What is 'evil', and does it exist objectively? The metaphysics of good and evil.
In past eras, people often saw good and evil as metaphysical realities in worldviews, ranging from Christianity to Zoroastrianthism. This was about a conflict between binary realities which impinge on the human condition.
Freud spoke of a war between Eros and Thanatos, in terms of life and death, but this is related to the underlying binary of good and evil. I am aware that the question of evil, in relation to good, is an aspect of binary divisions of thinking. But, what I am wondering about is how this relates to our own experiences and is there an underlying aspect of evil as a dimension of existence which has a real role in life? Or, is 'evil' a label which we apply to aspects of tlife which are seen as intolerable, as well as to the moral aspects of life. In other words, is evil subjectively constructed, or does it stem from objective aspects of life, beyond our own human thinking and meanings?
I imagine that this question does involve the question of an objective 'goodness ' too, although I am not wishing to think of it aside from the religious contexts which were often formed thinking about this, and I am wishing to cast it as a philosophical issue. Underlying this, I am asking whether good and evil are metaphysical categories or moral ones, and how these ideas exist and are juxtaposed in our thinking?
Freud spoke of a war between Eros and Thanatos, in terms of life and death, but this is related to the underlying binary of good and evil. I am aware that the question of evil, in relation to good, is an aspect of binary divisions of thinking. But, what I am wondering about is how this relates to our own experiences and is there an underlying aspect of evil as a dimension of existence which has a real role in life? Or, is 'evil' a label which we apply to aspects of tlife which are seen as intolerable, as well as to the moral aspects of life. In other words, is evil subjectively constructed, or does it stem from objective aspects of life, beyond our own human thinking and meanings?
I imagine that this question does involve the question of an objective 'goodness ' too, although I am not wishing to think of it aside from the religious contexts which were often formed thinking about this, and I am wishing to cast it as a philosophical issue. Underlying this, I am asking whether good and evil are metaphysical categories or moral ones, and how these ideas exist and are juxtaposed in our thinking?
Comments (138)
Okay, I will look at the link which you have provided to a thread previous to my time on the site, and anyone else can throw in any new ideas which they may have.
Note that sadism is just one variety of evil: the joy the sadist gets from harming is more important to him than the harm he commits. The tempermentally sadistic who refrains from doing harm is not evil.
This trait certainly exists, but there is no metaphysical dimension of evil which goes beyond it.
I definitely think that aspects of behaviour have a root in the psychology of a person, including sadism. However, I do believe that to think of evil and good simply in this way rules out ideas of the a priori principles of Kant or Plato's ideas of forms. I am not saying that I see it simply as they do, or I would not be writing a thread, but I do think that it is likely that good and evil go beyond our own psychologies.
It sounds like you’re pointing to a theological dimension.
Interesting, and I am inclined to think that a disregard for life may incorporate the lives of others alongside our own, but I do think that this split is an important one.
I think that my problem goes back to theology but I am trying to think outside of that. My own views are related to Jung's psychology of the shadow but also I question in the widest possible way, in relation to the suffering of human beings and other lifeforms.
However, I am in Wimbledon and my phone battery may run out any moment, so I may not be able to discuss any further until I can charge my battery.
You keep telling us about mundane stuff like this and why you can't discuss further.
Nobody needs to know this. Seriously.
As for using it as an example of a relative 'evil', how f7cking ridiculous, even if it is meant to showcase your sense of humour. So very superficial...
Why make room for constructs which don't exist. Evil isn't "just psychology", it is a pattern which pervades the human condition. It is eternal, but only to the extent that humanity is eternal. Outside the human context it is nothing.
Is that a good or an evil emoticon ?
example of evil?
:cool:
What do you think Jack meant by this:
Quoting Jack Cummins
So, what is 'evil' (even if said in jest) ?
The fact that batteries run out. Or the consequences of that happening ?
Not being able to discuss further ? :chin:
Bad, bad battery :naughty:
Or from another perspective: Yay, way to go battery ! :halo:
the other knew bette than to do what they did to hurt us or other members of society. We believe
they knew their actions would cause others pain but disregarded this and went ahead callously, thoughtlessly, maliciously , malevolently. Notice that these terms don’t explain anything, they just point to a strange arbitrariness and capriciousness in intent, what is typically referred to as freedom of will. The connection between evil and emotions of guilt, anger and hostility is that they all are based in the same structure of thinking. To put it simply, they are all concepts of blame. When we blame someone or ourselves , we believe there was an arbitrary succumbing to temptation , a being led astray from
doing the ‘right’ thing.
Here is where I’m going to be very unpopular. I believe that the thinking of blame and evil always represent our failure to understand the other’s motives
from thei pint of view, and never represent an accurate depiction of the other’s thinking. Blame and evil aren’t explanations , they are nothing but question marks nWby on earth did the other want to do something so terrible? Why didn’t they feel strong enough guilt at the prospect of performing those actions so as to prevent them from going through with it? I know that I have been tempted by such things but I was able to resist. This question mark of blame flies by many different labels and accusations. For inatancw, when we call the other lazy, inconsiderate , selfish, recalcitrant , immoral, criminal.
In sum, we blame the other for our failure to understand them. Perhaps this failure on our part is the true basis of ‘evil’ and all of the violence that emanates from it
Devil that he is :wink:
Who is this 'we' you talk of ? Are you royalty ?
Ah, the handle issue again...how tediously predictable.
Nobody ever asks about my middle and last names... :sad:
Ville Horror?
Most (all) of us lie in between. We might occasionally pat ourselves on the back for a crappy 3 mile charity run or dumping coins in a beggar's cup, but might also lash out in pain, verbally or physically. We probably hoard more than we need but don't mind being taxed in general because roads are good. We're MMM: mostly morally meh.
So short answer: evil is an extreme that isn't particularly useful until someone special approaches it.
Ah that makes sense.
The root of evil is fundamentally a forced reaction to something repugnant like mutilation or debauchery. Evil makes us conflicted as we must choose between sustaining or relinquishing our humaneness or the humaneness of those around us. An experience veers into the territory of evil when it requires us to be callous in order to cope.
It is interesting how evil differs by context, especially when depicted artistically vs. being involved or a direct witness vs. the evil moment being absolutely unavoidable as in war. War almost seems like an authoritarian pretext for getting people to accept evil, arising from ulterior, perhaps manipulative motives.
Psychological?
Moral?
'Evil' is clearly real as a limit-condition, like war as Levinas says, that reduces persons to unthinking (banal) automatons / beasts ... and the definitions, however they're considered, never seem adequate to me.
• In a religious context, or discourse, evil denotes disobeying (i.e. to willfully sin – rebel – against) "god".
• In a nonreligious / secular context, or discourse, evil amounts to ... indifference to, or inflicting, gratuitous harm that culminates in destroying moral agency.
The second definition, I think, covers both 'divine retribution via damnation' (eternal punishment for temporal transgressions) and 'divine indifference' (theodicy) from the first definition as well as, alluding to the second, 'scapegoating & sadistic usage' of mortals (any animals) by mortals (human animals). As a nonbeliever, I only relate to the second definition; the first, however, is a Lovecraftian nightmare which I've never understood how believers can accept, or submit themselves to, such a metaphysically horrible prospect – the Gnostics were/are cogent in this regard.
Is it necessary for this harm to be done in a gratuitous fashion? One could also consider the relativity of a value system to another. That is to say, that this act of harm could be done with good reason relative to the perpetrator's value system.
I think it makes more sense to think about evil acts or evil actions more than it is to think of as a person as being evil. Not that we cannot think of obvious examples of people who can be considered evil.
But I think that thinking in this manner may help free us somewhat of the "metaphysical" dimension of good and evil, once we recognize that all of us have the capacity to do anything.
Acts can often be grey, in that there may some evil intent, but that may not be the main motivating factor for saying or doing such a thing. One example that comes to mind is humor, such as making fun of a person who did something stupid or whom we dislike. If we make fun of them, there may be a tinge of malice in our statements, but it's not at all the main component of our act.
