Is Evil Real?

[Jumonji]

When a child reaches for a toy and spills their milk, is that evil?

 

If the milk glass breaks and the baby sister steps on it and bleeds to death... is the child now evil for having reached for a toy?

 

What if a grown woman must feed her children, and slaughters the fatted calf for winter food? She caused the bull to mate the cow and create the calf so she could raise it for slaughter. Is the woman evil for killing the baby cow?

 

If wild dogs gather to a pack and hunt the jackrabbit, chasing it until its eyes bleed and its muscles twitch and spasm from exhaustion while the dogs strip the skin and eat - are the dogs evil?

 

If a people's tribe is driven from its failing land by hunger and need, and the people of a more bountiful land kill them as invaders to protect their food - which is evil? If a third tribe comes from a land never heard of before, with guns and women to settle - are they more evil than the starving invaders before them?

 

Such is life from time beginning. Dinasours ruled the planet for longer than than it took man to arise from a mouse, and then they gave up the world and gained feathers and flight.

 

Man has taken nature by force and taught himself to fly to the planets. By such actions nature itself will gain the stars long after the sun has engulfed the planets themselves.

 

Is the sun evil for killing a planet? What about a failed nature, one with too little strife and competition to grow 

and mature - a nature that never gained the stars and thus committed it's own suicide - would that be evil?

[freddycashmercury]

Well, I believe evil exists.

 

However, my reasons for this are based on my religious beliefs.

 

This thread is a bit dangerous, as evil is a concept defined by your personal beliefs, mainly your religious beliefs or lack thereof, and if we start an actual debate, it would be breaking the "No religious debates" rule. On my part, at least.

[freddycashmercury]

Well, I believe evil exists.

 

However, my reasons for this are based on my religious beliefs.

 

This thread is a bit dangerous, as evil is a concept defined by your personal beliefs, mainly your religious beliefs or lack thereof, and if we start an actual debate, it would be breaking the "No religious debates" rule. On my part, at least.

 

Ok - you think evil is a function of personal belief and you don't wish to debate any logical foundation - that's fine. I think you can say that you believe in evil for a religious reason withou

 actually debating religion.

 

But I would rather treat this in a secular fashion as that is how I posted my questions. I think we can discuss the existance of morality without reducing it to an argument about whose religious sect is better.

 

There is a problem with that statement, though. Without a religious foundation, morality has no logical reason and cannot exist. If you don't believe that a divine power has handed down specific rules, or some form of morality, then morality has no meaning.

 

I take it you are an agnostic or atheist? Since you don't believe in God, then who's to say murder is bad? I believe it is wrong because God said so. However, if God never said so, then who's to say murder is wrong?

 

If I believed murder was perfectly fine, my point of view would be just as valid as yours, as there is no basis for the belief that murder is wrong if you don't believe that a god has said it is.

 

Sorry for the repetitious and disjointed nature of that post, btw.

[ninja_lord666]

"Good" and "evil" are two very strange word; they have multiple meanings depending on the point of view. For one, chopping down a tree for fire wood might be "good" so that person doesn't freeze at night. For someone else, that might be "evil" because it's killing the tree.

However, in my experience, generally "good" is anything that furthers human existence and "evil" is anything that slows or halts human existence. murder is "evil" because then that person can't have children who then can't have children who also can't have children, etc. Killing a cow is "good" because then someone can eat therefore living another day, another day which might possibly lead to reproduction which will birth a child who can then grow up to have more children.

 

If religion never existed, murder would still be considered "evil," not because some almighty said so, but because it hampers human existence.

Also, this might be quite controvercial, but many could consider religion as the greatest "evil" of all because when you put together all the deaths from disease, murder, alcohol, accidents, non-religious wars, they are nowhere near the number of deaths caused by religion. So, in a sense, religion is the greatest detriment to human existence.

On a different note, many people consider religion as the greatest "good" because it has prevented deaths with it's Word of God against killing (excluding the afore mentioned deaths).

That said, Buddhism and Hinduism could be considered the greatest "good" in religion. Those who follow either live only to be reborn. There's no possible way to further human existence any more than that.

 

 

(Note: I am not saying religion is "evil." I'm saying that it could be considered on one hand "evil" and the on the other hand "good." I'm saying it's a mix of both.)

