What is EVIL?

[Prajjwal]

Something may be said to be evil when it takes human life, or if it causes humans to suffer in an inhumane way. Enslaving people against their will would be inhumane and evil. The massive killings of wars are an evil. One person killing another innocent person is evil.

 

[Reluctantly]

I think sadism is the only real evil. I don't see why I should accept such people or how anyone could see it as inherently not evil when someone gets pleasure in making other people suffer. I can however see how a sadist could be useful for helping to produce good, but I think the act of getting pleasure in the suffering of others is inherently an evil thing.

How could it not be?

Evil is live spelled backwards.

Oh shit. We're all doomed.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Evil is just like good.. a relative concept.

In reality, there are many things that are thought of as 'evil' by one group of people and as 'good' by another group. The wars the U.S. has been fighting in the Middle-East are an example. Many people thought American soldiers were doing something good by going out there to 'fight evil terrorism' and prevent terror attacks. The civilians in the Middle-Eastern countries who have been injured or lost loved ones because of the war see the occupation of their country as evil and unnecessary.

In truth, it's all about point of view and the fact that humans try to veil their intrinsic nature behind abstract concepts like 'good' and 'evil'. We are all capable of doing things that help others and things that harm them, the deciding factor in which we decide to do at any given time is based on causality just like anything else in this universe.

Perhaps if the majority embraced the reality of human nature in its entirety, we would see resolutions to many of the problems that plague humanity. Not to mention much more mutual understanding and the dissolving of structured religions and the construct of society as a whole.. It's fascinating how much of the human world is built upon the idea of 'good' and 'bad/evil'.

*sigh* oh world.. where are your seekers of truth?

 

[WALKYRIA]

what is evil ?
So let's try to be systematic :
evil is a word before everything, referring to a concept/ a human fantasm/ a belief of the human collective psyche.
SO, we have got a concept; certainly invented by Ti and Ni leaders(philosophers), and we want to impose it in the material reality. And there happens the clash; because there is no such thing as evil besides the virtual concept of evil. FAntasm.

I think that hurting each other is jusyt plain natural . A lion who needs food is going to kill. A human beings in need of power is going to hurt and act "evil".
The will to survive- thus likewise to Nietzche- , the will of power is what creates all the suffering in our world... But still there is noone or nothing to blame, because it is natural.

The rest is relative/ subjective as all the human matters and depends on our cognition and on the position of the observer. I also believe Einstein did a job greater than what we think with his relativity theory... in terms of philosophy.

 

[nexion]

Evil is live spelled backwards.

I think you should perhaps revisit the first page of this thread.

Perspective/subjective/situational. To attempt to define what evil is is to attempt to define what goodness is not.

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

Ergo, evil is subjective.

I was a fool then. I am less of a fool now, perhaps. Does my perception of reality change what reality is and is not? I hardly see why it should. I still cannot shake the fact that my own perception of reality becomes itself an integral part of the reality I perceive, but I suppose my reality is a bit less refined than the realities of many of my fellow humans. I see a lot less and know a lot less. At the same time, I see a lot more, but I still know less. Too many assumptions about what is and is not correct, as though such a distinction could even exist. We choose to see what is not, but never bother to know what is. And Evil is not.

 

[Marshall]

Evil is subjective morality brainwashed into societies as they grow, turning these moral judgments into mandates. For one society, killing and thieving is a way of life, to stay alive. In others it is intolerable, it just depends on your ancestor's upbringing.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

It is difficult to understand the idea in disconection with its language of origin.

Every being, able to perceive or use evil in some context, has an idea, its own understanding of what is it to be evil.

1.If evil is universal, it could relate to every particle and could be defined from any particles point of view.

2.I would argue, that when you try to define evil, it should always relate to something else, as evil is relative and a part of one or other point of view.

3.I would also propose, that evil can only be defined by the entities able to perceive their relation to any other such entity.

1.If then evil is universal, what would be evil for a proton? Can entropy be evil to the proton since it loses its integrity and may potentially decay into smaller particles? From the typical human beings point of view i would see no evil in particles and their doings.

2. If evil is indeed relative, we can attempt to define it in relation to something.
We use the language, this language is not my native. We may have different backgrounds. We are relative as long as we use language in its natural form.
We may attempt to apply logic, using the language of logics, still we would express ourselves in this forum using the natural language.
Thus in english language, evil definition is using...other words! Then we have to relate to those words.
For the purpose of this one, lets go with wikipedia. It would be the opposite of good, anything which impairs the happiness, deprives of good, causes suffering.
Good then is ethically good, useful and so on.
We can then relate to evil only to humans and other animals we know can feel pain, can be subject to suffering.