And so with evil, the same with good. And in this manner, both exist and are human constructions, which takes nothing away from reality.
Quite so.
A mix of sweet'n'sour. Sometimes, being an :halo: can be so damned :yawn:
Anyway, what did I say that was so very :naughty:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
So, it all depends on context, circumstance, perspective...
It's all too human. I don't think of 'evil' as an entity, only as a behaviour.
I know that others see it in absolutes.
So be it.
Let's go on to discuss moral evil because there's an interesting paradox with regard to it.
A person's dealings with others is tripartite in nature:
1. Intention
2. Action (cause)
3. Consequence (effect)
Take a look at the following:
Scenario 1
1. Intention (John wants to hurt Smith)
2. Action (John sticks a knife in Smith's neck)
3. Consequence (Smith dead on the floor)
All 3 components are bad/evil. Verdict: John is evil/bad
Scenario 2
1. Intention (John wants to hurt Smith)
2. Action (John befriends Smith, wins Smith's trust)
3. Consequence (Smith is betrayed by John at a critical moment, ruining Smith's life)
Only 2 components are bad (1 & 3). Friendship is good (2). There's one more immoral deed here viz. Smith is being deceived. Verdict: John is evil/bad.
The paradox: A person whose intentions, actions, consequences of those actions are all bad is far far better than another person whose intentions are bad, actions are good, and consequences of those actions are bad - no pulling the wool over the eyes in the former.
This odd state of affairs arises because it's either impossible or very rare for anyone to know the intentions of another person and actions/deeds are morally ambiguous (can be good/bad) depending on what the aims are.
Resolution of the paradox:
1. Ignore intentions: can't be known or really tough to get wind of
2. Ignore actions: morally ambiguous
Thus,
3. Focus on consequences
Hey presto!, we have utilitarianism or one of its variations.
Why does this happen? Overt evil (scenario 1) has a short lifespan - once detected, they're immediately snuffed out. Thus, for evil to survive it must disguise itself as good actions, the classic wolf in sheep's clothing - covert evil (scenario 2) has no expiry date.
Too facile, even equivocal. Nature causes nature itself (e.g. creatures, exploding stars, slipping tectonic plates, wildfires from lightening strikes, mass extinctions, etc) to suffer? :roll:
Is this gratuitous state necessary in order for something to be evil?
Quoting 180 Proof
Following orders could be an example of -- but not sufficiently so -- of one acting to their value system. I mean to say, that this person is performing this harmful act in accordance to their conceptual beliefs, or value system. For example, a man is killing people as to release them from what he believes from a world of suffering. It is his belief that he will stay here in this world to suffer, he would off himself, but then he wouldn't be able to "help" others through his benevolent slayings. To the other, his act is evil, but to him he is doing the world good.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'm not quite sure what you're saying, would you elaborate on this?
Hmm. I like that idea. I was watching a blackbird attacking a crow today, and it made me think of the cognitive assessment the blackbird was making about the ‘evil’ the crow represented. Higher animals are fully capable of differentiating between playful
fighting , an attack to show annoyance and a desire to kill
the opponent. That is, they can to some extent understand the context of the other’s behavior as being benign or malevolent. Note , however, that what they share with humans who see evil all around them is a failure to see past the immediate harm to their interests.
Great observation. Kudos to you.
Self-Harm & Vincent Van Gogh (self-portrait with bandaged ear)
I am replying to you because you enquired about the meaning of my battery running out in Wimbledon and also know that my mother is ill. Apart from being out in Wimbledon, as the womble of this site, and having to wait until I get home until I can charge up my phone, I think that my psychological batteries had probably run out too.
If my thread discussion did appear a bit obscure it probably comes in the context of my mother being ill and awaiting tests, for which both I and her are fearful. I am struggling with how to help her cope with any bad news and that is what got me thinking about how we frame 'evil'. My mother does see life in terms of God, but does still struggle with how to view the 'evil' of suffering. I see this in a wider context but can see problems with any view of life which traces back suffering to our failings. But, I do believe that how we understand the forces of good and evil is not dependent on a religious perspective.
Of course, our experiences of 'good' and 'evil' are related to the way in which we define them, but I think that the experience of suffering is central. I think that independently of whether we believe in any underlying divine force, we are still left with the quandary of whether there are any inherent principles of good and evil in the universe, even though these ideas are inevitably related to how we perceive good and evil in our own lives. Human ideas of these concepts are restricted to understanding, but we can ask whether they have any basis in any aspects of principles beyond the realm of our own thinking.
I have only looked briefly at the responses on the phone since getting home , including yours, and will look at them more fully tomorrow. However, I just looked at your post which provides a link to Van Gogh and his severed ear. This makes me wonder about the whole nature of self destructive tendencies as part of human nature. Of course, the experiences of his were unique in many ways, but it does lead me to wonder about the origins of the destructive impulses.
I am extremely interested in the psychoanalytic aspects of this, but I am not sure that it is limited there and may go beyond the psychological. It may go back to inherent principles and these may be reflected as aspects of human nature. I am wondering if there are any metaphysical aspects behind it, even if our own awareness of these aspects of life are extremely limited. I think that the whole question of natural evil and moral evil, and how they are linked, opens up so many questions, even if these aspects of life are disguised, or extremely ambiguous.
Yes.
The burden, then, is on him to show he had inescapable grounds for what he did and that it was not gratuitous.
All I'm saying is subjective beliefs are insufficient to 'justify' causing gratuitous harm. Objectively 'producing corpses and/or unthinking automatons / beasts' requires extraordinary objective reasons to 'justify' – mitigate – the action as not evil (i.e. gratuitously harming or immiserating).
Quoting Picard (TNG S1E23)
I haven't read any writing by Hannah Arendt, but I think it I may have a downloaded book by her, so I will try to have a read of it.
I think that your understanding of evil is really worth thinking about because it does seem to me that in so much of life we identify evil and put blame onto others. I think that acknowledging aspects of oneself is extremely important and facing guilt rather than simply projecting it. I believe that this applies to moral evil, but also, is useful for thinking about suffering. We probably need to accept it for what it is rather than trying to put the blame on anyone or even try to attribute it to any external power.
To backtrack a little for clarification.
Here is my critical post re you mentioning the 'relative evil' of your battery running out:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/570189
We can ask why some would agree/disagree with this. Some would 'like' it - see it as 'good'.
For example - it needed to be said ( we might consider why but that would lead to other issues ). Others would 'dislike' - see it as 'bad' and e.g. make reference to my handle in an ironic way.
We can ask why you edited the 'evil' bit out after this was criticised. But that's not terribly important.
Re: knowing about your Mum being ill. Yes. We have discussed this in another thread. Unfortunately, I can become too involved in the affairs of others.
Interesting to see it from this new angle.
The physical and psychological aspects of life you are both going through which has made you think, not for the first time, about the evil of suffering.
In such situations, some ask questions such as 'Why me - what have I done to deserve this ?'
How they think of 'evil' or 'sin' in terms of religious belief, as you know, can add to the fear or anxieties already being faced.
Quoting Jack Cummins
What is 'beyond the the realm of our own thinking' ?
What would be the consequence of our finding out ? More or less suffering ?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't think that the title and topic of your thread is at all 'obscure'. It's an old and continuing concern in philosophy. Fascinating and comprehensive articles abound e.g. in SEP.
The issue stems from thoughts/concerns about real life. Events such as you describe are common.
For me, it is less about delving into all the philosophical theories/opinions but how these situations can be alleviated.
Quoting Jack Cummins
OK. So, you see good and evil as being forces. What or who is doing the forcing ?
The trouble is many do see this as stemming from an Absolute Being.
Life events - can be seen as a punishment or reward for behaviour. A judgement from on high.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Some philosophers might be left in such a quandary but it is of their own making.
