Evil: Evil and its root cause, Ignorance: What causes Evil? Can you forgive evil?

[LightSun]

Evil: Evil and its root cause, Ignorance: What causes Evil? Can you forgive evil? What is to be done about evil? Who defines what's good and evil?

 

[Coriolis]

I disagree that ignorance is the root cause of evil. I do think that the evil are able to exploit ignorance for their own purposes, but that is not the same thing.

 

[FemMecha]

Ignorance can produce a type of evil that people can recover from if they find a way to learn. Ignorance is a source of tremendous harm, but it also implies the inability to correctly perceive reality and so it doesn't speak to the core motivation. An ignorant person can have a non-evil motivation and cause harm.

In my understanding, evil is that deepest motivation to cause suffering for which the only reward is the suffering itself, or perhaps a feeling of power over those who suffer. Even acts of harm in which people receive another type of benefit (like stealing money for personal pleasure) contain some possibility of rehabilitation. I see actual evil as that extreme destructive, cruel state of intention, perception, action, and reward, for which there is no possibility for enlightenment because it is a completely closed system of absolute cruelty.

 

[deathwarmedup]

In my understanding, evil is that deepest motivation to cause suffering for which the only reward is the suffering itself, or perhaps a feeling of power over those who suffer. Even acts of harm in which people receive another type of benefit (like stealing money for personal pleasure) contain some possibility of rehabilitation. I see actual evil as that extreme destructive, cruel state of intention, perception, action, and reward, for which there is no possibility for enlightenment because it is a completely closed system of absolute cruelty.

I like this. It's roughly what comes to mind when I think of evil. I often think of the depravities of the concentration camps as an example. The exhilaration of totally dominating another and being able to systematically dismantle their humanity.

Some very clever person on another forum used to say that "evil is an aesthetic". I can only assume he was coming from a position of moral relativity. A "closed system of absolute cruelty" goes beyond moral relativity in my view. It feels inadequate to say, for example, that "what's evil to the victim is good for the perpetrator" and that sort of sixth-form common room argument. That's a vacuous response. It's far from clear that it's merely "good" for the perpetrator. It could be degrading, or out of a felt sense of lack. An immature relationship to one's power?

If you subtracted humanity from the world life would still be as brutal as it's always been. Suffering is the engine house of evolution and evolution and its effects and its victims are everywhere. The evil you describe has a particular identity that goes beyond its effects on the victims. It's a form of relationship between perpetrator and victim and this is where the real abomination is taking place. I think it's banal to say that it's an "aesthetic".

Good job on opening this one up.

 

[Madboot]

I disagree that ignorance is the root cause of evil. I do think that the evil are able to exploit ignorance for their own purposes, but that is not the same thing.

Almost verbatim what I thought when I read the OP.

 

[á´…eparted]

I want evil to die, literally.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Evil is actually pretty subjetive term in many cases. Since not everyone has the same values.
The only exceptions are matters of "life and death" and general safety, where it is possible to make more objective judgements.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Evil is actually pretty subjetive term in many cases. Since not everyone has the same values.
The only exceptions are matters of "life and death" and general safety, where it is possible to make more objective judgements.

What specifically about life and death and safety qualifies them for objective judgements? Wouldn't it be the choice of every individual to value those or not?

 

[Virtual ghost]

What specifically about life and death and safety qualifies them for objective judgements? Wouldn't it be the choice of every individual to value those or not?

I said "more objective" for a reason.
They aren't necessary fully objective but if you like to build your worldview on common sense then this is all very easy to rationalize. Since life and death is pretty black and white dilemma in most cases.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I said "more objective" for a reason.
They aren't necessary fully objective but if you like to build your worldview on common sense then this is all very easy to rationalize.

You also said "The only exceptions..." So, I'm wondering how you determined life and death and safety to be the only exceptions to a subjective worldview. Common sense would also be subjective since you left that out of your list of "only exceptions".

