Do you believe there is such thing as evil?

[Kho]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]

If you buy that sort of thing.

Instead you could suppose that there's universal capacities and drives experienced by any human being, the fact that individual life is comprised of the contact between these and the social matrices of any given social order, leading to some variety or diversity, does not mean that everything is relative and all simply social constructs of the moment.

Its possible to discover an objective ethics, derivative from psychology, its difficult but not impossible.

Any attempt to argue for an objective, universal ethics is logically negated by the fact that I wouldn't buy into it. Not just me, but relativists everywhere.
It's not possible for there to be a world in which a universally valid objective system of ethics exists, when the supposed persons for whom these 'universal' ethics hold sway deny the existence of any such things.
Unless, of course, you claim that relativists just haven't gone through the refining process of extracting these elusive 'universal ethics'. But I think that would be a rather unfair way to go about it.
I respect the rights of persons who claim that universal ethics is a thing to say whatever they please, of course.
It doesn't mean I buy into it or anything.
I used to claim that we all bleed red, but I've come to learn the hard way that though all wounds are a universally similar colour, pain thresholds may vary greatly.

All of those forces are nihilistic, they dont believe their actions are evil, they just believe that since evil is whatever they say it is they have licence to do whatever they please.

Its a grossly perverted version of freedom.

Which is one of the most powerful human psychological drives there is, if its blocked that drive doesnt disappear it just gets perverted and re-emerges as a deviant version of the original, ie licentiousness and evil.

Again, I think this depends on how you define evil. The perpetrators of these acts we call 'evil' certainly didn't consider them evil -- and even if they did, they considered their acts a form of 'necessary evil.'
The Nazis justified their atrocities by saying it was for the greater good. So did the communists. So does the Islamic State (although the Islamic State has stated outright that they do want to hasten the end of the world, so that's debatable -- then again, they believe that the end of the world should come quicker so that heaven on earth can appear ASAP. And heaven, for them, is the ultimate good. So in that sense they're fighting for their own version of the ultimate good as well.)

I do believe in biological truth, however, and I'm not claiming that the universe is a hologram.
(unlike some Japanese astrophysicists I could mention: Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram : Nature News & Comment. No, that's not an Onion article.)
I don't feel good or happy when I see people being injured or sad; I feel indignant when I see something I consider 'unfair' happen.
That's a result of my brain chemistry and the way I'm wired. So I act upon those feelings and I call it 'morality' in the largely conventional sense.
A robot with a positronic brain may have a different set of ethics and a different set of truths than my own.
And I would respect that robot's right to have such different basic truths for its own set of rules to act upon. But I would probably have to fight against it, ultimately.
That's why I totally loved the movie Ex Machina.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]



Any attempt to argue for an objective, universal ethics is logically negated by the fact that I wouldn't buy into it. Not just me, but relativists everywhere.

Yeah, I've heard that before and its a category error, there are laws and an ordered cosmos despite you yourself whether you perceive it or agree it or you do not.

If you doubt it take a long walk of a short pier and see if you get wet in the surrounding water.

The same can be said of an ethics which is derivative of psychology, or normative humanism, as it corresponds to universal human needs and drives, the universal is not the uniform, in part because of the contact between those same universal drives and social matrices of any given order but also because there's differences between the universal and uniform (that's a subtle point a lot of people dont grasp, the same as equality does not mean unformity etc.).

Anyway, you can choose to deny that if you like, you're free to, although its the same as the analogy about natural law and gravity, it remains a fact whatever you happen to think about it. Occupy yourself for as long as you like with considerations of a metaphysical or abstract sort it wont change that.

Its not that elusive either, its apparent to most people, its how early theorising of natural law came about because most of these things were and are self-evident.

As to how the marvelous relativists could have developed their own arrogant departure from it all, well, psychoanalysis can explain a lot, repression, rationalisation, projection etc. etc. there's a whole bunch of ego defensive ways of avoiding what's right in front of you with some sophistication (as in sophistry).

If you're unconvinced of this I'd ask you to consider language again, its impossible to be an individualist in language, if you had your own language what would be the point and would it even be possible without being derivative from what you've learned as you developed in a ontological ordered social context? Ethics is the same, derivative of psychology.

 

[Lark]

[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]
Again, I think this depends on how you define evil. The perpetrators of these acts we call 'evil' certainly didn't consider them evil -- and even if they did, they considered their acts a form of 'necessary evil.'

As a relativist of course you would.

As someone who is not a relativist I would not evil IS evil, whether its necessary or not, its still evil and its absolutely not amenable to redefinition on the basis of who says it or when or for what purpose.

Last I checked water was still wet whether anyone defined it as dry or anything else.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Having a hardened apathy toward - and/or - a gleeful enjoyment of suffering.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes. Whoever was responsible for Full House certainly qualifies.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

Yes (having been in it's grasp). But, my feelings about evil differ from many. I agree with [MENTION=5223]MDP2525[/MENTION] that it is a hardened apathy and with [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] that it involves a quietness. Evil does not involve a 'snapping' into violence.