3. Lets assume that animals including humans can perceive and relate between things other than themselves, as this cannot be proven. Otherwise, there cannot be a difference between a human believing he imagines his world and a human believing in the world he is a part of.

Lets then look at the relative evil between humans and non humans, evil would be to cause harm to the animal, as it perceives the pain and suffers the injury. This also means that evil is to cause harm to other humans, as they clearly attribute a range of harms depending on the individual sense.

However with humans there is also another relative evil, something that is undesirable, between non humans it would be unclear if anything such as desire exists. This is similar to harm, however it varies greatly between entities and does not necessarily relate only to bodily harm.
We could have 2 entities(edit:entities replaced subjects). X, Y. X being undesirable to Y may:
Benefit X or Y harm X or Y. Y being a victim, can perceive his situation as worsened, action as undesirable, however he could also desire something which may cause him harm, may be undesirable to him if he knew what he doesn't etc.
It is then impossible to fairly state that X being undesirable was evil, unless one relates to universal knowledge and determines what would be good for Y in the first place.
If Y would know the circumstances he might not have been the victim. This leads to the understanding, that Y is not the same Y in different circumstances.

Evil therefore can only be defined in relation to the situation, knowledge, desire etc. Following this, evil would mean, anything coming from something other than receiver that is undesirable at the particular instance of time.

When judging, therefore relying on relative understanding of evil, one chooses a system of values, this system can come from source other than oneself and can at the moment be viewed as desirable, becoming one's own.

It is in relation to what i am that i can now at this moment define evil as something that restricts one's freedom. Thus one's freedom ends at the borderline of else's freedom.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

We could have 2 subjects. X, Y. X being undesirable to Y may:
Benefit X or Y harm X or Y. Y being a victim, can perceive his situation as worsened, action as undesirable, however he could also desire something which may cause him harm, may be undesirable to him if he knew what he doesn't etc.
It is then impossible to fairly state that X being undesirable was evil, unless one relates to universal knowledge and determines what would be good for Y in the first place.
If Y would know the circumstances he might not have been the victim. This leads to the understanding, that Y is not the same Y in different circumstances.

I follow you up to this point.
My questions is this: Are both X and Y subjects or is X a subject and Y an effect?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I follow you up to this point.
My questions is this: Are both X and Y subjects or is X a subject and Y an effect?

My apologies, this really can be confusing. Does X and Y, being in a same set of units that allows them to interact, instead of being subject clarify this?

Yes this would mean Y is an effect, therefore is not Y it used to be, still rather expands the relative reference and complicates. This could allow for a quick memory runaround making Y respond positively to X.

Lets just uphold the principle that Y before any effects can perceive and consider something as undesirable before it affects. So that this makes sense in a general case.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

My apologies, this really can be confusing. Does X and Y, being in a same set of units that allows them to interact, instead of being subject clarify this?

Yes this would mean Y is an effect, therefore is not Y it used to be, still rather expands the relative reference and complicates. This could allow for a quick memory runaround making Y respond positively to X.

Lets just uphold the principle that Y before any effects can perceive and consider something as undesirable before it affects. So that this makes sense in a general case.

Ok, so they are both entities (subjects) with the property of being able to affect and be affected by each other?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Spoiler

Ok, so they are both entities (subjects) with the property of being able to affect and be affected by each other?

Yes, it follows from the points 1 to 3, that evil would be defined in relation to at least two different entities, able to perceive other entities. X and Y do not necessarily have to be human, but we assume that they have a desire of some sort.
However in the instance for defining evil we choose one of them to inflict something on the other, with no regard to what could happen afterwards, as this may follow that Y then could become undesirable to X.

Instances of evil in this relation choose 2 aware elements, 1 of them being the receiver that as a result considers effects of other's action as undesirable.

 

[davosy]

It's an invention made several thousand years ago to explain why bad things happen. These days it's only used by people who refuse to realize the complexity of the world and of the mind, people who need oversimplifications to get on in life. It is also used by leaders in politics and religion to divide, confuse and conquer...

