Does Evil Exist?

The depth of evil grows when the practitioners go to great lengths to explain, justify and rationalize the deeds they do.

Yes, evil pulpit-pounders are found across the globe. Fortunately, those who've managed critical thought shrug it away. Problem is, that's not the case everywhere. Therein resides much of the problem.

Moderation -- that's what we need. Wearing other people's shoes, too.

Wearing other people's shoes, too.

With their permission of course. No shoe stealing!

Almost all forms of evil partake of one specific characteristic: The intentional and unnecessary infliction of harm.

If you mean that evil must have explicitly malicious intent, then I don't know if I agree with that.

There has been a lot of harm done in the name of "good causes", and many times, those championing the harmful deeds do truly believe they are helping and not harming.

However, if you're not making a commentary on explicit intent, then I think your definition may be a bit too broad. I don't think something can be evil without malicious intent.

As a social construct, the term "evil" is usually used only in cases of explicitly malicious acts of great harm (e.g. the Holocaust, 9/11).

I think evil is defined as a minimum degree to which a harmful action deviates from the social norm.

Just a few observations.

I think we generally define evil as having intent. However, harm done to others with no thought to the consequences can also be evil. Uncaring harm is evil.

Evil done with the intention of doing good remains evil, but we tend to not to find the person who intended good to be an evil person.

Paul did great harm to the early Christian Church believing that he did good. The harm remained evil but God did not hold his actions against him. He showed him that his actions, though meant to be good, were evil. Paul then became a champion for the Church.

Happened while he was on a journey, as I recall.

Is inaction evil? The absence of "good" action? I.e. people watching a women getting raped and doing nothing.

Evil done with the intention of doing good remains evil, but we tend to not to find the person who intended good to be an evil person.

I think this exoneration from evil happens only when we agree with the person on relevant issues.

Matt, great question.
I think this is a grey area, to be judged (in some way) on a case-by-case basis.

Matthew, excellent question. Kitty Genovese died because people just didn't want to get involved. She pleaded for help but no one came.

I think it really depends on how your define evil.

There are so many different ways to define it.

Is an evil action simply one which harms someone or something?
Is an evil action only one which is maliciously designed to harm?
Can an evil action simply be a good-intended action which happens to harm?

How do evil actions relate to evil people? I think how you define an evil person is even more complex and highly debatable.

I think one special, though rather common, case would be an action which helps one while harming another. Where do you draw the line between evil help-and-harm actions and not-evil help-and-harm actions?

I know I'm just asking questions and giving no proposed answers, but I'm just illustrating how many different things must be taken into consideration to evaluate a personal definition of "evil."

Claus calls it "Ethical Calculus". It is precisely that.

How do evil actions relate to evil people?

I think we all have choices about what we invest ourselves in. If we injest "evil" content we become quite addicted to it. It becomes a natural overflow of our minds and hearts. If we have been injured and we surround ourselves with people that encourage us to choose bitterness, we will become bitter. So I think that evil actions are the "fruit" of evil "seed" in us. Not all people react the same way to injesting violent movies, video games, etc..., but some react quite negatively. So evil people are people that choose to invest themselves in evil things. They study and pursue evil until it becomes a natural outflow of their nature. This is how we "go bad" so to speak.

Thus, the need for an external standard beyond mere human subjectivity.

This would be splendid.

But, the problem is that no one's found it yet. The Bible was, in the most literal sense, written by man. The Word of God was spread by man. This is all before we even begin to question whether the Bible is precisely what it tells us it is.

These words - evil and sin - are then predicated on the idea that there is a "mark" or a target that exists at which we should be aiming.

Yes, and I don't see how we will ever agree upon, find, or decide on an external, universal target.

So, is there any possible way to find an external standard beyond mere human subjectivity?

I don't see how there is.

Tom B: I loved your article, thank you for your insights.

Your questions about sin and evil have inspired me to research what my own faith has to say about the subject. You may find it interesting, and it seems to agree with your conclusions, Jack H:

By moral evil are understood the deviation of human volition from the prescriptions of the moral order and the action which results from that deviation. Such action, when it proceeds solely from ignorance, is not to be classed as moral evil, which is properly restricted to the motions of will towards ends of which the conscience disapproves. The extent of moral evil is not limited to the circumstances of life in the natural order, but includes also the sphere of religion, by which man's welfare is affected in the supernatural order, and the precepts of which, as depending ultimately upon the will of God, are of the strictest possible obligation (see SIN). The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction.

Ern, interesting viewpoint. I don't agree with the religious part, though.

The obligation to moral action in the natural order is, moreover, generally believed to depend on the motives supplied by religion; and it is at least doubtful whether it is possible for moral obligation to exist at all apart from a supernatural sanction.

I would argue that general perception is horribly biased, even misguided. Since religion influences most of the Earth's population (and every known Western society), speculating about public sentiment doesn't say anything about what is actually required for moral obligation.

What defines moral order?

Jack, I just read your article on Pseudo-Relative Morality. I found it fascinating, and I don't find it necessarily contradicts with my beliefs.

What defines moral order?

As you could probably deduce from my earlier link, I believe that God defines absolute moral order. For those that don't believe, perhaps we could label the "absolutes of morality" that you speak of in your article as Truth. I hinted at this in 16.3.

In either case, I think humanity's role is to grow to understand this Truth so that all of humanity benefits from what is learned. Societies may have their own set of relative morals, but these may or may not coincide with all of humanity's understanding of Truth. As we learn, I think it is our duty to spread the knowledge and redefine societal relative morals to fall in line with the absolute.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I think the moral order is defined by humanity's current understanding of what it means for humanity as a whole to best succeed.

Tom B, thanks again for this thread. I've had quite the flashback to my old Philosophy classes. :)

perhaps we could label the "absolutes of morality" that you speak of in your article as Truth.

And I'm arguing that essentially, morality can't ever part of "Truth."

Morals can't ever be facts, because we assign values to actions, objects, thoughts, and events. These values are decided by the beholder. They can't be measured using a scale, a yardstick, or a spectrometer.

For example, while "don't kill good people for no good reason" may be a rather universal sentiment, you still run into roadblocks in defining "good people" and "good reason."

It all depends entirely upon your social perspective, and each of us has a different perspective.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I think the moral order is defined by humanity's current understanding of what it means for humanity as a whole to best succeed.

I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement on this. Like I said, different people value things differently, which means that you're almost guaranteed to find someone out there who believes the complete opposite of any one of your personal morals when it's concretely and accurately defined.

There's a universally agreeable way to determine whether a standard paper clip is heavier than an African bull elephant (balance scale, or put each, in turn, on a person's chest). In morality, though, very little prevents a person from claiming opposing morals.

You said it well Tom. You don't have a dilemma. Just spout it out. Words have a way of finding their own medium:-)

Well-spoken, Tom.

While I don't share your search for meaning and Truth, I respect that you have such a quest.

One niggle, though. As an atheist, I no longer wonder why people created God. To be perfectly blunt, it is a very convenient ideology.

Tom, et al,
Early in the novel In Evil Under the Sun, Poirot says the words in the title, which reminds the Reverend Stephen Lang of a quote from Scripture (Ecclesiastes): "Yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live."
I take my literary quotes wherever I can get them. Love Christie anyway.
Anyway, Man is just as prone to listen to the promptings of his meaner as well as his better nature. Why? I do not know if you are asking for a theological answer or not. But I believe God gave Man the means for regretting and atoning for the errors he's made, and one way is thru suffering the same sins that he once committed.

