider evil can be seen as an ultimate selfishness -- the inability to comprehend others as important compared to self, the total lack of empathy.

But what about the evil that comes from fully understanding others and the effect one's actions have on them -- and then choosing to do harm? Like the sin against the holy spirit.

There are people who derive actual enjoyment from the suffering of others. Serial killers often enjoy the terror and pain of their victims -- in fact, inflicting these is a major part of the thrill. It's not that they selfishly don't care about other people's fear -- it's more active, a delight in suffering. I can see how religious traditions can believe in Satan.
Bolding is mine.

God gave us free will, I believe. When we abuse that and choose to do harm, regardless of the outcome, that's evil. We knowingly make the wrong choice, fully cognizant of the potential results and go down that path anyway, w/ blinders, that's evil.

Monkey, that's exactly why I prefer a system of ethics to a system of "morality" -- Because otherwise, it's all too easy to descend into a relativistic morass of situational extenuating circumstances.
And, ethics are a system of rules based loosely on morals...what's acceptable to us as human beings, right? You can't really have one w/o the other. I dunno, kind of chicken and the egg thing.

I remember when I first heard the Abraham story and literally shaking like a leaf, until the very end. I could barely breathe. Whoa! how could God possibly ask that of Abraham. His kid, for crying out loud. Then, I thought, what if God asks something really big of me? will I be able to stand up, measure up. Heavy stuff for a kid.

In those days, they didn't do such a great job of explaining, either. Much as I'd like to say I get it, today, best answer I can give is this: if God asks me to go out on a limb and say in front of the world that I believe in Him, no problem. Yeah, I'd do that. I've taken other risks, too. Faith risks, I call them. But, nothing like what Abraham did. I don't know that I have what he did. And for that matter, who does until it happens.

Jason, careful what you say about puppies...arf!

I agree w/ you regarding we're our behaviors. Good stuff.

MacAllister

02-28-2009, 10:40 PM

The distinction I'm making between "ethics" and "morality" may be a bit eccentric - but I don't see the two as pure synonyms for each other at all.

Essentially, I'm defining morality in its sense of a concern for the differences between Good and Evil in a fairly narrow sense, as behavior dictated by a belief system delineating those differences.

The word moral (as an adjective) comes from from the Latin "mos (gen. moris) "one's disposition," in pl., "mores, customs, manners, morals," of uncertain origin. Meaning "morally good, conforming to moral rules," is first recorded c.1386" (AHD (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=moral&searchmode=none))

Ethics comes to us from Old French "ethique, from L.L. ethica, from Gk. ethike philosophia "moral philosophy," fem. of ethikos "ethical," from ethos "moral character," related to ethos "custom" (see ethos). The word also traces to Ta Ethika, title of Aristotle's work." (Also the AHD (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ethics&searchmode=none))

Built into the two words is a fairly fundamental difference -- morality is about a system of belief, ethics are about a code of behavior.

JamieFord

02-28-2009, 10:43 PM

Medievalist

02-28-2009, 10:49 PM

Built into the two words is a fairly fundamental difference -- morality is about a system of belief, ethics are about a code of behavior.

Morality and moral codes are based on punishment and reward.

Jean Marie

02-28-2009, 10:53 PM

I would never call you, what did you say, Mac...

No, morality and ethics are 2 separate issues, but I don't think you can have one w/o the other.

One is identified as rules (ethics) and the other (morality) is aligned w/ rules of behavior. In that sense, they're both rules that have been adopted by society. If not, we fall into that morass you were talking about, earlier.

Guffy

02-28-2009, 11:13 PM

aren't punishment and reward based on morality and moral codes

James81

03-01-2009, 12:11 AM

Good and evil are moral constructs created by man in an attempt to put boundaries on the way people think, act, or feel.

In a religious sense, evil exists to teach you how to be good. Imperfection exists to teach you how to be perfect.

I think we do ourselves a disservice by thinking of things in terms of good or evil. Because there are evil acts that work for the greater good and there are good acts that work for the greater evil.

Pilot

03-01-2009, 12:15 AM

Built into the two words is a fairly fundamental difference -- morality is about a system of belief, ethics are about a code of behavior.

A VERY fine line, Mac. I would think the two are at least interdependent.

Medievalist

03-01-2009, 12:17 AM

A VERY fine line, Mac. I would think the two are at least interdependent.

Well, no.

You can be completely amoral, and yet be ethical.

Pilot

03-01-2009, 12:21 AM

Well, no.

You can be completely amoral, and yet be ethical.

