What is EVIL?

[bluesquid]

Objectively speaking, I cannot define evil, but my intuition tells me the following:

Evil is a polarity reversal of Love, where both are dualistic forces, each with an outward force and an inward force. The polarity reversal is in the active vs. passive. For example:

Love has an active outward force (giving) and a passive inward force (receiving).
Evil has a passive outward force (guilt-giving*) and an active inward force (taking).

*I define guilt-giving as allowing others to take from Self, which implies that this may be done in order to justify Self's taking from others.

Agapooka

very nice!

 

[SkyWalker]

So: Evil is that which takes more than it gives (e.g. it usurps).

 

[digital angel]

Why are you asking about evil? What is love?

I believe Socrates had some things to say about evil, as well. If I remember correctly Socrates stated that ignorance is evil and knowledge is good. What do you all think?

 

[socialexpat]

I think we all have or own definition about it and how it works... Can't really imagine that every single person thinks of that ..

 

[BigApplePi]

I believe Socrates had some things to say about evil, as well. If I remember correctly Socrates stated that ignorance is evil and knowledge is good. What do you all think?

Dear Socrates,

What would you say of knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb and ignorance thereof? One has to be careful with dividing lines.

 

[digital angel]

Indeed, one should be careful with dividing lines. What's your take?

I'm fairly certain that I'm nothing like Socrates. I've probably had more than my fair share of being exposed to the Socratic method.

 

[SkyWalker]

i agree with socrates, i would just use some extra words to explain it:
ignorance is a short term solution, thus temporary (thus already extinct in everlasting perspective)
knowledge is a long term solution, thus everlasting (in its ultimate form)

 

[SkyWalker]

Dear Socrates,

What would you say of knowledge of how to build a nuclear bomb and ignorance thereof? One has to be careful with dividing lines.

you dont get it, this is not what socrates means by knowledge. its not just extraverted thinking know-how-knowledge, his knowledge is more like fully knowable-awareness-knowledge

your example is not knowledge, but the IGNORANCE of compassion for those who have to deal with the damage of the bomb.
socrates-style-knowledge is being fully aware what the consequences are for others and dealing with that instead of ignoring that. this is the kind of "knowledge" socrates means

 

[xbox]

Teletubbies

 

[gilliatt]

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

Evil is the irrational, the blind, the anti-real--and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it.

Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
Proceed boldly against evil, equally important, do not give into evil in the process."
Ludwig Von Mises

 

[^_\\]

No such thing.

 

[SkyWalker]

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

Evil is the irrational, the blind, the anti-real--and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it.

Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
Proceed boldly against evil, equally important, do not give into evil in the process."
Ludwig Von Mises

impressive

 

[Legion]

Simply put, evil does not exist. It never has existed, and it never will. The same is true about "good". These are both simply preconceptions, which must be shed before one can envision the universe in its entirety. For an example, imagine the asteroid which supposedly destroyed the dinosaurs. From the dinosaurs' perspective, the asteroid was bad. From a human's perspective, the asteroid was good because it allowed mammals to thrive. In truth, the asteroid was perfectly neutral, just like everything else in the universe.

 

[ummidk]

Simply put, evil does not exist. It never has existed, and it never will. The same is true about "good". These are both simply preconceptions, which must be shed before one can envision the universe in its entirety. For an example, imagine the asteroid which supposedly destroyed the dinosaurs. From the dinosaurs' perspective, the asteroid was bad. From a human's perspective, the asteroid was good because it allowed mammals to thrive. In truth, the asteroid was perfectly neutral, just like everything else in the universe.

lol duh =/ silly people talking about chemical in the brain things like love. Somehow that thing in our brain makes some universal truth exist, humans are so arrogant.

 

[SkyWalker]

the word evil (as in universal evil) has been abused for the arbitrary enemy of a group (example: jew thinks the arab is evil, arab thinks the jew is evil). with the purpose of making the enemy even more "bad". and i think thats why all of you say evil is silly. but that is just because your definition of evil became the same as arbitrary enemy. so if evil=enemy, then yes, it is silly.

I still believe in the possibility of a (theoretical) absolute form of evil though, which is beyond us vs them. I think this was the original definition of evil, e.g. the eternal enemy/adversary, not just an arbitrary one

 

[Sosekopp]

Spoiler

 

[ummidk]

the word evil (as in universal evil) has been abused for the arbitrary enemy of a group (example: jew thinks the arab is evil, arab thinks the jew is evil). with the purpose of making the enemy even more "bad". and i think thats why all of you say evil is silly. but that is just because your definition of evil became the same as arbitrary enemy. so if evil=enemy, then yes, it is silly.

