What is EVIL?

[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.

No? He deems not adhering to a certain ideal "evil". Tell me how that would not condemn those who don't adhere to this ideal.

Furthermore I am not at all attempting to distort what anyone is 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.

Is it? Fair enough. Lets say nature is everything around us except for ourselves and whatever we have created.

If there is no evidence of anything in nature that could be defined as "evil", then where else but humanity could "evil" come from then?

 

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.

Laws of physics, like all laws of nature, cannot be bended, circumvented, broken or plainly ignored (well except maybe in a singularity). If there would indeed be "moral laws of nature", then those would need to be obeyed at all times as well. If that's true then every single person would have no choice but to obey those "moral laws". Extremely unlikely. Life would only be able to get better. (which is obviously not the case)

 

I'm also rather curious as to what those laws would be then. Could you provide evidence or an example of those laws being in place?

Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[nosisab]

Whenever a formant duality is analyzed by one only of it's face, the interval is lost, the answer can't be find. If understanding is the quest, the interval must be the target, the extremes can't exist isolate from the other.

 

We need referential in fact, we need circumstances, we need purposes and we need scope to understand the situation and then arbitrate a judgement. Because it will be always an arbitrariness that judgement will not fit everyone.

 

So, at least as I see it, there is no sense in seeking to understand and less yet explain evil as an absolute. We should struggle for balance and look with suspicion everything that hurts that balance.

 

Few things hurt the equilibrium more than selfishness, individual or group selfishness. Selfishness blinds to consequences most of times. When does not blind directly it distorts the perception and make believe the short time gain makes up for the cumulative damage in the long term.

 

Power is probably the most sought result of selfishness, very few things are more dangerous to everyone than power on extremes (here used in the sense of out balance, biased toward one the wings of the duality). No sane judgement can be expected from extremists, that is just obvious, otherwise it would not be extremism. Extremists are unable to even accept the other side, they can't see the interval even when can't scape it. They live in a bipolar logic of true and false, to the point they lose the understanding than in nature everything have their proper reasons and purposes.

 

So, evil to me is failing to understand consequences, "hell is filled with good intentions", there is evilness in deceiving others but deceiving himself the most dangerous kind of evilness an individual or group can do. Dread things result from this, always.

 

Although I tried to be as universal as I could, circumstances can create something which can't be traced down to the said, but if analyzed with care almost all examples of evilness have their roots on that exposed above.

 

"Things went wrong at the moment mankind began existing to serve the system instead the system existing to serve mankind" - Known unknown anonymous.

Edited August 5, 2011 by nosisab

[draconix]

Thanks for that wonderfully sideways remark, Kuraikiba, :rolleyes:

 

At any rate, I'd be hard pressed to say that your binary definition is correct. Your statement that whatever isn't of truth would be false is an interesting statement. On paper it's fine, but what would be the binary nature of the statement "This sentence is false"? Not everything really has to fall into that truth or untruth dichotomy.

[nosisab]

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.

BlackRampage, the only ideal mentioned there by kvnchrist is that marked in bold by me... no other "ideal" can be inferred from that.

 

Actually, there is the synthesis of everything I claptrapped afterward.

Edited August 5, 2011 by nosisab

[Kuraikiba]

Perhaps I may clarify?

 

In reality, we assign value to evil as we PERCIEVE truth. However, truth was not defined by us, lest we be able to manipulate it. Truth is not necessarily known in full, but it simply comprises of what is. Just simply that: What is FACT. No opinion, no human input. Defined fact, by that which defined truth, whatever it may be.

 

Let me state it this way:

 

Truth = Truth

False =/= Truth

P (where P is any given thing not true) = False

 

Why is this? Because if it's not the truth, it very well can't be anything other than falsity. If it is not falsity, and not truth, tell me what it is then. Shades of gray in a world of black and white, though sound on paper, is impossible in practice.

[draconix]

Truth = Truth

False =/= Truth

P (where P is any given thing not true) = False

 

Why is this? Because if it's not the truth, it very well can't be anything other than falsity. If it is not falsity, and not truth, tell me what it is then. Shades of gray in a world of black and white, though sound on paper, is impossible in practice.

 

Sounds a lot like begging the question. I could just as easily say that P (where P is any given thing not false) = True

Not that it is, because P is equal to P

[nosisab]

I can not agree, kuraikiba, except on very limited and delimited systems one can not have that determinism.

 

Like to say: The truth can be granted only while inside the "specifications", even so if nothing breaks in the while...

 

"predictability" is far better word than "truth" for many occasions we use this last.

 

Just a gross example of the pitfalls: Yesterday rained.

 

The above can be perfectly not true for you and yet be true for me.

 

another example: I will go to the movies tomorrow if not raining

 

This statement is true in purpose but can't be granted, something else may prevent it. We are dealing with complexes situations where there are no ways to put only in terms of true or false. There are too many occasions to maybes.

 

A final example, this time using restrict relativity. The classical example of an orange released by someone in a moving train is seen falling in straight vertical line while to an observer in a stationary (related to the train) platform sees the orange falling in a parabolic curve. Both are correct in what they see... but how something can fall at same time in a curve and in straight line?

Edited August 5, 2011 by nosisab

[Kuraikiba]

In that case, yes, a proper amendment would be things inside parameters of relative form.

[nosisab]

In that case, yes, a proper amendment would be things inside parameters of relative form.

What translates to truth as seen by the observer. Notice there are no lies if those mentioned witnesses state what they saw in a trial even when they state different things, the "incredible" truth is that truth is relative... it's so from the moment the universe was born. If there is absolute truth it must be sought before this :)

 

To keep on topic, that's the reason I told in previous post about "evil"

We need referential in fact, we need circumstances, we need purposes and we need scope to understand the situation and then arbitrate a judgement. Because it will be always an arbitrariness that judgement will not fit everyone.

I just hope a balanced mind is doing that judgement...

Edited August 5, 2011 by nosisab

[marharth]

You don't have to go back that far. As recently as the 19th century, in England, the age of consent was twelve years of age.

 

With regards to what Kuraikiba and marharth are saying about evil and insanity, it is interesting to bring in here what counts as the definition of the legal defence to insanity in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, India and most states of the USA

 

"the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

 

Thus it is that a particularly clever and evil psychopath killer can still be convicted of murder and would not succeed with a defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity". The Yorkshire Ripper and Harold Shipman, two of Britain's more infamous serial killers, were both definite psychopathic personalities with massive superiority complexes, but were both jailed for life for murder. The former was transferred to Broadmoor Special Hospital . The latter hanged himself in gaol.

 

Very few people would have protested had either of them had an appointment with a real hangman.

As for the first part, you really don't have to go back in time at all. Quite a few developed countries have the age of consent under sixteen. I believe it is fifteen in Sweden, and as young as thirteen in Japan.

 

I don't really know for sure, I am not really agreeing with Kuraikiba at all. I am wondering if a act alone could count as evil, even in the person committing the act is not.

Edited August 5, 2011 by marharth