Hmm...I think not. Ethics are to a great extent defined by the codes of morality. Seems to me that a totally amoral person would have a problem even knowing what was and was not ethical.

Ken

03-01-2009, 12:24 AM

...which reared first, ethics or morality?
I'm guessing the former.

Pilot

03-01-2009, 12:26 AM

...which reared first, ethics or morality?
I'm guessing the former.

I suspect murder and theft were among the first problems to crop up in organized society. Wouldn't those fall under morality rather than ethics?

Guffy

03-01-2009, 12:32 AM

Good and evil are moral constructs created by man in an attempt to put boundaries on the way people think, act, or feel.

I think this is an opinion, which I respect, but I believe good comes from God and evil comes from defying God.

I also think you can be ethical without being moral such as learning to follow the rule so you can play a game without believing in them.

Ken

03-01-2009, 12:32 AM

I suspect murder and theft were among the first problems to crop up in organized society. Wouldn't those fall under morality rather than ethics?

...neither. Ethics and morality would only come into play once these acts were classified and restricted by civilization for either ethical or moral reasons.

I also think you can be ethical without being moral such as learning to follow the rule so you can play a game without believing in them.

...good point here.

James81

03-01-2009, 12:36 AM

I think this is an opinion, which I respect, but I believe good comes from God and evil comes from defying God.

I also think you can be ethical without being moral such as learning to follow the rule so you can play a game without believing in them.

I dunno, the way I see it is if you believe that God is omnipresent, omniscient, etc., and you believe that God is everywhere and nothing can exist without God, then in a way you have to believe that God created evil and, not to sound blasphemous here, but he a small part of him would have to be evil, wouldn't it?

I'm not asserting that as fact, I'm just trying to wrap my mind a concept that I can't quite fully reconcile to myself. How can evil exist, if everything that exists came from God, and God can never be evil?

rugcat

03-01-2009, 12:38 AM

So, to this point, if we agree, everything that child is given to create a behaviour comes from someone else. After about age 3 or 4, the child is doing things on his/her own and by age 10, I'm told and have read, we're pretty much locked in to who we are and how we'll behave. Everything past that point is influence management by parents. After, say, 18 or 21, its self-managed behaviour with help from specialists, clergy and others. However, at the core of this person is whatever they were given as programming from 0-10.

This behavioural programming and management, in essence, would determine, what we would see as good or evil.I hate to bring up the cliche of serial killers again, but one of the few things almost all of them have in common is childhood torture of animals, starting as early as five or six.

Many of them come from ""good" families that are horrified at such actions. They don't learn it from peers. Their families are not necessarily dysfunctional. We don't know where this behavior comes from.

It may be a brain abnormality which makes them quantitatively different from normal people. Which would make that sort of evil a chemical accident, no more.

C.S. Lewis has a great book that addresses this very subject. It's called The Problem of Pain. Worth checking out... I would second this. Ultimately unconvincing, at least to me, it nonetheless confronts the question of why there is evil in this world (from a Christian perspective) head on, without ducking the hard questions, and certainly provides much to think on.

Guffy

03-01-2009, 12:45 AM

I don't believe that our definitions of omnipresent and omniscient adequately describe God. The ideas behind these two words are not really biblical, speaking exclusively to the Christian bible. There are a number of passages that seem to contradict our understanding of them.

Pilot

03-01-2009, 12:49 AM

...which reared first, ethics or morality?
I'm guessing the former.

Perhaps I misunderstood your question. Probably the first time Uumg stole an animal skin from his neighbor on the other side of the cave, the tribe pretty quickly decided that it was wrong to steal and made stealing a taboo. It might be that the ethics of barter flowed from that now-immoral act of stealing. Just a thought.

MacAllister

03-01-2009, 01:01 AM

Perhaps I misunderstood your question. Probably the first time Uumg stole an animal skin from his neighbor on the other side of the cave, the tribe pretty quickly decided that it was wrong to steal and made stealing a taboo. It might be that the ethics of barter flowed from that now-immoral act of stealing. Just a thought.Right. But we also have well-documented cultural systems where theft is, in fact, an honored and sanctioned practice, demonstrating prowess and conferring status, especially when executed with skill and daring.

ColoradoGuy

03-01-2009, 01:07 AM

. . . It may be a brain abnormality which makes them quantitatively different from normal people. . .
There's a good possibility of that. Here's a fascinating (and readable) article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=all) about brain scans and serial killers from a New Yorker article published last fall.

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 01:22 AM

morality is about a system of belief, ethics are about a code of behavior.Ethics is the study of what we owe one another; morality is the study of what's good for us and what's not. Ethics without morality is all icing and no cake.