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk

 

[Imaginary Numb3r]

I got the impression that people only try to explain the "subjective" use of the word evil and while it has a subjective part, this should not be the part to focus on. Imo all efforts trying to explain subjective things is in vain :P

Just think about the situations when you heard the word "evil", wasn't it normally in a rather emotional context? What I can remember is hearing this word quite often in a defensive way or as an attempt to create a contrast between something and yourself/a group you belong to.

Anyway, I got a rather boring for evil, which is:
Intentionally harming other people without a reason.

This sentence captures 3 important preconditions for something to be truely evil:
Free will, negative result and no need.

Humans have a natural survival instinct which can lead them to do bad things because they are so desperate. If you end up killing a person because you need the money he is carrying to afford food, you are desperate, not evil.

Another example would be self defense, where you could end up killing/humiliating a foreigner who was a real threat to you.

Nobody forces you to do this, so you still have to life with this, though.
However, if somebody forces you to burn down a house of a person who has done nothing wrong to anybody because even though there is no need to, you are not evil too (whereas the person who commanded you to do this most likely is). Just think about things like slavery or the Saw movies.

It's survival.

What's basically left is sadism and greed. Like torturing people only for your personal enjoyment (unless the person enjoyes this, which is extremely unlikely).
Or if a wealthy person displaces a family from their home so he can buy cheap it and sell it only to make even more profit.

And "harming" is not only physical harm but emotional harm and financal harm alike. Of course it get's complicated when other cultures are involved and you might harm somebody in one way or another without even knowing it, but then there's no intention, right?

 

[TheScornedReflex]

*rolls eyes*

You guys are idiots. It's clearly "live" backwards.

Plebs.

 

[marv]

This is an easy question,

God.

(if there is, that kind)

and this smiley:

 

[marv]

Those who call a human being under ANY condition "evil", don't understand the mind.

 

[The Void]

Its subjective.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What is evil? Authenticity.

Why?

Because for something to be considered evil, that thing must be victimized by the majority to then be able to be removed arbitrarily from consideration. Thus to commit evil is to go against the grain, and such is authentic.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What is evil? Authenticity.

Why?

Because for something to be considered evil, that thing must be victimized by the majority to then be able to be removed arbitrarily from consideration. Thus to commit evil is to go against the grain, and such is authentic.

I noticed we had a similar path but ended at different destinations, at least in the social sense of the word.

I concluded that evil was a threat; it has kind of the same idea here but you could say 'authenticity'(being-itself) relates to the subject's evilness whereas a 'threat' relates to the objective perception of evilness.

The common theme that unites them seems to be resistance, as going against the grain threatens social power and customs. An authentic thing that always stays itself will eventually meet resistance and will be considered evil by those who wish it would not be-itself.

 

[Rook]

There is no evil. There is no good. There is only life.

We can choose to stop wars, or start them.
We can choose to save orphans, or to slay them.
We can choose to save a life or wield the knife.

For in the end, the choice, the outcome, the action, only matters within your mind.
Become then what you wish to become, for you transgress no borders.

 

[Vion]

"Evil is Live backwards." - Evil is to never reminisce or reflect and retrace one's step in most retarding of fashion as if the world revolves around you. To have no understanding of one's past and therefor no concept of "Future". A mind that is cannibalizing itself rather than experiencing the world around it.

Perhaps Delusion is a good synonym?

 

[marv]

There is no evil. There is no good. There is only life.

I wouldn't say there is no good. I believe the act of aborting someone's hopeless anguish is good. If you don't think likewise then please reason..

 

[Rook]

I wouldn't say there is no good. I believe the act of aborting someone's hopeless anguish is good. If you don't think likewise then please reason..

Reason I shall, but I do hope this does not turn to semantics, as the subject of subjectivity is wont to do.

Good and evil are subjective constructs of the human mind and humanity itself.
It is not predefined and biologically ingrained, though it roughly follows basic instincts of group-preservation.

What you see as good, someone else may see as evil, or a gray area.
In this regard, nobody is right or wrong, for they merely follow their subjective moral compass.

If one looks only at humanity, good and evil makes more sense, but take a universal view and they become as irrelevant as one's favorite genre of music.

Morality is an attempt at ordering one's animalistic instincts through cognitive programming.

 

[marv]

Reason I shall, but I do hope this does not turn to semantics, as the subject of subjectivity is wont to do.

Good and evil are subjective constructs of the human mind and humanity itself.
It is not predefined and biologically ingrained, though it roughly follows basic instincts of group-preservation.