As you say, it depends on how we view life as either bad or good. This absolutism, or black and white way of thinking, I consider unhelpful as a method of coping with fears or sufferings.
So, when people say e.g. when their phone batteries die that it is a kind of 'suffering' because they are not longer in touch with the whole wide world, or they can't be contacted, how do we react to this ?
I'll close now by sharing a little:
Like many, I have been in a similar situation as you describe - coping with ill and dying parents in hospital. I understand all about the suffering. I too wondered and hoped that I would find the right things to say or do. I know how it saps energy etc.. etc...
The early realisation that negative events in my life - life in general - was not all about me, gave me a whole new perspective. 'Bad' things, as we know, happen to 'good' people and v.v.
But not all is what it seems.
There's a story out there - I think in taoism - which demonstrates this very well.
Perhaps someone knows it and can share, I've forgotten - @Wayfarer @Fooloso4 @Ying ?
The thing is to prepare yourself in any way you can to meet or foresee life's pain/pleasure.
Like making sure your phone, your self is as fully charged as possible.
It's your responsibility.
:sparkle:
There are many stories in the main texts of daoism. Not sure which one you're talking about. Do you happen to have some more clues?
Actually, I think that I had probably edited my own post before it was criticised, or at least before I read the post you wrote, although it probably doesn't matter that much. I realised that it was a stupid thing to write about my mobile battery running out, because it is simply an everyday nuisance.
But, I think that what I had not addressed in my thread introduction is what we consider to be evil, and we probably all think of it differently. In some ways, death may be viewed as an evil, but I am don't think that is definitive and, in many ways, extreme suffering may be worse. Probably, my own way of thinking about evil is based on atrocities, such as the way people were killed by Nazis in concentration camps or, the potential destruction of humanity through warfare or ecological devastation. For me, they seem to be the most extreme forms of evil possible. But, obviously, events in our own lives do matter and I think that these include loss of others through death, homelessness, severe injuries or blindness, but of course, we may see so many aspects of experience as devastating.
As to whether good and evil are forces, you are right to query, 'What or who is doing the forcing?' It is our own binary thinking that is constructing the division, and there is certainly some relativity. What may be viewed as an 'evil' may be later viewed very differently because many events which are seen as 'terrible' at the time may be a trigger for positive developments.
I am aware that my own thinking is tinged with my Catholic upbringing, but a lot ideas about good and evil, and its metaphysics, emerged in that context. We could say that 'The Book of Job' was addressing the problem. But, outside of Christianity, there is the idea of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism. Some interpretations of this see events as being 'punishment', but an alternative is to see it as being learning experiences. The idea is primarily the idea of cause and effect, or 'you reap as you sow. I have some familiarity with Taoism, but have not, at this stage, read as deeply on this tradition as I would like to.
But, I definitely believe that we need to face up to evil within ourselves, rather than blaming others, as @Joshs points out. But, I am not thinking as that involving beating oneself up over things because that most certainly doesn't help at all. I believe that the best ideal is to be able to process the 'evil' aspects of life, in order to become the most positive we can be for our wellbeing and others. Personally, I am having a day indoors to restore my own 'psychological batteries' because I do think that we need time to process experiences rather than becoming overwhelmed by them.
About a farmer ?
What 'evil' is within ourselves ?
I think that it was extremely unhelpful when human beings were cast under the doom and gloom of 'sin'. However, I think that we have destructive tendencies, to self and others. We also have the opposition between love and hate, but, hopefully most people don't swing to the full expression of hate. As many on this site are probably aware, I am influenced strongly by the ideas of Carl Jung and do believe that integrating the 'shadow' side is the ideal. I am certainly aware of my own shadow and try to work with it, but I don't think integration of the shadow is particularly easy. Of course, some people may have bigger shadows than others, or more particular obstacles in their life journeys than others. But, I think that it is best to go beyond blaming our circumstances and try to find the best balances possible.
The story of the Taoist farmer I think you’re referring to is from the Huainanzi. It goes something like this:
There was once a farmer in ancient China who owned a horse. “You are so lucky!” his neighbours told him, “to have a horse to pull the cart for you!” “Maybe,” the farmer replied.
One day he didn’t latch the gate properly and the horse ran off. “Oh no! What a disaster!” his neighbours cried. “Such terrible misfortune!” “Maybe,” the farmer replied.
A few days later the horse returned, bringing with it six wild horses. “How fantastic! You are so lucky,” his neighbours told him. “Now you are rich!” “Maybe,” the farmer replied.
The following week the farmer’s son was breaking-in one of the wild horses when it kicked out and broke his leg. “Oh no!” the neighbours cried, “such bad luck, all over again!” “Maybe,” the farmer replied.
The next day soldiers came and took away all the young men to fight in the war. The farmer’s son was left behind. “You are so lucky!” his neighbours cried. “Maybe,” the farmer replied.
No wonder it didn't ring a bell. It's not one of the texts I'm familiar with.
Thanks, Possibility, that is indeed the story I was thinking of. I didn't know it was from the Huainanzi.
Sorry for not @-ing you.
I should have known that you would know, given our previous and worthwhile discussions :100:
Ah well, now you know :wink:
A story about life philosophy, and attitudes towards any perceived 'evils' or sufferings.
I think a good one, don't you ?
Maybe.
You got it :smile:
I definitely believe that it is important to separate the nature of 'evil' acts from the people who have committed them. I have worked in some forensic settings with people who have committed very serious crimes and I found that this separation of the act from the actor was essential . It can be difficult to suspend judgements on people, especially if they seem to show the worst possible tendencies. But, I think that many people find some psychological reassurance by projecting evil onto those who reveal the worst side of human nature. But, I do think that it is worthwhile going beyond labelling certain people as 'evil' because they are just people, even if they do behave in extreme ways which we view as being monstrous.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Is this what you consider 'evil' ?
It is a natural feature of who we are, isn't it ? As well as its opposite. We create, destroy, recreate...
It is recognised as such - and if it becomes troublesome then it can be addressed.
Thinking of it as 'evil' is part of the problem.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Clearly.
It is how the word 'evil' is used to judge others in e.g. 'the axis of evil', that can lead to atrocities.
That is the problem.
Quoting Wiki - Axis of Evil
WTF? Zen moment for me. I don't know what evil is! :chin: :scream:
I’m curious as to why you thought this would not be a popular view. I agree wholeheartedly with this description, and I think you’re being quite cautious in how you express it. The way I see it, to describe something as ‘evil’ is to admit ignorance, isolation or exclusion of some aspect to our experience. It identifies a limitation in our understanding.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think it’s important for us to at least strive to understand how atrocities such as Nazi concentration camps can happen - it’s part of facing up to this aspect of our own capacity as human beings. When we isolate this kind of behaviour as ‘evil’ or ‘inhuman’, I think we fail to acknowledge the full scope of human potential. Watching Brexit and Trump from the outside demonstrated for me how this kind of ignorance still has the ability to blindside us to a certain extent.
More personally, one of my most profound moments of self-reflection was the realisation that those aspects I hated or feared most in the world reflected what I had refused to accept about my own capacity...the remnants of catholic guilt.
Quoting Ying
Most English translations of Huainanzi are piecemeal, often only translating one chapter or even one story, so I’m not surprised. I vaguely recalled the story, but I had to search ‘Taoist farmer’ to find the original source.
I definitely believe that understanding how atrocities, such as the German concentration camp come about is essential and @Amitys reference to the 'Axis of Evil'is useful. I think that the way in which people are viewed as evil is part of the problem and how there is often an emphasis on trying to eradicate evil. Hitler was trying to create a master race and trying to get rid of people who he saw as not being pure. There was a whole war on terror and it is hard to know what is yet to come, including tensions between the West and China. Obviously, it is extremely complex because injustices have to be addressed, but there are so many potential problems which can arise, in addressing the problem of 'evil'. This is particularly true with the advances in weapons of mass destruction.
