Evil

[robvalue]

Nestor: Thanks for the reply

I'm afraid I can't understand your reasoning at all. I really must do my morality video, when I finally get the energy! I'll try and address every aspect when I do so.

[Mudhammam]

Nestor: Thanks for the reply

I'm afraid I can't understand your reasoning at all. I really must do my morality video, when I finally get the energy! I'll try and address every aspect when I do so.

Sorry if my reply was muddled. I was super tired when I typed it up last night - eyelids felt like paper - and a little high. I see that it was needlessly wordy, even for me. Anyway, it's a difficult subject if only because those who HAVE affirmed belief in objective goodness have disagreed over what actions or brain states come closest to approaching it: does it involve health or wealth? Physical and mental tranquility? Is it a peace of mind that transcends external circumstances? Hedonistic pleasure? A combination of all these? Happiness? Do intentions and consequences possess equal importance in judging action? Is the Good and what we measure by it none of the above, but something related albeit unknown?

If there are right or wrong answers to these questions i.e. any aim in such a discussion, then morality is objective.

[Kingpin]

Evil is a violation of purpose

[Tartarus Sauce]

Evil is a violation of purpose

What do you mean?

[Kingpin]

Evil is a violation of purpose

What do you mean?

This is my belief so make of it what you will.

Whenever people talk about evil they actually assume there’s such a thing as good. When they assume there’s such a thing as good, they assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When they assume a moral law they must assume a moral lawgiver. Why do we assume a moral lawgiver? Because ultimately when you raise the question of evil, it’s either raised by a person, or about a person. That means either the question-raiser or the object of the question is assumed to have intrinsic worth and that can only be so if we are the creation of God.

We often see evil in large-scale examples such as the Holocaust or the Communist purges under Stalin. Here's a provocative question regarding these extreme examples: Are we talking about the volume of people killed that makes them evil, or the fact that any person was killed? The risk that comes along with invoking such monstrous examples of evil is that we will lose sight of the fact that instances of evil are not measured in sheer numbers.  It was not the fact that tens of thousands were slaughtered but that tens of thousands of times, the sacred was violated. A single, human life is never anything less than a specimen of essential worth, an example of that which is sacred. Every time the sacred is violated it is either intentionally or unintentionally an act of evil. Evil is ultimately that which violates the purposes of God for life and living in community with each other.

[Mudhammam]

This is my belief so make of it what you will.

Whenever people talk about evil they actually assume there’s such a thing as good. When they assume there’s such a thing as good, they assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When they assume a moral law they must assume a moral lawgiver. Why do we assume a moral lawgiver? Because ultimately when you raise the question of evil, it’s either raised by a person, or about a person. That means either the question-raiser or the object of the question is assumed to have intrinsic worth and that can only be so if we are the creation of God.

What's a "moral lawgiver"? How does it differ from the rational faculty's apprehension of more or less ideal conditions in which such a faculty may be utilized? If intrinsic worth requires a Creator, it's not intrinsic... it depends on external circumstance, namely the bestowal of worth by something else. If God requires no "free gift", why should we? If, after all, we are really intrinsically valuable and not on account of another being's legislating it to be so.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What do you mean?

This is my belief so make of it what you will.

Whenever people talk about evil they actually assume there’s such a thing as good. When they assume there’s such a thing as good, they assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When they assume a moral law they must assume a moral lawgiver. Why do we assume a moral lawgiver? Because ultimately when you raise the question of evil, it’s either raised by a person, or about a person. That means either the question-raiser or the object of the question is assumed to have intrinsic worth and that can only be so if we are the creation of God.

We often see evil in large-scale examples such as the Holocaust or the Communist purges under Stalin. Here's a provocative question regarding these extreme examples: Are we talking about the volume of people killed that makes them evil, or the fact that any person was killed? The risk that comes along with invoking such monstrous examples of evil is that we will lose sight of the fact that instances of evil are not measured in sheer numbers.  It was not the fact that tens of thousands were slaughtered but that tens of thousands of times, the sacred was violated. A single, human life is never anything less than a specimen of essential worth, an example of that which is sacred. Every time the sacred is violated it is either intentionally or unintentionally an act of evil. Evil is ultimately that which violates the purposes of God for life and living in community with each other.