Laura, your assessment appears sound to me, from my own prospective, that is.

Supposing we remove God from the equation though, reducing mans actions to natural-animal behavior, how then do we discern evil?

Juno --
I know that religion is not a pre-requisite to having an ethical life. So, yes, you can take God out of the equation. Buddhism is more a way of living than the usual Westernized Judeo-Christian religion - even tho Christianity is supposed to be an imitation of Christ and not an excuse to condemn others.
As for discerning evil in natural-animal behavior, there is none. Animal behavior is primarily instinctive; Man's behavior is supposed to rise above that.
Tom --
Thanks. Altho it sounds a bit like you got confused over which is which?
Ecclesiastes: "Yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live."
Lil Ol Me: "But I believe God gave Man the means for regretting and atoning for the errors he's made, and one way is thru suffering the same sins that he once committed."
Billy Shakespeare: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."
-- Laura

Here I would just like to interject my thankfulness of the friends I've made on Newsvine, as they provide much needed balm to my soul . . . allowing my spirit to feel awesomely free!

Juno - no problem with your spirit going free. I'm sure your mind remains fine-tuned:-)

I thought he was leaving to spend more time with Jeff Gannon...I mean, his family.

Will the Medal of Freedom ribbon fit over that head of his? :^)

As you know, Tom, I'm a sucker for these kinds of threads. Love reading people's views on the topic. Thanks for writing and sharing.

Ultimate change comes, not by guns - though there may be a time for guns - but real change happens when hearts are changed.

Love that. Winning over hearts and minds is the only way to counter evil. Totally agree with Thura. Each and every one of us has good and evil within. In my view, it is the only way we can really understand the difference. Some are better able to check the evil within and let their 'good' speak for them. And others lean more towards the evil within and become the murderers and wronmg doers in Society.

My views on the existence of God are also somewhat unconventional. He does not exist outside us. He is within each of us. So is Satan. I don't think it is a coincidence that there is only one more letter in Good to God. Can't explain the reverse though:-)

My views on the existence of God are also somewhat unconventional. He does not exist outside us. He is within each of us. So is Satan.

My sentiments exactly.

I am opening a can of worms here, but I don't really believe in the existence of a omnipotent being who is guides/responsible for us - or the direct antithesis of that being who tempts us to do terrible deeds.

The so called battle between good and evil (not in caps) is fought inside us every second, minute, hour and every day. Every time we decide who is the winner.

I sense another quote coming:-)

The more we grow in love and virtue and holiness, the more we see love and virtue and holiness outside. All condemnation of others really condemns ourselves. Adjust the microcosm (which is in your power to do) and the macrocosm will adjust itself for you. It is like the hydrostatic paradox, one drop of water can balance the universe. --- Swami Vivekananda

The so called battle between good and evil (not in caps) is fought inside us every second, minute, hour and every day. Every time we decide who is the winner.

In a metaphorical sense, yes. But does this imply that something like evil really exists?

I don't think it is a coincidence that there is only one more letter in Good to God. Can't explain the reverse though:-)

(D)evil. And, of course, my view is somewhat similar. Any evil human action perceived as not originating with us (or with 'I', individually-speaking) is coming from some other interior or set of interiors. While I understand the supernatural view, there is an inherent danger in it I think best avoided if one's view is supernatural: Viewing evil as fully external (not saying you do, Tom, but some do) makes it way too easy to blame an external. Just too convenient to say, "I didn't do it. The Devil did it." - or, more often - "The Devil made me do it." As if evil is something that magically arrives from somewhere else, moves in and takes over arbitrarily. I'm with Buber on this one.

By trying to prove God's existence or define God, the rationalist philosophers automatically established an I-It relationship.

In doing that, human beings personified (and meticulously defined) 'God', making and remaking 'God' in man's image and according to their own cultural norms. When you compare religions and philosophies, God or go(o)d and (D)evil or evil are found to be universal in the human experience. (I wonder sometimes if it's not simply the perception of a 'greater good' and 'greater evil' we're referring to with those particular terms.) Polytheistic views (which include Christianity at the level of the Trinity) define even further: Facets, personifications and/or archetypes.

Not surprised at the 100% result on the poll there. I believe people actually agree on more than they realize sometimes. (Ok. More than they realize very, very often.) It's the perspectives that are different. Supernatural: God and Devil. Natural/humanistic: Good and evil. What would be very helpful, I think, is if - instead of everyone trying to force everyone else to accept their perspective or else be considered wrong or inferior - an effort was made to understand all the perspectives, find the similarities and take it from there. Connect and relate. It's not really that hard, is it? What's in the way? Very specific 'secular' and 'religious' beliefs, maybe.

The day everyone realizes we're all talking about the same things in different languages, I tend to think we might actually get somewhere. :)

One of these days, I'm going to really challenge myself to find a topic just so that I can disagree with my soul sister, lrobinson. I may have to wait a lifetime though:-)

The so called battle between good and evil (not in caps) is fought inside us every second, minute, hour and every day. Every time we decide who is the winner.

I agree with this too, Thura because the world we live in is as we see it. If we see evil, that's part of what is inside us and vice versa. Once we see life in more positive terms the 'evil' we perceive is also reduced too.

This is intended as just a polite observation - not meant as criticism. When agreeing with a comment, it is customary to uptick the comment. It helps enrich debate. rant over.

Just curious, why does the discussion of Good and Evil always lead to religion.. ie God and Devil.

@ Raani (Or do you prefer Raat?), keep them quotes coming. lol

The choice for my alias was very subtle - I have an article explaining that. Literally, the words translate to 'Night of the Queen' which in English would be expressed as Queen of the night. Here comes the conundrum. I am not female. All others here call me Raat. Some just RkR. whatever:-)

Just curious, why does the discussion of Good and Evil always lead to religion.. ie God and Devil.

I don't think one 'leads' to the other. I think they're two sides of the same coin or, basically, just two different ways of looking at the same thing. In this case, good and evil (and the nature of them) as perceived by different individuals, some of whom are religious and some of whom aren't.

'God' and 'D'evil' (good and evil, greater good and greater evil) are not necessarily religious subjects, but exactly the same thing (in my view) until everyone starts tacking specific beliefs onto them - secular and religious. I've often said that "religion is the rigid institution of a set of ideas". About good and evil, maybe. Good and evil are not ideas, though. They're phenomena. Question is, how people think of them. I suppose, if the phenomena themselves weren't considered real by just about everyone, none of us would be sitting here talking about them. For that reason, I can't say I really understand the ever-present "Is there a god or not?" question. Just seems to me like the wrong question to ask. (I understand clearly where the "should there be religion or not" question comes in, though.)

My question is, once those basics - good and evil exist in some form - are established, how people perceive (or conceive of) them. There is where all the differences seem to come into the equation.

While we may disagree on whether the source of good/evil is internal or external to humanity, we can agree that it is universally perceived and in the end each person is responsible for diminishing evil and maximizing good. This is what we expect of everyone. We expect everyone to be well over the middle line and seeking the idealized "perfection" in good. When certain "mistakes" or "evil" comes out we can excuse it with "they're only human". This seems very confusing. Why do we embrace this standard that "only human" indicates cannot be attained?

we can agree that it is universally perceived

It's only universally perceived to the extent that everyone considers "evil" to be at least "something I really don't like."