Since postmodernism there has been a mighty cringe about morality. Absolutism is a cultural myth, say the postmodernists, so there can be no absolute morality and if there's no absolute morality then there can be no morality at all, only ethics.

Nonsense, say I. Imbued as we are with empathy and gifted with the power to observe cause and effect, we can quickly work out whether we're doing better or worse for one another as long as we're scrupulous in our observations, open in our enquiry and inclusive in our compassion. There may be no absolute morality but that needn't make our moral judgements regressive. In the broad, human needs are common; it's only human tastes that differ. Stay empathic, study your fellow humans compassionately and stay informed. Your moral compass will tune itself up fine without a master list of proscriptions and taboos.

Besides which, trying to swap ethics for morality creates exactly the problem that the pomos were worried about in the first place. Ethics without morality is just custom, but with a moral underpinning ethics is about acting compassionately, responsibly and honourably.

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 01:26 AM

...which reared first, ethics or morality?
I'm guessing the former.All the primates have both custom and compassion; so do most other mammals. We've had the seeds of both ethics and morality since before we had speech or fire.

MacAllister

03-01-2009, 01:30 AM

Ethics is the study of what we owe one another; morality is the study of what's good for us and what's not. Ethics without morality is all icing and no cake.

Since postmodernism there has been a mighty cringe about morality. Absolutism is a cultural myth, say the postmodernists, so there can be no absolute morality and if there's no absolute morality then there can be no morality at all, only ethics.<snip>
And trying to swap ethics for morality creates exactly the problem that the pomos were worried about in the first place. Ethics without morality is just custom, but with a moral underpinning ethics is about acting compassionately, courteously and responsibly.I think, first, we'd need to agree on working definitions of both ethics and morality, and we very clearly haven't done so, yet.

All the primates have both custom and compassion; so do most other mammals. We've had the seeds of both ethics and morality since before we had speech or fire.That assertion desperately needs a credible citation, before I'm going to swallow it whole -- and we've not even approached discussing a working and agreed-upon definition of compassion.

Cassiopeia

03-01-2009, 01:37 AM

I've had both academic and religious scholar help me to form my ideas concerning evil. The first of which was my Rabbi at our local synagogue who, while not dismissing the evil known as Satan taught me that evil is that which mankind allows or perpetrates intentionally for personal gain and intentionally harms another. He also told me that evil is practiced when we refuse to be accountable for our own wrong doing and failure to correct it.

Then my African religious studies professor taught us that evil is that which does harm. Selfishness is evil as it only focuses on the individual need and goes against the good of the entire tribe.

Is there an entity such as Satan or is it more that evil intent has a negative energy force that accumulates like good energy? Either way I have to say that I've seen both at work though I'm not sure I understand it completely.

In the various traditions concerning good and evil, I tend to stand back a bit from embracing the idea that the battle for man's soul is the war between God and Satan. Rather I believe it is a battle for mankind's spiritual evolution. Can we really work together selflessly? Are we willing to forgo what we want on the individual level for the greater good?

The professor for our personal ethics class announced at the beginning of the semester that we would be applying morality without religious influence and challenged us to leave religious beliefs and traditions out of our discussions and papers. I did as she asked yet in the end, I was more convinced than ever that the real questions is if morality and ethics are interwoven so tightly in the threads of religion does it define society rules?

Which always brings me back to question which came first, societal rules or religious rules (not unsimiliar to which came first the chicken or the egg).

Can there be good without evil? In some religious theology, the concepts of good and evil are an illustration to say that without a comparison we wouldn't know joy from suffering; light from dark, bitter from sweet.

All of this to say that while I'm inclined to believe in the temptation and subsequent fall of Adam and Eve, I don't believe in original sin; therefore, the war with good and evil lays in the individuals decision to choose. I feel I am accountable for what I do. I know what I feel is right and wrong to do. If what I chose harms another and I knew it would not only harm them but I wanted it to; before making that choice, then I've done something evil. I go with the admonition: Do what you will but cause no harm.

The problem with evil, is that evil begets evil.

Pilot

03-01-2009, 01:45 AM

Right. But we also have well-documented cultural systems where theft is, in fact, an honored and sanctioned practice, demonstrating prowess and conferring status, especially when executed with skill and daring.

Absolutely! I have held for decades that both morality and ethics are a matter of where and when you are standing.

rugcat

03-01-2009, 01:50 AM

That assertion desperately needs a credible citation, before I'm going to swallow it whole -- and we've not even approached discussing a working and agreed-upon definition of compassion.I've done extensive reading about primates, and although I don't have time to chase down links, I think Rav's statement is pretty much accepted these days as valid.

