The Belief in Pure Evil
I will attempt to prove the existence of pure evil. That is, pure evil in terms of intention.
The definition of good: That which strives to promote the health, safety, thus happiness of innocent people.
The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.
THese definitions do not have contradictory examples. War cannot be used, as people fighting for war are fighting for survival. They are left with no choice but to fight if they want to live. A good person would have regrets about having to kill others in combat, therefore, we can really say killing in war is not truly the intention of war, rather, it is survival. Please understand the difference.
There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are. Liquistically or definitionally, we do not need to understand, it is merely ingrained in the most base level of our consciousness, called instinct.
In order to learn things, we must have a base level of knowledge to begin with. Since we cannot expect a rock to learn anything, as it is inanimate and not conscious, we therefore cannot expect OURSELVES to learn anything if we do not have at least something to UNDERSTAND the lesson in question... to begin with.
Therefore, what possible lower level of knowledge can there be than the instinctual tendency to choose good over evil? And another question, why do some "people" commit evil? Is it because they are simply not conscious (IE Philosophical Zombies)? Well, there doesn't seem to be any other explanation, does there? We can also break it down better in the following:
1)Good cannot be evil. Evil cannot be good. This would contradict both of their definitions. Therefore, it cannot be done.
2)Knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts. It is impossible to consider someone a "good person" if they commit murder or rape. They committed those acts because they did NOT know what good and evil were.
3)If evil were a choice just anyone could make, the ability to commit evil would require a good person to somehow "unknow" what evil is, and why you don't do it. If this knowledge is at the base level, and we are somehow able to remove it from the person, we in turn remove the person themselves, and make them just as capable of learning as a rock.
4)Committing evil cannot be considered a "mistake", as it is deliberate as the definition of evil above states. Deliberate is the opposite of mistake.
5)Survival cannot be a reason to commit evil, as evil directly threatens the survival and well being of the offending evil-doer.
6)Mental Illness cannot be used as a reason to commit evil either, because no matter what the mental illness is, the person in question obviously does not want to cause anymore suffering to themselves than what they are already going through. If they manage to cause more suffering, it was not intentional. Of course mentally ill people may commit suicide, but that's because they want their suffering to end, not the other way around. And so if they commit an evil act, it's not because they INTENDED to cause more suffering for themselves, and since evil is NOT a mistake, we there cannot use the excuse of mental illness. Again, mentally ill people do not want to cause anymore suffering for themselves, so if someone commit an evil act, it was simply because they intended to, and was not a mistake.
Conclusion: Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. They cannot be good, as they do not posess consciousness, therefore cannot ever learn what good and evil are, which is necessary in order to be considered a good person. Therefore, people who do horrible, evil, unspeakable acts, are philosophical zombies.
There you go. Have fun.
The definition of good: That which strives to promote the health, safety, thus happiness of innocent people.
The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.
THese definitions do not have contradictory examples. War cannot be used, as people fighting for war are fighting for survival. They are left with no choice but to fight if they want to live. A good person would have regrets about having to kill others in combat, therefore, we can really say killing in war is not truly the intention of war, rather, it is survival. Please understand the difference.
There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are. Liquistically or definitionally, we do not need to understand, it is merely ingrained in the most base level of our consciousness, called instinct.
In order to learn things, we must have a base level of knowledge to begin with. Since we cannot expect a rock to learn anything, as it is inanimate and not conscious, we therefore cannot expect OURSELVES to learn anything if we do not have at least something to UNDERSTAND the lesson in question... to begin with.
Therefore, what possible lower level of knowledge can there be than the instinctual tendency to choose good over evil? And another question, why do some "people" commit evil? Is it because they are simply not conscious (IE Philosophical Zombies)? Well, there doesn't seem to be any other explanation, does there? We can also break it down better in the following:
1)Good cannot be evil. Evil cannot be good. This would contradict both of their definitions. Therefore, it cannot be done.
2)Knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts. It is impossible to consider someone a "good person" if they commit murder or rape. They committed those acts because they did NOT know what good and evil were.
3)If evil were a choice just anyone could make, the ability to commit evil would require a good person to somehow "unknow" what evil is, and why you don't do it. If this knowledge is at the base level, and we are somehow able to remove it from the person, we in turn remove the person themselves, and make them just as capable of learning as a rock.
4)Committing evil cannot be considered a "mistake", as it is deliberate as the definition of evil above states. Deliberate is the opposite of mistake.
5)Survival cannot be a reason to commit evil, as evil directly threatens the survival and well being of the offending evil-doer.
6)Mental Illness cannot be used as a reason to commit evil either, because no matter what the mental illness is, the person in question obviously does not want to cause anymore suffering to themselves than what they are already going through. If they manage to cause more suffering, it was not intentional. Of course mentally ill people may commit suicide, but that's because they want their suffering to end, not the other way around. And so if they commit an evil act, it's not because they INTENDED to cause more suffering for themselves, and since evil is NOT a mistake, we there cannot use the excuse of mental illness. Again, mentally ill people do not want to cause anymore suffering for themselves, so if someone commit an evil act, it was simply because they intended to, and was not a mistake.
Conclusion: Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. They cannot be good, as they do not posess consciousness, therefore cannot ever learn what good and evil are, which is necessary in order to be considered a good person. Therefore, people who do horrible, evil, unspeakable acts, are philosophical zombies.