I still believe in the possibility of a (theoretical) absolute form of evil though, which is beyond us vs them. I think this was the original definition of evil, e.g. the eternal enemy/adversary, not just an arbitrary one

If there was a definition for evil it would certainly have to pertain to subjective thoughts though, it could not be objectively defined as evil.

 

[SkyWalker]

Only subjective? No way/ Want to bet $1000 on it?

How about this objective description, it is totally independant of subject:

evil = any free-willed conscious actor (a human, a machine or whatever) that wishes to either fully destroy or fully enslave all other free-willed consious actors.

fully enslave them = eliminate their free will, and usurp them into extension tools of his own free will. (e.g. the evil one wants to be the sole possessor and monopolist in free will.)

1) this does not describe an arbitrary enemy, it is not subjective, it holds for all actors.
2) multiple evil actors can exist, 2 evil actors would call each other evil, making them look like arbitrary enemies, but they actually are actually 2 evil actors (evil according to my objective definition).

 

[BigApplePi]

Only subjective? No way/ Want to bet $1000 on it?

How about this objective description, it is totally independant of subject:

evil = any free-willed conscious actor (a human, a machine or whatever) that wishes to either fully destroy or fully enslave all other free-willed consious actors.

fully enslave them = eliminate their free will, and usurp them into extension tools of his own free will. (e.g. the evil one wants to be the sole possessor and monopolist in free will.)

1) this does not describe an arbitrary enemy, it is not subjective, it holds for all actors.
2) multiple evil actors can exist, 2 evil actors would call each other evil, making them look like arbitrary enemies, but they actually are actually 2 evil actors (evil according to my objective definition).

What if a not so evil, but nevertheless evil free-willed conscious actor destroyed a really evil bad free-willed conscious actor? Would the former have committed a non-evil act and in so doing redeem his/her/itself?

 

[SkyWalker]

What if a not so evil, but nevertheless evil free-willed conscious actor destroyed a really evil bad free-willed conscious actor? Would the former have committed a non-evil act and in so doing redeem his/her/itself?

haha?? why this question?

i finally defined evil as an on/off thing, without any blurry borders, and then you come with this....

what is "not so evil"?

 

[BigApplePi]

haha?? why this question?

i finally defined evil as an on/off thing, without any blurry borders, and then you come with this....

what is "not so evil"?

You defined evil as fully enslaving and removing the other's free will, did you not? Isn't that definition too strong? I'd want to see partially enslaving and partially removing another's free will as sometimes evil. For example if you are a generous person and someone comes along and destroys your generosity, is that not a candidate for an evil deed?

 

[Jesse]

Evil is doing something you know is wrong. Hence only people could be evil.

 

[quacker]

Simply put, evil does not exist. It never has existed, and it never will. The same is true about "good". These are both simply preconceptions, which must be shed before one can envision the universe in its entirety. For an example, imagine the asteroid which supposedly destroyed the dinosaurs. From the dinosaurs' perspective, the asteroid was bad. From a human's perspective, the asteroid was good because it allowed mammals to thrive. In truth, the asteroid was perfectly neutral, just like everything else in the universe.

This is a great illustration of the polar opposite of my own opinion. I do not agree that the existence of dinosaurs is equivalent to the existence of people. I think that our own existence as individuals inherently gives us the responsibility to all of humanity. Was the holocaust not really evil because it gave jobs, property, and homes to non-Jews? Is hurting others the only way of helping ourselves? There are times when claims of evil are made on two opposing forces and the parties themselves have no legitimate case. Humanity as a whole, however, can make these claims.

 

[nexion]

Perspective/subjective/situational. To attempt to define what evil is is to attempt to define what goodness is not. But it is a false dichotomy. Evil could not and does not objectively exist.

Skywalker, your above "objective" definition not only inadequately describes evil, it fails to take into consideration the perspective of the free-willed conscious actor who seeks to fully destroy or enslave all other free-willed conscious actors. If the former does not consider himself to be evil, then how can he be objectively evil? Also, he may be on a mission to destroy all free-willed conscious actors because if he does not, they will kill him, or even because he just enjoys it. How could this perspective, from the point of view of every conscious free-willed entity or even an infinite number of possible free-willed conscious entities, be considered to fit your definition of "evil"? You are only looking at the word from the perspective of witnessing the hate-filled being destroying humanity, not you being the hate-filled being destroying humanity.