MacAllister

03-01-2009, 01:58 AM

Rugcat, fair enough then. I've honestly not done much reading about primate research beyond language use in captive primates.

And Ruv Draba's point about about the link between compassion/empathy and ethics and or morality is well-made, I think. The problem, though, returns then to the philosophical question about ethical systems, the nature of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, and various constructed systems -- Utilitarianism, etc.

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 02:08 AM

I think, first, we'd need to agree on working definitions of both ethics and morality, and we very clearly haven't done so, yet.To help that then, a very thorough and informative source on ethics vs morality can be found here (http://www.ethics.org.au/). Here's a quotation (http://www.ethics.org.au/about-ethics/what-is-ethics/index.html):

The central question of ethics is:
"What ought one to do?"
Whenever you are faced with this question, you are dealing with ethics.
In seeking to answer the question of "What ought one to do?" we are left with some enduring truths:

Ethics is about relationships
It's about struggling to develop a well-informed conscience
It's about being true to the idea of who we are and what we stand for
It's about having the courage to explore difficult questions
It's about accepting the cost

Here's a bit on ethics and morality (http://www.ethics.org.au/about-ethics/what-is-ethics/ethics-and-morality.html) from the same site:
Ethics and morality
Ethics is related to morality but it is not the same thing.
'Morality' comes from the Latin word 'moralis' which is more concerned with what we believe is good and evil (bad) or, right and wrong. Our morality is a set of 'pre-packaged answers', if you like, to the question posed by ethics: “what ought I to do?”.
Our own individual morality gives us the values and principles for making our decisions when we are faced with that question.

I'll save my comments on rationalism, humanism and compassion until I see whether we're all on the same page with regard to the seminal questions.

ColoradoGuy

03-01-2009, 02:45 AM

And Ruv Draba's point about about the link between compassion/empathy and ethics and or morality is well-made, I think. The problem, though, returns then to the philosophical question about ethical systems, the nature of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, and various constructed systems -- Utilitarianism, etc.
I've come to realize that I'm a hopeless mystic when I ponder the nature of evil. As I wrote in my opening post of the thread, I'm drawn to St. Augustine's concept of evil as a lack of something. He used the metaphor as being distanced from God. He did not pick this notion out of thin air; historical contingency played a big part, because his formulation was a reply to the powerful Manichean movement of the time, with its easy-to-understand division of the world into two opposing forces -- light and dark. (For those who think philosophy does not operate in an historical vacuum, this is an instructive example.)

Anyway, my Quaker-ish riff on Augustine is that evil comes from a lack of inner awareness, of not listening to "that of God" within each of us. Quakers believe all of us possess innate divinity -- some more, some less -- but nobody lacks it entirely (although the article I linked upthread about psychopaths makes me wonder if the rare person does). Thus "distance from God" comes from not nourishing our divine voice within. Now comes the hopelessly mystical part: in spite of all our genetic and cultural differences, if we heed our inner divinity, we will agree on what is moral and what is not.

So even though I tend toward squishy relativism in my liberal politics, at root I suppose I'm as much a moral absolutist as an Islamic radical because to me, evil is not relative. I also suppose that makes my view of evil much like Potter Stewart's famous view of pornography -- we know it when we see it. It also allows me to dodge Mac's tough analytical questions. So heh heh indeed on that.

ColoradoGuy

03-01-2009, 02:50 AM

I found this to be particularly thought provoking in my last philosophy class when trying to determine what good and evil is . . .
The cave allegory is certainly a famous formulation of the notion that reality is not what it seems. But I've always been bothered by its implication that the unaided person is powerless to escape the cave unless released by another, or at least turned around. I don't think we need that -- we can do it on our own.

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 04:15 AM

Over the years I've had five or so goes at trying get some use out of the cave metaphor and come up empty. How do you verify it? Even if it's verified how do you adjust your thinking?

Taking another tack, I've found that compassion grows by talking to people. It seems fairly evident that assembling contrasting perspectives from collective experience yields more robust wisdom than prolonged, solitary gum-sucking. Is that the point of the cave metaphor, and do we really need a metaphor to tell us that these days?

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 04:19 AM

in spite of all our genetic and cultural differences, if we heed our inner divinity, we will agree on what is moral and what is not.Or, in a non-mystical sense we actually have centres of empathy in our brains. If we learn how to use them, build up our knowledge of self, other and world, and commit to serving more than just self and tribe, we cooperate better to our mutual weal.