I am from a Catholic background, so most of my own thinking is influenced by my own sense of guilt. I think that a lot of people are a bit dismissive of the whole idea of a Catholic guilt complexes. But, I know that I experience it and most friends I have who are Catholics do so as well. Some Catholics probably don't, and aren't they lucky, and I am sure that many other Christians do too. I think that sometimes guilt can get in the way of seriously thinking about capability for good and evil, because the guilt itself can become the problem in itself. I'm not sure that confession really helped very much as it can be just a superficial process, and I can remember that when I really wanted to talk about issues they were far too complicated to try to explain in a confession box. I did have open confession a couple of times which felt like more helpful and felt like counselling. In fact, when I did some psychotherapy based courses it was surprising just how many of the students came from Catholic backgrounds.
I know that it is hard to define evil precisely. I know that you say it is a Zen moment by not knowing what evil is. The only problem which I see is that by simply saying that you don't know what it is it makes it harder to even begin to think about the reality of evil in world affairs. Perhaps you just don't think that the word 'evil' is not particularly helpful as a starting line, but I am not sure whether or not this is what you mean.
To be honest, I don’t think it was all Hitler, it’s just easier to blame (purge) the leader. His ‘leadership’ was symptomatic of much of the thinking in Europe and the sentiment in Germany at the time. He was handed so much power (in his own country and internationally) simply because he had the audacity to embody with confidence - masquerading as a promise of strength - what so many in his country were thinking in their weakest moments. Trump did the same, and they willingly handed him the keys. That tells me humanity has yet to learn from this mistake. Do we understand yet what it means to give full rein to our capacity for ignorance, isolation and exclusion?
I note you had to google it, just like what I coulda done :wink:
It's all coming back to me now. I could also have included @Valentinus or @T Clark - the discussion I had in mind was his:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10427/my-favorite-verses-in-the-tao-te-ching/p1
TC's focus was firmly on the TTC but at some point related 'stories' were introduced.
For example: 'Cook Ding Cuts Up An Ox'
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511470
Not so much about evil but more about: Quoting Jack Cummins
How to navigate the obstacles along the path, the way.
A useful sub-discussion with @Valentinus about the story and its meaning.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/512233
Quoting Amity
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/512273
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, I remember you showed an interest back then. As did I. But other things take over.
I'm glad to be reminded of it. A worthwhile challenge at the time...another perspective...
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is a very interesting topic @Jack Cummins!
***
I assume that by "subjectively constructed" you mean something that is thought of as subjective in nature and it has such an application and value in life, in opposition of course to "objective".
Assuming also that "evil" is mainly the opposite of "good" (i.e. it may be used also with some other meaning), if we prove that "good" is something objective, then "evil" would also be something objective. Right?
Next, I will simply define "good" as something that helps, promotes and enhances survival in both the physical and mental planes. (If you are asking "Good for whom?", please read on.)
Now a lot would claim that "good" and "moral" is something subjective and that "what is good for me may not be good for you". So each one has his (for brevity) own point of view and should act accordingly. This is a totally wrong viewpoint and unfortunately it is taken by many people on the subject of morality! Because they consider it as something personal, to be compared only with what the other person accepts as and believes is good.
However, if one moves just a little out of this confinement of "self", and considers his family, he will immediately realize that he cannot apply "what is good for me may not be good for my family" anymore. Because he is part of his family and what is good for him must be also good for his family and vice versa. His actions must be directed more towards the survival of his family than towards himself. And in fact, helping his family he helps himself and becomes stronger.
Moving a little more outside the confinement of the family, one interacts with his friends, his colleagues, his company, and all kinds of groups with whom he shares a common purpose. (He has accepted and agreed to that, implicitly or explicitly.) So, since he is a member of these groups, what is good for him must be also good for his friends and groups. Again, helping his groups he helps himself and becomes stronger.
Finally, as a human being, and to live in harmony with his fellow men, he has to promote the survival of all as far as this is possible. (Because at this level he is facing also enemies with whom he has not made an agreement and with whom he may have conflicting purposes. Yet, even this can be often handled better by being "good" rather than "evil". But this is outside our subject.)
Now it's time to switch "good" with "evil", which is the subject of the topic. But I believe it has now become already very obvious: Like "good", "evil" is not something subjective but rather objective.
Ethics (and morality) is objective in nature and it has a single law: do the major good for the most. And so "evil" is the opposite: do the major damage for the most. They are both one-way streets.
I was taught the view that what happened in Nazi Germany was down to Hitler and people I have come across who were alive at the time seemed to have believed that. However, it does come down to whether what people had been lead to believe in the news was true. I have also come across some ideas suggesting that Hitler was following certain thinking in theosophy, such as Madam Blavatsky's notion of a master race.
But, one reason why I do wonder about the extent that Hitler was part of a much wider cultural movement is because I have read Jung's ideas about evil and some of the underlying ideas about the German race being superior are apparent in Jung's writings and many people reject Jung's views because of the way in which his views for this reason. And, Jung is not the only thinker of that time with such a slant to his writings.
I do wonder if human beings are able to learn from mistakes. I am not sure that the leaders of many of our countries do look at past errors, because there is so much going on, that the agenda may be so narrow. We spend time thinking about the philosophical questions about good and evil, but I don't think that many of those in power do. But, that is one of the reasons I think that philosophy should be at the forefront of cultural life. At least, this site is a public one, so let's hope that some people of influence read some of the debates and think about important issues. I am sure that many aspects of our contemporary world will be seen so differently in retrospect, but let's hope that there are no catastrophic events which wipe out vast numbers of people before people wake up to evil which may be lurking in our midst. I know that some people fear that Nazism may be on the rise again.
That’s very refreshing to hear. Let me be sure I understand you, though. Tell me what distinctions you might make, if any , between evil and blame in general.
I include within the boundaries of blame the following: all feelings and expressions of blame aimed at another (or oneself in self-anger). These include: irritation, annoyance, disapproval, condemnation, feeling insulted, taking umbrage, resentment, exasperation, impatience, hatred, ire, outrage, contempt, righteous indignation, ‘adaptive' anger, perceiving the other as deliberately thoughtless, lazy, culpable, perverse, inconsiderate, disrespectful, disgraceful, greedy, evil, sinful, criminal.
My argument is that the concept of evil. particularly in its theological guises, is a more foundationalisr version of blame ,but all of the varieties I mentioned above share central structure features with evil. I’m aware of only one writer who seems to support my view of blame as a failure of understanding. Every other philosophy I know of is essentially a philosophy of blame i. that it relies on a notion of capricious and arbitrariness at the core of human intent. This takes a wide variety of forms, ranging from concepts of social influence on the individual ( Marx, Foucault, etc) to internal sources of bias and influence such as drives and emotions.
Mary Midgley wrote a book called “Wickedness” that discusses what you’re asking. Her conclusion was that evil should be thought of as a negative, rather than positive, act; evil is the inability to refrain from causing harm, or the inability to basically “do the right thing.”
Personally, I’m not sure “evil” should ever be used as a noun. It’s purely descriptive, in my opinion. So, my best definition would be that evil is a description of an intention, act, and/or consequence (thanks @TheMadFool) that the speaker abhors. I suppose if one is inclined to superstition, then things like natural disasters could also be considered evil, but that seems silly to me. Nature is indifferent.
I agree strongly with this. I used to work in a drug testing facility and found the majority of the participants easy to get along with and friendly. Some of these people were pedophiles, wife beaters, neglectful/abusive to their children, etc.
When I first started getting interested in philosophy/psychology I wondered a lot about my own capacity to commit horrible actions. I wondered what environmental circumstances could cause me to do X. More often than not I could imagine some scenario where I felt like I could have become a X if A,B, and C would have happened to me.