Lastly, it doesn't sit well with me at all to even attempt to polarize such subjective notions as good vs. evil, since pure evil, by most everyone's definition, doesn't exist in reality. Of course, pure evil or pure good is valid as a concept, but as nothing else. All exists within a complex of diverse mixtures of every flavour, and that is what makes life interesting and meaningful.

Bah, I have once again much more to say, but not adequate words with which to say it. It's sad, really.

 

[darude11]

Evil
Evil, dear colegues and gentelmen, is IMHO the match of the opnions. It is defined by 2 ways.
1st - Thinkers way - What is right and what is wrong (in name of justice)
2nd - Feelers way - What is nice and what is mean (in name of ethics)
Then, we can derive from this three types of evil.
a) The "NOTHING" evil - match of positive opnions. When something is right and nice. For example saving a child from the car accident isn't evil in anything (maybe in sparing some time).
b) The minor evil - this evil is evil seen by one person, but good seen by other person. For example saying somebody that (s)he is fat is good for thinkers, because it is truth, but bad for feelers, because it is mean to say about others bad characteristics, because you won't have friends when you will need them.
c) The pure evil of damn - this evil is match of negative opnions, or when it is wrong and mean at the same time. For example: Freezing the planet, or something else that would be bad and wrong, I can't figure out anyting better now, because everybody have some good intetion.

Albert Einstein said, that evil is only lack of good. It may have some kind of relation to the "everybody have some good intention". Well, but when I take example of egoists... hmm... Well, anyway, definition of evil is above.

 

[SkyWalker]

Perspective/subjective/situational. To attempt to define what evil is is to attempt to define what goodness is not. But it is a false dichotomy. Evil could not and does not objectively exist.

Skywalker, your above "objective" definition not only inadequately describes evil, it fails to take into consideration the perspective of the free-willed conscious actor who seeks to fully destroy or enslave all other free-willed conscious actors. If the former does not consider himself to be evil, then how can he be objectively evil? Also, he may be on a mission to destroy all free-willed conscious actors because if he does not, they will kill him, or even because he just enjoys it. How could this perspective, from the point of view of every conscious free-willed entity or even an infinite number of possible free-willed conscious entities, be considered to fit your definition of "evil"? You are only looking at the word from the perspective of witnessing the hate-filled being destroying humanity, not you being the hate-filled being destroying humanity.

Lastly, it doesn't sit well with me at all to even attempt to polarize such subjective notions as good vs. evil, since pure evil, by most everyone's definition, doesn't exist in reality. Of course, pure evil or pure good is valid as a concept, but as nothing else. All exists within a complex of diverse mixtures of every flavour, and that is what makes life interesting and meaningful.

Bah, I have once again much more to say, but not adequate words with which to say it. It's sad, really.

the evil actor would still be evil according to the definition, he would know he is evil if he read the definition

maybe he would think that is a good thing for him, but it is still evil according to definition

a good definition makes it objective?

 

[jamesreed292]

There is no objective "evil". However, it seems the way people determine what is "evil" and what is "good" is by what is detrimental to their psychological, spiritual, emotional and physical well-being. So, you might say, evil is a threat.

QFT

However this needs a little more definition. A car coming at you at 120 mph is a threat but it is not evil. This is something that would be perceived as a threat by the thinking preference, but not feeling. An evil is something perceived as a threat by the feeling preference in right or wrong. Supernatural beings perceived as evil are the physical embodiment (and imaginary) form of what is perceived as evil or wrong or bad by the feeling preference like death. Death could be considered evil depending on who you ask. So to add, evil is subjective just as emotions are.

If the society I live in is to be believed, To be evil is to stand in opposition to whatever the view-holder values, regardless to the fact that the reverse is also true.

Therefore, all points of view are evil. Perhaps thinking itself is evil.

All three answers helped guide me along the path towards the truth. First of all, EVIL should be evil, EVIL infers that it exists and that is false. Yet it we assume that there is evil we must assume there is good, for there is no good without evil. You can think that there can be only good but then how can one judge good if he has not seen evil?

Now that we have determined that the idea of evil and good both exist, we can dissect evil. Evil is the opposite of good, so if we can find good when we can find evil, and of course if we can find neither then we shall forever know neither.

