Define evil

[Some guy from Ohio]

Evil is defined by our times and who we are as a people, it is ever changing, it is a concept created by man and defined by man in his life time. It is the ACT that is evil.

If that is true, than the greatest thing that could happen to the universe is the elimination of all evil by wiping out the human race. We should all make the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good of everything

 

[Hand of Evil]

If that is true, than the greatest thing that could happen to the universe is the elimination of all evil by wiping out the human race. We should all make the ultimate sacrifice for the greater good of everything

But there is so much good in the world too.

what I am trying to say (badly) is that what is evil now may not have been true 100, 500 or 1000 years ago, nor what we see is evil may not be evil to another culture. Evil is a term, that is all, it defines what the culture sees, oh, we can say "but that is evil" and think it our inter-selves talking but it is our culture taboos talking.

My soapbox (look at every post I have made on alignment): always define evil in your game.

 

[Vrecknidj]

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.

I agree so far, mostly. There are a couple problems with the last sentence here. The first is "Nature has attempted," this is claiming that nature has goals, that it's teleological--I dispute this claim. The second is "ensures the survival of the species." Look into the work of David Lack (the ornithologist) and a few dozen other naturalists since the 1980s. What's being preserved is the survival of the genome--not the species. No individual (at least among the non-human animals) works at the level of the group. Sometimes, it's true, what they do looks like an advantage to the group (a bee dying to protect the hive, etc.), but when you look at the genomics involved, you see another story. And, the end result is not the same as "survival of the species," otherwise I wouldn't have pointed this out.

All of that said, this is still just one such example of the origins of a moral compass. A reductionist/materialist might agree with it whole-heartedly, but, other than predictive value, there's no reason to select one set of axioms over another (say, when comparing a belief in electrons to a belief in Zeus). Sellers pointed this out in his essay in the 50s, "The Myth of the Given."

It's also entirely possible that the natural world has "given" us this compass because that's what God wanted it to do, which throws theology back into the mix. The most savvy of theologians ignore entirely the simple dogmatism that so many seem to think constitutes a defensible position.

That said, I don't happen to have an answer to the "what is evil" and "what is good" questions. I could say what Kant thought, or what Hobbes thought, or what Bentham or Mill or Plato or Aristotle or Aquinas or Augustine thought. But, since I don't know that I fully agree with them, it doesn't matter much.

Dave

 

[Snoweel]

My personal opinion is that Evil is when sentient creatures (eg. humans) live the way wild beasts (ie. animals) do - might makes right.

In nature, the strong take whatever they want from the weak, whether food, territory, mates, whatever. Most (maybe all) human cultures throughout history decided that most (but not all) displays of such behaviour were immoral. Thus was Evil born.

Which is why this quote:

"When you combine selfishness with knowledge."

was so brilliant.

My soapbox (look at every post I have made on alignment): always define evil in your game.

w3rd!

 

[Dogbrain]

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

How is it "evil"? If evil is merely a social construction, then humans are ultimately the origin of evil. Therefore, whatever obliterates that ultimate origin of evil must be good.

If, that is...

 

[Dogbrain]

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.

It's crap.

A rock falls off a ledge onto me and traps me thereunder. I suffer. This daffynition you propose means that THE ROCK WOULD BE EVIL, AND THROUGH NO CHOICE OF ITS OWN.

 

[Dogbrain]

Yes.
Evil is defined by our times and who we are as a people, it is ever changing, it is a concept created by man and defined by man in his life time. It is the ACT that is evil.

Therefore, the only valid way to fight evil is to destroy human beings, since humanity is the source of all evil, humanity must be eradicated. It's only logical, given the premise.

 

[Dogbrain]

That's why children are pure, unadulterated evil. Ever seen a child rip the wings off a butterfly just because it can?

Yes, and I've seen ANOTHER CHILD put a stop to that behavior. You claim that children are "pure, unadulterated evi", you speak from utter ignorance. I have seen charity, kindness, and defense of the weak, all done by CHILDREN. Get out and learn something about the world before you slander others again. My direct experience completely contradicts your lying, slanderous claims.

 

[Ferret]

Evil is puting yourself a head of others when either the both of you could succeed or you could help without being harmed/hindered etc. Most of the time this is from pride or laziness.

Good is putting the ones who need the most help ahead of yourself, or sharing.



Now thats pretty badly worded but caring for no one but yourself is a good start to defining evil.

There are the occasional evil lackeys but they themselves only serve others to put themselves ahead.

 

[Dogbrain]

But there is so much good in the world too.

What of it? If we are to eradicate evil, we must eradicate its source. If evil is nothing but a human construct, then we must eradicate humanity.