It’s a bit macabre, but it actually allowed me to become more empathetic, and feel a broader sense of humanity. Now I’m at the point where I don’t feel like anyone is better than me, but I’m also no better than anyone else, at least that’s what I strive for. Anyway, just thought I’d share. :smile:
Personally, I don't find the concept of evil very helpful. Individuals do what they believe is good for them. The problem is that for all sorts of reasons they can be wrong.
Good < > Not Good ("Evil")
Wisdom < > Ignorance
(Self-) Honesty < > Deceit
It's like this. In my first post in your thread, I ran with the standard definition as it appears in the relevant Wikipedia page. You're astute enough to notice that evil (and good) are hedonically flavored concepts - to cause suffering is evil and to bring about happiness is good. You get the idea. Good & evil rendered as such is a very old idea as far as I can tell.
However, another moral theory, Kantian deontological ethics, completely ignores everything, hedonic value included, except, in this case, how a particular action might look if it were made into a universal law. Evil in Kantian terms is failure of duty which will be exposed when one acts in ways that violate the so-called categorical imperative.
So, yeah, I'm utterly bewildered as of this moment as to what evil is. Can we wed utilitarianism (hedonic) and Kantian ethics (non-hedonic) and come up with a definition of evil that's consistent with both moral theories? Just to complete the set, virtue ethics would have us believe that evil is what a bad (irrational) person would do.
To sum up, Kant and Socrates seem to be on the same page - evil is just another name for irrational. Kant would've said evil is simply a logical contradiction in keeping with his wishes to reduce morality to logic. Socrates, since for him rationality is the highest virtue, would've concurred as then irrationality is the worst of vices, the heights of irrationality a contradiction.
Being democratic about it hedonically defined evil loses to evil as unreason 1 to 2 by vote count.
Just so you know, I maybe in complete denial - I must've encountered evil but I simply refuse to accept the truth of it. Such things happen right, truthseeker? Sometimes truth is so painful/shocking that...
By the way, justice, no matter how you try to put a positive spin to it, is ultimately (guilty) people suffering. The million dollar question then is, is evil simply justice? There are metaphysical ramifications - (bad) Karma and the rest.
I do actually understand you being bewildered by what 'evil' is because I think that the nature of good and evil is one of the most complicated areas of philosophy. I have been reading the various replies on the thread yesterday and have been experiencing writer's block or brain fog thinking about it before writing replying
Yesterday, after reading a very impressive post by @Alkis Piskas, even though he did not mention Kant, it lead me to think how Kant's ideas have definite bearing on this topic. You have introduced a very helpful discussion on his thoughts about good and evil. If I think about my own history of thinking on the topic I believe that my own connection between morality and metaphysics it goes back to the connection which Kant spoke of.Of course, he developed his ideas in connection with a theist framework. However, beyond this, his connection is based on the idea of a priori principles. I am wondering how true or helpful a priori logic is a starting point for thinking about the principles of good and evil, and of course, Plato's ideas about underlying ideas.
I believe that it may involve juggling ideas about such objective principles with the practical expression in ethics in real life where it really matters, such as in issues of justice. Perhaps objective principles and moral subjective feelings can both be incorporated, to give a balanced perspective.I also do plan to read Hannah Arendt, as recommended by Banno. But, I do believe that it is a very difficult to think about and it may not be simply that, as you say, 'truth is painful', but also hard to fathom, However, the truth is painful when it becomes evident in the reality of suffering oneself, or witnessing the suffering of other people or other creatures.
The love-evil paradox
1. To love is good.
2. To love to cause suffering is evil.
Go figure! That's one of the reasons, truthseeker, why evil is unfathomable.
I believe that you have a useful basis for thinking about evil starting from our experiences and relating it in a wider way to others. Here, I think it involves think about our own suffering and connection it to potential evil of others who may suffer. This may be an existential approach, involving wisdom and compassion.
The question is whether evil is purely an intention or a consequence though, which is of course a classic philosophy debate and, of course, the former is traced back to Kant. Personally, I think that both measures need to be taken into account, which enables juggling of objective and subjective aspects. I think that to see good and evil purely from an objective or subjective point of view alone is restrictive, and in all aspects of life we need to be able to consider both aspects, and this may be the creative aspect of it.
I think that it can be a challenge to work with people who have committed terrible crimes. But, I think that it is easier to work with those who show remorse than those who are actively harbouring malicious intent. I have definitely thought about what circumstances would lead me to do all sorts of things, which is a bit macabre, but I do have a gothic streak. If I can, I will see if I can read 'Wickedness' by Mary Midgely as it I am sure that it is very interesting.
I am glad that you have mentioned your post to @Trey because his thread is based on the same theme as mine, and he wrote his thread only about 12 hours after I began my one. He would probably find a lot of detailed discussion on this one, although he must be aware of it as has often been riding along next to mine. I was impressed by your post and do plan to give a more detailed response, but I had a lot of replies to write.
Both matter. In fact an intention is consequence oriented, something you already know of course, right? It's the intervening action/deed - the link as it were between intention and consequence - that an evil person tries to pass off as good. This is the oldest and most powerful weapon in an evil person's arsenal dear Jack. Be careful Jack!
Quoting Jack Cummins
I fail to see how the distinction matters Jack. Are you saying that if I torture somebody to death over a period of weeks like some serial killers have been known to do there'll be someone who'll think that this isn't evil? I'd like to know how that could be possible. Any ideas?
You're Pure Evil, so you are ! :naughty:
Like a Storm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d5P6Tk2yNE
Wipe that smile off your face
You immaculate disgrace
'Cause heaven knows
A prayer won't save you now
You wear the halo of a saint
To hide the venom of a snake
Built your kingdom on a lie
So watch it all come crashing down
(Now)
You prophet of hate
You profit from faith
Truth-less, two-faced, two bit
Fuckin' hypocrite
How does it feel?
How does it feel?
The day has come
To pay for what you've done
Sinner revealed
Tell me how does it feel?
So pure within your soul
Pure evil
If your blackened heart believes
In the righteous words you speak
You know heaven will send hell for you
And bring you to your knees
You prophet of hate
You profit from faith
Truth-less, two-faced, two bit
Fuckin' hypocrite
How does it feel?
How does it feel?
The day has come
To pay for what you've done
Sinner revealed
Tell me how does it feel?
So pure within your soul
Pure evil
Pray to your god
Pray for your soul
Pray as your throne burns slowly now
Pray to your god
Pray for your soul
Pray as your throne burns slowly now
(Pray to your god
Pray for your soul
Pray as your throne burns slowly)
Now
How does it feel?
How does it feel?
The day has come
To pay for what you've done
Sinner revealed
Tell me how does it feel?
Truthless, two-faced, two bit
Fuckin' hypocrite
How does it feel?
Tell me how does it feel?
So pure within your soul
Pure evil
The day has come
To pay for what you've done
The day has come
To pay for what you've done
Pay for what you've done
Pay for what you've done
Pay for what you've done
What you've done, what you've done
Songwriters: Kent Brooks, Matt Brooks, Chris Brooks
For non-commercial use only.
Data from: Musixmatch
But torturing someone over a period of time would involve the subjective experience of the person suffering as an end, and clear long term intent to harm. So, in the scheme of things, it would be seen as falling into the darkest regions of the spectrum of 'evil' acts. I am not trying to be pedantic, because all these factors would play so much weight in any legal evaluation of repeated a acts of torture.
Jaaaaccckk! Are you defending torture?
Perhaps, I did not explain clearly enough. I was trying to say that torture would be classified as being one of the most severe crimes, taking account of all factors. The end of the victim receiving repeated acts of torture and the ongoing malicious intent of the person perpetuating it.
I would consider it more of a placeholder than a basis. "Do unto others..." is generally a creed that if lived by will avoid at least the greater kinds of excesses, however it does not suffice, in my opinion.
After all, just because one wishes to be treated in some way, does not mean that that same treatment is wished for by or good for another.
Unless we know a person and we know them well, it may be difficult for us to tell what that person really needs; what is truly good for that person.