Good in this case in an action, a choice, more specifically when chosen over evil. If good is a choice then evil must be a choice. If good and evil are choices then the only beings that can be good or evil are the beings that have the ability for rational choices. Humans ( maybe monkeys and dolphins etc... ) are the only organism known to possess this level of thinking. If evil is a choice, and humans are the only being able to make that choice, then evil is a choice made by a human.

If a human is evil that also means that a human can be good. If a human can be good or evil then that means that everyone, excluding the humans that are disabled mentally because they were born with a brain that is not capable of rational thought, makes the choice between good and evil.

What is evil?

Evil is a choice made by a human being, without mental disability, favoring what that individual understands to be the opposite of good.

Now WHY a human being chooses to be evil is the next question that should be attempted to be answered in this thread, if you are up to the challenge of course.

 

[Jordan~]

Evil is doing something you know is wrong. Hence only people could be evil.

I like this definition. Mutually agreeable, no?

 

[SkyWalker]

All three answers helped guide me along the path towards the truth. First of all, EVIL should be evil, EVIL infers that it exists and that is false. Yet it we assume that there is evil we must assume there is good, for there is no good without evil. You can think that there can be only good but then how can one judge good if he has not seen evil?

Now that we have determined that the idea of evil and good both exist, we can dissect evil. Evil is the opposite of good, so if we can find good when we can find evil, and of course if we can find neither then we shall forever know neither.

Good in this case in an action, a choice, more specifically when chosen over evil. If good is a choice then evil must be a choice. If good and evil are choices then the only beings that can be good or evil are the beings that have the ability for rational choices. Humans ( maybe monkeys and dolphins etc... ) are the only organism known to possess this level of thinking. If evil is a choice, and humans are the only being able to make that choice, then evil is a choice made by a human.

If a human is evil that also means that a human can be good. If a human can be good or evil then that means that everyone, excluding the humans that are disabled mentally because they were born with a brain that is not capable of rational thought, makes the choice between good and evil.

What is evil?

Evil is a choice made by a human being, without mental disability, favoring what that individual understands to be the opposite of good.

Now WHY a human being chooses to be evil is the next question that should be attempted to be answered in this thread, if you are up to the challenge of course.

The Feeling function is about help/oppose, love/hate, friend/enemy, trust/distrust.


You have simplified evil to arbitrary enemy. I was talking about this before in this thread.

WHY THE ACT OF EVIL? When a human views another human as enemy, it can only oppose/hate/distrust it, thus act evil to it. Some just view even their close peers as their enemy and thus act evil to them. It's as simple as that. The only medicine is that we force them to initiate into a group somehow and see at least that group as their friends.

I was looking for an absolute enemy actually, when I was looking for absolute evil.

Would an absolute enemy exist? (an enemy for all of mankind) Within mankind itself?

 

[jamesreed292]

The Feeling function is about help/oppose, love/hate, friend/enemy, trust/distrust.


You have simplified evil to arbitrary enemy. I was talking about this before in this thread.

WHY THE ACT OF EVIL? When a human views another human as enemy, it can only oppose/hate/distrust it, thus act evil to it. Some just view even their close peers as their enemy and thus act evil to them. It's as simple as that. The only medicine is that we force them to initiate into a group somehow and see at least that group as their friends.

I was looking for an absolute enemy actually, when I was looking for absolute evil.

Would an absolute enemy exist? (an enemy for all of mankind) Within mankind itself?

I like the way you think skywalker.

I like how you do not assume that one already exists, that way you do not shove your beliefs on others, and it shows that your eyes and ears are open.

Determining if there is an absolute anything, from meanings, to purposes, to the healthiest mental perspective is all relative. We have to find if there is anything absolute, good or evil, that is agreed upon by the intellectual community to be opposed/hated/distrusted (to quote your definition of evil). Let us start out with an easy example, terrorism.

Why does terrorism exist?

If, of course, somebody reading this post has lost a relative to terrorism, or feels any kind of strong emotion towards terrorism, stop reading now because your emotion will blind you from the ultimate truth.

Now, why do terrorists commit acts of terror, how does a terrorist become a terrorist, and what is considered an act of terrorism. Terrorists commit acts of terror of because of ignorance, hate, and helplessness. Hatred being on of the three words used to describe evil. A terrorist becomes a terrorist by intending to corrupt, destroy, or scare a certain group of people. Notice that you do not have to commit a crime to become a terrorist, just the intention is enough justification to be grouped into the category of terrorism. An act of terrorism is considered any public action with the intention to corrupt, destroy, or scare people because of any one thing that one or a group of people that were part of a larger group were responsible for.

