Is Evil Real?

[ninja_lord666]

...noncompetitive vegetarian mice?

That's a common misconception. You don't have to be carnivorous to be "evil." If you have say two deer but only enough food for one, the deer will fight over that food, and, ultimately, one will kill the other.

There's also the fact that plants are living things, too! In fact, one could say a herbivore is even more "evil" than a carnivore. A carnivore will kill an animal, then eat it, while a herbivore will just start eating a living plant, and, most of the time, will leave it alive. That would be like a lion taking down a gazelle, eating it's legs, then just let it sit there alive and legless. Personally, I think that's worse.

[xenxander]

Oh boy! Here we are, in the deepest parts of philosophy and morality. Such debates never end, because every mind considers every facet of the issue separately. Humanity is not united and as such, will always ‘fall’ (metaphorically).

 

Now, having said that I will share my own views (which to be redundant, are simply my own).

 

I consider that humanity distinguishes the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ aspect in the situations you describe (about animals and slaughter) based on the principle of “is the creature sentient”. If the answer is “yes”, then the concept of murder means that creature knows it’s terminating the life of another, and if the “other” life it’s killing is also sentient, then it is morally ‘wrong’.

 

Your tribe examples are “in the eye of the beholder”. Invaders are usually ‘malevolent’ if they attempt to take what you consider to be your own, or are ‘benevolent’ if they wish to live side by side your own tribe, aid your people and ultimately help your own survival.

 

We don’t consider killing live stalk or trees ‘evil’ because we have evolved to believe that they, even as living things, do not have the concept of “I am”. As for the infant and the glass example, we wouldn’t consider it ‘evil’ because the child had no concept of the repercussions of the actions, and as such those actions were out of ignorance. For the dog killing the rabbit – we consider that to be “survival of the most fit”, and as that’s the law of nature (to struggle to survive and to ultimately reproduce), it’s not evil although it means everything is ‘out for themselves’.

 

Being selfish isn’t evil in itself, because life is selfish. In order for something to live, something else has to die.

 

We then say “Ignorance is bliss”. A state of pure innocence also means you have no concept of ‘good’ or ‘evil’, or even the concept of ‘death’, because you have no concept that you really exist. Your mind at that stage hasn’t formed the idea of “I am here”.

 

All we must do is take away conscience thought and reasoning – take away the element of our minds that allow us to plan out each day or action, to use logic and solve complex problems using complex means (and I don’t necessarily mean ‘tools’, as some animals also use tools instinctively).

[Malchik]

To suggest, as an earlier poster did, that morality derives from religious belief is erroneous. The logical conclusion would have to be that non-believers have no morality which is patently nonsense. Each religion defines its own morality, although few cover every issue that faces the world today. These moralities are not always compatible and may even conflict. What is registered as 'good' (or perhaps the better word is 'right') by one creed is not necessarily the same in another.

 

Assessing anything as good or evil involves making value judgements. In a nutshell these are pretty basic. If it's something I agree with/my religion tells me is right it is 'good', if it is something I disagree with/is proscribed by my beliefs it is 'evil'. Simplistic perhaps but that's how it works.

 

Because of the chaos that would ensue if this were left unstructured most societies establish rules, whether secular or otherwise, that state - no matter what your personal value judgements may be, this is what this society considers wrong. Your views will not be changed but you are made aware that if you ignore the rules there will be repercussions and probably punishment. A major problem arises when civil laws and religious laws conflict but that should not be a debate in these forums.

 

Then there is 'ignorance' as has also been raised. Some people are born with brain imperfections that prevent them from understanding the concepts of right and wrong. They can commit 'evil' acts without being evil themselves. But you can be sure that different people are going to see that person at all levels of the innocent-evil spectrum.

 

What I am saying, I suppose, is that there are so many interpretations of good and evil that they cannot be debated in general terms. Specific instances - some of which have been raised in earlier posts - can.

 

For what it is worth my vague definition of evil is 'anything done knowingly and maliciously that is intended to harm another'. But there are many things in that short expression that could be debated too.

[freddycashmercury]

All right Malchik, I can respect your opinion, just as you have respected mine.

 

Because of my religious beliefs, however, I am forced to disagree that good and evil are undefinable. According to my religion, anything that works for God is good, and anything that works against Him is evil. Now, however, we have the opposite of the problem we just did away with. I am able to define good and evil in general terms, but I cannot know if specific instances are bad. For example, murder is wrong, correct? However, according to my religion, if it is God's will, it is good. I cannot know what God's will is in this instance unless He chooses to reveal it to me. Therefore, I do not judge good and evil, since what seems evil to me may be a part of God's greater plan, and is therefore good.

 

To suggest, as an earlier poster did, that morality derives from religious belief is erroneous. The logical conclusion would have to be that non-believers have no morality which is patently nonsense.

 

I suppose you could be right, but you see, my religion says that we were created in God's image, so ( in my belief, anyway) we only have a sense of right and wrong because He has one.

 

Also, just to clarify, I meant that without religious beliefs, morality has no true justification. Therefore, non-believers have no morality that is justified. Think about it. If you are an atheist or agnostic, then where do right and wrong come from? I know, I know you said:

Assessing anything as good or evil involves making value judgements. In a nutshell these are pretty basic. If it's something I agree with/my religion tells me is right it is 'good', if it is something I disagree with/is proscribed by my beliefs it is 'evil'. Simplistic perhaps but that's how it works.