Beyond that, there are many, often contradictory, ideas of what specific things constitute evil.

It's only universally perceived to the extent that everyone considers "evil" to be at least "something I really don't like."

That's essentially what I was going for. We seem to look back on our lives in terms of "sum total". "I consider myself a good person," basically means that my good actions and intentions outweighed the evil actions and intentions. Is that how it works or does a single bad action/intention spoil the apple for good? Of course we have to ask, who cares? Who is really counting the sum total?

Like Raat I am a sucker for these discussions, alas, more for what I can learn than contribute.

Is, who's keeping score, the hardest question to answer, as the answer is the most subjective?

Who cares? Is an easier one, because we - people - care, especially when we are affected.

Who cares?

In my view, no one really. But the "experience emanating from the action" becomes part of us. Part of our self. And entwined with our soul. It gets married to our spirit. That is what we release when we depart from the planet as "us".

And for those who believe that the spirit returns to earth in the shape of another being, it arrives back as part of the instinct of that new being.

A virtuous cycle. Or a vicious circle. That is when the "sum total" counts.

While we may disagree on whether the source of good/evil is internal or external to humanity....

Of course, it could be (and is, from my perspective) always a little of both. When Raat, et al say good and evil originate internally, I'm actually translating that as 'endemic to the nature of all living things'. In humans, most of our parents teach us to "look for the good in people" - or God if a theist ("Everyone's got a little Captain in them"); good - sometimes god - if a humanist/non-theist (Everyone's got a bazillion archetypes in them); etc.

In my world, at least, there are positive and negative energies in nature just as there are positively and negatively charged particles in physical reality. Call it being or energy field, but it permeates all things - including us. There are no stark lines of demarcation between them other than the ones we build ourselves in the conscious mind. (They seem to mingle quite a bit more in the subconscious mind. My goodness, the unbidden thoughts we think sometimes.) We do interact whether internally or in exchanges with others. I believe that it's the exchange between these forces that constitutes life experience. "We smile; we weep."

Both ideology and action involve the conscious mind at some point. The conscience gets involved and says 'this is right' and 'this is wrong' for me. If we're not paying attention and being really mindful of how what we do may be affecting others, the line can be crossed easily and often, so we try to be mindful. Yet sometimes we project subconscious energies - negative and positive. That's when we go 'oops' or 'man, was that lucky'.

Yin/yang, light/dark, creation/destruction, etc. there is an opposite for everything. The dual nature that some reserve to humanity alone (human nature) others perceive in all things ('Buddha nature', for example).

I think you're right, Matt. No matter how we think of it, most of us strive for perfection in our 'good half'.

I believe that evil is a real, actual, active, malicious external force that is dedicated to the destruction of all humanity and the perpetuation of human misery. At the same time I believe that some of the essential humanity of man is evil to the extent that man becomes willing to believe the masquerade of evil as good.

Although most of you will not be familiar with the event, there is a Philadelphia based cult known as MOVE. Although the last major confrontation was in 1985 it's been on my mind a lot lately since some of their members are due for a parole review in a few months. There was evil acting on both sides. The cult members barricaded themselves in their house and essentially held the city hostage through threats to kill their children if the city or police took any action. Eventually, after a series of missteps (to say the least) the inevitable confrontation resulted in disaster--the police dropped a bomb on the house, colluded with the fire department in refusing to extinguish the resulting fire, 6 adults and 5 children died, 61 homes were destroyed, and 251 people were homeless and lost most of their possessions. The cult believed they were righteous and standing up for their beliefs. The city, fire department, and police believed they were righteous. None of them were trying to be evil or sought evil. On the contrary, each side believed they were fighting against evil. Evil found them. Some part of each individual involved was willing to believe the lie.

I believe that evil is a real, actual, active, malicious external force that is dedicated to the destruction of all humanity and the perpetuation of human misery.

Why only humanity and human misery?

Further, do things like the MOVE incident, the Holocaust, Darfur, the Chicago Fire, the Cultural Revolution, etc. point to an external force trying to wipe out humanity? Not to sound cold, but 7 deaths and 251 homeless is a minuscule effect compared to the millions who starve death each year. Is such starvation a result of this external evil force?

If yes to the above, why is this force so ineffectual in terms of the big picture? Our population is skyrocketing at an exponential rate. In terms of pure numbers, no modern tragedy has made a significant dent in humanity as a whole.

Jack,

As I'm a human that's the only form of misery I'm familiar with, sorry if that sounds flip, but that's the way I see it. Things such as MOVE, the Holocaust, etc. definitely point to an outside source because all of them involve actions contrary to their own best interests or are so far afield of acceptable human behavior that it is difficult for me to believe that each instance is a result of a rational thought process and logical decisions uninfluenced by a malignant force. The reason I used MOVE, in spite of its relative small death toll, is because it illustrates that each side believed it was right, yet decisions on both sides resulted in unneccessary deaths and suffering. While it is true that millions starve to death each year, it is difficult to evaluate without a definite cause. The action of evil may be different in different countries. Has a leader misappropriated development funds? Were they banned from emigrating to a better agricultural area? Are they historically oppressed? I believe that yes, it is evil to allow starvation when it is within my power to prevent it. And yes, that is the result of external evil. As to population growth, I'm not sure that won't lead to suffering in some way. I'm not sure it will either.

I don't thing anyone has truly satisfactory answers to all these questions. The good thing, though, is that by our mere willingness to examine them we can reduce our propensity to engage in behavior that causes suffering by being more consciously aware of the impact our words and actions (or inaction) have upon others.

As I'm a human that's the only form of misery I'm familiar with, sorry if that sounds flip, but that's the way I see it.

Alright.

Things such as MOVE, the Holocaust, etc. definitely point to an outside source because all of them involve actions contrary to their own best interests

Why do you think these actions are contrary to the players' own best interests? Nazis wanted to obliterate Jews, atheists, gays, blacks, etc. from the face of the Earth. I'd say that the Holocaust was pretty much in line with their best interests.

As for MOVE, each side had incomplete information about the situation, and and had their own agendas. According to their agendas (and each member of each party probably has slightly/very different personal agendas), they could very well have acted in a self-beneficial manner, according to the information they had.

so far afield of acceptable human behavior

I don't know about that, esp. with respect to the police's actions. We always have 20/20 hindsight, and since both of us are removed from the situation, we can analyze it in a detached, calculating manner. But, not all human decisions are consciously and logically rational, many are emotional, esp. in such explosive situations like the MOVE incident.

it illustrates that each side believed it was right, yet decisions on both sides resulted in unneccessary deaths and suffering.

In game theory (I don't use "game" to make light of the situation. It's the technical term for analysis of multiple-party interactions), very often, even the theoretically optimal equilibrium (best-case scenario) is not perfect, and could actually be damaging to one or both players.

Both players (MOVE and the police) have incomplete information about the situation and about consequences of actions. When there is such incomplete information, it's very easy for the ensuing set of decisions and strategies to churn out something unfavorable for both parties. There need not be a malignant guiding hand.

As to population growth, I'm not sure that won't lead to suffering in some way. I'm not sure it will either.

You spoke of the destruction of humanity, not suffering.

I believe that yes, it is evil to allow starvation when it is within my power to prevent it. And yes, that is the result of external evil.