The crux of terrorism lies in the intention of scaring people. People they consider to be EVIL. Why do terrorists think anyone person or people is EVIL, and are the terrorists in fact evil themselves?

Terrorists classify evil the same way we do. We consider Al Queda to be evil, they, on the contrary, consider us to be evil. There in resides the paradox, either one of us has to be right and the other wrong, we are both wrong, or we are both right.

If Al Queda is evil and we are good, then terrorism is wrong. If Al Queda is good and we are evil, then fighting against terrorism is wrong. If we are both wrong then there is a middle ground to be sought. If we are both right then everyone is good and evil.

The question of absolute evil, and in respect absolute good, has to do with a person considering anything to be strong enough to hate. Some people hate terrorism, some people hate ice cream, and do not hate anything. The people who do not hate anything are the people in question.

When you do not hate anything you are denying the fact that emotional inconsistencies exist in logical analysis, or that unrational things can influence thought. If a person hates terrorism, at least he or she recognizes that he emotions are influencing his thought process. In recognizing his or her emotional consciousness, they recognize that irrational opinions and decisions exist in the universe.

A person who says they do not hate, do not love, are concealing their emotions. When you conceal your emotions, along with your opinions and your unique process of thought, you are isolating your inner self from your outer self. When you isolate, hide, conceal your emotions and rational processes, you are concealing your intentions because you know that they are EVIL. When you conceal your intentions your consciousness recognizes that your one of your rational thoughts is in fact irrational.

EVIL is concealing your intentions (and emotions), by denying rational thoughts to enter your irrational thought processes.

 

[SkyWalker]

its not concealing itself which is bad. but i know where your thoughts come from:
conceiling=deception=lying.
lying is a mix of weak hate + strong rationality. it uses rationalities to hide the hate. it is covert and secret hate. it is narcissism what you are probably after. the lie can go so deep that the subject itself is (or almost is) unaware of it itself.

it is however not bad to lie/conceil/deceive to your true-enemy. you should lie to the (true) enemy. the problem again is: who do you classify as enemy?
you should not lie to your friends, unless you consider them enemy, and those who do lie to their friends, actually view them as such.

----

You have to see groups of humans as bodies of super-organisms.

A kamikaze terrorist blowing itself up to kill others is like a killer T cell of the bigger super-body, sacrificing itself (like a cell in the immune system of the entire body). its good for the bigger body, but bad for the individual cell.

when 2 foreign bodies fight (for example: jews vs muslims), they send in their killer cells, this is the way for the body to survive.

as long as the group mind of the super-organism is symbiotic (e.g. good) for the cells, it may have its right to an immune system. all animals do.

some super-organisms are however parasitic (bad) for their cells (e.g. good ol' demons).

The problem is however that most super-organisms are not clearly either parasitic or symbiotic. They are somewhere in a spectrum in between. It's very hard to judge for me whether christianity or islam is a parasite or a symbiont. they give advantages and disadvantages.

 

[grandpa2390]

The problem with this discussion is that in order to define evil, you have to have something solid to hold everything accountable to. You need a standard. Most people on this planet believe in a doctrine that helps them to separate good from bad. A growing minority create their own standards... or at least for the most part they think they do. We are all affected by those around us, so it is impossible to say that I do what I want to do. . Anyways, with that said, any standard I give would be irrelevant to anyone who is not of the opinion.

However, generally speaking, I guess we could come up with a definition that everyone could use, but it would be relative to the person using it. For example, someone above wrote that evil was acting against your own views. I think that is accurate to a degree. Evil is anything, anyone, or any action that is or acts in any way opposite of what I believe to be the natural order of things. when reading this definition, just think of the I believe to be what you believe. For example, Theft is bad... but I do not consider it to be evil. Murder, on the other hand, I would consider to be evil. You may disagree but it is all relative.

 

[Arak]

In my opinion, pure 'primordial' evil does not exist. No matter how you look at it, the primary human motivation is reaching happiness in it's many form. I think all evil is happiness misunderstood. Warped subjective good from the individual point of view that end up causing harm.

Ex 1: Hitler acted like he did because he believed it would make the world a better place.

