Define evil

[The Grumpy Celt]

The infliction of suffering upon something capable of perceiving that suffering.

This is the definition used by Paul Carus in his book “History of Devil” and I find it withstands inquiry and is flexible enough to be as good – or better – a definition than any other I have encountered.

There for it is not evil to eat an apple because – in as far as we are aware- the apple has no sense of self and is incapable of experiencing pain.

However, it is evil – in so far as this definition is used – to kill and eat a deer, because while the deer while it might not possess the sense of self that is the hallmark of a human, the deer is capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

Which is why the hunters of technologically unsophisticated cultures would often apologize to the animal that they had killed and thank it for its sacrifice.

Equally, a war should be fought with sufficient dedication, ferocity, manpower and supplies to end the conflict as quickly and effectively as possible so as not to prolong the suffering of those involved, even if in so doing the temporary costs are increased.

Ergo, a moral life is one in which an individual seeks to create as little suffering as possible and to further ameliorate the suffering they and others cause as much as possible.

This is all somewhat simplistic but a sufficient groundwork for the above definition to function.

Now, you will have to excuse me because I am hungry and I have some BABIES I am going to COOK and EAT!

 

[Galethorn]

What if there isn't another solution? Let's say we're not in a Star Trek episode and we don't have Kirk, God, and staff writers on our side?

Then there isn't a [Good] solution. Period. Sacrificing the few for the many is most definately not an evil act, but it's definately not something that a good person wants to do.

Here's another way of looking at morality, without the motives having any bearing on it...

(Harm being physical, mental, emotional, monetary, social, moral, and so on, including any kind of inflictable malaise)

If it causes a net gain in harm, then it's 'evil'.

If it results in a net loss in harm, then it's 'good'.

If the resulting harm is equal to what you started with (an eye for an eye, as an example), it's neutral.

Now, here's the part that makes it interesting...

Harming an innocent is evil.

Harming a non-innocent is evil, but not as much as harming an innocent.

Doing uneccesary harm, even to prevent greater harm is evil.

Preventing harm to others is good.

Preventing harm to youself if neutral.

If you add all of those bits together, you can 'quantify' evil to a certain extent, but obviously there's the problem of measuring harm.

Which is more harmful? Loosing a finger, or $50, or a family member, or your sanity?

But, it works for my example (sort of).

Killing 10 innocents: Evil

Preventing the deaths of 10,000 (many of whom are non-innocents): Good

So, you could say it produces a net loss in harm, but it still requires you to do evil, hence my saying that it's a neutral act.

 

[Mallus]

Killing 10 innocents: Evil

Preventing the deaths of 10,000 (many of whom are non-innocents): Good

So, you could say it produces a net loss in harm, but it still requires you to do evil, hence my saying that it's a neutral act.

So the enormously difficult choice/act to sacrifice the lives of 10 innocents ends up being a morally neutral act? Like chewing a piece of gum? [I just don't think D&D terms are of any use in discussions like this...]

Personally, I don't think there its possible to construct a totalizing moral system that can solve that scenario. From a ulitarian perspective, accepting that the preservation of life = good, then its a no-brainer. Simple math. Yet I couldn't do it, even when faced with the overwhelmingly likely option that everyone involved --kids, fellow citizens, myself-- was going to die.

 

[Dakkareth]

The infliction of suffering upon something capable of perceiving that suffering.

This is the definition used by Paul Carus in his book “History of Devil” and I find it withstands inquiry and is flexible enough to be as good – or better – a definition than any other I have encountered.

So far I like this definition the most, although 'harm' would be a better, more general term - suffering is one part of harm, not the othe way around. Painlessly and instantenously killing people brings about no suffering in a direct way, but it would still be an evil act.

As for the decisions mentioned: It's a choice between two evils and chosing the lesser evil doesn't make it *good*. Is it neutral? There are two definitions of neutral in this case, 'neither good nor evil' and 'both good and evil'. The first one applies to "chewing a piece of gum", the second to the choice between 10 and 10'000 deaths.

 

[Tilla the Hun (work)]

So far I like this definition the most, although 'harm' would be a better, more general term - suffering is one part of harm, not the othe way around. Painlessly and instantenously killing people brings about no suffering in a direct way, but it would still be an evil act.

As for the decisions mentioned: It's a choice between two evils and chosing the lesser evil doesn't make it *good*. Is it neutral? There are two definitions of neutral in this case, 'neither good nor evil' and 'both good and evil'. The first one applies to "chewing a piece of gum", the second to the choice between 10 and 10'000 deaths.

Check your definition of suffering. Even the dead can suffer. Even more so, death of one, no matter how instantaneously, causes suffering (if defined loosely) to some degree.

Harm works no better, using your own example. Eating an apple causes it bodily harm, yet it is incapable of perceiving it, so it is it evil?


Unfortunately, you are bordering a tad too closely to the old 'if a tree fell in a forest, would it make a sound' classicalism, if you substitute harm for suffering.