ColoradoGuy

03-01-2009, 05:06 AM

Over the years I've had five or so goes at trying get some use out of the cave metaphor and come up empty. How do you verify it? Even if it's verified how do you adjust your thinking
It reminds me of the movie The Matrix, just lower tech.

veinglory

03-01-2009, 05:22 AM

Or, in a non-mystical sense we actually have centres of empathy in our brains. If we learn how to use them, build up our knowledge of self, other and world, and commit to serving more than just self and tribe, we cooperate better to our mutual weal.

To be even more reductionalist--if we have empathy the understanding that hurting others is bad is built in (that is pretty much the defintion of empathy). What is evil other than the indifference to, or enjoying of, hurting others?

rugcat

03-01-2009, 06:11 AM

Guffy

03-01-2009, 06:24 AM

ColoradoGuy

03-01-2009, 06:33 AM

benbradley

03-01-2009, 07:44 AM

Ok, here's a question. It's actually an idea for a novel I've had for a long time.

One day, aliens appear, and for whatever reason, you are chosen to decide the fate of the planet.

Now, I'm not much a fan of humanity in the abstract -- I believe we are destroying this planet and all other life forms. You're given a choice -- the aliens can go on their way and leave things to play out as they will -- or, they can instantly destroy all of humanity, leaving the planet to recover and giving another species the chance to evolve into something hopefully better.

If you decided to do away with humankind, (including yourself) would that be an evil act?
For any reasonable definition of evil, yes indeedy. Even though the human species might arguably "deserve it," it would be genocide.
If you where going to use this in a book IMO you would want to explore this question without answering. Leave the reader to answer it for themselves.
This what-if looks like sandbox material, and I'm wanting to take this idea and run with it for a moment. I'm thinking the aliens would make this offer to EVERY human, and due to the aliens' demonstrated powers, each human bellieves he or she is the only one getting this choice, and truly believes the aliens would act on his or her decision.

But each person's decision does NOT (directly) affect the Human Race, only themselves. Those who decide to destroy humanity are deemed too negative and fatalistic to make positive contributions (to humanity or anything else), so they are taken off Earth to another planet to be dealt with/warehoused/whatever (perhaps analogous to how modern Austrailia was formed), leaving the humanity-affirming people to continue on Earth.

rugcat

03-01-2009, 07:56 AM

For any reasonable definition of evil, yes indeedy. Even though the human species might arguably "deserve it," it would be genocide.What I'm really asking is whether an act can be evil in itself, or if evil requires intent. If you believe what you're doing is right, or noble, but the result of your actions is something like genocide, are you evil? Or just mistaken?

Cassiopeia

03-01-2009, 08:00 AM

What I'm really asking is whether an act can be evil in itself, or if evil requires intent. If you believe what you're doing is right, or noble, but the result of your actions is something like genocide, are you evil? Or just mistaken?I think it requires intent, the intent to do harm. But then we have to ask ourselves what about the lunatic who commits genocide while thinking it will save others. Their intent is to save but they do harm. Is the mental illness then evil?

Pilot

03-01-2009, 08:58 AM

What I'm really asking is whether an act can be evil in itself, or if evil requires intent. If you believe what you're doing is right, or noble, but the result of your actions is something like genocide, are you evil? Or just mistaken?

This question was addressed in the original Star Trek episode, "The Conscience of the King". Intent was honorable, act was evil. As was suggested above, the final answer was left more or less to the viewer. For myself, the act of total genocide is so horrendous I can't really get my mind around it. Regarding the portion of your post that I have turned bold, I think the answer would be just mistaken. But how would you live with yourself after such a mistake?

Jean Marie

03-01-2009, 08:59 AM

What I'm really asking is whether an act can be evil in itself, or if evil requires intent. If you believe what you're doing is right, or noble, but the result of your actions is something like genocide, are you evil? Or just mistaken?
evil is a total alienation of God and humanity and thereby a total separation. heard that at church, today. that's the cliff note version and my interpretation. I believe it fits well. I also think it's progressive.

again, it speaks to the fact that we're given free will or if you prefer, choices as human beings. when we choose to go against what we know to be either morally or ethically right/correct, we've made an intentional move in the direction of evil; down that path. we still have the choice to alter our course, if that's our intent, our will, if we choose to follow the God of our understanding. or, intentionally remain on track to final separation from God and our community.

Perks

03-01-2009, 09:10 AM

One of the problems I have with the story of Abraham and Isaac (and with the concept of evil as it may relate to Christianity) is where the Evilometer's needle is anchored.