Ex 2: Sexual predators place too much value of the "subjective" happiness of sexual satisfaction above other kinds of happiness and probably have very low levels of empathy so they are not naturally equipped to take into account the happiness of others in their own definition of happiness.


Hatred no matter how intense or seemingly irrational is a preventive mechanism for defending happiness (sometimes subconsciously).

Ex: A person of type X hurt me in the past so i hate all persons of type X and will harm them whenever possible (to avoid losing my happiness again). Person Y killed my family and it is only by erasing person Y out of existence or inflicting enough pain on him to force him to understand how i felt that i feel my happiness will be safe in the future.)

 

[jamesreed292]

its not concealing itself which is bad. but i know where your thoughts come from:
conceiling=deception=lying.
lying is a mix of weak hate + strong rationality. it uses rationalities to hide the hate. it is covert and secret hate. it is narcissism what you are probably after. the lie can go so deep that the subject itself is (or almost is) unaware of it itself.

it is however not bad to lie/conceil/deceive to your true-enemy. you should lie to the (true) enemy. the problem again is: who do you classify as enemy?
you should not lie to your friends, unless you consider them enemy, and those who do lie to their friends, actually view them as such.

----

You have to see groups of humans as bodies of super-organisms.

A kamikaze terrorist blowing itself up to kill others is like a killer T cell of the bigger super-body, sacrificing itself (like a cell in the immune system of the entire body). its good for the bigger body, but bad for the individual cell.

when 2 foreign bodies fight (for example: jews vs muslims), they send in their killer cells, this is the way for the body to survive.

as long as the group mind of the super-organism is symbiotic (e.g. good) for the cells, it may have its right to an immune system. all animals do.

some super-organisms are however parasitic (bad) for their cells (e.g. good ol' demons).

The problem is however that most super-organisms are not clearly either parasitic or symbiotic. They are somewhere in a spectrum in between. It's very hard to judge for me whether christianity or islam is a parasite or a symbiont. they give advantages and disadvantages.

Incredibly insightful post

True-enemy. Does a tangible, definable one exist? If so, who/what is it. If not, why.

To determine if a true-enemy exist we must first determine who can become a true enemy, for example, animals, and more specifically Chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees are very close on the genetic super highway to humans. Of course they are not capable of intrinsic, deep rational thought, but if you do or do not believe me that is another discussion in itself. In this case I am assuming that chimps are not capable of a collective democracy and deep thought processes.

Now, can a chimpanzee be evil, or become a true enemy? A true enemy is someone or something that threatens the greater population, intention is arbitrary because once they gather enough power and resources, their intentions could change.

If a chimp is angry, or wants some kind of primitive retaliation, he or she will pick a fight. Humans do this all the time, people have a bad week and go the bar and get into a brawl. But humans have the capability to do more then get into a brawl. Hitler, Osama, Stalin, all created a plan and gathered the necessary manpower and resources to change world.
Chimps have never mobilized and taken control of a city (at least to our knowledge) and while it seems possible, it hasn't happened.

So only humanity, with the capability of rational thought, resource hording, political maneuvering, etc.... has the potential to become a true enemy.

If humans have the potential to be become a true-enemy then who has been / is currently a true-enemy. A true enemy is again someone agreed upon by the reasonable observers and thinkers. Corporations and politicians may manipulate our perceptions of good and evil, but true evil cannot hide for very long.

Hitler is an example of a true enemy, but is he a real example of a true enemy, if so how was he able to become a true enemy, or was he always a true enemy? Can true enemies be slain for the sake of justice, and did we help create Hitler?

Let us just focus on outlining a set of rules for determining a true-enemy.

1. A true-enemy has the intention to change society.

2. A true-enemy is NOT aware that his or her intentions are EVIL.

3. A true-enemy, forces their will upon those who do not necessarily agree with them.

4. A true-enemy is capable of rational thought.

 

[SkyWalker]

True enemy is simple:
If a lion pops up at my living room, and wants to eat me and my family, then this beast is my true enemy.
Any system/animal with the purpose of doing me or my group (my loved ones) harm is my true enemy. It does not matter to me if this enemy is smart or not, a stupid enemy is still an enemy

A lion is quite obvious, but there are also people posing as your friend (and are actually false-friend).

