What is evil and is it real?

[tackattack]

The following got me to wanting to discuss.

Thanks for explaining that Rhiz. I'd agree with your sentiments there. Interesting point about condoning annoying character traits. Blimey I could almost consider playing devils advocate and defend the reality of evil... but I don't think I'll bother! Thanks again.

Ok. I'd like to get everyone's opinions on what evil is and whether it's real or not. I'l let everyone list some of theirs and then I'll list mine then we'll banter.

[Welsh cake]

"Evil" is merely an overused label for intentional acts or thoughts that are morally negative.

[tackattack]

But if morals are subjective and personal then why is there such a large concensus on what's evil and what's good. Is there a universally defined good and evil?

[Edwardo Piet]

"Evil", along with it's supposed opposite "Good" I consider to be values and values only. I consider them to be things that people have come up with to make sense of their experience and - attempt to - make sense of the world around them - by evaluating it.

And as far as I know these values very probably are nothing more than that subjective matter - because as far as I know I know of no evidence whatsoever for any objective values of any kind.

e.g: I know of no evidence whatsoever of any 'Evil' as in 'Evil force'... 'out there' or anywhere else for that matter, but I do know of evidence of things that people claim to be evil, whether they claim it that it is their own subjective view, or whether they claim more than that and claim to know absolute values. And, as I know of no evidence of such value - or of anyone who claims to know of absolute values - I therefore wish to ask whoever does claim that to provide evidence.

EvF

[Welsh cake]

Well, Morals are subjective yes, and so too are Ethics, but that's a lengthy study I'd rather not delve into today. =P

I guess the concensus stems from that we as a society imprint meanings onto the words, because we need to conceptualise and apply these labels, for example "Good and Evil" onto physical entities or events in order to describe them so they can be distinguishable from each other. The actions manifest themselves around us, usually through our own actions and/or inactions, but these are merely terms, philosophical definitions, the words don't actually exist.

The Problem of Evil (no pun intended) is it is often misapplied and blown out of proportions by philosophers and theists who assert a deeper spiritual and/or more profound meaning onto the word, indeed asserting the word is actually attributed to a supernatural malevolent force in of itself. The failure here is there is no one universal definition as people can spoof up various quandaries - some theists believe there is no evil, only an absence of good. Some philosophers imply there is natural evil at work from disasters or agent-less causes, and so on.

Used incorrectly, the label "evil" ceases to have any kind of practical value. People begin to misattribute and associate it with just about everything and anything that is contrary to their values and beliefs, such as the total sum of mankind's ignorance, people exercising their free will, Satan, the swastika, demon possession - the list is exhaustive.

Used correctly and effectively, the word can describe consequences of cause and effect.

[Edwardo Piet]

How then is it to be 'used correctly' I wonder? Assuming you also concede that of course that too (it being 'used correctly') is itself a subjective matter. That's another messy bucket to get into...

... I mean, I think many nasty spats in the world come about due to the fact some people just can't seem to accept that even some of the most fundamental values are really just a subjective matter. We can all discuss it, sure, we can all debate it, sure... but to act as if there really is absolutely a "right" and "wrong" here so as to turn a blind eye to other view points I think is of course counter-productive. So I think it is a real eye opener for those of us who realize and think that, of course - values are subjective.

EvF

[tackattack]

I also attribute that atheists frequesntly misuse the word attributing evil to the idea of God. I've seen Eiloweeny and CP use the arguement of that Evil entity in the sky at times. I think more frequently than some would like to admit, theists become diillusioned to the "Evil acts" rampant in the Bible and simply can't reconcile a Good God with an Evil one. Or even non theists researching the Bible simply choose not to believe in something they percieve as "Evil".

[Welsh cake]

How then is it to be 'used correctly' I wonder? Assuming you also concede that of course that too (it being 'used correctly') is itself a subjective matter. That's another messy bucket to get into...

I fear I may have generalised a bit when I said cause and effect.

The point I'm trying to make is when a person has intentionally committed an act (murder) that is harmful to themselves and others, note the phrase, committed with intent, the action is morally negative and therefore can be defined as "evil".

Now, if an innocent accidentally killed another, the action couldn't be classed by any rational mind, i.e. someone not thinking out of guilt or grief, as an evil one. They maybe held liable or accountable if the death was a result of their own incompetence, but it would be unjust to say that person deliberately took another's life.

Agreed, this is all subjective trivia, but if the reins aren't pulled in on the word "evil" then it will eventually become an obsolete and outdated definition. I personally feel the word has a strong meaning and therefore should be reserved for heinous acts.

I also attribute that atheists frequesntly misuse the word attributing evil to the idea of God. I've seen Eiloweeny and CP use the arguement of that Evil entity in the sky at times. I think more frequently than some would like to admit, theists become diillusioned to the "Evil acts" rampant in the Bible and simply can't reconcile a Good God with an Evil one. Or even non theists researching the Bible simply choose not to believe in something they percieve as "Evil".

And Christians who assert that "God is Good, because he is God" are not misusing words attributed to another?

To be fair, most atheists who actually understand what these words mean, are not referring to the God in Bible as "evil", they are however attributing the term to describe his actions, which quite frankly speak for themselves.

When people say 'God is an evil tyrant', quintessentially what they mean by the Bible's own omission, the God of the Jews has wrought intentional acts of destruction and death onto mankind that is on par with a power hungry dictator. It's not to say that "God is evil", (like saying "Sam is evil") that is absurd and fallacious (an entity cannot be a morally negative act/thought), but rather he is more capable of performing evil deeds than good ones, that makes God, as far as the holy texts are considered, a deity who commits evil atrocities.

[Zen Badger]

So when bomber crews during the second world war dropped their weapons

on civilian populations were they being good or evil?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Tackattack....

Just because the Bible and apparently God himself is 'defined as' "Good" doesn't mean it's not utterly preposterous that, if there is actually an omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe that is all-loving - for him to allow all the kind of shit that goes on in the world or to allow it to even be possible in the first place. I mean, if this God really is supposed to not only be all loving, but have all the power and intelligence to be able to do something about it.

And that's not to mention all the crap that he supposedly did in the Bible (mostly the OT I believe...).

EvF