If your neighbor brought his son out, trussed him up and came just up to the point of granting the boy's intestines a little sunshine and light, but at the last minute sighed with relief, saying, "It's okay. I don't have to do it. God just wanted to make sure that I would." you'd want that guy locked up. No amount of but-God-said-to is going to make that okay. And why is that? Is it that God doesn't make those sorts of points anymore, but he used to?

Assigning the micro-management of what is good and what is evil to a higher authority is, in my opinion, a dangerous diversion from trying to reduce evil in the world. Regardless of where 'it' came from, it falls to us to grow and learn and lessen it.

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 11:19 AM

What is evil other than the indifference to, or enjoying of, hurting others?If you cause bad to someone and didn't know it would cause them bad but should have inquired, does that make you evil? Does it depend on how much bad was caused? Does it depend on why you didn't inquire?

The amount of good or bad in an outcome is fairly easy to assess; the amount of 'evil' isn't. It seems to depend on tribal custom and taboo. That's why I think that the opposite of good is bad, not 'evil'. Evil is how your tribe feels about different kinds of bad.

Mac H.

03-01-2009, 11:41 AM

Mac, God didn't do anything to Job, Satan did. God only allowed it.
OK - a guy knocks on my door and says "I'd like to harm your kids, but you're protecting them."

Imagine I replied - "You want to hurt my kids ? OK - do what you want. I'll just sit back and drink beer while I watch you torture my children. Try not to get blood on the carpet, though."

Am I doing evil? Or would you argue that I'm not doing a thing .. I'm not actually assisting the mysterious stranger to kill and torture my children, I'm merely giving him permission and then sitting back to watch ?

Surely if any human being did that that we'd all agree that human being is evil. There can be no serious question about that.

Then we can agree that what the God character did in that story was evil.

Mac

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 12:28 PM

Surely if any human being did that that we'd all agree that human being is evil. There can be no serious question about that.It's always bad to neglect our responsibilities, and it's bad to let others suffer when we could help them. But okay, let's say that it's evil to let our own children suffer torture and death. Is it evil to let someone else's children suffer the same way? What if it's an adult stranger? Or what if it's happening outside our society?

A compassionate definition of bad doesn't discriminate about neglecting the suffering of others, but definitions of evil do. The term 'evil' doesn't just help us condemn bad in others; it allows us to overlook the bad and neglectful in ourselves.

MacAllister

03-01-2009, 12:46 PM

We seem to be operating on an assumption that pain/suffering = bad/evil.

Pilot

03-01-2009, 12:50 PM

We seem to be operating on an assumption that pain/suffering = bad/evil.

I could easily agree that most often it is bad, but not necessarily evil.

Ruv Draba

03-01-2009, 12:59 PM

We seem to be operating on an assumption that pain/suffering = bad/evil.I think that there's more to bad than causing or neglecting suffering. If we fail to help each other achieve our potential then I believe that's bad too. Jealousy for instance, can cause us to hold each other back. That might not cause suffering, but compassion tells us that it's still bad.

Monkey

03-01-2009, 06:56 PM

An infant is, for the most part, an empty vessel that will be affected by the sounds, sights, tastes and sensory inputs of his or her life. The parents are, primarily, the greatest influencers of that sensory education from ages 0-3. After 3, the kid's in nursery or Montessori schools and the affectts of peers begin to take hold.

This is ignoring the Nature vs Nurture debate and saying, effectively, that Nature doesn't exist and it's entirely Nurture.

You're a parent. Do you have more than one kid? If you do, I'm betting they're quite different from one another. Even if you have twins, they'll have different personalities.

I just disagree with this assertion on so many levels...

Which brings me to my conclusion: we fear things because we don't understand them or what they can do to us. The more we understand something, the less nefarious it becomes. The evil wears off. The good wears off. And so on. It's difficult to simply believe that any one human is evil or good. It is my belief that we are all somewhere in between with a specific set of teachings, programming and behaviours that makes us so, whether that be for the public to see or we keep hidden.

What about the completely rational fear of intense pain? Does understanding being flayed alive make it "less nefarious"? If a person were being flayed alive, would the "evil" of that act "wear off"?

Fear =/= Evil. I believe that there is real evil, and there is rational fear.

We are our behaviours. And in almost every example of every real-life human activity I've ever seen, no one has ever been THAT evil and no one has ever been that good. It's always in between.

Then you're lucky. But others have had daughters stolen, raped, and murdered by some sicko for no other reason than opportunity. Others have had their date beat and rape them. Understanding this sort of evil doesn't fix it, regardless of your societal upbringing.