[freddycashmercury]

I agree with what you say Ninja, for the most part anyway. However, I do not believe murder would be considered evil merely because it "hampers human existence". If that were the case, then why do so many people believe abortion is not evil? Even if you believe abortion is not killing, for various reason, it still hampers human existence. And yet, many people, if not the majority, believe there's nothing wrong with abortion.

 

 

Please note, I am not trying to argue the topic of abortion itself, I am merely using it as an example.

[Abramul]

Hypothetical metaphysical entities are not a prerequisite for the existence of good or of evil. Humans are perfectly capable of creating both on their own.

 

Survival is not the only imperative. If the survival of the species comes at the cost of everything we believe to be right and good, is it worth it?

[thekid345]

When a child reaches for a toy and spills their milk, is that evil?

 

If the milk glass breaks and the baby sister steps on it and bleeds to death... is the child now evil for having reached for a toy?

 

What if a grown woman must feed her children, and slaughters the fatted calf for winter food? She caused the bull to mate the cow and create the calf so she could raise it for slaughter. Is the woman evil for killing the baby cow?

 

If wild dogs gather to a pack and hunt the jackrabbit, chasing it until its eyes bleed and its muscles twitch and spasm from exhaustion while the dogs strip the skin and eat - are the dogs evil?

 

If a people's tribe is driven from its failing land by hunger and need, and the people of a more bountiful land kill them as invaders to protect their food - which is evil? If a third tribe comes from a land never heard of before, with guns and women to settle - are they more evil than the starving invaders before them?

 

Such is life from time beginning. Dinasours ruled the planet for longer than than it took man to arise from a mouse, and then they gave up the world and gained feathers and flight.

 

Man has taken nature by force and taught himself to fly to the planets. By such actions nature itself will gain the stars long after the sun has engulfed the planets themselves.

 

Is the sun evil for killing a planet? What about a failed nature, one with too little strife and competition to grow 

and mature - a nature that never gained the stars and thus committed it's own suicide - would that be evil?

 

All of the examples you gave are accidental, natural, or needed. If say the baby wanted to kill the babysitter and PURPOSEFULY dropped the glass, he would be evil. If the dogs attacked the rabbit because they like to kill things, and then leave it, that is evil.

 

Evil is real, but someone taht does some thing accidentally or naturaly, it isn't evil at all.

[Abramul]

Evil is real, but someone taht does some thing accidentally or naturaly, it isn't evil at all.

But is it evil to "...through inaction, allow a living thing to experience undue suffering", when such action could come at no cost to the actor?

[freddycashmercury]

Hypothetical metaphysical entities are not a prerequisite for the existence of good or of evil. Humans are perfectly capable of creating both on their own.

 

Survival is not the only imperative. If the survival of the species comes at the cost of everything we believe to be right and good, is it worth it?

 

Perhaps, but without the Bible, Torah, Qu'uran, etc, where would we get a unified system of morals? Every person's morality is different, but we mostly agree that murder is bad, fighting is bad, love is good, etc. We only believe those things because of our upbringing. Even if you are brought u a secular humanist, your parents probably impress Judeo-Christian morals onto you. Every set of morals that we have is based on a religious belief. Show me a society that has been brought up without religious beliefs, and still remained moral and "good".

 

Survival is not the only imperative. If the survival of the species comes at the cost of everything we believe to be right and good, is it worth it?

 

No, I don't believe it is.

 

But is it evil to "...through inaction, allow a living thing to experience undue suffering", when such action could come at no cost to the actor?/

 

Yes, in my opinion inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that does. Isaac Asimov, anyone? :P

 

First Rule of Robotics: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

[Jumonji]

... If a third tribe comes from a land never heard of before, with guns and women to settle - are they more evil than the starving invaders before them?...

 

All of the examples you gave are accidental, natural, or needed. If say the baby wanted to kill the babysitter and PURPOSEFULY dropped the glass, he would be evil. If the dogs attacked the rabbit because they like to kill things, and then leave it, that is evil.

 

Evil is real, but someone that does some thing accidentally or naturaly, it isn't evil at all.

 

What about the example I left in above? I was actually thinking of American settlers when I wrote it - they displaced "savages" to claim the land, and then killed the ones that didn't want to leave. Was that evil?

 

Let me ask from the other perspective - what if all animals (before people evolved) were "good" to each other - would people exist today or would earth be inhabited by a bunch of noncompetitive vegetarian mice? Would that original "good" still be considered good in that case?