Why must it be externalized? Selfishness, greed, etc. are all part of the human condition. Indeed, they're part of any social interaction in any species. Why transfer these things to an abstract external entity? There's absolutely no need, and I can see no reason beyond a deflection and diminution of blame.

I can see no reason beyond a deflection and diminution of blame.

I'm not suggesting that humans should not be accountable for their actions. They should. What I've said regarding evil is my personal religious belief. While I don't have any scientific evidence for its existence, I've had experiences with it along with experiences of God. Evil, in my opinion, is different than making a conscious choice to do the wrong thing knowing that it is the wrong thing to do. True evil is not recognizing evil. It is the deception that one's actions are somehow acceptable or virtuous despite evidence to the contrary that one would normally be aware of.

So evil is essentially self-righteous self-delusion?

Again, what you're defining something that "one would normally be aware of" is evidence judged from a detached position.

That's entirely subjective. To be blunt, it's essentially boiled down to anything someone does that they think is right, but you don't agree with.

I don't see how that can be reconciled with an idea of an external evil force. It's simply your personal judgment.

So evil is essentially self-righteous self-delusion?

Maybe it is. Maybe it's some failure to see the good and act upon it, over and above simply making a mistake. You've obviously thought this through more logically and thoroughly than I have, and that's commendable. I don't know why, but I'm not very good at articulating abstract concepts, I should probably avoid these types of discussions, but I do tend to learn a lot.

Hey, these discussions are good for everyone. They make people think about things they probably wouldn't think about otherwise.

Sorry if I came off harsh. I tend to simply tell it like it is.

I think it's arguable whether we choose to do evil "for the most part."

We always act in self-interest, either directly or indirectly (fulfillment of personal belief in an altruistic mission, for example).

Defining evil in terms of general acts is a tricky thing. The classic "If you kill Hitler during WWII, would that be evil?" argument comes to mind.

This also plays into the "evil is intentional harm of another" argument. You're intentionally harming Hitler, but would shooting him be evil? I think not, because you're assigning greater value to the lives you save by stopping him, and "de-evilizing" your action by saying that the good far outweighs the bad.

As for "no violence leads to no evil", there's always fraud. :-p

Here is one simple sentence to your question "If you kill Hitler during WWII, would that be evil?" YES THAT WOULD BE EVIL. Any murder is evil.

So going to war for your country would be evil?

After all, you're going with the express intent of harming others (in your country's name, under orders, of course).

RepublicanChick18,

Here is one simple sentence to your question "If you kill Hitler during WWII, would that be evil?" YES THAT WOULD BE EVIL. Any murder is evil.

Do you believe that killing someone in self defense is murder? It is evil to defend yourself or your family?

Hitler, Richard Speck, and a few others. I suppose if I could go back, I'd kill them. They did, after all, get away with it.

Who sets the standards of right and wrong?

And this is the priceless question.

I go about it with an anthropological viewpoint, where standards of right and wrong are set by social groups. In turn, in relatively egalitarian systems, these social standards are composed of the personal preferences of most of society.

So, to me, right and wrong really are a matter of personal preference.

This is not to say that I think every judgment is as rational as the next. If you're interested in a more detailed look at the fundamental bases for commonly held social values (and morals), I wrote an article a while back that I can show you if you want.

I also wrote an article that claims their are universal morals that are applied in a hierarchy and only extended to a closed community. The reason their appears to be relativity is because of the judgement required in applying the universal morals. One moral is subjugated to another based on the judgement of the individual. This sort of marries the ideas of absolute and relative morality.

Pseudo-Relative Morality: An Anthrobiological View

(I linked to it a couple of comments down, too :-) )

It's Not Relative Morality, It's a Hierarchy of Absolutes

I'm looking forward to reading Jack's as well. Thanks for the link Jack.

And thank you in turn.

Just from the title of your article, I can safely assume that we're thinking along similar lines.

I'll read it after work.

Thank you for the accolades.

Good luck on your quest to hone your morality. I think most of us share that quest.

Tom, when you where a child you were taught what good and bad was, there is a reason your parents taught you this. This was to stop you being greedy, bully or being led into a life of crime.

People are greedy, selfish by nature its part of our programming (survival of the fittest), our moral standards or lack of moral standards gleaned in childhood environment effects how selfish and greedy we are and the limits that we would go to achieve our aims.

Some people end up selfish for power and money they are cruel and don't care who is hurt or killed to achieve their aims. There are those that will hide behind lies, such as politicians, dictators,, religious leaders, crooked business men and cooperate leaders to achieve evil aims.

Evil is only a word that puts emphasis on the bad behavior of some humans of whom will go beyond the limits of common decency to achieve greedy selfish aims or to achieve revenge.

Evil is not a supernatural entity, its the last rung if we could measure between good and bad.

Very Good -Good - Bad - Evil

This was to stop you being greedy, bully or being led into a life of crime.

This is to maximize both your chances for survival (in society) and maximize your similarity to your parents.

People are greedy, selfish by nature its part of our programming (survival of the fittest)

Self-interest and kin altruism are both part of our biological programming.

Evil is not a supernatural entity, its the last rung if we could measure between good and bad.

Agreed.

Thought I read Lucifer was pretty and vain.

Avoiding any religious terminology or connotation, why do you think people have these psychological patterns, and how do we define what is good or what is evil/bad? What is the source of our standards?

In an above comment, I indicated that I wrote an article about origins of social morality.

Here it is.

In the end, it all boils down to biology.

Sometimes, I actually do wonder whether these were beings so far advanced from us that they did, indeed, appear to be supernaturals. Ancients. Ah, well. Just a thought. Anyway, how is it, I wonder, that Lucifer took others with him?

Sometimes, I also wonder whether we'd go mad if we knew the answers. One day we may build yet another Tower of Babel.

But this time, we'll use nanotubes, so it'll work!

Evil people with evil intentions, there is nothing evil about Iraq there are more good minded people there than bad minded.

Yes pray for the soldiers too be protected against evil deeds but not because they are in an evil place.

Dear Mr. Moderator and Babel Fish, this is my response to wiki, not you all.

"Many religious and philosophical views will tend to agree that "good and evil" are abstract concepts and not absolutes. [citation needed] However, there is a general view that the terms are treated as if they were absolutes. [citation needed]"

I guess that means that someone wants data support their pronouncement. How about this; "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." (Google phrase finder) History is full of data. The persistence of good and evil speaks volumes.

I know mister moderator, i have crossed the boundaries of wonderfulness. I'll hang up on myself, sorry!!!

Ah, but does evil exist as a separate entity or concept?

Or, is it purely a social construct, defined by the whims of the population?

The Aztecs believed in the divine good of human sacrifice.
We think it's abhorrent.

Is it evil?

Anything which deliberately harms another cannot be good, so one has to assume it is evil.

The Hitler argument rears its ugly head again. If you shot Hitler dead in 1939, would that be an evil act? I don't think most people would consider it an evil act.

More importantly, is evil decided by more than popular opinion?

Ah, but does evil exist as a separate entity or concept?

Or, is it purely a social construct, defined by the whims of the population?

Can I be greedy and take both? I agree with evil being a label defined by popular opinion. I believe that the label is constantly being refined as humanity grows to understand the revelation of Truth.

However, I also believe that there is an Evil, a separate entity whose sole purpose is to slow humanity's understanding of that Truth.

revelation of Truth.

Can you be more specific/descriptive than this? I don't know what exactly you're talking about.