 

But, where does the disagreement come from? Why do you believe what you believe? Without religious beliefs, even our laws would not be justified! What is morally wrong with getting drunk 6 days a week, unless God said it is? What is morally wrong with murder, for that case? Unless you believe God said murder is evil, then why is it bad? Of course, murder is obviously bad because if we were freely allowed to murder people, well, our society would never have gotten to where it is. But saying murder is wrong because it hampers human progress or is unproductive is not morality. It's cold, hard logic. Saying something is wrong because you disagree with it, for no other reason than that it seems wrong to you, that's the morality inherent in us because of how God created us.

 

Please note, I may edit this post to make sure my arguments make sense.

 

Ah well, I will stop here, as I am dangerously close to a religious debate. Moderators, please note that I am not trying to impress my religion upon anyone, it is merely that my religious beliefs play a key role in my definitions of good and evil.

[xenxander]

I usually make in depth posts that involve a lot of thinking and organization in order to elaborate clearly, but freddy I must ask in a very simple and short post:

 

Why are you bringing in ‘God’ into this discussion?

 

No where in many posts do we even mention that. I know I didn’t, and others state it’s in your own set of values where ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ reside.

 

You cannot state that those who are atheist have no –justifiable- morals of right or wrong. As a whole, our culture and society in general factor in laws to keep a structure in tact, and this structure is rather well defined as to what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. You may argue it arises from those religious influences and in some cases you would be right, but as laws evolve to match the place and time (the ‘here’ and ‘now’), religion can be factored out without destroying our “just” values.

 

 

Again I appologise for my rather brief exchange. Something just felt 'wrong' about your post. (no pun intended, though I have to admit it felt 'right' to say that *chuckles* :biggrin: :ninja: )

[freddycashmercury]

I usually make in depth posts that involve a lot of thinking and organization in order to elaborate clearly, but freddy I must ask in a very simple and short post:

 

Why are you bringing in ‘God’ into this discussion?

 

No where in many posts do we even mention that. I know I didn’t, and others state it’s in your own set of values where ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ reside.

 

You cannot state that those who are atheist have no –justifiable- morals of right or wrong. As a whole, our culture and society in general factor in laws to keep a structure in tact, and this structure is rather well defined as to what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. You may argue it arises from those religious influences and in some cases you would be right, but as laws evolve to match the place and time (the ‘here’ and ‘now’), religion can be factored out without destroying our “just” values.

 

 

Again I appologise for my rather brief exchange. Something just felt 'wrong' about your post. (no pun intended, though I have to admit it felt 'right' to say that *chuckles* :biggrin: :ninja: )

Well, I understand where you are coming from, and please note, I am not trying to convert you or anything. I merely think that if you have morals that are not supported by religious beliefs, they are not justifiable. If you say murder is wrong, but don't believe God has said so, then why is it wrong? I have already addressed this, but I'll do it again. If you have no faith behind your morals, then if I said I thought it was morally okay to kill you if you looked at me wrong, my morals would be just as justified as yours.

[Jumonji]

If we followed the god motivation for morals, we would quickly devolve into a choice between either circular reasoning (It's good because God said so, and God said so because it's good...) or into the nature of omnipotence. That's not where I wanted to go with this  debate - but I had forgotten how frequently these kinds of debates devolve  into religion. I apologize for that.

[ninja_lord666]

Well, I understand where you are coming from, and please note, I am not trying to convert you or anything. I merely think that if you have morals that are not supported by religious beliefs, they are not justifiable. If you say murder is wrong, but don't believe God has said so, then why is it wrong? I have already addressed this, but I'll do it again. If you have no faith behind your morals, then if I said I thought it was morally okay to kill you if you looked at me wrong, my morals would be just as justified as yours.

The problem you're running into is religious brainwashing. Your religion states that anyone who doesn't follow your religion is an evil pagan under the influence of Satan, therefore having no knowledge of "good." While that makes sense....sort of, it is completely unfounded and ignorant. If someone says, "I do not believe in God." then how, exactly, could (s)he 'worship Satan'? Wouldn't non-belief in God also mean non-belief in Satan? Therefore, an atheist is not under the influence of Satan, not evil, and can have morals.

Actually, by your logic, religious people actually have less morals than anyone else. How can you have morals if you're simply basing your actions off of someone else? That not morals, that just command and follow. If God says don't murder, you don't murder, not because you think it's wrong, but because He does. The same relationship exists between a robot and it's master. A master tells the robot what to do, and the robot does it without question. So, you Christians are nothing more than robots of God, organic robots of God, at that. Even you would agree that robots don't express morals, correct?

 

The thing about being atheist, is I don't need to pretend to have morals, I actually can develop my own. I think murder is wrong. You may think I have no reason for thinking so, but that's just what God wants you to think. He wants you to believe that everyone is as lost without Him as you would be.

[Abramul]

The simplest non-divine source of morality is the Golden Rule. If you would object to someone else doing something to you, it's reasonable to assume the reverse is true. Of course, this can lose effectiveness when two different value-systems collide. It can also encounter problems when someone doesn't acknowledge the existence or equivalence of other people.

[Chesto]

We are evolved beings. Whether that evolution took place in Biblical time or Geological time is, I think, immaterial except to those who have their various axes to grind. As we evolved we had, imposed on us, strategies for survival. At some point one of the strategic impositions would have been whether 'right action' was a better route to follow than 'wrong action' in relation to our survival as a species. 'Right' and 'Wrong' is hard wired into our genetic make up. Codes of morality have developed within the multiplicity of cultures which began to come into existence since we first became mobile. Most of those codes have turned into the world's religions. Now, 'Good' and 'Evil' are convenient terms for modern use, whether in controlling an unruly infant or in the attempt to attain geo-political hegemony. I agree with Xen., that only a sentient being, ie. man, is capable of distinguishing between the two. But there will always be disagreement as to how to categorize any given event.

 

What a frighteningly dense paragraph. But then I'm a frighteningly dense person.