As such, I think voluntary interaction in the widest sense of the word is key. Voluntariness in physical interactions obviously, but also intellectual interaction.
I think that it is a problem that human beings don't all wish to be treated or have their needs met in exactly the same way is one of the complexities of life. I think that is even one of the problems of the categorical imperative because while we may think about universalisation we don't all want to do the same as each other.
I do believe that universalisation is about general issues of justice and fairness, but does need to allow for listening to the needs of individuals. I believe that one of the problems of advice is that it often involves assumptions that the person giving the advice knows what is good or bad for the other. I believe that is why counsellors avoid giving advice and try to listen and enable individuals to make their own decisions about their lives.
Phew! :sweat: :100:
Why should humans exist at all? Which then I can say, why should life exist at all? Which leads to, why should anything exist at all? And there is our final question, the base upon which we can build our logic. An interesting fact, is that much of the "substance" that resulted form the big bang is gone now. After billions of years, its cancelled out or gone the way of entropy. But not the matter that's stuck around. That stuff, which we're made of, has stubbornly refused to go into the dark. That matter, is what life is built off of. That matter, is what we are built off of. And that existence, is what ethics is built off of.
The matter around us continually seeks to remain as it is. Forces jostle around, elections shift and molecules combine and break apart, but the underlying matter and energy remain. Life is a combination of matter that continues to seek its own continuation, even in the face of outside forces. Thus the prime directive is, "Should I continue to exist?" Life does with rudimentary intelligence. Humans come along and can see how it is. They can decide. Should I continue to exist? Most of us choose yes. That is good. Existence is good.
You also might realize that existence extends outside of yourself. And there is existence within interacting with yourself, and other existences. A fly alone and a human alone are two existences, but when they come together, they create a third interaction of existence that could not be otherwise. You see it in the atoms that form into different molecules. The interactions of so many different expressions of that existence. This is good as well.
At that point you might realize that if one can preserve one's own existence, and promote other existences where you can, then that would create more existence, and thus more good. Sometimes there must be destruction, or a change in the makeup of matter to preserve some existences over others. Life must continue to obtain energy to live, which means something else must lose it in return. What must exist and what must be destroyed are the constant calculus of morality.
I have a feeling no one person can answer that calculus. I have a feeling there is no one theory that will apply to one situation, but to many situations. The one thing that I feel confident in, is the underlying goal and result of all of those theories should be to preserve and/or create as much existence as possible.
Thank you, @Jack Cummins. I look forward to your response!
I think that you are really describing a utilitarian approach to ethics, but more from the standpoint of the view that the individual subjects should be thinking of their own lives in terms of the greater good. I think that it is useful to think about, but the only problem is that it is prescriptive. I think that it may be easier to apply to the principle of evil than good in the sense of people wishing to avoid doing evil. I believe that is because most people fear evil to a large extent, although for some there may be some attraction to it in a gothic way, or as an act of rebellion. However, for many people there is a deep fear of evil. This may go back to the Christian idea of the devil. However, I believe that it exists beyond that as a fear of the 'dark' side of reality.
I think that your idea of evil being 'trying to get back at God' for being in the world is one which some people have, even if they don't believe in a God literally. It may be about a general attitude of anger. Camus speaks of metaphysics rebellion, as a general approach of rebellion. This is also connected to his views of suicide and that can be seen as a form of metaphysics of rebellion in the face of the absurdities of existence.
I definitely agree that there is 'no one answer' to the problem of evil. To 'preserve one's existence' seems to me to be an instinctual aspect of life and in the construction of morality, the idea of what must be preserved is essential. The idea of destruction, especially for human beings is where it gets more complex. It comes down to what is regarded as 'evil'. That is why I think that consideration of evil is important.
In war, evil is seen as the war against the 'enemy'. We have been through a war against terrorism. Perhaps, this was almost replaced globally as the war against Covid_19. But, the question may be can we really eliminate evil? Of course, I am not saying that we don't need to strive to overcome specific evils, but it is not simple. The war against Covid_19 shows this symbolically, as new mutant strains arise. Evil keeps arising in new guises in all aspects of life, and I think that it is more about holding it back. Christian thinking often pointed to a cosmic battle of good and evil, and this may have lead to an emphasis on fighting evil. But, here we are in 2021, with Covid_19 still in our midst, conflicts between many nations, nuclear threats and climate changes suggesting severe ecological problems.
First of all, thank you for considering my post as something "impressive". For me, what I exposed is like the air we breathe, that essential, for many years now.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Right, it can be said that this is an utilitarian view. And it is the only view I can see "good" and "evil" (ethics) from.
Quoting Jack Cummins
As I have mentioned in parentheses. "evil" may be used also with some other meaning. One of them is e.g. "Evil" as some dark idea --even more than that: an entity-- that most people fear, and which has been manufactured and promoted by various religions, esp. dogmatic ones, who wanted to control people by creating fear in them. Devil, demons, hell and all these crazy and horrible stuff are the products of that and are haunting people since ever! Their purpose was to make people obey some other --also inexistent-- entity (God, angels, paradise), opposite to "Evil" and protecting them from Evil, of which they appear as representatives! No. I have no interest in considering "evil" from that viewpoint. It's a bogeyman for adults! This kind of "evil" and all its paraphernalia can only exist --actually, planted-- in our minds. And they indicate mental illness. (BTW, all kinds of "evils" indicate some kind of mental illness.)
So, since as can I see my post was not exactly what you expected as a response to your thread, and since you find it interesting, maybe you can keep it for some other thread of yours on "good and evil", utilitarian this time! :)
You could start your own thread on utilitarian ethics because there if you simply have your view on this thread or another there is a possibility that people who might be interested in it will not see it. There is a thread on the greater good on the front page which is new, but I am not sure that is exactly what you are looking for. There have been threads contrasting deontological and utilitarianism approaches to ethics, but not recently as far as I am aware.
My own view is that consequences of behaviour iin the real world are of supreme importance, and I think that is an argument against deontological approaches to good and evil. But, I do believe that there are some problems with utilitarianism. Partly, determining the greatest good is not simple because it involves so many factors. Also, it is not always possible to determine consequences of all actions. Therefore, I think that it is important to think about effects of action, but also to think about the meanings of those actions from specific subjective viewpoints, including competing subjectivities.
I don't think we can ever remove evil entirely, just diminish its degree. If good is "more existence" and evil is "less existence", then good and evil are comparisons. While Covid is terrible, it doesn't approach the millions of deaths from pandemics in the past. Our work into medical science has paid off. While nuclear weapons are excessively destructive, that excessiveness also has diminished the number of wars in the world, and preserved more human life.
Finally, while the climate is definitely on a course to either hellish heat, or a lethal change in oxygen levels in the air, much of our technology is more energy efficient, and we are focusing on greener alternatives. Fighting with evil is a constant war for the betterment of the world.
Ideologies like Nazi Fascism, Islamic State etc. purposefully do to others what they would not have done unto themselves, they are therefore easily identifiable as evil. They invoke a dog eat dog survival of the fittest rationale to apply to human races / religions.
Thieves, rapists, murderers, do the same, they purposefully break the Golden Rule, and their acts are therefore considered evil.
I am not wishing to argue against the importance of the golden rule, but you have to realise that in philosophy it is about competing views. But, of course, you offer a valid viewpoint. I am sure that the world would be a better place if everyone followed the golden rule.
I don't know why you have dug up a much older thread on defining reality and written the same post onto it. Since I started my thread someone else started a thread on what is evil. We now have 3 'evil' threads, warring against each other on the front page, and I am still fighting for mine because I believe that some people have put some really 'good' comments in this particular thread.
There is no way in life to rid evil, even if a government did its best it would fall victim to its own judgement and morality thus becoming the exact thing it is fighting against. Ultimately, if societal structure doesn't teach evil, it must go hand in hand with " free thought" which would lead people to "evil thinking" I would imagine that's the point if no return. Our natural born rights would I guess make evil more relevant but that's it.. We are free (at least here in America) hoorah I'll stay prepared for the worst and hope for the best before losing freedom any day.