Since life and death is pretty black and white dilemma in most cases.

Why?

 

[Virtual ghost]

You also said "The only exceptions..." So, I'm wondering how you determined life and death and safety to be the only exceptions to a subjective worldview. Common sense would also be subjective since you left that out of your list of "only exceptions".

Why?

They are for me more objetive since the questions of life, death and safety generally have irreversable results. I simply dislike to see people screwed over if something could have been done about it. I simply see this as inefficient and I dislike things that I see as inefficient.


Plus to put it bluntly: I am 100% Atheist, so in my opinion the only thing that people will get is this life. So it would be a shame that even this goes to hell for them, especially if there was no real need for that.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

They are for me more objetive since the questions of life, death and safety generally have irreversable results. I simply dislike to see people screwed over if something could have been done about it. I simply see this as inefficient and I dislike things that I see as inefficient.

So, it's really not a universally objective view of life and death. Life and Death, too, is subjective judging by how many times you referenced yourself.

Thank you.

 

[Virtual ghost]

So, it's really not a universally objective view of life and death. Life and Death, too, is subjective judging by how many times you referenced yourself.

Thank you.

I never fully claimed they are. However these are minimums that you have to take into the consideration if you want keep the society going. Complete relativism is impractical in that regard.


But ok, this is a debate without the end.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I never fully claimed they are. However these are minimums that you have to take into the consideration if you want keep the society going.

Subjectively, you're unable to fully claim anything. Not even life and death. The society that requires child sacrifice for the good life of the mother/parents would disagree with you.

Complete relativism is impractical in that regard.

Sounds like it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Subjectively, you're unable to fully claim anything. Not even life and death. The society that requires child sacrifice for the good life of the mother/parents would disagree with you.

Sounds like it.

Questionable, because for me abortion isn't relative. It is very deliberate process with pretty well defined goals. Sure, it isn't pretty but often it is better to end the drama in the begining. Leaving unwanted childen around is pretty relativistic in my book. Especially since world population already passed 7.5 billion and there is no end in sight, the same can be said about current geochemical changes that are consequence of that.


And this is where I am going to stop since everything further will be attack on your faith. (and I am not in the mood for that)

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Questionable, because for me abortion isn't relative. It is very deliberate process with pretty well defined goals. Sure, it isn't pretty but often it is better to end the drama in the begining. Leaving unwanted childen around is pretty relativistic in my book. Especially since world population already passed 7.5 billion and there is no end in sight, the same can be said about current geochemical changes that are consequence of that.

You don't have to rationalize it to me. I understand that for you, the virtues (of Life and Death) are subjective.

And this is where I am going to stop since everything further will be attack on your faith. (and I am not in the mood for that)

The Way has been attacked for 2000 years, and yet He persists. Not even Death could keep The Way.

 

[Magnus]

Evil is very often a subjective commodity. The American Revolution is regarded by Americans as a laudable act of moral good... primarily because the revolutionaries won. But if they'd lost, modern Americans living in a Brit In The High Castle World would probably be taught to regard the Founding Fathers as reprehensible villains even though their actions would be largely the same (except for, y'know, the whole victory thing).

 

[Mole]

Hannah Arendt in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem speaks of the banality of evil. And it doesn't seem evil comes to us in the guise of Mephistopheles but in the guise of a conscientious bureaucrat doing his job, in fact evil can come to us as a 'good German'. In fact some of us are 'Good Germans'.

 

[Norexan]

Evil can be defined as any act commit by some individuate without agreement another one. Although sometimes evil is necessary and best teacher for improvement.

 

[Mole]

Evil can be defined as any act commit by some individuate without agreement another one. Although sometimes evil is necessary and best teacher for improvement.

Cognitive dissonance is emotionally painful, yet a good teacher will induce cognitive dissonance in her pupils to facilitate learning. A bad teacher will seek popularity in the classroom and everyone will love her. Who is the good teacher and who the bad?