Gavin De Becker (whose clients include law enforcement, women's shelters, federal agencies...) says that the process of evil is as predictable as water coming to a boil. His book "The Gift of Fear" is one of the few that I have read more than once as it shows how humans have the ability to predict and prevent danger as much as other animals do = but we often ignore it.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Yes (having been in it's grasp). But, my feelings about evil differ from many. I agree with [MENTION=5223]MDP2525[/MENTION] that it is a hardened apathy and with [MENTION=4050]ceecee[/MENTION] that it involves a quietness. Evil does not involve a 'snapping' into violence.

Gavin De Becker (whose clients include law enforcement, women's shelters, federal agencies...) says that the process of evil is as predictable as water coming to a boil. His book "The Gift of Fear" is one of the few that I have read more than once as it shows how humans have the ability to predict and prevent danger as much as other animals do = but we often ignore it.

I see evil as a final form. I agree that origins of it can be culled from external circumstances and also from within. It can be as gradual as it is complex!

I think Walter White is a good example of how insidious evil can be. That is one example. There are many different ones. I think there are mitigating circumstances but overall...it stems from pride, fear, power, and hate.

I may not be able to see the back story but the end result looks the same to me.

 

[Personality Analyst]

Evil is committing acts that cause harm. It arises mainly out of ignorance.

I don't think anyone is inherently evil, rather it occurs due to circumstance.

 

[entropie]

I don't think anyone is inherently evil, rather it occurs due to circumstance.

Very idealistic

 

[Personality Analyst]

Very idealistic

Only on good days , and it's partly curbing my tendency to view most of humanity as scum.

 

[entropie]

Only on good days , and it's partly curbing my tendency to view most of humanity as scum.

that have you said

 

[Kho]

Yeah, I've heard that before and its a category error, there are laws and an ordered cosmos despite you yourself whether you perceive it or agree it or you do not.

If you doubt it take a long walk of a short pier and see if you get wet in the surrounding water.

The same can be said of an ethics which is derivative of psychology, or normative humanism, as it corresponds to universal human needs and drives, the universal is not the uniform, in part because of the contact between those same universal drives and social matrices of any given order but also because there's differences between the universal and uniform (that's a subtle point a lot of people dont grasp, the same as equality does not mean unformity etc.).

Anyway, you can choose to deny that if you like, you're free to, although its the same as the analogy about natural law and gravity, it remains a fact whatever you happen to think about it. Occupy yourself for as long as you like with considerations of a metaphysical or abstract sort it wont change that.

Its not that elusive either, its apparent to most people, its how early theorising of natural law came about because most of these things were and are self-evident.

As to how the marvelous relativists could have developed their own arrogant departure from it all, well, psychoanalysis can explain a lot, repression, rationalisation, projection etc. etc. there's a whole bunch of ego defensive ways of avoiding what's right in front of you with some sophistication (as in sophistry).

If you're unconvinced of this I'd ask you to consider language again, its impossible to be an individualist in language, if you had your own language what would be the point and would it even be possible without being derivative from what you've learned as you developed in a ontological ordered social context? Ethics is the same, derivative of psychology.

Well, if you actually read the rest of my edited post you would see that I speak of biological truths as being self-evident. Those have pretty much nothing to do with extrapolated, usually bombastically overexaggerated stances on morality, which are decidedly NOT self-evident.

This isn't about semantics, and frankly I've been tired of this drivel long before you came along, so let's agree to disagree -- except no, wait, you can't, apparently. Oh well, I don't really... care.

Be careful about making 'universal' 'catch-all' claims like 'evil exists and is a solid tangible thing' because there IS such a thing as waterproofing, you know.
Quite a pity we can't agree on this fundamental bit, too, as I was really liking your avatar picture.

 

[Cellmold]

Your proof is out there little one among the blades. It's in your actions and reactions, your strife and success.

You want an inner and outer truth hand in hand? Pah! That separation is your delusion. Everyone wants that, or wants others to tell them. It's already there, the full meal, see?!
You gotta work hard for your truth, no clocking out... just keep pushing, keep moving... or drown.

You wanna be good? Make that your truth.

Watch out, though, people are so filled to the brim with shit, most of it imaginary shit. Watch out for those false gurus. Course... I'm full of it too, turns out you can't rely on anybody.... hahaha... cya little one.

Keep hoppin'

 

[Kanra Jest]

'Evil' is merely a construct that does not truly exist. For it was created by humanity as a means to separate good and bad, selfish and selfless actions. Though by extension I wouldn't consider selfishness in of itself evil .. Tis survival. But we need to balance it out, regardless. In our varying degrees. I hold no illusion of a supernatural evil and good however. The original concept of such that really took flight and obsession was satan and god. To defy god was evil. But God could very well be just as evil, and satan just as good. What proof do we have? To throw labels at things and build our societies, opinions, mental and 'spiritual' worlds around it is our nature.