What you see as good, someone else may see as evil, or a gray area.
In this regard, nobody is right or wrong, for they merely follow their subjective moral compass.

If one looks only at humanity, good and evil makes more sense, but take a universal view and they become as irrelevant as one's favorite genre of music.

Morality is an attempt at ordering one's animalistic instincts through cognitive programming.

You'd have to reason for an argument like that with a little bit more sense

If I were near you I'd just slap your head into the keyboard so hard, and then ask the question again. (Try doing it yourself!)

Also, before progressing along with your life, read this or something similar.

And lastly, try not to have kids or come go to them in any possible way.

 

[Brontosaurie]

...evil is the bitter despair of the look in the eye of the long lost hope of the freedom of the spirit in the world of the darkness...

ostensibly

 

[Pizzabeak]

Evil is the most obvious attempt at trying to cleverly convey a message contrary to a cool party's interest, they're cool because they know how to make each other feel good. Some asshole comes along and disagrees.
There's this one dude that explained a process, and I don't particularly disagree. He even said it was taboo. Who else always thought red was the coolest color light saber to have anyway?

 

[The Void]

I wouldn't say there is no good. I believe the act of aborting someone's hopeless anguish is good. If you don't think likewise then please reason..

Why?
If that is how you think it is then so be it. But still it is your subjective contsruct.
And when you make something good then there comes something relatively less good (like expanding ones hopeless anguish will be relatively less good that aborting it following your own view).

And relatively less good = 'relatively' evil.
Good and Evil are inseparable. (unless you say every act is equally good\evil some some odd things like that )

Can you explain why freeing someone from suffering is good?
I can say letting others suffer and letting them find their own way out is better. I can say if one suffer one increases endurance.
I can say lots of BS like that to support my claim.

But both my and your's view are just subjective. There is no getting out of subjectivity.

 

[The Void]

You'd have to reason for an argument like that with a little bit more sense

If I were near you I'd just slap your head into the keyboard so hard, and then ask the question again. (Try doing it yourself!)

Also, before progressing along with your life, read this or something similar.

And lastly, try not to have kids or come go to them in any possible way.

I agree with rooks, and I am indeed trying to stay away from relationships and freindships and just talk and interact in superficial levels, because of the repulsion I feel from human drama and attraction to silence and thoughtlessness.

 

[The Void]

You'd have to reason for an argument like that with a little bit more sense

If I were near you I'd just slap your head into the keyboard so hard, and then ask the question again. (Try doing it yourself!)

Also, before progressing along with your life, read this or something similar.

And lastly, try not to have kids or come go to them in any possible way.

Pain feels painful because it risks self-preservation (either mental self or physical self) and risks opportunity to procreate as good as possible to carry on evolution and to maintain group preservation.

Even if pain feels bad, very bad, why is it bad to inflict pain on others?
So what if one feels bad?

In the end all is impermanent. Pain is just a temprorary experience.

Pain , pleasure all the same, impermanent experience, all will come to the void.

Yes of course, in the effort to live life as good as possible, a group may accept some form of standard of good and evil and follow certain impulses and conscience for group preservation and harmony and overall peace.

To live a balanced life it can be better to love and help everyone and avoid any form of conflict and live in peace and harmony, because in the end everyone seeks peace and fullfillment but only through different means. So it is better to choose the path that brings peace to as many as possible including oneself.

And mind even have the reward neurons to reward one who helps others.

But whatever it is, whatever, standards you make, you cannot still deny that it is all subjective constructs of mind.

 

[The Void]

This thread with so many different opinions, of evil, some similar some conflicting, some humorous, THIS is the very evidence of the subjective nature of evil.
And ironically the more you will argue against it the more you will prove my point.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The Fact, that you define your good and your evil, doesn't mean that it is non-existent.

I don't like this talk about being animals etc. This is unconfirmed one way or the other. The sheer perceptive difference of sapient is enough to include a slightly different perspective of the analytic perception as a function in oneself.

You will behave animal like or not, depends on how you view the concepts and your freedom. Being fully animal doesn't change your morality or freedom unless you make it so, why would you need any concept like animal to help you build morals or the idea of freedom?

 

[marv]

Spoiler

Pain feels painful because it risks self-preservation (either mental self or physical self) and risks opportunity to procreate as good as possible to carry on evolution and to maintain group preservation.

Even if pain feels bad, very bad, why is it bad to inflict pain on others?
So what if one feels bad?

In the end all is impermanent. Pain is just a temprorary experience.