Hitler is not evil as long as he has at least 1 friend. Since I dont know him personally, i cant say he's evil. I consider him evil only when had no friend at all, and was only a false-friend to those who considered him a friend.
An evil one = one who sees EVERYBODY as the enemy. (whether in secret or openly declaring, that doesnt matter)

 

[jamesreed292]

True enemy is simple:
If a lion pops up at my living room, and wants to eat me and my family, then this beast is my true enemy.
Any system/animal with the purpose of doing me or my group (my loved ones) harm is my true enemy. It does not matter to me if this enemy is smart or not, a stupid enemy is still an enemy

A lion is quite obvious, but there are also people posing as your friend (and are actually false-friend).

Hitler is not evil as long as he has at least 1 friend. Since I dont know him personally, i cant say he's evil. I consider him evil only when had no friend at all, and was only a false-friend to those who considered him a friend.
An evil one = one who sees EVERYBODY as the enemy. (whether in secret or openly declaring, that doesnt matter)

Saying anything is simple is inviting an ignorant and rushed response from your consciousness. I see that you are basing "truth" in this case on survival, which is primitive, yet primal instincts are some of the strongest we possess.

A lion about to eat your group and yourself is a good example. A lion looks at you and your group menisingly, and threatens your lives. Of course you do not know that the lion will eat you and your group, but all evidence is shown to the contrary, which is why you chose a lion and not a muskrat.

Now when this lion is about to eat you and your group, you say, this lion is your true enemy. When this lion is coming to devour your group then he represents the greatest threat possible to you and your group.

True enemy in this case is greatest immediate threat. And to your point there is no more immediate threat to your survival then a lion stuck in a room with you and your group.

I like this answer, although I can see that this was your perception of a true enemy all along, and have not gave any thought to your idea being false. I would like to propose another idea of a true-enemy, if of course, you are in fact have an open mind.

A true enemy is the greatest immediate threat to your survival, threatening your life. Death in this case being the outcome of the lion situation. Yet death is not horrible at all, for there are many things worse then death.

Some say life is worse then death, and although being eating alive is painful to say the least, the fact is that you die. There are people who will not let you die so easily, lengthing out the pain through medival as well as modern age torture. Are those people more dangerous then the lion in the room? What about people with the power to put more people in a room with your lion.

A person with the intent to do this is an enemy of the people, of the state and society. A lion is more of a threat to your survival, but an intention to torture and enslave, as well as put people in cages with lions is also an enemy.

Who would you choose to kill, a person that is going to torture you and your family, and then kill you. Or fight a lion that will at least give you quick death, also with the slim possibility of getting out alive.

A true-enemy will not give someone a fast death, or a death at all. They will make them desire death, and regret ever living.

Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.
Socrates

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

An evil one = one who sees EVERYBODY as the enemy. (whether in secret or openly declaring, that doesnt matter)

I don't think this is accurate. Seeing everyone else as the enemy means you see everyone else as wanting to do you harm. If this were the case, then even if you retaliated by wanting to do everyone harm, that would not make you evil, for you are only attacking those who are an enemy to you.

Being evil has to do with wishing to harm those who wish to do no harm to you, at least in your mind. If I don't believe anyone else to be a threat to me, but I harm them anyway, then that is evil. i.e. they are my friend, but I am their enemy.

Christianity says that it is good to wish harm on nobody, and benefit to everybody, even your enemies.

Is this true? Do things improve precisely when we decide to wish happiness to our enemies?

A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."

 

[SkyWalker]

Saying anything is simple is inviting an ignorant and rushed response from your consciousness. I see that you are basing "truth" in this case on survival, which is primitive, yet primal instincts are some of the strongest we possess.

A lion about to eat your group and yourself is a good example. A lion looks at you and your group menisingly, and threatens your lives. Of course you do not know that the lion will eat you and your group, but all evidence is shown to the contrary, which is why you chose a lion and not a muskrat.

Now when this lion is about to eat you and your group, you say, this lion is your true enemy. When this lion is coming to devour your group then he represents the greatest threat possible to you and your group.

True enemy in this case is greatest immediate threat. And to your point there is no more immediate threat to your survival then a lion stuck in a room with you and your group.

I like this answer, although I can see that this was your perception of a true enemy all along, and have not gave any thought to your idea being false. I would like to propose another idea of a true-enemy, if of course, you are in fact have an open mind.

A true enemy is the greatest immediate threat to your survival, threatening your life. Death in this case being the outcome of the lion situation. Yet death is not horrible at all, for there are many things worse then death.