Fixed that for you!

[Kingpin]

This is my belief so make of it what you will.

Whenever people talk about evil they actually assume there’s such a thing as good. When they assume there’s such a thing as good, they assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When they assume a moral law they must assume a moral lawgiver. Why do we assume a moral lawgiver? Because ultimately when you raise the question of evil, it’s either raised by a person, or about a person. That means either the question-raiser or the object of the question is assumed to have intrinsic worth and that can only be so if we are the creation of God.

What's a "moral lawgiver"? How does it differ from the rational faculty's apprehension of more or less ideal conditions in which such a faculty may be utilized? If intrinsic worth requires a Creator, it's not intrinsic... it depends on external circumstance, namely the bestowal of worth by something else. If God requires no "free gift", why should we? If, after all, we are really intrinsically valuable and not on account of another being's legislating it to be so.

A Moral Lawgiver is required when raising the question of evil.  If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no good, no evil.  If we are created in the imago dei, then our very being/essence has intrinsic worth. 

If our intrinsic worth is not exterior or from God, and it has instead evolved without God, then the value or worth of each individual is forever changing. It is therefore not permanent but ever changing. And if it is changing, then who will give it value, what value, and when? Is it a person or persons that gives each person intrinsic value? Is it a creed? Is it a king? Is it a nation or government? If this is so, then anyone at any age may change the meaning as they please. This is then crucial. Intrinsic human value has to come from God, God who transcends us. Only then will our value be eternal and never up for the whims of change, the winds of change. Only then will it be anchored. Evolution cannot give value to human beings because it is always changing and that means no absolutes, no anchor. Essential worth means not conveyed worth or secondary worth. We are all created equal.

[Tartarus Sauce]

What do you mean?

This is my belief so make of it what you will.

Whenever people talk about evil they actually assume there’s such a thing as good. When they assume there’s such a thing as good, they assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When they assume a moral law they must assume a moral lawgiver. Why do we assume a moral lawgiver? Because ultimately when you raise the question of evil, it’s either raised by a person, or about a person. That means either the question-raiser or the object of the question is assumed to have intrinsic worth and that can only be so if we are the creation of God.

We often see evil in large-scale examples such as the Holocaust or the Communist purges under Stalin. Here's a provocative question regarding these extreme examples: Are we talking about the volume of people killed that makes them evil, or the fact that any person was killed? The risk that comes along with invoking such monstrous examples of evil is that we will lose sight of the fact that instances of evil are not measured in sheer numbers.  It was not the fact that tens of thousands were slaughtered but that tens of thousands of times, the sacred was violated. A single, human life is never anything less than a specimen of essential worth, an example of that which is sacred. Every time the sacred is violated it is either intentionally or unintentionally an act of evil. Evil is ultimately that which violates the purposes of God for life and living in community with each other.

I had figured you were ultimately referring to the purpose of God. 

I'd say your 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.

[Kingpin]

This is my belief so make of it what you will.

Whenever people talk about evil they actually assume there’s such a thing as good. When they assume there’s such a thing as good, they assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When they assume a moral law they must assume a moral lawgiver. Why do we assume a moral lawgiver? Because ultimately when you raise the question of evil, it’s either raised by a person, or about a person. That means either the question-raiser or the object of the question is assumed to have intrinsic worth and that can only be so if we are the creation of God.

We often see evil in large-scale examples such as the Holocaust or the Communist purges under Stalin. Here's a provocative question regarding these extreme examples: Are we talking about the volume of people killed that makes them evil, or the fact that any person was killed? The risk that comes along with invoking such monstrous examples of evil is that we will lose sight of the fact that instances of evil are not measured in sheer numbers.  It was not the fact that tens of thousands were slaughtered but that tens of thousands of times, the sacred was violated. A single, human life is never anything less than a specimen of essential worth, an example of that which is sacred. Every time the sacred is violated it is either intentionally or unintentionally an act of evil. Evil is ultimately that which violates the purposes of God for life and living in community with each other.

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.