Pain , pleasure all the same, impermanent experience, all will come to the void.

Yes of course, in the effort to live life as good as possible, a group may accept some form of standard of good and evil and follow certain impulses and conscience for group preservation and harmony and overall peace.

To live a balanced life it can be better to love and help everyone and avoid any form of conflict and live in peace and harmony, because in the end everyone seeks peace and fullfillment but only through different means. So it is better to choose the path that brings peace to as many as possible including oneself.

And mind even have the reward neurons to reward one who helps others.

But whatever it is, whatever, standards you make, you cannot still deny that it is all subjective constructs of mind.

How is experiencing torment subjective? Can you show me one human being that ever existed and wouldn't consider being tortured slowly to death: bad? (without serious brain impairments) Your ideas about how people interact with each other could be subjective, but not the raw conscious experience of this kind of pain...

 

[The Void]

How is experiencing torment subjective? Can you show me one human being that ever existed and wouldn't consider being tortured slowly to death: bad? (without serious brain impairments) Your ideas about how people interact with each other could be subjective, but not the raw conscious experience of this kind of pain...

Me?
Ok it will hurt and all and I will avoid it if I can.
But it is still just feels bad because of an evolutionary mechanism to retain self-preservation.

See it from more like a outside of 'yourself' perspective.

ANd again if it is not me.

If I am the one torturing someone to death satisfying my bloodlust.
Then what is bad for the tortured can be good for my sociopathic mind.

Spoiler

(I am not that twisted though.

Spoiler

(though I was once as twisted

Spoiler

(may be I still am)

)

)

(without serious brain impairments)

Spoiler

How serious is serious?

 

[The Void]

How is experiencing torment subjective? Can you show me one human being that ever existed and wouldn't consider being tortured slowly to death: bad? (without serious brain impairments) Your ideas about how people interact with each other could be subjective, but not the raw conscious experience of this kind of pain...

Yes but the word 'bad' constitutes a lot of other things.
It is just one specific event that every sane person will probably consider as 'bad'. (define sane )

But the term 'bad' is not just used to define this one specific event but it represents a generalization of lots of other thing.

For example.

A shark caught a man's hand, and the man cut out his hand and escaped.
You can say it was a bad event.
You can say it was a good event because the man was able to escape alive nonetheless.
you can say it was just an event, neither good nor bad.

For all the cases it is all subjective.

In some cases, majority shares the common subjective viewpoint and some cases they does not. But consensual subjective is not really objective. If everyone in the world starts to believe God is a Dog, it does not becomes true.

If someday human body gets altered and it starts to enjoy pain, then it may considered dying while getting tortured is a pleasure.

It all depends on state of mind, evolutionary mechanism, conditionings and all that.

And depending on that we create subjective viewpoints.


There is no getting out of subjectivity.

Fever. Normal people will say fever is bad.
But I had great fun with my fever.

ok I am abnormal, but subjectivity does not becomes a lie.

With placebo effect, and with some real hardcore mental training, it may be even possible to filter all amount of raw pain.

May be.

 

[marv]

If I am the one torturing someone to death satisfying my bloodlust.
Then what is bad for the tortured can be good for my sociopathic mind.

I can't reason against that other than that in this case the socipath must lack empathy, and ignore the ideology of "Live and let live" while still trying to pursue happiness, or fulfillment. Why that is exactly and undoubtedly wrong, I strangely can't answer (yet).. hm..

causes for the damaged mind or empathy system in the brain: Borderline personality disorder, autism, narcissism, psychosis, Asperger's

Have you or someone else read this? The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty: Simon Baron-Cohen: 9780465031429: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516JPsestSL.@@AMEPARAM@@516JPsestSL

 

[The Void]

I can't reason against that other than that in this case the socipath must lack empathy, and ignore the ideology of "Live and let live" while still trying to pursue happiness, or fulfillment. Why that is exactly and undoubtedly wrong, I strangely can't answer (yet).. hm..

causes for the damaged mind or empathy system in the brain: Borderline personality disorder, autism, narcissism, psychosis, Asperger's

Have you or someone else read this? The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty: Simon Baron-Cohen: 9780465031429: Amazon.com: Books

Sociopathy is evolution of human mind.
This world is ruled by the sociopaths.
In this society, sociopaths have the greatest advantage.
This is the time for sociopathy.

And even though sociopaths can be murderers and stuff, but strangely enough they fits the traits of a spiritually transcendant mind.

