What is EVIL?

[kvnchrist]

I've asked this question many times and have come up with several responses from it's nonresistance to it's common day occurrence. Some people say it's not here because the effects are so short lived and in the flow of time, good things may become of it, but that doesn't take into account the original intent. Some say, even in a massacre that there are people who are brought together, that may have never met if not for a disaster. I've heard people us that to say the holocaust was not perpetrated by evil men.

 

Is It the the desires that lead certain companies in Wall Street to bet against stock it sold to share holders in order to make money when that stock failed, to the ruin of many. Is It the desire to overrun different countries and force one religion over their own. Is It the intent to do damage to others that you don't agree with falsehoods. Is It the domination of others, for personal gain.

 

I think Evil is the inability to see others as important. Many wrongs have been perpetrated over the years by people blind to this ideal. Even when the best intentions have been had, the feelings of others illegitimacy to be who they are have destroyed many things, and uncounted opportunities for the human race to grow.

[marharth]

I see someone who is evil as someone who purposely does something to cause harm to others.

 

Hitler was evil, just because he thought he was doing what he did for good reasons does not mean he is not evil.

[Kuraikiba]

Well, according to how I have heard it before, evil can be designated as a willful deviation from the design. What does that mean?

 

Basically, if it is something of a matter that causes some ill effect of some sort, or has any negative repercussions, even according to the butterfly effect, it would be considered a deviation from the design, because the malignant effects have a negative impact on something, and destroy something. Also, this includes what opposes absolute binary truth. Now, it is only considered willful if done in a state where one is:

 

A) In control of their actions

B) Is cognizant of what is occurring

C) Is doing it knowing full well the effects

 

So, the insane and others who fail to meet any of the criteria are not doing so as a conscious choice, therefore, while wrong, they are only locked away for society's sake.

[BlackRampage]

I think Evil is the inability to see others as important. Many wrongs have been perpetrated over the years by people blind to this ideal. Even when the best intentions have been had, the feelings of others illegitimacy to be who they are have destroyed many things, and uncounted opportunities for the human race to grow.

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion you are far to quick to judge those with different ideals and views on morality.

What you're essential doing is taking a certain "ideal", define it as "good" and condemn those who disagree with your concept. What's next? Force others to see things your way? Now that would be evil.

If you can't even accept that there are those with different opinions, how can you even "see others as important"? Circular logic.

 

Obviously the concept of evil is just a human invention. Ever seen anything in nature that could be defined as "evil"?

Why was it invented? Apparently because we humans must have something or someone to blame for just about everything and anything.

Scapegoating has become a way of live. Far easier to blame others for your own incompetence or failings then trying to do something about it yourself.

Aside: You know where the term scapegoating originates from? It originates from a common ritual nomads used to do centuries ago: It basically came down to feeding a single goat to the point of serious obesity, then "blaming" the goat for all the misfortune that had befallen it's owners, then releasing the goat and chasing it into the desert in the hopes that it would take all the "misfortune" with it. :facepalm:

[Deleted472477User]

One thing I think is part of evil is doing nothing to stop it when you see it happening. I'm not saying you have to step in and go all Batman on someone mugging an old lady, but do something: create a disturbance, call 911, be willing to be a witness, and so on.

 

Harming and abusing animals for no other reason than a need of power or control or because it gets you off is evil. Same with harming and abusing children. I am not a kid person, but I get very angry hearing stories of abuse--especially when people could have stepped in and didn't.

 

"I don't want to get involved" is a load of crap. It doesn't require going all kung-fu on the perps, it does require having the courage to help however you are able, and to sit there and let it happen is just as evil as the one doing it.

Edited August 4, 2011 by nyxalinth

[Deleted472477User]

kvn, could you elaborate on what you mean by seeing others as 'important'? In my mind, this means that Good agrees that all humans and other living creature have worth, and deserve to be treated with kindness as much as possible., and not be used, abused, or otherwise degraded simply to forward one's ends or out of a desire to enjoy promoting suffering.

 

As an example, I do eat meat. I get ill without it, my mood goes into depressed/ridiculously angry, and other symptoms I could do without. But, I try to do it as humanely as possible. Eating meat isn't evil to me, but treating the animals cruelly (abuse, neglect, appalling living conditions, etc.) in the process between birth and slaughter is.

 

I don't always succeed (my budget is limited by the crap economy) but I try to do my best.

[Dicecaster]

@Kuraikiba

Any negative effect?

 

1. What design?

2. If I step on somebody's toe while I'm moving through a subway train, that is negative, but is it evil (even to a small extent)?

 

@BlackRampage

 

1. Dude, he's not "condemning" anybody. He gave no indication that he wasn't going to accept anybody else's opinion. If you're going to debate, don't distort what we're saying.

2. Line 6: "Obviously the concept of evil is just a human invention. Ever seen anything in nature that could be defined as 'evil'?" I don't understand your argument. Unless I'm mistaken, you are saying that evil is a human invention because we haven't seen anything in nature that could be classified as evil. This seems to be a very strong case of circular reasoning.

 

I believe that there are moral laws of nature in place, just like the laws of physics. Simply put, if these laws are obeyed, life gets better, otherwise, life gets worse. I believe this works on a personal and corporate level. I also believe that any society (past or present) or non-fictional story can easily justify this claim.

[Kuraikiba]

Negative implies that it detracts from natural flow, or in other words, it damages or destroys. A willful act means you KNOW full well what you are doing, and do it anyway. So doing something that destroys or damages in any way, great or small, with the direct intention of malice or hatred, especially with regards to the design, is evil.

 

The design is basically a setup according to a Lorenz Attractor. A series of cascades of chain reactions that cause individual ripples that magnify in effect due to intricacies of physics along the multi-planear formation of entirety, or as stated, existence. Existence being the summation of this universe and all other possible things. I could explain the phylogeny of this, but that would be of little use, as I'd be blasting you with hours of reading, diagrams, and theorems.

 

Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

[marharth]

Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

Would the act they do be considered evil even if the person doing the act is not considered evil?

 

If so, are there two different definitions?

Edited August 4, 2011 by marharth

[Dicecaster]

Negative implies that it detracts from natural flow, or in other words, it damages or destroys. A willful act means you KNOW full well what you are doing, and do it anyway. So doing something that destroys or damages in any way, great or small, with the direct intention of malice or hatred, especially with regards to the design, is evil.

 

The design is basically a setup according to a Lorenz Attractor. A series of cascades of chain reactions that cause individual ripples that magnify in effect due to intricacies of physics along the multi-planear formation of entirety, or as stated, existence. Existence being the summation of this universe and all other possible things. I could explain the phylogeny of this, but that would be of little use, as I'd be blasting you with hours of reading, diagrams, and theorems.

 

Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

Alright, so is it okay to destroy, damage, or detract from something if you are not doing it out of malice or hatred? For one example, suppose a lion is charging at you with the full intent to kill you; you would have left it alone, but it's not evil to kill it to save your own skin, no malice intended, correct? However, as another example, suppose you are a hit man, you illegally kill people for money; to you it's just a job, no hatred whatsoever, but you're still killing innocent people.