If your neighbor brought his son out, trussed him up and came just up to the point of granting the boy's intestines a little sunshine and light, but at the last minute sighed with relief, saying, "It's okay. I don't have to do it. God just wanted to make sure that I would." you'd want that guy locked up. No amount of but-God-said-to is going to make that okay. And why is that? Is it that God doesn't make those sorts of points anymore, but he used to?

Assigning the micro-management of what is good and what is evil to a higher authority is, in my opinion, a dangerous diversion from trying to reduce evil in the world. Regardless of where 'it' came from, it falls to us to grow and learn and lessen it.

I agree, Perks. Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish the true Inner Voice/Voice of God/Guiding Light/Dharma from...well, something else.

That goes triple if someone isn't quite right in the head. Both my parents used to work in the mental health profession, and it was scary how many people did truly insane things because "God told [them] to".

I can't agree with a system of morality that OK's anything that someone truly believes comes from their Higher Power. People believe some screwed up things. Fred Phelps, anyone?

Ken

03-01-2009, 10:53 PM

...St. Augustine's concept of evil as a lack of something. He used the metaphor as being distanced from God...a lack of inner awareness, of not listening to "that of God" within each of us.

...may well be mistaken about this, but I think Plato proposed something similar: that wrongdoing was the result of failing to see the inherent logic of being good. So for Augustine it was about tuning into God, and for Plato, tuning into logic, in the form of absolutes.

Ken

03-01-2009, 11:09 PM

All the primates have both custom and compassion; so do most other mammals. We've had the seeds of both ethics and morality since before we had speech or fire.

...interesting. This may usher in a 3rd factor, though, which keeps behavior in check: biological/physiological predispositions, which is very much evidenced by the nurturing bond between mother and offspring ... though not always.

Guffy

03-02-2009, 07:44 AM

OK - a guy knocks on my door and says "I'd like to harm your kids, but you're protecting them."

Imagine I replied - "You want to hurt my kids ? OK - do what you want. I'll just sit back and drink beer while I watch you torture my children. Try not to get blood on the carpet, though."

Am I doing evil? Or would you argue that I'm not doing a thing .. I'm not actually assisting the mysterious stranger to kill and torture my children, I'm merely giving him permission and then sitting back to watch ?

Surely if any human being did that that we'd all agree that human being is evil. There can be no serious question about that.

Then we can agree that what the God character did in that story was evil.

Mac

I did try to answer this question with the rest of my post, but lets look more closely at it. Sense someone else brought up a Star Trek episode I will to, is it evil to stand by and watch someone suffer and die for the good of many. In the episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" Kirk stands back and watches his true love Edith Keeler die to keep Hitler from winning World war two. Was Kirk being evil? Or would it have been evil to let Hitler rule the world. Kirk had a God like knowledge of the future and he acted as best he knew.

Sometimes we don't know all the facts but we still must do the best we can given what we know at the time.

And there is still a difference between allowing something to happen and causing it particularly where free will come in to play. If I warn someone that something is dangerous how far do I need to go in preventing him from doing it to not be considered in compliance with him.

Mac H.

03-02-2009, 01:19 PM

So Kirk's motives and knowledge of the outcome was important.

The great thing about this story, however, is that we aren't guessing at the motivations of the God character .. we are told why the God character did this.

It wasn't to save someone from a terrible fate. It was not for the good of many. It was to win a bet.

I appreciate that the Book of Job is basically a parable (or closer to a modern stage-play .. look at all the characters who appear Stage Left, give their lines and then disappear to Stage Right) which is why I'm talking about about the 'God character' in this piece of literature. I accept that the God-reality is going to be much more complex than this one-dimensional portrayal.

Yet in this story, I can't see a rational argument that this particular character isn't acting in an evil way. Sure, you could argue that there is another motivation not explained, but you could justify Pol Pot that way too!

Look at the story as a single piece of literature. If the story was identical but the boss character was called 'King Huzauckuk' instead, would you honestly be saying that the story is about the noble and good King Huzauckuk?

Mac

James81

03-02-2009, 05:35 PM

I think the trouble with labelling things as "good" or "evil" is that it leaves room for preconceptions about actions that don't fit those constructs.

For example, you can say that "stealing is evil." And in most cases, you may be right, but what about the case of a man who steals from the rich and gives to the poor? Is Robin Hood "evil"?

Or a person who steals to feed their starving children.

By applying the label of "evil" to an action, you leave no room for interpretation in cases where the action itself may be labelled as evil, but the motive was purely "good."