(living at the moment, no fear, no worry, no regret of the past etc etc)

And being a sociopath does not means one have to kill and torture, one can be functional and non-violent as well even though remorseless and eternally calm.

 

[The Void]

I can't reason against that other than that in this case the socipath must lack empathy, and ignore the ideology of "Live and let live" while still trying to pursue happiness, or fulfillment. Why that is exactly and undoubtedly wrong, I strangely can't answer (yet).. hm..

No I have not read the book.
but bad and good are still perspectives developed from conditionings and evolution.
The raw pains, emotional, psychological or physical, science can show that how painful it can be when some is hurt and stuff, but it still cannot say why it is bad.
It is just bad because it threatens survival and evolution.

I just remember I saw one video nabout in some place, people actually volunteer to play jesus in cross, and they literally get nailed to the cross so that they feel the pain of jesus or whatever.

And it is their culture, their rule. And probably they think it is 'good' even though they are tortured by pain. They are completely sane by social standards (if you even percieve society as sane that is) and all.

Just condition someone differently, raise a kid with some refined manipulation skillm, they mighht as well start to see the bad as good.

I am sure if the religion said, you will get to paradise if you get tortured to death adn give some good backing 'story' like the Jesus thing, you might be able to really make them percieve the 'conventionally bad' as good.

In the it is still perspectives.

Science can of course help you to make a good standard for good and bad, by analyzing what generally brings pains, and morality based on science can be used for being in peace with oneself and surrounding, because in the end peace and harmony is the thing majority really wants, even though lots of them gets selfish too much. So it can be the best choice keeping balanced existence in one, to set standards of good and bad based on science and act in ways to maintain peace keeping the majority's wish in mind. But that doesnt makes it objective.

Just a subjective perception.

And lots of people may say that their holy books can be a better standard, who cares about science?

Still subjective. All subjective.

 

[marv]

Spoiler

Yes but the word 'bad' constitutes a lot of other things.
It is just one specific event that every sane person will probably consider as 'bad'. (define sane )

But the term 'bad' is not just used to define this one specific event but it represents a generalization of lots of other thing.

For example.

A shark caught a man's hand, and the man cut out his hand and escaped.
You can say it was a bad event.
You can say it was a good event because the man was able to escape alive nonetheless.
you can say it was just an event, neither good nor bad.

For all the cases it is all subjective.

In some cases, majority shares the common subjective viewpoint and some cases they does not. But consensual subjective is not really objective. If everyone in the world starts to believe God is a Dog, it does not becomes true.

If someday human body gets altered and it starts to enjoy pain, then it may considered dying while getting tortured is a pleasure.

It all depends on state of mind, evolutionary mechanism, conditionings and all that.

And depending on that we create subjective viewpoints.


There is no getting out of subjectivity.

Fever. Normal people will say fever is bad.
But I had great fun with my fever.

ok I am abnormal, but subjectivity does not becomes a lie.

With placebo effect, and with some real hardcore mental training, it may be even possible to filter all amount of raw pain.

May be.

Yes, the example must be precise. If the individual realizes meaninglessness and hopelessness while under the effect of the act then it should be stated as universally bad for this or any likewise case from the perspective of the individual.

Anyways I think we actually arrived to hardcore nihilism.

But maybe:
The act itself could be considered as universally bad from any conscious being's perspective if he identifies himself as a member of conscious beings' social layer. While also realizing that the members share at least one thing in common: the general conscious need for progress, the preservation of their conscious state in their recurring "rendering" of living environment, and therefore the motivation to progress. And then any act that attempts to halt this proccess, the proccess of living, without the causality of increasing other beings' effectiveness** at living or chance at living is bad.
**cloudy meaning but deal with it

Live and let live.

Although it's not likely that I'm right. Haven't thought about it much in this way.

 

[marv]

Spoiler

Sociopathy is evolution of human mind.
This world is ruled by the sociopaths.
In this society, sociopaths have the greatest advantage.
This is the time for sociopathy.

And even though sociopaths can be murderers and stuff, but strangely enough they fits the traits of a spiritually transcendant mind.

(living at the moment, no fear, no worry, no regret of the past etc etc)

And being a sociopath does not means one have to kill and torture, one can be functional and non-violent as well even though remorseless and eternally calm.

Btw, it doesn't matter what sociopathism is. I just used the word sociopath because you named the perpetrator of the tormenting (yourself) as a (the) sociopath, its meaning is not relevant.