However, I also believe that there is an Evil, a separate entity whose sole purpose is to slow humanity's understanding of that Truth.

What is the evidence for this?

Why externalize a "hindering force"? At the moment, it sounds like a kind of self-glorification: we can be a lot more awesome, if only there weren't this external Evil thingy.

If one believes that there is an external source of truth, then it is possible to also believe that there is an external source of evil, and that both of that both of these sources seek to influence human understanding; one to bring enlightenment, the other to bring darkness.

I don't think these are mutually. Truth can include the commission of horrid acts, and truth can be very much be harmful. It is technically enlightenment, in that you unveil facts, but not in the "opposite of darkness (evil)" sense.

My personal belief, based upon what I have seen in Scripture and in practical life, is that there does seem to be spiritual forces that animate a person's behavior. Some people seem to have a source of joy that transcends their circumstances; a "peace" that surpasses human understanding; others seem to have a seething anger or bitterness that holds them in a supernatural death grip.

Could these seemingly external, overpowering forces be attributed to psychological differences, be they genetic or environmental?

I can understand wanting to attribute such to external factors, and I think that it does make people feel better about the state of humanity if they can externalize evils, but I still don't see how it cannot simply be part of the human condition.

From where I stand, bluntly, it's borderline wishful thinking.

Errr, first sentence should be "I don't think these are mutually exclusive."

I applaud your perspective regarding personal responsibility for listening to the evil force.

However, simply externalizing the evil at all seems to be an overly positive opinion of humanity, in that evil is not inherent in the human condition, but rather has an external source.

We're not born corrupted, but rather corrupted by this outside force.

Jack, could you please explain 16.9 to me. I think got it, but not sure?! I get the first line obviously, just the rest, if you would please.

No problem.

I'm saying that thinking of evil as this external force trying to impugn its will on humanity is to idealize humanity.

Even though there are vestiges of blame in "humans need to decide to listen to this evil force, and that in itself is evil", much of the blame has been shifted to something outside of humanity -- outside of ourselves. In effect, they're immunizing themselves from being called truly evil. They're saying "Humanity isn't actually evil. We're simply being manipulated by this outside factor."

the flaw [as i see it] is simply, in a small, but widespread distribution, [and tending to gain shelter behind larger objects like corporations and nationalism that share their condition].. There exists a quantifiable % of the population who could almost be seen as a subspecies given they utterly lack any ability to empathise. The ability to 'feel' for someone else is completely foreign.
Strangely trite then that these types of personalities tend to do well in politics.

There are so many elements culturally and politically and religiously to the Middle East that we can't label all that goes wrong as evil.

I agree with that sensible statement

the troops are fighting evil minded people

How do you support this assertion?

The active enemies our soldiers are fighting are trying to harm our soldiers, but in their worldview -- however different or "twisted" it is -- it's very likely that they think they're fighting for a good cause.

So, each side is fighting for their own "good" cause, and they're both trying to hurt the other.

If the enemy is evil, does that make our troops evil?

I don't think you can characterize either group as "evil minded."

When al Sadr's bunch herds women and children in front of them as they attack our troops, that's certainly not "good."

It is evil of the jihadis to abuse women and subjugate them, and then to expect their 72 houri will be compliant and with no say in the matter. Looks like they've a warped view of the afterlife as well.

Jack

How do you support this assertion?

The active enemies our soldiers are fighting are trying to harm our soldiers, but in their worldview -- however different or "twisted" it is -- it's very likely that they think they're fighting for a good cause.

So, each side is fighting for their own "good" cause, and they're both trying to hurt the other.

If the enemy is evil, does that make our troops evil?

I don't think you can characterize either group as "evil minded."

I am going on the assumption of the terrorist have been indoctrinated by men with evil intentions and that their radical way of thinking is to kill for Allah. As I understand Islam I know that to be evil. However if you are happy with your own view then of course I respect it.

I don't believe specific wars are useful in this discussion other than perhaps to illustrate some point other than their specific justification. Of course the enemy are 'bad' people, the alternative being,
"now these people we are attacking are a good bunch,try not to kill too many of them."
Which, was a battle cry suggested to Attilla the Hun in the fifth century by someone righteously impaled and disemboweled shortly afterwards.

People instinctively employ 'reasoning' to justify mass slaughter.
How else,for example, can the obliteration of entire cities,men woman and children in the blink of an eye [if lucky] be explained?
America's the only country to ever do this and it's done it twice. The argument fundamentally is one of defining nuclear detonation over populated areas as 'the lesser of two evils'.

But now we arrive at interesting questions. If the lesser of two evils contains 'good' then 'good' by implication, may contain quantities of evil?

How much Evil is manageable in America do you think? Is anyone prepared to admit they contain any? I do.

Tom (19.7)

Man, this is one long thread.

I've read somewhere that some young Muslim men find this fleshly afterlife highly desirable, as they've experienced want in the here and now. Then I go out and read that many suicide murderers are educated and not living in need. Some fight over ideology, some fight for the return of the caliphate, some seek death for a better -- and sensual -- afterlife.

I am going on the assumption of the terrorist have been indoctrinated by men with evil intentions and that their radical way of thinking is to kill for Allah

How do you define "evil intentions"?

How do you define "evil intentions"?

I can not understand why your asking such a question, but you must have your reason of which I am really interested in:

However I guess it would be the same definition as yours, so what is your definition.

"Evil intentions" are express intents to harm me or my loved ones.

I can't generalize that any further, since it'd have to be on a case-by-case basis.

But, this is a personal definition, and I doubt your definition would be "express intent to harm Jack or his loved ones."

backroads 19.10,

I think you are standing on the porch of a huge piece of the puzzle.

Then I go out and read that many suicide murderers are educated and not living in need

One of the scariest things that has happened in the past few months speaks clearly to that issue. In England they broke up a plotted bombing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070200274_pf.html

We might expect the "huddled masses", you certainly (I didn't) expect physicians to be involved. I think at last count there were 6 involved.

I guess that blows up the idea that poverty drives terrorism. Sorry, really bad pun. It certainly makes me wonder about how or why people with such education could be caught up in "ignorant maliciousness" as this. It could be of value to know what they call "physicians"as far as education goes.

I'm using the term "ignorant" in reference to the idea that bombings serve the purpose of good when visited upon the innocents. "Maliciousness" in the sense that it is orchestrated.

How does the idea cross that divide between the two layers of their culture.

Take it away Mr. Moderator!

This is really a great article, and you're doing a terrific job of moderating, as usual, Tom.

'roads, I agree with this:

We are born to live and eventually die; it is evil to seek death while robbing others of their lives.

And I just wanted to suggest that perhaps it is evil because life is precious; all life is valuable and irreplaceable.

I'm sorry I appear to be playing devil's advocate all over this discussion, but I think even backroads' relatively airtight statement, quoted by WorldviewWarrior, has its caveats.

I'm of the opinion that in 1939, if someone shot Hitler dead, I wouldn't think of that act as at all evil. I imagine I'd rejoice.

What if the same person killed Hitler via suicide bomb, or even plan on shooting Hitler on a suicide mission? Would such an act then become evil? Personally, I don't think so. I think a great many people would agree with me, as well.

Thoughts?

Before or after he committed acts of evil?

If before I am sure it would have been deemed murder, but afterward we'd call it justice.

By 1939, World War II had already started, so I would say "after."