Some say life is worse then death, and although being eating alive is painful to say the least, the fact is that you die. There are people who will not let you die so easily, lengthing out the pain through medival as well as modern age torture. Are those people more dangerous then the lion in the room? What about people with the power to put more people in a room with your lion.

A person with the intent to do this is an enemy of the people, of the state and society. A lion is more of a threat to your survival, but an intention to torture and enslave, as well as put people in cages with lions is also an enemy.

Who would you choose to kill, a person that is going to torture you and your family, and then kill you. Or fight a lion that will at least give you quick death, also with the slim possibility of getting out alive.

A true-enemy will not give someone a fast death, or a death at all. They will make them desire death, and regret ever living.

Death may be the greatest of all human blessings.
Socrates

sadism is quite healthy to feel for your enemy.

we do that to the lion too once we beat him, we put him on the wall as a trophy, which is a form of sadism.

we also like to put the lion in a cage and enslave him for life.

sadism is not bad, its simply hate for the enemy. thats what you feel naturally for any enemy. its healthy

the people who you talk about, are the ones that see everybody as the enemy, thus have no choice but sadism for everyone. then it becomes unhealthy, its not the instinct of sadism which is unhealthy ,but the calibration of friend/enemy which went wrong

 

[Jah]

Asking for definitions/justification of archaic/religious terms.

 

[mainiac]

To be evil is to diminish the life of another or say the masses. Diminshing thier prosperity, diminishing their health. Creating despair for your own gain. Causing needless suffering for self gain. To impose your will upon another. To subjugate and break the spirit of a people or a person. Yet to the people doing these things..to them they are not evil, they are simply...nessecary to thier own continued prosperity.

 

[SkyWalker]

To be evil is to diminish the life of another or say the masses. Diminshing thier prosperity, diminishing their health. Creating despair for your own gain. Causing needless suffering for self gain. To impose your will upon another. To subjugate and break the spirit of a people or a person. Yet to the people doing these things..to them they are not evil, they are simply...nessecary to thier own continued prosperity.

so... all parasites are evil

 

[rattymat]

Evil is one which purposely restricts the freedom of another (some freedom restrictions are inevitable // compromise your own freedom). It is a difficult balancing act of weighing your own freedom against others'. If you inhibit others freedom more than you exercise your own, then it is immoral. But it is not necessarily evil unless it is intentional, or if you are fully aware that your actions are immoral but choose to do them anyway. Granted, there will be a lot of miscalculations of balancing your own freedom with others', but the goal is precision.

 

[Hadoblado]

Only subjective? No way/ Want to bet $1000 on it?

How about this objective description, it is totally independant of subject:

evil = any free-willed conscious actor (a human, a machine or whatever) that wishes to either fully destroy or fully enslave all other free-willed consious actors.

fully enslave them = eliminate their free will, and usurp them into extension tools of his own free will. (e.g. the evil one wants to be the sole possessor and monopolist in free will.)

1) this does not describe an arbitrary enemy, it is not subjective, it holds for all actors.
2) multiple evil actors can exist, 2 evil actors would call each other evil, making them look like arbitrary enemies, but they actually are actually 2 evil actors (evil according to my objective definition).

This is still only universally subjective, not objective. It does not hold if (total number of actors) = 1 or 2. Your example is functionally identical to the existence of an actual evil, but is conditional and therefore not objective.

+1 for the non-existence of objective evil bandwagon.

 

[nexion]

Evil is an idea existent in the mind which manifests as the negation of one's own moral beliefs.

Ergo, evil is subjective.

You asking this question gives me many, many disturbing thoughts about the nature of language that I had never thought of before. Thanks for that, I guess.

 

[snafupants]

Evil is live spelled backwards.

 

[Starstruck]

Evil starts as willful ignorance and ends in pernicious pleasure in the suffering of others.

 

[Da Blob]

Pain is bad.
It is a message that a mistake has been made
To cause pain, deliberately, is evil
for it means that message
was ignored and a mistake repeated.

 

[snafupants]

Pain is bad.
It is a message that a mistake has been made
To cause pain, deliberately, is evil
for it means that message
was ignored and a mistake repeated.

Pain is the surest route to real pleasure. The dogged pursuit of pleasure almost automatically means pain. Psychic or physical pain is neither immanently good nor bad.

 

[Magus]

'Evil is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete.' - Sarte.

Sorry guys I just wanted to be the first person to say that.

 

[Architect]

Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens camera.

That was easy ...