(September 11, 2015 at 5:21 pm)lkingpinl Wrote:(September 11, 2015 at 5:17 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: I had figured you were ultimately referring to the purpose of God.
I'd say you're analysis is correct in the more traditional sense of the word evil, although I'd argue there's also a more informal usage associated more closely with our value judgements on actions and behavior that doesn't necessarily assert a source for those values, just their application. For example, your definition would probably be more relevant in the case of somebody asking another "do you believe evil exists?" On the other hand, I don't think the narrator of a criminal documentary on TV is asserting the existence of a moral lawgiver on TV when they offer us to "delve into the mind of evil" when they begin talking about a serial killer.
I see what your saying, but I think it really is the same thing, but approached from a different perspective. "to delve in to the mind of evil" is to signify the "person" who embodies this mind of evil has committed evil actions in order to be described as such. But in order to have has actions defined as evil, we need to define evil and thus back to the "does evil exist?" which requires a moral law giver.
Of course, I was just pointing out that as is often the case, words adopt more diluted definitions that are used in more informal contexts. Evil's definition in the context of theories of ethics undoubtedly assigns the existence of objective moral laws and the existence of a moral lawgiver, but just because somebody uses the word evil outside of that context doesn't mean its being used in its traditional sense. It's not a word as inescapably entrenched in a religious framework as something like "sin" is.
Wasn't disagreeing with you anyway, that's just my contribution on what I think of evil.
freedomfromfallacy » I'm weighing my tears to see if the happy ones weigh the same as the sad ones.


