• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Purpose of Evil

Passacaglia

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
645
I'm not sure what you mean by necessity, but I believe there can't be good without bad. I however don't believe that includes evil. From what I can understand evil seems to be purely sadistic. Someone enjoys hurting other people, so they do it. This is different than doing 'bad' things because usually the intent of someone causing harm is for some reason, some form of defense, or belief, rather than strictly enjoyment. I'd say intent is everything, if we're talking about evil.
What do you make of all the pain and suffering that comes about because of those reasons? The mercenary who kills for money, the politician who sells out his constituents for a big fat 'donation,' the zealot who tortures in the name of God, etc.? Very little of the world's misery, pain, or death comes from people who are just plain sadistic; most of the time, horrible people (and even not horrible people) have their reasons for hurting others. Which makes your definition of evil rather narrow, so I'm curious whether this is how you really see things.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
But there really isn't anything to agree or disagree with. It's a factual statement. If the issue at hand is defining what things mean and how they apply, then it is an issue of semantics, as that is what the word literally refers to. It's not the ENTIRETY of it, but's a major part of it, along with pretty much every single philosophical debate there is.

I dont believe it is a matter of semantics and I dont believe that you would either if you had read more about it.

You do seem pretty convinced of the correctness of your views and seem pretty content with that which is fine. If you feel differently in time there's plenty of material out there for you to consider.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Except the entire second half of the post.

I think his posts betray a great deal concern about agreement/disagreement, although more so a concern not to be found out as mistaken.

It is a curious thing to participate in a thread but to assert that it is all meaningless anyway and this is indeed an unchallengeable fact in an axiomatic manner, which is it, all a matter of words, without meaning or a point, or are there instead facts which can not be proven otherwise?

There's so much emotional investment and conflict I wouldnt know where to begin with a discussion.
 

Passacaglia

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
645
And no, I do not care to define what good and evil is. You all can do that shit :alttongue:. In my mind I know what it is, and that's good enough.
I've taken my own stab at defining evil, but yeah, I think for many people it comes down to "I know it when I see it."

It just so happens that I saw a recording of one of those fundy Islamic beheadings this morning, and despite being a moral relativist in many ways, let me say that that shit is Evil with a capital E.

Ugh.
 

Mal12345

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
14,532
MBTI Type
IxTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If evil is a necessity (for the purpose of growth and development), where is the freewill in individuals choosing to be evil, sadistic, sociopathic, or psychopathic?

This is of course assuming that there is no such thing as an outside Creator.

Evil is natural. Or what we call 'evil' is part of nature, part of the order of things. While free-will is a necessary concept for morality, its concept is nothing more than the result of the continuous congruence of decisions with behaviors. Let's say I decide to raise my arm as an example of free-will in action, and then do so. There is no empirical evidence that free-will was the cause of the action, there is only the belief in free-will born from observing congruencies.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Except the entire second half of the post.

Oh that's fair, since that is me just expressing my personal feeling and disdain for participating in philosophy. I was under the assumption he was disagreeing with what I said on semantics, and based on the replies that appears to be the case.


I think his posts betray a great deal concern about agreement/disagreement, although more so a concern not to be found out as mistaken.

It is a curious thing to participate in a thread but to assert that it is all meaningless anyway and this is indeed an unchallengeable fact in an axiomatic manner, which is it, all a matter of words, without meaning or a point, or are there instead facts which can not be proven otherwise?

There's so much emotional investment and conflict I wouldnt know where to begin with a discussion.

I participated because I wanted to. One does not need any reason beyond that so long as the statements are not vindictive to another person or against forum rules. My personal opinion on how I feel about philosophy is not a fact, and I would never push such a thing. I was meerly expressing how I view it. I understand the use of it, but much of the time outside of academic fields that's how it appears to me. What I stated is a fact is the semantics that are required for it.

If you wish to psychoanalyze me though, keep it to yourself as I do not want to hear it from you, and it will not be appreciated.


I dont believe it is a matter of semantics and I dont believe that you would either if you had read more about it.

You do seem pretty convinced of the correctness of your views and seem pretty content with that which is fine. If you feel differently in time there's plenty of material out there for you to consider.

