Define evil

Son_of_Thunder

Explorer
Read the Book of Vile Darkness

Read the Book of Vile Darkness. It has everything you need to know about what is evil. The question is laid to rest. No more debate.

While your at it, pick up the Book of Exalted Deeds, it defines good.

Son of Thunder
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wombat

First Post
Part of our problem here is one common to medieval theology. We are grappling with the common problem of Positive versus Negative Evil.

In other words, is Evil a force itself, actively causing pain, suffering, selfishness, anguish, and all the rest...

...or is Evil the absence of a positive value (Good), therefore a void, an inactive force, strictly a negative.

In the end many of these definitions would spin around cosmology of a given world.

I'm pretty sure I have not definitive answer on this topic, but it is always good to at least set the parameters of a debate.
 

Sejs

First Post
s/LaSH said:
An electron that attracts other electrons is also Evil in a kind of incomprehensible way - it shouldn't do that!

s/LaSH - you, sir, just made my day. Evil electrons... it's just so beautiful.



I finally understand how spells like Unholy Blight work now! They blast the target with Evil Particles!
 

Dogbrain

First Post
Some guy from Ohio said:
A friend of mine recently put me onto the writing of C.S Lewis and thoughts on morality. Having just scratched the surface of the author’s philosophy, I feel that he believed that humankind had an inherent bent towards good and basic morality was built into us. If we do indeed have a moral compass then one needs to know where “north” would point and that led me to question how evil is actually defined. The answer I have been given thus far is “Evil is the absence of good” which leads to a circular definition that goes nowhere. Maybe you can solve those pesky alignment questions, once and for all. How do you define “evil”?

What is darkness?
 

Malachi_rc

First Post
Sejs said:
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.


but thats the thing, you dont' defind x in terms of y and y interms of x. you must defind one with something else, and then the other in terms of the first one.

heat, for example, is measured in the motion of atoms, therefore cold is measured by how slowly they move. same with light, only theres a measure called luminosity, and darkness is just a low amount of luminosity (don't exactly remember howthat one works, I'm a physicist, but its been a while since i've studdied that). I brought up this idea, somewhat, and I admit, I don't like it entirely for good/evil, because it implys that evil can just be measuered by the smallness of the good in it, it was mainly an example to show that something, to some extent, can be defind by its opposite

Its not a perfect representation with good and evil, esp. without a measurable thing to compare, but I like C.S.Lewis alot, so i gotta defend him :)

Also, I want to agree. the fact that we have had no flames or trolls on this topic staggers the mind. I love the EN forums, because it can happen here.


Group hug everybody

:p
 
Last edited:

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
The concept of Evil is a social construct. In order to percieve Evil, one has to be self aware and in a group of other self aware entities. Without a social framework and self awareness, there is no evil, only survival. No other creature on this planet has arguements over the nature of evil, indeed, they cannot be Evil. Fish singularly fail to be evil, but we assign the trait to sharks because they attacks (rarely) humans and cause injury. A shark is not Evil, but the same actions taken by a human would undoubtedly be so.

That said, there is much debate over the nature of what is Evil. Morality is often the word used to define one's ability to discern right from wrong. We would like to think that morality is our own construct, that each of us carefully builds our checklist of right and wrong. This, however, is not entirely true. Nature, or evolution, has given us a rudimentary moral compass, embedded within the very chemistry of our brains. Basically, nature has attempted to ensure that the social community is protected in a way that ensures the survival of the species. This is accomplished by providing a chemical high when we perform actions that help or assist others, and a chemical low when we injure or harm others. This, of course, varies from individual to individual. This innate moral compass interfers with our ability to accuratly define evil, because of the chemical mood adjustments that occur when we think of certain situations. Example:

1) You are sitting in the control booth of a major rail yard. Your instrument panel indicates that a train full of commuters is out of control and heading for an impact within the yard. You can avert the disaster by switching the train onto a clear siding. However, you know that there are at least ten men working on that siding that with most likely be killed if you switch the oncoming train. What do you do?

2) You are at the controls of a siding switch when you notice an oncoming passenger train obviously out of control. You know that you can switch the train onto the siding and save the train, but your work crew is currently on the siding. You have worked with these men for years, your best friend is among them, and you know that they will likely die if you switch the track. You must make your decision now or the oncoming train will surely crash. What do you do?

This question (or one extremely similar) was posed to a number of people as part of a research project. Obviously, the underlying question is the same: do you sacrifice a few to save many? When question 1 was posed, a large majority of people chose to switch the train to the siding and kill the workers. When question 2 was posed, less that half of the same people chose to reroute the train. In question 1, you are distanced from the problem, and see it abstractly, thereby allowing the thinking portion of the brain to analyze and reach a conclusion. Question 2, however, places the action directly in your hands, with immediate consequences to others. This activates the chemical compass and causes clouded judgement. The same process could be applied to the 'kill 100 street urchins to save the city' arguement. As long as you don't personally have to kill the urchins, their deaths seem like the logical course, the greater good. But looking into thier puppy dog eyes and hearing the screams of pain as you wade methodically through them, axe rising and falling, creates a different view point. The underlying action is the same, but the point of view dramatically alters the perception of the event in terms of evil.

I know that this does not answer the question posed by this thread, but I hope it does illuminate some of the difficulty in answering the question. Any situation that causes harm for the greater good can look like a correct and moral decision or a heinous and evil decision, depending on the point of view of the opinion maker. Thank nature for this wonderful dilemma.
 

Razz0putin

Explorer
wow

thank you Ovinomancer that wonderful

yes this is one of the better/thought provoking threads I have seen in a long time

just wanted to ad a thought about judging good/evil.

you can judge a society by how they help those who can't help themselves.
 

there is no pure good person, action, force, or idea. however pure evil could exist: the destuction caused by a nuklear bomb or war.
PS: I'm in a weird mood and I'll contest this later if no one else does
 

Agamemnon

First Post
I do not think the "Evil is the absence of good" construct works in a world where there are active Agents of Evil, be they demons or whatever. IMO, Granny got it right. Consider Mr Teatime, who definitely seemed evil to me:

"He saw things differently from other people, and one of the things he saw differently from other people was seeing other people as things."
 

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...]

I have to agree about the uselessness of D&D terms in this subject. I kind of just slipped in the alignment question when I started this thread so I could post on the general RPG discussion. please forgive and don't consider that an evil act :) .
 

Remove ads

Top