So, if I had killed Adolph Hitler in, say, 1912, that would have been murder - although it might have eventually spared the world much grief. If I killed Hitler in 1939, it would have been just and laudable, and would have also spared the world much grief.

Agreed.

OK, let me attempt to answer that. Throughout this thread, there have been questions about a definition of evil etc. I think there are two related, but different words at play with some of the 'actions' that have been discussed. The other word is to do with ethics. Even if an action (or lack of) may not be evil, it may still be unethical.

Ethics is more closely linked with a system of social values. The values themselves may be inexorably linked with things like upbringing, culture, tradition, etc.

If I watch a murder being committed but do not do anything, it is debatable whether I am good or evil. But it certainly is not ethical for me to chose not to do anything about it.

Does that touch on the point?

Yes, you are touching on it. On an individual level, we live in a society where community is broken down. We don't know the boundaries of where we can comment or get involved. One man sees rape and another sees a husband and wife fighting... "none of my business." Now if it was one of my neighbors I knew quite well was being attacked by a stranger, I would act. These are complex ethical decisions that are even more difficult in a society that lacks connectivity and relationship. Most everything becomes "none of my business".

I'm thinking more in corporate terms. When we watch the systematic killing of Africans in Sudan and Chad, but fail to act? What about corporate issues where we see a blatant movement of evil, but say, "none of my business"?

The exchange in this thread started by Thura at #8 discussed your question.

Thank you kindly...

I'll know it when I see it.

Evil is porn... and porn is evil! :-p

Tom: my husband says 'right on.' Are you about 40? : )

The tongue-in-cheek approach is due in large part to our inability to define anything anymore with surety.

It seems everything is relative, there isn't any sure right and wrong.

I think this young man, must be old enough/rich enough to retire, else wise he couldn't spend as much time on the vine as he does.

this is great stuff, keep at it please!!

Yeah, I know I was putting myself out there by stating what I did, but I believe it to be the truth. One of my favorite authors is C.S. Lewis and he was not shy about this topic either. In fact, one of the best books ever written on spiritual warfare is "The Screwtape Letters". It is worth a read because C.S. Lewis presents this warfare in a way that exemplifies just how subtle it is sometimes, but yet, the consequences can be so severe. I haven't read it in a long time and after reading this thread, I think I may go knock the dust off it and reread it.

Is it not possible, that while the scientific mind might explain away certain events and conditions that what they are observing are still the effects of an evil presence?

Anything's that doesn't contradict facts is possible.

However, it's entirely unnecessary.

We can explain this medically, but is it not possible that all we are really explaining or observing are the side effects of demonic possession, that is that the possession itself causes the deformation?

Again, it's possible, but the scientist and rationalist in me rejects it because there's not evidence to specifically support this assertion, and this assertion is unnecessary for explaining anything.

Jack, you are correct that, at least to the scientific mind, it is unnecessary; however, to the spiritual mind and/or faith based mind, it is an entirely necessary distinction. Herein lies the crux, I believe, of what I am saying in connection with what you have said: The spiritual mind cannot discount the conclusions of the scientific mind as those conclusions are in fact correct, but the scientific can neither discount the conclusions of the spiritual mind, since from the perspective of the spiritual mind they are correct as well. I simply don't believe that this has to be an exclusive situation. Both can be right and neither can discount the other. There is room, I believe for both the scientific mind and the spiritual mind to coexist. After all, many of the earliest scientific minds were propelled to seek the answers they did by their faith, as an attempt to describe the creation in which they lived. Yet in this society the science side has started to claim exclusivity over our world and pushing out the spiritual and/or faith based mind simply because they cannot disprove or prove their conclusions. There is room for both.

I'm not discounting you outright.

I have enough control over my skepticism to say that it's entirely possible.

But, I simply don't (and see/feel no need to) consider the spiritual possibilities at the moment.

I simply don't believe that this has to be an exclusive situation. Both can be right and neither can discount the other. There is room, I believe for both the scientific mind and the spiritual mind to coexist.

Agreed.

Sorry if I implied otherwise. I guess I'm jaded by the countless discussions I've had with creationists replacing science, wholesale, with religious tripe.

Yet in this society the science side has started to claim exclusivity over our world and pushing out the spiritual and/or faith based mind simply because they cannot disprove or prove their conclusions.

I don't really agree there. Any "pushing" that the scientific community has done recently has beena reaction to (and I don't want to sound too dramatic here) centuries upon centuries of religion trying to kick the living crap out of it.

Scientists have historically been a timid sort. If you don't incessantly try to replace facts with unsupportable dogma, we're totally fine with spirituality. In fact, spirituality and its neurological effects have been a topic of medical study for some time now.

jmack @ #24.2

I loved The Screwtape Letters. Haven't read it since college (more than a few years ago). That's pretty much what I took from it, though: evil is pervasive and subversive. I've learned so much from C.S. Lewis. Thanks for your comment.

I don't really agree there. Any "pushing" that the scientific community has done recently has beena reaction to (and I don't want to sound too dramatic here) centuries upon centuries of religion trying to kick the living crap out of it.

Scientists have historically been a timid sort. If you don't incessantly try to replace facts with unsupportable dogma, we're totally fine with spirituality. In fact, spirituality and its neurological effects have been a topic of medical study for some time now.

I see what you're saying, Jack, and I have to agree with you in retrospect. As you are jaded, I have been jaded for the opposite reasons. Too many discussions where the 'scientist' or scientific mind goes beyond just presenting facts and attacks faith or spirituality outright with no real way to back themselves up other than their own personal opinions. At that point, the scientist becomes involved as much in their own dogma as the creationist does in his.

The current environment in this country is quite poisonous in this regard; both sides trying to claim exclusivity over certain facts without either acknowledging the problems with that. I believe in creation, but that doesn't mean that I think that it should be taught in public schools. I believe that if, as a Christian parent, you have taught and raised your children correctly, then you won't have to worry about it anyway. Otherwise you're selling your kid short on their very real ability to decide for themselves what they believe to be true.

On that note though, why does the scientific community get so upset when a person does choose creation over evolution? I know that the scientific cannot understand why someone would choose unprovable facts over what they believe to be verifiable evidence, but what does it really matter in the long term? Unless that person is actively working in the field of biology, I don't see how that matters. Anyway, I'm getting on kind of a rant, but therein lies some of my jaded-ness.

I agree with your post 100% by the way.

Too many discussions where the 'scientist' or scientific mind goes beyond just presenting facts and attacks faith or spirituality outright with no real way to back themselves up other than their own personal opinions.

That is indeed unfortunate, and not something I condone.

On that note though, why does the scientific community get so upset when a person does choose creation over evolution?

At this juncture, the scientific community is upset because creationists try to put the two on an even evidentiary playing field, either by debunking... essentially the whole of geology and biology, or by playing the "if you can't say you're entirely sure, then I'll just say you're wrong" card.

both sides trying to claim exclusivity over certain facts without either acknowledging the problems with that.

Again, I may be biased, but I think it's very safe to say that scientists are the first people to acknowledge and account for shortcomings in their own theories. They have to, else they'll be torn apart by other scientists. In scientific papers, there is an unspoken rule that a section must be devoted to shortcomings in their research and proposals for future study.

We've had to adapt to not emphasizing shortcomings in theories simply because once they're mentioned, the religious side of the debate will essentially say "Your ideas have flaws and uncertainty, while we're rock-solid in our beliefs. That means we're better."