PS': IT IS A LITTLE CRAZY BUT" EVIL" BACKWARDS SPELLS LIVE. FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH I JUST MADE THAT DISTINCTION. CHEERS MAN !
Devil more sounds like esoteric, and religious nature in its origin.
It is negative energy, acts and entity of all sorts, that must be overcome and quelled by any possible means.
No because evil is part of the human condition so the only real way to destroy evil would be to destroy humanity. The best we can do is contain and try to tame our demons; a problem arises when people consider themselves to be victims and consider their cause so just and noble that any means used to achieve it are justified via the utopian end. Certain people consider themselves outside the scope of traditional morality because they consider themselves so incredibly noble and intelligent that they can see the "big picture" and correctly do the utilitarian math so those regular, old boring rules don't apply to them.
Hi Jack
I posted on the other thread, because it was referenced in the first post of your thread, and also asked outright for a definition of evil, so I thought my observation is also relevant there. I can see however that it is gone from the start page now, so I hope it is fine to continue here.
The first thing I think I would like to add is that there seems to be a wide consensus that in the animal world, there is no good or evil. They don't exist because there is no standard to measure against. This standard only exists in human societies. Again, Fascism and Racism want to go back to the animal world where no good or evil exist, and only the right of the stronger defines the right to live. So Nietzsche challenged the very standard of the Golden Rule. Here we have a direct connection from Nietzsche to Hitler.
We are looking for a clean definition of what is Evil.
In this light, the Golden Rule is very relevant, since it exists in similar form in many if not all worlds cultures. It is furthermore very valid because in order not to have it, you would need to posit that different people have different rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. This runs counter to the base ethical assumptions we make in human societies, namely that all men should enjoy equal rights in this regard. Therefore I believe that purposeful violation of the rule provides the easiest and cleanest definition of evil. We intuitively know what is evil when we encounter it, yet it seems so hard to define.
Purposeful breakers of the Golden Rule
Nietzsche, Hitler, Charles Manson, Stalin, ISIS terrorists, anyone who thinks they have justification to deny other humans the same right to life and happiness
Every regime practices oppression. Every one of them. Apartheid is evil, but Israel is not apartheid. And if you want to condemn ethnic cleansing we can start with the Assyrians ethnically cleansing the Hebrews in 3000 BCE. The Jews have been the victims of ethnic cleansing countless times over their history, some only a generation back. It's really the Europeans who created this "whose land is whose" with their insistence on firm borders.
But lets not side track.
Right. We're trying to describe "evil" here, not discussing Israel.
Thank you, @Jack Cummins. I will consider your suggestion about starting a new thread on utilitarian etchis (or other subject). For the moment though, I am getting acquainted with "The Philosophy Forum" and its various topics and members. And I am really glad that I met this Forum, because it is "human". One feels welcome and can get immediately involved, meet people, carrying discussions, etc. Three other forums I "tried" this month, were totally unacceptable! They either have a weird/bad administration system, or one feels a stranger if not ignored (unanswered questions and replies!), and so on. It was also a pleasure to meet you and have these exchanges with you!
I clearer now in understanding why you brought up a previous thread. In comparing human beings with animals, it is definitely true that the big difference is that we have metaphysical and moral notions about good and evil. They live on the basis of instincts whereas we have language and the use of reason to guide us, so ideas of good and evil arise in that sense.
In your discussion of the golden rule, you bring in Nietzsche and his ideas are relevant. The reason why I have not discussed these is because there was a thread going on his criticism of moral views on compassion during the last couple of weeks. I think that it has only gone off the front page in the last couple of days, and you may be interested in looking at that thread.
Thinking about Nietzsche's ideas in the context of this specific thread though, Nietzsche's critique of Christian ideas does address the golden rule directly. In 'Beyond Good and Evil,' he states,
'the sentiment of surrender, of sacrifice for one's neighbour, and all self-renunciation morality must be called to account and brought to judgement.' He is opposed to asceticism but he is directly against social ethical concerns, favouring the 'will to power'. As far as I understand, he was not in favour of Nazism, but it is possible to see how his ideas could be used to justify such ideologies. I think it is questionable whether human beings can really go 'beyond good and evil' and to ask what that would truly mean? I often read Nietzsche's ideas as poetic truths, and in the context of pointing to some basic problems in culture arising from some aspects of Christianity, but I think how far one interprets Nietzsche is of critical importance. I certainly believe that if stretched too far, or too literally, his ideas could be used to make anything permissible, including oppressive ideologies and actual oppression in the world.
I am glad that you are feeling better about this forum than others you have joined. It is my first one but I feel that I have learned a lot since I joined last September. I think that this one is very 'human' in the sense that the various people have unique writing voices. There is a lot of interaction night and day. I enjoy writing threads and I do my best to reply to as many as I possibly can, but I try not to rush them because it can affect the quality of the replies. Besides, it is often best if people within the thread exchange ideas too. Anyway, I wish you the best in your interaction on the forum and in this thread discussion.
I tend to think of evil as negative energies, or tendencies destructiveness. Aside from any religious worldviews, I still do find that Freud's idea of life and death, as Eros and Thanatos useful in understanding of opposition or inherent conflict. Of course, Freud was probably drawing upon the binary logic of traditional or religious worldviews. But, whether we think from within Christianity, Taoism or other perspectives, I am not sure that we can get away from the extremes, especially the reality of evil as an aspect of existence, as suffering, and in connections with the actions of people who created. As far as I can see, evil is an extreme aspect of real life which is evident, so cannot be ignored.
Welcome to the thread. I don't live in America, but in England. I do believe that it is often a case of being prepared for the worst in many aspects of life. I often think about what is the worst thing that can happen? But, life is unpredictable. A couple of years ago I am sure no one expected a global pandemic and all the upheavals. Also, climate change seems to be escalating at a much faster rate than expected. But, I do believe that there are many aspects of life for many of us to appreciate, but we have to be alert to all potential evils. Of course, evil cannot be eliminated, but we probably have to find the best possible solutions to avert suffering, and this may mean facing up to the underlying sources, and examining them in a reasoned way.
I think evil is the unpleasant side of the cycle of life or evolution. Everything that I know of follows two rules. Survive and reproduce, provided the creature being produced isn't defective. Life or evolution does does not care how you survive and reproduce. So long as you do, or at least try to. Theft, poison, deception, murder you name it. Nothing is out of bounds in nature. While humans have labeled that kind of behavior evil, and seem capable of controlling it. It's just part of the cycle of life. What I have come to believe is. All humans are potentially evil, or we are quite capable of following our original set of rules. The question is, are you willing and able to control your evil.
That's a great perspective man. Your right about life being unpredictable, that's ultimately why I always use "extremes" to try and find where they or if they meet. Often times I find a interesting connection that leads me to believe opposites attract. I think everything in life must be beautiful if we have gotten this far and witness it? The good the bad and ugly are still a part of our collective conscious I assume in the name of working toward harmony vs hate. Our ancestors did their part, but history seems to be a wakening call for morality toward the voiceless. Maybe good and evil symbolize eternal life and eternal death ? My mind wanders in search for understanding , but I feel As long as my message makes it to my great grandchildren we have done well. So I guess as long as harmony prevails I need you as much as you need me to keep this boat afloat !
I quite agree with that. I think destructiveness is the key to understanding evil.
The world we live in seems to be characterized by a certain order. When we act in ways that interfere with and disturb that order, for example, by causing injury, taking someone's life for no good reason, committing mass murder, destroying the environment, or spreading ideologies that promote evil, then this is destructive behavior that amounts to evil.
One needs not hold any religious views in order to regard something as evil, i.e. harmful and reprehensible.
Oh please. We just had other people do it for us so now we don't have to. You, we all, exist on that foundation. Now sure, there's no extenuating purpose to do so at present, so we often don't, smile, and call ourselves good people. But is it right?
