Definitions are notoriously consistent with themselves. In my experience, when people unfamiliar with any moral system beyond their own make statements like that, they're thinking of exclusively sub optimal decision fields, inherent conflicts between a plurality of value making properties, or the simple failure of a moral agent to consistently apply that moral system in day to day life.
We can define evil functionally, we can define it generally by it's relation to all moral systems, or we can define it specifically with reference to the contents of a given moral system. The first two are the most instructive as concepts, though we use the third in our day to day lives.
Functionally, evil is a categorization of items based on the referents of a moral system.
Generally, we can refine and expand on Boru's definition; evil is harm done by a competent agent in circumstances with relevant attributes absent the presence of mitigating facts. There's an incredibly high chance that this description of evil will be functionally equivalent to any description of evil, derived from any source..including a religious source. Disagreements are generally over the contents of terms, rather than the form of the moral inference.
The third definition is not a definition of evil itself, but a description of facts that can contribute to the categorization.
What qualifies as a competent moral agent?
What are the relevant attributes of a circumstance with moral import?
What are the mitigating factors of any relevant attribute or competent moral agent?
All fun questions, but as a practical matter - it's not necessary to know the answers to live a moral life. Don't harm, do help.
We can define evil functionally, we can define it generally by it's relation to all moral systems, or we can define it specifically with reference to the contents of a given moral system. The first two are the most instructive as concepts, though we use the third in our day to day lives.
Functionally, evil is a categorization of items based on the referents of a moral system.
Generally, we can refine and expand on Boru's definition; evil is harm done by a competent agent in circumstances with relevant attributes absent the presence of mitigating facts. There's an incredibly high chance that this description of evil will be functionally equivalent to any description of evil, derived from any source..including a religious source. Disagreements are generally over the contents of terms, rather than the form of the moral inference.
The third definition is not a definition of evil itself, but a description of facts that can contribute to the categorization.
What qualifies as a competent moral agent?
What are the relevant attributes of a circumstance with moral import?
What are the mitigating factors of any relevant attribute or competent moral agent?
All fun questions, but as a practical matter - it's not necessary to know the answers to live a moral life. Don't harm, do help.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