 

[Hargy]

Evil is punting puppies.

 

[clockwork]

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

>that was interesting!

And SkyWalker attempted to define it like this:

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

I think this is a very profound definition and you guys should have delved into what he said (a long time ago), after that nobody even tried to "define evil" properly here!

His definition of evil is decribed in high level abstract economics (with human pain/pleasure as the currency), thats why I like it.

He basically says that universal evil = usurption/narcissism/sociapathism/cancer/leach in the abstract economy (Thus valid on any level, biological cancer, or social cancer, etc)
So evil is a breach of: the golden rule / tit-for-tat / dont-consume-more-than-you-produce in an economy of actors (on whatever scale, micro, or macro)

Think of it like this: Cancer cells breach this rule as well, as they "think" they found the newest "trick" (some DNA info) to live forever & get all the blood supply & grow huge, but in fact they take the ship down (including themselves), as the body inevitably dies. Narcissists/Sociopaths do the same to "bodies of multiple humans"(think of companies/countries/cults/families/friends as the body, and think of the narcissist/sociopath as the cell).

 

[^_\\]

Should-be-enemy-of-all.

 

[ChouMasamori]

EVIL is the word used to justify all action or existence deemed abnormal and/or can bring adversity to the society and human.

 

[J-man]

Evil is just another building block of the abstract mind. It's no different from any other block, thus it is synonymous with God.

'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.

I think that guy had it backwards.

 

[grayskies]

Nancy Pelosi & Saul Alinsky.

 

[kora]

Evil is that which has for sole intention destruction

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Perverted or sadistic pleasure.

 

[Direwolf]

Evil is just like good.. a relative concept.

In reality, there are many things that are thought of as 'evil' by one group of people and as 'good' by another group. The wars the U.S. has been fighting in the Middle-East are an example. Many people thought American soldiers were doing something good by going out there to 'fight evil terrorism' and prevent terror attacks. The civilians in the Middle-Eastern countries who have been injured or lost loved ones because of the war see the occupation of their country as evil and unnecessary.

In truth, it's all about point of view and the fact that humans try to veil their intrinsic nature behind abstract concepts like 'good' and 'evil'. We are all capable of doing things that help others and things that harm them, the deciding factor in which we decide to do at any given time is based on causality just like anything else in this universe.

Perhaps if the majority embraced the reality of human nature in its entirety, we would see resolutions to many of the problems that plague humanity. Not to mention much more mutual understanding and the dissolving of structured religions and the construct of society as a whole.. It's fascinating how much of the human world is built upon the idea of 'good' and 'bad/evil'.

*sigh* oh world.. where are your seekers of truth?

Cant have one without the other can you. I was gonna say something like this but saw pheonix already had.

 

[Teax]

evil is whatever itself, or a consequence of, goes against the desires of the beholder. (yes the good old evil is relative)

also:

Spoiler

 

[^_\\]

Another definition is someone who's identity is built on the betrayal of common good or common values. Someone who is ideologically opposed to altruism, because their remaining tolerated by people at large relies on the idea that there is no such thing as unselfish action, and that the evil person is only more honest, less fearful, more perceptive, or simply has the power to do as they please, and that anyone else would choose to do the same if they had the same virtues: that accounting for other people as if they really exist can only be a dishonest form of cowardice. It can't be a deliberate choice, it can't be that some good people are their own people, or else what excuse do I have? So "goodness" is a lie to be clutched at when someone is too weak, dishonest, or otherwise defective to gain power, as compensation, and to cheat nature and gain power through guilt and sympathy.


Arguably there are other types of evil people, but it's ambiguous whether e.g. someone who embraces delusions for their own comfort and then harms many people on the basis of those delusions is evil, as they have arguably made a forgivable, correctable, and/or understandable mistake, and are called evil in the sense that they're just as bad as evil to the point where they should use the same word. There are also other terms for people like that: solipsist, dangerous madman, animal doesn't really apply but it's similiar.

I think if they are considered evil it's less because "evil" points descriptively to them and more because they are thought to qualify for the "should-be-enemy-of-all" meaning of evil, so it's saying that they're just as bad as people who are actual ideological (maybe political would be more accurate, but it's usually more personal than that) enemies of goodness.


I suppose monster is descriptively the word for people who could choose to be ideological enemies of good for their self interest just like that, without needing any delusions. People who basically have a crocodiles values with intelligence on top but in no way integrated.