The existence is entirely dependent upon humanity, however. A concept. Both necessary to some degree.

Evil is not merely sadism considering there are many reasons people do violent things and they could be justified in a variety of ways in the eyes of those who see it in a different light. Like Templars purging heretics. Evil is largely "the enemy", for we in our eyes are always good. (Or often)

 

[Thalassa]

Yes, and I think humans have the capacity to choose evil or good. A thing becomes an instrument of evil when it is recognized as destructive, yet still employed. For example, if you didn't realize eating a Hershey bar enslaved Western African children, or that drinking Nestle bottled water was raping small communities of their clean water supply, you could not be accused of evil for innocent participation. However some people would argue that humans have a responsibility to inform themselves from where the things they consume come from, so ignorance isn't an excuse unless you are a child.

Like most sin, there's weaknesses and a sadness involved typically, rather than overt cruelty or sadism. The truest evil is that which is done in a spirit of cruelty, which is why love is the embodiment of the law.

The official position of the Catholic Church is that "the antichrist" is any system that appears to be an ideal other than God - for example, the worship of money and resources or power, thinking capitalism or communism are the answer to all of the world's ills. At present, though, I'm rather convinced corporate capitalism transcends all other run of the mill low grade human sin, because I can think of nothing that's been more destructive to human, animal, and plant life world wide, rather than the overt act of war itself.

 

[Yara the Corpse]

yes and no, and getting into why would be a waste of time. Sorry I don't like these questions!

 

[Coriolis]

JWhat is the first thing you think of when you hear the word 'evil?'

Propaganda. Namecalling. When I hear the word "evil", my first reaction is to examine the agenda of whoever is labelling something or someone else "evil". It is such a loaded and subjective term.

We define it and work with it ourselves, but it's nonetheless useful.

At the very least, we can toss very general ideas and concepts into a nebulous, ill-defined bin to give us a general idea of what to stay away from. The definition of "evil" varies so goddamned much that we'll never get it completely sorted out.

The idea of "evil" may be a useful construct when used . . . constructively, but words like that are far too often used to do more harm (evil?) than good, as in the sort of namecalling I mentioned above.

Evil exists about as certainly as Harry Potter does, but is far more ambiguous. Evil is akin to beauty in that it is not so much an inherent attribute of something as a way others see and react to that thing. There can be considerable agreement on whether certain things are evil, or beautiful, but the agreement won't be universal, and the assessment cannot be proven in any objective way. On other things there might be little agreement at all.

 

[Mole]

Satan, Evil, and Mental Illness

Evil is a religious term, but today we live in the therapeutic society, so we use psychological terms.

Why even under the dispensation of mbti there is no letter for evil, mbti is couched entirely in psychological terms.

But having said that, psychology is obsessed with what used to be a called evil, but us now called neurosis or psychosis.

Psychology is almost entirely negative, with only a small part devoted to Wellness.

In religion, evil is seen at our very root in Original Sin, and in most psychology mental illness is seen at lying at the root of our psyche.

Satan is no longer evil but mentally ill.

 

[Avocado]

Evil is a religious term, but today we live in the therapeutic society, so we use psychological terms.

Why even under the dispensation of mbti there is no letter for evil, mbti is couched entirely in psychological terms.

But having said that, psychology is obsessed with what used to be a called evil, but us now called neurosis or psychosis.

Psychology is almost entirely negative, with only a small part devoted to Wellness.

In religion, evil is seen at our very root in Original Sin, and in most psychology mental illness is seen at lying at the root of our psyche.

Satan is no longer evil but mentally ill.

Insightful as always.


I personally divide along pleasurable/displeasurable rather than good/evil. If one is pursuing pleasure and avoiding displeasure, it follows others who believe in your axiom will do the same. Thus, it is good to reduce displeasurable states in others, just as you would like have done to you. Net pleasure is important when deciding whether or not to pursue a course of action, as well as deciding if more pleasure will be created for a society if a policy is adopted or not. We cannot all simultaneously achieve pleasure, but there is common ground in the pursuit of pleasure.

 

[Mole]

Jesus is well know for casting out demons.

In the first century they believed demons cause physical and mental illness, they literally believed evil beings caused physical and mental illness, while today we believe germs, lesions, or genetics cause physical or mental illness.

And because Jesus cast out demons in the first century, the Vatican approves and authorizes the Catholic Society of Exorcists, who actually cast out demons today.

So even today we still have evil beings.

And I must admit I do admire Satan who said, "I would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven". No whimpering that He had been abused as a child, making no excuse that He was mentally ill, rather glorying in His evil. A role model for evil.