In effect, a number of us have been driven to toe the line of dogma simply because the public does not know, nor care about, the differences in methodology between scientific theory and religious doctrine -- only the ending soundbite. The religious side of the debate is absolutely fine with this, for obvious reasons.

We're also upset that the same people, through doing this, are trying to replace science with religious doctrine, not only in schools, but also in such things as beliefs about medical assistance.

In the long term, we don't believe that the thought process most efficient in pragmatically explaining the real world, whose results are to be used in affecting it, should start with facts, then lead to theories and generalizations, not the other way around.

I don't mean that religious faith is crap, but as I said before, if increasing numbers of its proponents actively try to replace the results of physical observation and scientific inquiry, and are succeeding, then we have a serious problem in how we adapt to and mold our world.

Jack, I appreciate your well reasoned and even-tempered responses. Definitely different than many of the responses I have seen in those creation/evolution debates. I also happen to believe that any Christian that feels they need physical evidence to justify their belief in Creation also needs to double check what their faith is built on. Anyway, once again I can't find anything in your response that I'd disagree with. Very well put.

Another book I would highly recommend is "The Visitation" by Frank Peretti or "This Present Darkness" or "Piercing the Darkness". Frank Peretti has a very unique and very effective way of portraying spiritual warfare in "non-whimsical" terms and leaves you thinking, "that could really happen." If you have never read any of his stuff, you are missing out on some really good and entertaining literature.

One given to fostering and propagating pain and suffering etc.

I think you'd need to define this a bit more specifically, because that definition can encompass everything from Hitler to the playground bully in elementary school.

What reason could there possibly be for one culture after another to find one reason or another to try to destroy them??

I frankly don't know that much about the long-time politics that governed and influenced violent slaughter and persecution of Jews.

However, to suggest that there is an abstract being of pure evil, an evil force separate from human nature, simply because we do not already have a nice and tidy explanation for why many Middle Eastern and European cultures through history persecute the Jews is quite an extraordinary leap in thinking.

An analogy would be the now-reviled concept of Manifest Destiny. On the surface, it seems that a metaphysical force of Europe-biased aid transformed Europe into a technological and political powerhouse over the course of many centuries, whereas the cultures of the Americas were still in the Stone Age in the 1700s.

However, if you read Jared Diamond's excellent "Guns, Germs, and Steel", he gives an incisive look at the large number of natural factors (proportion of continents, mountainous geography, etc. which together, greatly hindered the technological and political development of the peoples of the Americas.

If we jump to conclusions of ethereal beings of evil/good, we run the risk of missing the more complex, but much more down-to-earth explanations for the same phenomena.

There are many unexplained social phenomena throughout history. Our lack of short, pat answers is not evidence for a metaphysical being of [insert relevant effect].

That would require them to travel the known universe and find no evidence of a being with a metaphysical component capable of such things as inciting to evil, influencing a culture or a person such any one of us.

People are more than capable of inciting to "evil" (however you wish to define that) and influencing a culture or another person.

Of course, you would have to concretely define "evil," which may be much harder than you think.

As the question by ancientandorthodox was addressed to me, I will answer it taking Tom's valid comment above in mind.

The persecution of Jews by the Nazis answers the main question that Tom poses via this article. C'est tout.

Jack H. @ 25.1

However, to suggest that there is an abstract being of pure evil, an evil force separate from human nature, simply because we do not already have a nice and tidy explanation for why...

Sorry, I have to disagree. From whence does evil emanate?

I've never had to teach my son to lie. I didn't need to teach him to steal, or be mean, or how to be selfish. I didn't work hard to make sure he would be able to be self-centered and greedy. Yet he knows and practices all these things, requiring much effort on my part to instill virtue. There are a few possible reasons for this, but one underlying foundational cause: there is evil in the world. He wasn't inculcated by another human being; there was something deeper going on, some other influence, which required opposition--so that he would grow up to be a 'productive member of society.'

Whether you envision a red-horned devil, the 'dark side of the force', or an 'angel of light', as 'roads suggests (@ 11.2), it seems that there needs to be some acknowledgment of a source: a root, if you will. Which also begs a counter-weight: what opposes that evil? Is evil supreme? Is it subjugated to a supreme 'good'?

It seems to me that if it were merely a human device--human frailty--then not only would it be less prominent, but concerted efforts such as the extinction of the Jewish race would not be possible (okay, at least, would not have been possible in the past, even if it could be possible to coordinate such an effort through today's technology). It would be focused individually--my needs, my wants--and be easily segregated and isolated from the rest of society. I don't see that happening on an individual scale. And why would anyone bother to uphold any sort of standard? Would there even be law?

I just don't buy your theory; there's too many holes.

Your son most probably lies when he feels it is advantageous (in the short term, at least) for him to do so.

We are born with genetic programming which encourages us to be selfish. Such programming was necessary for survival. Of course, the other half of our survival instinct is the social aspect, where kin altruism comes into play. But, this half requires immersion in a social group, and is thusly slower to manifest.

I didn't need to teach him to steal, or be mean, or how to be selfish.

These traits are not only your DNA, but often spurred on by similar behaviors he observes in society.

He wasn't inculcated by another human being

He very well could have been. Not you, perhaps, but social observation.

There are a few possible reasons for this, but one underlying foundational cause: there is evil in the world.

"Evil" is a term that we invented to describe a large group of actions and thoughts we deem harmful to those we do not wish to harm, or even simply very disagreeable.

Good and evil are subjective. Each person defines different groups of actions as evil, different groups of actions as good. Thus, the idea of a separate entity of "evil" is also a personal one, which renders such an idea invalid. For there to actually be some separate entity of evil, evil must be universally defined in a concrete way. It's not.

Likewise, there's no such thing as a separate, supreme good, as the things we describe as "good" vary from person to person.

It seems to me that if it were merely a human device--human frailty--then not only would it be less prominent, but concerted efforts such as the extinction of the Jewish race would not be possible

Why?

Not every large-scale effort need be concerted. I doubt most of Europe was actively working together, putting their heads together in a huddle, to decided as a group that blacks were subhuman and worthy of subjugation.

Simply because, in hindsight, there was a massive movement that seemed to ork toward one goal does not mean there must have been a master puppeteer behind (above?) the scenes, working every puppet string.

Ideas can travel like diseases. Both are transmitted through human interaction, and we are most susceptible to both when we've never encountered them before. Think of the Black Death. Would you say that there a concerted effort behind that?

I don't think you can actually show me evidence that anti-Jewish sentiment was spread by any more of a concerted effort than the Black Death.

And why would anyone bother to uphold any sort of standard? Would there even be law?

Self-interest. Once part of a society, an individual must contribute as a useful part of society in order to maximize his own benefit. It's really as simple as that.

Laws are instated when the part of society in control (the powerful, the majority, etc.) gains the ability to forcibly encourage behaviors they deem advantageous to their goals.

Jack,

Good and evil are subjective. Each person defines different groups of actions as evil, different groups of actions as good.

Are you saying that there can't be/aren't objective standards by which we define good and evil?

That's precisely what I'm saying. Well, objective universal standards, anyway.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, though.

Who gets to define what is good or evil. I hope we all would agree that murder, as distinct from acts of self defense, is evil. I believe we are duty bound to protect those who need protection. Surely we would define the Enron, Tyco, white collar crime as evil. Spousal abuse, elder abuse, surely we agree on those things.