If we're talking about oppression in the broad sense then every regime oppresses - it's just a matter of nature and extent. Even if we remove regimes from the picture humans oppress; it's what we do - we accept some things and not others. I support others call out genuine injustice where it exists, but I will police tone and phrasing.
No, I don't believe that because oppressive policies in one area can be counterbalanced by good policy elsewhere. We also need to be on watch that the definition of evil isn't constantly being cheapened as this removes our ability to combat real evil.
Stalin did so much evil that he's completely unredeemable. Stalin's hand was forced once the Germans attacked in '41 so it's not even like he made a heroic decision to fight at that point - he had to.
I was thinking more along the lines of FDR's decision to place Japanese-Americans into internment camps. That was clearly a bad decision and oppressive, but it would be unfair to stop historical analysis there and label the FDR administration as evil.
It's also true that FDR did a lot of good things. It's a weird reality, but I guess there are human beings that are just like that, they can exhibit cruelty but also show sympathy to suffering in other instances. I don't think that erases the fact that they were cruel. One should exhibit self-doubt of their moral blinders in the face of that fact.
I guess if I were forced to answer, I would say FDR is less evil than Stalin, but I also don't find it a productive question.
of course.
Quoting 180 Proof
no, i would never describe the fdr regime during ww2 as "very bad, but not evil" because it's a terrible description. as long as you're not a nazi or pro-axis the fdr regime is a good during WWII. one can say that specific policies implemented by fdr were bad/oppressive, but the bigger picture is clear.
Quoting Saphsin
the two aren't remotely in the same ballpark.
It wasn't really my point that they were. I just don't think regimes that do really bad things can be just labeled "good" (FDR goes well beyond the inevitably of doing some bad things as head of state because of lack of political capital)
Imagine someone who dedicated their life to humanitarian causes and saved people's lives, but he beat up his wife and kids. I wouldn't call him a good person. That's all there is to it. I don't have to weigh him in comparison to a serial killer to make those judgments.
Now since the bar for my evaluation of U.S. Presidents is pretty low because we had so many terrible Presidents, I would say FDR is one of the best Presidents we had. In a relative sense. It’s the way the state-corporate nexus is structured so that mostly terrible people end up reaching the top.
Quoting 180 Proof
From Life and Death point of view, if Death is viewed as Evil, then it is negativity in extreme. But then one's own death does not exist while living. It is just a concept.
The way I see it, ‘evil’ is an arbitrarily set limit, at and beyond which any possibility of intentional relation is denied. I hadn’t really considered the term ‘blame’ as the relational quality here - I agree that it describes a moral self-justification to ignore, isolate or exclude relations by attributing unpleasant affect externally as malicious intent.
Quoting Joshs
I have also struggled to find others who see this failure of understanding as a key to human morality. Which writer are you referring to who supports this view?
My initial thought is that it’s a focus on individualism and/or essentialism that seems to support these philosophies of blame. The ambiguity in language regarding the identity of a disembodied perspective (‘view from nowhere’) conceals a highly variable, qualitative aspect of ‘self/not-self’ which seems to effortlessly shift perspective between interacting systems at the level of intentionality. Does that make any sense?
:fire: :up:
You find me in total agreement with what you say @Jack Cummins. (This is something very rare for me to say to someone in these remote exchanges!)
I interact very often and have quite valuable exchanges with very interesting people in Quora, which I joined about 3 years ago. It is also a "human" place. Of course, it's an "all-subject" forum and cannot compare at all to this forum quality-wise, but still philosophy has a big share among all the various subjects.
Like you, I also enjoy a lot writing! In fact, exteriorizing my thoughts by writing them down and esp. sharing them with others and interacting with others on them, has expanded my awareness and strengthened my reality and my reasoning ability (critical thinking) to a very marked degree!
Thank you for your wishes! I have already started to like this place and feel quite positive about it for the future! :)
For me the key to the concept of blame is a belief in the
arbitrariness , capriciousness and fickleness of the qualitative variations in shifts of perspective.
The one writer I’ve found who seems to share my view of blame is George Kelly.
Here’s my summary of Kelly’s position on blame:
https://philpapers.org/rec/MRGKO
Thanks for the link! Kelly’s personal construct theory aligns well with my current philosophy, and your article on hostility is really interesting - particularly with respect to understanding (and ‘preventing’) domestic abuse.
Quoting Joshs
This makes sense to me from a psychology perspective. It seems to me there’s an expectation of suffering - momentary experiences of humility, pain and lack or loss from prediction error - that goes with this awareness of indeterminacy. It can be disorienting in a broader sense, though - a kind of existential free-fall, especially in relation to the qualitative variability of quantum physics. As a philosopher (and this may be off-topic, sorry) I’m curious as to the influence this arbitrariness may have on how you would frame reality in any ‘objective’ sense.
I have just read your article which you linked in, and thanks for sharing this. It is very useful in thinking about blame. In addition, Kelly's ideas of personal constructs is an interesting perspective of the psychology of how we think about good and evil in general.
I understand, and my intention going to this topic was never to specifically advocate for FDR or to defend him against all criticism. In any case, I don't disagree with anything you've said here philosophically but maybe our discussion could go in a more historical direction going back to an earlier claim:
Quoting Saphsin
FDR admired Italy's social programs and he may have admired Mussolini personally (any material you bring in here is welcome, I'm unsure as to FDR's exact attitude towards Mussolini), but this was between '33-'36 at which point Italy invaded Abyssinia and relations soured. I don't see anything wrong with FDR engaging with Italy in this period, and had FDR somehow been successful in swaying Italy over the Allies that would have saved us a lot of trouble.
On the anti-lynching bill, FDR personally regarded lynching as murder but according to his own words he needed the political support of southern democrats and pushing through the anti-lynching bill would have sabotaged his political capital with that group. If FDR is accurately representing the scenario that I can envision scenarios where he decision here is justified.
Quoting 180 Proof
I'll engage with what you said earlier:
Quoting 180 Proof
I mostly agree with your religious definition. We could dive a little further into different types of evil and it's nature but by and large what you're saying here is reasonable.
In a non-religious context we should probably just stop using the word "evil" since it's a confusing, religiously-grounded word and instead use descriptors like "bad" or "very bad." Regardless, I don't see any reason to prefer your definition over any number of other definitions assuming both are coherent.
I see your point about giving up using the word 'evil', but if anything I think that it is a word we should use with caution. From this thread discussion, it has become clear to me that evil is hard to define because it is abstract, nevertheless it does appear that there are extreme aspects of existence and moral behaviour which point to the end aspects of the spectrum in between the polar opposition between good and evil.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yeah, I would agree. Part of the confusion is that some of us are using it in a more religious sense and others aren't. Evil in a religious sense is an interesting concept and has been written about extensively, but evil in just a normal, secular context is often used synonymously with "bad" which can be confusing. Honestly, in a non-religious context I'd just scrap the term entirely - a main point of language ought to be clarity, especially in philosophical discussion.
Quoting 180 Proof
Alright, and that speaks to your psychology. I'd venture to say that most people don't quite share your intense predilection towards philosophical precision. Personally, under a non-theistic worldview I would find impassioned speeches and mass movements much, much more appealing - they appeal to the whole of the human as opposed to just the rational mind.
EDIT: Oh, and mass movements do tend to get things done and execute on plans as opposed to philosophers who are not the most active group out there.
Having thought about the whole question of good and evil in this thread, I do think that it so much easier to think about our own conceptions of these. Once we get to the big metaphysics of it, we also come up against the question of whether good or evil is more powerful, which may only make sense if seen in a religious context. I do believe that the framing of good and evil, metaphysically and morally, shows how abstract such areas of philosophical thought can be.Perhaps,our own psychological understandings, are important, as a phenomenological starting point from which to see the wider aspects of the philosophical issue of the problem of evil.