Leave suffering in the definition and check it's meaning more closely. Did the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima suffer? I'd have to think that they did suffer... No death is instantaneous, and all things capable of perceiving that death can suffer in that micro-instant of time between life and death.

As for society defining evil vs good - society defines the usages of such terms via semantics. That's where these types of discussions spring from.

You can choose to have faith in whatever you believe - no one can force you to do otherwise. So if you believe evil is evil and good is good, well, bully for you.


The suffering definition is the least complicated definition I've seen (in more than a few threads like this) and I have seen it before. Check your definitions on suffering and you'll either agree with it, or dispute it with semantics. See my line above about faith if you want to argue with it because I don't see the point in such discussions anymore - personal definitions of an abstract concept are, by nature, semantically based upon the individual stating their perception, and thus, by nature, causes difficulty in any two individuals reaching an absolute, ironclad, definition they both agree on. Agree to (i.e. compromise) sure, but not agree on, i.e. mutually identical.


Suffering:

Dictionary.Com
# To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment.
# To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death. See Synonyms at bear1.
# To appear at a disadvantage: “He suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary” (Albert C. Baugh).

Merriam-Webster
transitive senses
1 a : to submit to or be forced to endure <suffer martyrdom> b : to feel keenly : labor under <suffer thirst>
2 : UNDERGO, EXPERIENCE
3 : to put up with especially as inevitable or unavoidable
4 : to allow especially by reason of indifference <the eagle suffers little birds to sing -- Shakespeare>
intransitive senses
1 : to endure death, pain, or distress
2 : to sustain loss or damage
3 : to be subject to disability or handicap


To suffer is to bear loss. I'd say death is the loss of your life, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Malachi_rc]

THis may be a little off topic, but

[QUOTE The answer I have been given thus far is “Evil is the absence of good” which leads to a circular definition that goes nowhere.[/QUOTE]

THis is not really a circular defintion, neccessarily. Coldness is defined in terms of heat, and darkness in terms of how light it is. Admiditly, we have certain set physical parameters to define them, but an opposite can be used to define its own opposite.

Sorry, physics major, couldn't let this one go.

 

[Sejs]

It's a valid definition, just not a very useful one on its own.

Defining the quality that the antithesis is the absense of kinda helps some. "What is X? X is the absence of Y" works alot better when you don't in turn define Y as the absence of X, but instead actually give definition to what Y is.

 

[mirivor]

Thought that I would chime in and say, " Very nice thread, guys and gals." I have not been to many forums where this sort of discussion could go on and not have some sort of childish attitude or flaming. Brings a tear to my eye... *SNIFFLE*


Now as for the topic.... What a difficult question. I would have to agree with those who have thus far stated that evil is any act that you commit that you know would bring harm or suffering to another. The "sacrifice of 10 children to save a thousand" is, in the words of Sir Authur Conan Doyle, "a choice of evils". Even now, thinking about this, my answer is inadequate. It fails to address any number of situations that come to mind.

I suppose that in the end there is no good answer to this question. Evil is as we, as individuals, see it. Many in the middle east are willing suicide bombers, yet if asked they would scoff at the notion that they are evil, rather some sort of noble hero or martyr. Still, it is a fascinating discussion. Later!

 

[Squire James]

Evil is a fractal blob that, in mathmatical terms, is not bounded (and thus not compact). Choose two points within that blob, and at least one point between them lie outside it. Choose two points outside it, and a point within that blob lay between them. Viewed at a distance, all these dots and swirls of black and white may appear to be grey.

Who can actually sort out every act and declare whether it was good or evil? He'd have to be a better mathematician than I, or any human now alive...

 

[s/LaSH]

I define 'good' in two ways.

First, doing what is right. Animal instincts and population dynamics are therefore Good, as are quantum physics.

Second, progression towards undeniable perfection: infinite diversity in infinite combinations describes this state very well. No matter what you think is good, it's there. This ties in very nicely with evolutionary theory: life diversifies and exploits niches, and thus progresses towards this IDIC state.

Then I say that 'evil' is divergence from good.

So destruction, reduction of complexity, and doing things that are just wrong are Evil. A wolf that eats its own leg because it had eaten its fill of deer - it makes no sense, doesn't it? That's Evil. An electron that attracts other electrons is also Evil in a kind of incomprehensible way - it shouldn't do that!

Evil gets more complicated when you realise that most of it is sourced in the desire to do good. Eugenics is a dirty word today, but what does it literally mean? 'Good inheritance'. American colonists were able to put down the natives because they were obviously less important than themselves (quite officially, too). A psychopath unable to empathise with others acts to satisfy himself, because it's more efficient than trying to do good to the ungrateful worms around him.

By this definition (and it is only a definition, albeit one I think is important), all things are evil to some degree or anothe, even if it's simply a failure to bring about IDIC - but are necessary to form a greater perfection, the aforementioned IDIC. Is that an excuse for evil? Nope; the top of an infinite staircase cannot be reached by cutting off your legs. But you can reach the bottom by jumping off the top.

I'm getting philisophical, so I'll stop. But that's what I believe.