I just told you that it is. I pointed out what the definition of semantics is, and that it is a core of logic and philosophy. You can disagree, but to do so is objectively wrong since disagreeing with a fact makes something wrong. If you want to continue to feel that way go right ahead, but it's incorrect and I am not going to participate discussing that matter any further as it's quite clear you're not going to yield.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
What do you make of all the pain and suffering that comes about because of those reasons? The mercenary who kills for money, the politician who sells out his constituents for a big fat 'donation,' the zealot who tortures in the name of God, etc.? Very little of the world's misery, pain, or death comes from people who are just plain sadistic; most of the time, horrible people (and even not horrible people) have their reasons for hurting others. Which makes your definition of evil rather narrow, so I'm curious whether this is how you really see things.

Yes, it is how I use the word evil. Evil is a strong word. What those people do I'd say is immoral, but wouldn't personally classify it under evil because their intent isn't exactly evil - they aren't aiming to hurt, but do so because it's required for other aims. Maybe this just seems like playing semantics, but I judge people character-wise based on their intentions and not necessarily what they do. I suppose if someone judges someone's character instead on what they do and not the intent, then evil can be many things. But at least for me, I love based on someone's intent, and sadism is something I don't seem able to love in any context.
 

LonestarCowgirl

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
482
If evil is a necessity (for the purpose of growth and development), where is the freewill in individuals choosing to be evil, sadistic, sociopathic, or psychopathic?

This is of course assuming that there is no such thing as an outside Creator.

Help me understand. Where did you hear evil is necessary for growth and development?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The purpose of evil is power, as power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So a totally powerful God is evil.

And totalitarianism is absolute power and is evil.

So a totally powerful God with a totalitarian ideology is doubly evil.

Threatening to destroy the world with nuclear weapons is evil.

At a personal level identifying with a false self and denying the true self is evil. Identifying with a false self is a way of having power over ourselves, and it corrupts us and our friends, and is evil.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I come from the standpoint that good and evil are defined by humanity since we decided what counts as each. Even if we are gone, our definition could still apply, and it could still be defined within those parameters.
If this is the case, then evil is necessary because good is set up as its opposite. It needs to oppose something. The definitions make a dichotomous pair. Denying the existence of evil in such as system would require denying the existence of good as well, and point to some other yardstick with which to measure actions and intentions.
 

Researcher

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2015
Messages
86
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
bad
Why can nobody ever define evil? Maybe the meaning is different for every type?

>> Does the general population think that "those on another function spectrum than they are" are evil?
Like the Fi hating the Ti for being Ti, or the Ti hating the Fi for being Fi?
 

Kevin A.S.

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
15
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
3w2
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Being evil is not a purpose, it's the way how people live. I mean, kind or evil is human's personality and not desire. CMIIW.
 

Passacaglia

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
645
Why can nobody ever define evil? Maybe the meaning is different for every type?

>> Does the general population think that "those on another function spectrum than they are" are evil?
Like the Fi hating the Ti for being Ti, or the Ti hating the Fi for being Fi?
I don't think the general population of TypeC is that tribal. At least I hope not. :dry:

I don't think the general population of the world is aware of typology. Probably the three biggest determinants of morality are religion, culture, and parenting, which is how people end up with such diverse ideas about good and evil.
 

Passacaglia

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
645
Being evil is not a purpose, it's the way how people live. I mean, kind or evil is human's personality and not desire. CMIIW.
I've never heard it put quite like that, but I more or less agree. Good and evil are some combination of action and intent, and as I mentioned earlier virtually nobody thinks of themselves as evil.

Everyone is the hero of their own story.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
Help me understand. Where did you hear evil is necessary for growth and development?

Well, if conquering, pillaging, and displacing others is regarded as evil, then it advanced the spread of civilization itself; settled agriculture didn't necessarily start out as a better life, but it certainly won the competition. And wars (or preparing for such) have been responsible for much innovation. Even more brutally, wars (and the diseases resulting from the same) have historically kept the human population at a level in which contemporary agriculture can sustain it, ensuring the long-term survival of the species as well as acting to maintain technological development after major die-offs (because the more technologically advanced societies took the resources while the losers starved).