In fact, Jesus himself was one of those people who performed good acts by doing things that the religious leaders considered "sin" (or evil). Forgiving a prostitute of her sins by breaking Jewish law? Dinner with sinners?

I think that's the whole point behind his saying "I came not to destroy the law, only to fulfil it." He was wanting us to know that our attempts at classifying things as one or the other is futile.

Guffy

03-02-2009, 07:04 PM

I don't understand the over all point of The Book of Job but there is a lot I can learn from it. One of the points that is clearly made is that Job (and us by association) does not know the mind of God or why he does things. When we look at Job it is easy to assign what happen to him as evil, the loss of lively hood and his family, his illness and distress seem evil. But we do not have all the facts, which is the point God makes at the end of Job. And God does not tell us any more in the book of Job, he leaves what happened unexplained.

We could view the fact that someone cut off a person's arm or leg as evil until we know that it was a medical procedure done to save the person's life.

Now I have heard this argument misused before as well. What happened to Job was specific, but I've heard people try to use the same, we just don't know the mind of God, argument to explain earthquakes and hurricanes and I don't believe it works that way. Earthquakes and hurricanes are part of the natural order of things and when we git in the way of the natural order of things we mostly lose. Earthquakes and hurricanes are big things and it might be easier to understand what I'm trying to say if we look at something on a smaller scale, like if out jogging in the African savanna and get eaten by a lion I would think that was evil, it would just be bad. It is bad when people die in hurricanes and earthquakes but it could be argued that it's not evil. Some have tried to say that these natural occurrences are God's judgments on mankind, but from my readings of the bible when God makes a judgment it is hard to mistake it for something else.

Monkey

03-02-2009, 07:15 PM

To be even more reductionalist--if we have empathy the understanding that hurting others is bad is built in (that is pretty much the defintion of empathy). What is evil other than the indifference to, or enjoying of, hurting others?

"This is going to hurt me a lot more than it's going to hurt you..."

Sometimes people will understand that what they're doing is hurtful and truly regret that, but will be attempting to save someone further hurt down the road, or believe that they're actions are for the person's "own good", or that it's regrettably necessary tough love.

I recently read an article where a woman, concerned for her adult, capable, sane sister, and wanting her sister to come live with her (which the sister refused) went to her sister's house, bound and gagged her, and took her by force...all for "her own good". I think I know why the sister didn't want to live with her! :D (I read about this in a print article called "News of the Weird" that appears in "The Funny Times". My in-laws have a subscription. Sorry no link.)

So good motives doesn't convince me that an act is good, and actually caring about what harm you're doing to the person doesn't convince me either, if it doesn't stop you from an evil act.

On the other hand, maybe it would be more accurate (and maybe it's what you intended in the OP) to consider someone's suffering less important than another goal to be indifference. I still wonder, though, what if the goal is to prevent them from more suffering?

I guess that brings me back to my "situational" stance.

Sense someone else brought up a Star Trek episode I will to, is it evil to stand by and watch someone suffer and die for the good of many. In the episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" Kirk stands back and watches his true love Edith Keeler die to keep Hitler from winning World war two.

This is just the sort of thing I was talking about. Surely, the Kirk character love Edith and wasn't indifferent to her suffering, but he was trying to prevent more suffering, so many people will consider his choice to let Edith die Good, maybe even heroic.

But it also brings up a completely different argument: "The ends justifies the means."

Does it, really?

Guffy

03-03-2009, 07:08 PM

This is just the sort of thing I was talking about. Surely, the Kirk character love Edith and wasn't indifferent to her suffering, but he was trying to prevent more suffering, so many people will consider his choice to let Edith die Good, maybe even heroic.

But it also brings up a completely different argument: "The ends justifies the means."

Does it, really?

This argument "the end justifies the means" has been used to justify all kinds of terrible things throughout human history and it deserves a little debate.

My personal belief is that the end never justifies the means unless the evil of the means is born strictly by the protagonist. I'll use a movie analogy to explain. In the first X Men movie Magneto wanted to use a machine to turn all the world leaders into mutants but suppose for this argument it was going to be used to cure the world of some terrible disease, had Magneto been willing to sacrifice himself then the evil of his death would have been justified however by forcing someone else to make the sacrifice it is not justified. The difference being the willingness to sacrifice yourself.

Often in debates like this the choice is generally given as an "either, or" question without other alternatives. In the Star Trek episode Kirk lets Edith be killed to save the future world but that wasn't really his only option. There could have been other means to the same end. It is easy to imagine scenarios that put us in "either, or" situations that leave out other options.