They are by all standards, therefore objectively, definable as evil. But when we depart from the "obviously evil" who gets to set the standards. Personally, history serves us well at that point. So does the Bible. I believe there is a "parental" aspect to society, the culture. We as parents endeavor to create for our children an arena in which they can grow and learn and succeed. The rules ought to be set at a level conducive to the preservation of at least a modicum innocence, sufficient for them, by and large, to succeed. Same goes for the culture/society. Sorry about the run on, that is what happens in my brain when engaged in something pretty exciting like this is.

We have a system of laws is fairly we defined. It is supposed to be influenced by precedent and not activist judges. However we now have people who are comfortable debating what the meaning of "is" is. So our system is becoming much more user definable, which i personally reject.

The fact remains that murder, rape, abuse are still objectively definable as evil, you wouldn't argue with that would you???

The fact remains that murder, rape, abuse are still objectively definable as evil, you wouldn't argue with that would you???

Well if you insist.

I hope we all would agree that murder, as distinct from acts of self defense, is evil.

Murderer, locked up for life, society protected, yet we execute the prisoner.

Commence redefining evil....now.

I hope we all would agree that murder, as distinct from acts of self defense, is evil.

Would murdering Hitler in 1939 be evil?

I doubt you'd get any sort of consensus on that.

Spousal abuse, elder abuse, surely we agree on those things.

Is child abuse evil? If so, is spanking evil? After all, spanking and child abuse differ only in degree and sense of self-justification. Spanking was considered a necessary part of childcare not too long ago. Where are you drawing the line?

I believe we are duty bound to protect those who need protection.

Who decides who "need[s] protection"? Does the man who lost his 401k because a CEO lied need protection? Does the woman suing McDonald's for their coffee burning her tongue need protection? Do the poor of the America need protection? After all, they're well off compared to the poor of India or central Africa. Does the guy complaining that his taxes are too high need protection?

Who needs protection is also a matter of personal opinion.

They are by all standards, therefore objectively, definable as evil.

You're jumping the gun here.

Personally, history serves us well at that point.

Are you saying that in every conflict in human history, "good" has triumphed over "evil"? Manifest Destiny was not only considered "good" at the time. It was considered an obligation. We now think it was bad, but that illustrates nothing but the malleability of the concept of "evil."

So does the Bible.

Ahem. I don't think so. The Bible describes a God who encouraged infanticide, commanded incestuous rape, committed genocide, committed xenocide, and rewarded fratricide. I think those would probably all fall under your definition of "obviously evil."

Further, the First Commandment is one of total obedience to a single god. Should any deviation from that be called "evil"?

So our system is becoming much more user definable, which i personally reject.

That's usually what democracy means. Tough luck, I guess.

The fact remains that murder, rape, abuse are still objectively definable as evil, you wouldn't argue with that would you???

I did argue with that. "Evil" is always an opinion.

Jack H

Would murdering Hitler in 1939 be evil?

It never happened, why do you care??

Is child abuse evil? If so, is spanking evil? After all, spanking and child abuse differ only in degree and sense of self-justification. Spanking was considered a necessary part of childcare not too long ago. Where are you drawing the line?

Let me get this clear, you are buying into all the nonsense going around about raising children like;
negotiating with them and time outs etc. Do you have any children brother??

Ahem. I don't think so. The Bible describes a God who encouraged infanticide, commanded incestuous rape, committed genocide, committed xenocide, and rewarded fratricide. I think those would probably all fall under your definition of "obviously evil."

Please could you supply me with chapter and verse on that? You don't strike me as being the type who just swallows rhetoric for the most part.

Are you saying that in every conflict in human history, "good" has triumphed over "evil"? Manifest Destiny was not only considered "good" at the time. It was considered an obligation. We now think it was bad, but that illustrates nothing but the malleability of the concept of "evil."

I don't remember saying anything about conflict in the above statement, actually i was simply drawing on the consensus which fairly we established unless

We

What you talkin bout Willis? There you go with the rhetoric, rats!

I did argue with that. "Evil" is always an opinion.

But the fact remains that we must agree that murder is evil. What shall we say about abuse, etc.? As far apart as we are philosophically we do agree on those things.

Please tell me we agree about those few things. That would be really scary if we didn't!
Clearly there is

malleability

at certain points, but some are locked in, no? Please tell me it ain't so!!

WC

Murderer, locked up for life, society protected, yet we execute the prisoner.

So you think he should be able to take the life of someone you love and keep his!!??

we

we did!!

Personally to honestly answer your question no I probably would want whoever dead.
Because the part of me capable of evil wants natural justice, an eye for an eye. I,in the form of my state or my society [Where Permitted Only] will in cold blood kill a man for himself killing. [Without Permission/Conditions apply]

Whereas the hopefully majority of me that is not evil will rise above mere revenge to see that for life to be sancroscant then there must be a future where it is possible to contain humanity without sanctioned bloodshed. And part of the sacrifice required in not becoming part of that which hurts you most [a killer of killers] is [presently most would say] wasting resourses on human defects by gaoling them til natural death in the overall pursuit and reinforcement of the ideal that killing people is wrong.

This might be the time for a What you talkin bout Willis? There you go with the rhetoric, rats!

Killings gone in cycles since we fell out of trees and discovered rocks and sharpened sticks.
You are genetically predisposed to want to kill people who piss you off as an individual or as a society. Culture or society dictates whether this is allowed.rituals are created if so.
I would rather it wasn't. [and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, You are for it / I'm not, I'm just answering your question to the best of my ability.]

It never happened, why do you care??

So you can only judge morality of things that have already happened? That's a bit useless, don't you think? Waiting for "bad" things to happen first, then pointing and saying "Oh look! That was bad!"

Okay, take your pick of the world's murderous dictators. Would there be a consensus that killing one of them would be an evil act?

Let me get this clear, you are buying into all the nonsense going around about raising children like; negotiating with them and time outs etc. Do you have any children brother??

I never said anything about timeouts. Whether or not I have children (I don't, though I do have a sister 8 years my junior, so I've observed quite a bit of child-rearing) doesn't factor into this. Trying to discredit my points by saying "oh, you don't have kids, so you don't know what it's actually like" is like saying no one can judge rape without being a rapist. It's a ridiculous argument.

Please could you supply me with chapter and verse on that? You don't strike me as being the type who just swallows rhetoric for the most part.

Infanticide: God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him, then at the last minute, saying "Wait, just kidding!" (Genesis 22:1-14)
Incestuous rape: Abraham's daughters getting him drunk and shagging him. (Genesis 19:31-36)
Genocide: Sodom & Gomorrah. (Genesis 19:1-25)
Xenocide: The Flood. (Genesis 6-7)
Rewarding fratricide: After Cain killed Abel, he was cast out, but went on to found his own glorious city. I don't see "Here, you get your own city." as a punishment. (Genesis 4:8-17)

I hope that's sufficient.

What you talkin bout Willis? There you go with the rhetoric, rats!

Indeed, an unassailably cogent rebuttal. Such words merit applause.

But the fact remains that we must agree that murder is evil.

All of it? Every single case?
It's all about the caveats, sir.

That would be really scary if we didn't!

Then count yourself terrified of this world.

but some are locked in, no? Please tell me it ain't so!!

Since you've offered no substance to back up "there are concrete, universal morals", then yes, I'll tell you "it ain't so."