Its not pretty, but these and other things show that 'evil' is situationally necessary for growth and development; the trick is to keep limiting the frequency and extent to which it is necessary, one reason why liberal democracy and capitalism are so important.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Well, if conquering, pillaging, and displacing others is regarded as evil, then it advanced the spread of civilization itself; settled agriculture didn't necessarily start out as a better life, but it certainly won the competition. And wars (or preparing for such) have been responsible for much innovation. Even more brutally, wars (and the diseases resulting from the same) have historically kept the human population at a level in which contemporary agriculture can sustain it, ensuring the long-term survival of the species as well as acting to maintain technological development after major die-offs (because the more technologically advanced societies took the resources while the losers starved).

Its not pretty, but these and other things show that 'evil' is situationally necessary for growth and development; the trick is to keep limiting the frequency and extent to which it is necessary, one reason why liberal democracy and capitalism are so important.

I dont believe any of those things were necessary evils or even necessary suffering but they are great examples of avoidable evil or avoidable suffering and in much of the world they have been eradicated or are the subject of efforts to eradicate them or contain, reduce and manage them.

I think those things are rationalisations or excuses for the evils, after the fact, like rationalisations in an individual for behaviours, in part arising from the fact that life can only be understood backwards but paradoxically has to be lived forwards.

However, I would say that conflict, competition, diversity and alternatives from which to choose are all objective goods, sometimes they are confused with or as bad things but that's a product, to my mind, of ideology and prejudices more than anything else.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Why can nobody ever define evil? Maybe the meaning is different for every type?

>> Does the general population think that "those on another function spectrum than they are" are evil?
Like the Fi hating the Ti for being Ti, or the Ti hating the Fi for being Fi?

I think that evil is shadow or inferior to good.

Most evil is a distorted, or to use a word generally discarded or disowned these days perverted, drive, so you get people who can not relate to others but who remain driven to do so becoming sadists or something similar in order to satisfy or channel that drive.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I just told you that it is. I pointed out what the definition of semantics is, and that it is a core of logic and philosophy. You can disagree, but to do so is objectively wrong since disagreeing with a fact makes something wrong. If you want to continue to feel that way go right ahead, but it's incorrect and I am not going to participate discussing that matter any further as it's quite clear you're not going to yield.

Yeah but your point up until this post was that all things being a matter of semantics, being meaningless, all opinion etc. etc. would lead me to conclude that you did not, as I say until this post, believe there was such a matter as objective fact, so it would appear that things are only factual in so far as you believe them to support your point at the present moment, which further leads me to believe that your posts are being made in the spirit of defensiveness.

So like I say, I dont agree with you that its a matter of semantics, I believe that is mistaken and born of a wish to "win" the argument which is sophistry as opposed to trying to progress any sort of discussion. I am not going to "yield" as you put it because I think you are wrong about this and dont want to encourage you in error.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I've taken my own stab at defining evil, but yeah, I think for many people it comes down to "I know it when I see it."

It just so happens that I saw a recording of one of those fundy Islamic beheadings this morning, and despite being a moral relativist in many ways, let me say that that shit is Evil with a capital E.

Ugh.

Which sounds like practical as opposed to abstract or academic reasoning.

In terms of types its probably sensing as opposed to intuition or the SJ vs NT way of looking at things. Not always a good idea because practical reasoning can often be the assertion of social norms, "received wisdom", in pretty unreflective ways without a mind to distinguish between the perennial and vogues or fashions in pop culture.

There is a crisis or confusion of morality which leads to a lot of assertions of relativism which arises from trying to deal with complexity, on which there is no consensus, when it comes to things such as torture and murder there is a consensus, its simpler, and that consensus is so great that its conceivable that there is a natural law codifying in the human mind and conscious reflecting it. Its one of the few cases when I think reductivism can be useful.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
The purpose of evil is power, as power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So a totally powerful God is evil.

And totalitarianism is absolute power and is evil.

So a totally powerful God with a totalitarian ideology is doubly evil.

Threatening to destroy the world with nuclear weapons is evil.

At a personal level identifying with a false self and denying the true self is evil. Identifying with a false self is a way of having power over ourselves, and it corrupts us and our friends, and is evil.

Its a mistake to conflate temporal power with God and divinity.

Although power does tend to corrupt and absolute power would corrupt absolutely. Its a consequence of people being human, all too human.
 
Top