There you go. Have fun.
Comments (79)
Your argument about philosophical zombies doesn't resonate with me. Humans behave and some of that behavior is fucked up. It might be easier for us, instead of understanding the causes of fucked up behavior, to use othering or zombie style categories.
What do you think you've added to our understanding of evil?
Maybe it would assist if you presented examples of a pure evil act so we could move past theory and explore your ideas in action.
Now, if you would like to debate me point by point, I will oblige. But that has not happened yet.
I tried to understand your post but I admit, I did not try very hard. I started to bog down and my eyes started to cross at the feeling that you said too much. That's why I can't debate you point by point. I will say this, though: Whenever I hear the term "good" I immediately ask "for who" or "for what'? Likewise, evil. I don't believe in evil. I think there is always something underlying a "bad" act or thought. And even then, I'm brought to "bad for who" and "bad for what"?
Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect. There are also unrelated third parties that benefit from the misfortune of others, intentionally or incidentally. Even if that is a microbe that chows down on a rotting carcass, or a shrink getting paid to listen to a victim work out their shit.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
What makes a person "good" and what makes a person "evil"? If merely committing an evil act makes someone "pure evil" then I suppose we are all evil, given that most of us either have committed evil acts (graded from trivial to very substantial) or will in the future. Can someone be sort of good and commit a sort of evil act? Visa versa?
Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to.
It's worse than that I think. I posted this on an old thread "What Is Evil" ... (what evil is) with links to further discussions.
:up:
Quoting James Riley
:up:
Certainly a rock can't be evil, because it cannot intend to do anything. Intention only exists in the realm of organisms.
Even robots do not have intentions, but their programmers do. Robots are tools, and no robot can ever be sentient or fundamentally interconnected to their own "bodies" like humans can. Therefore, robots cannot intend to harm anyone. They can be programmed to do so, but an organism created that intention. Even if a robot creates another robot, the same problem persists. Who created the first robot? Exactly. In our world, you'd think that would be a human being.
What this means, is that the definition of evil, that is: "That which INTENDS to unjustifiably harm innocent people (or innocent living things if you want)" still stands.
As I said in my original post, war does not count (by itself), as people are killing for their own survival, they do not WANT (therefore don't INTEND) to kill anyone, and would rather go home without having to see any blood whatsoever. So war is about survival, whereas evil certainly can be committed during wartime, but those are called war CRIMES. If everyone that fought war was a war criminal, then we'd have to kill everyone. .People in war generally fight for survival. Those that commit evil acts during wartime are not fighting for survival whilst committing said evil acts.
Honestly, I can't see how you'd have a problem with this definition. It has nothing to do with religion, it is purely and simply logical.
My wife has a bad temper. Sometimes, with very little provocation, she will say things to me and others that are very hurtful. There is not doubt that she does this intentionally. That cruelty is not reflected in other aspects of her life.
By your definition, I guess she's evil.
I covered this already in the OP, but that was fine to respond to. It was a new example, after all.
There's your problem. It isn't. :smile:
Well Plato will tell you we all live in a cave. It's a key narrative in philosophy.
That aside is being hostile really a way to engage with a topic? Could it be you are missing something? I think the other responses are nailing this. For instance:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Its strange for you to drop an OP and then act like a smug prick to everyone who responds. Get humble, your OP is not the rock solid argument you seem to think it is. At best your logic requires explaining, its not that clear to the reader where the strength of your argument lies.
You wrote:
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Quoting AlienFromEarth
No, you did not.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
You're new here, and you're kind of being an asshole. We already have at least one member who thinks philosophy is mostly insults and condescending remarks. We don't need another one. Play nice.
Now, if you don't mind, to the humans on here, I await your response.
It isn't evil if it's not intentional. If she made a mistake, then that's OPPOSITE of intentional.
Evil = INTENTIONAL ujustified harm against the innocent
Mistake = NOT. INTENTIONAL. but potentially poses harm to the innocent.
Get it now?
The moderators here are a bit trigger happy about getting rid of those who send out what are known as "low quality posts". I think yours meet their standards. I predict you won't be here long. We'll open a pool. I'm down for midnight. Any takers?
I think that's going to do it. We'll see you later.
:lol:
….
:lol:
Hysterical :rofl:
Like perfectly hysterical, from your delivery to my out loud laughter.
Look out everyone we’re all going to jail :rofl:
What are you? 10? 12?
:rofl:
Apparently my link wasn't worth you making an effort. Nevermind. :shade:
:smirk:
:up:
I was just sittimg here innocently minding my own business and you hurl an insult at me. Evil.
Totalizing theory, all counter-examples explained away, and conclusion affirmed because it is definitional.
I can't seem to get my hands on the quote but allow me to paraphrase it, the best I can.
[quote=Some saint (forgot his name)]I sinned, not towards an end, but because I loved the sin[/quote]
If you can tell me the name of the saint and the actual quote, I'd be much obliged.
Fermi Paradox
1. Are we alone? Don't know! Uncertain!
2. Are they alone? No, 100% No! Certain!
I found the quote I was looking for.
Doing evil for nothing = Pure Evil?!
[quote=Saint Augustine (Pear Tree, The Fall Of Man)]I loved not the thing for which I committed the sin but the sin itself[/quote]
A more accurate quote:
[quote=St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)]The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself.[/quote]
It's absolutele certain that we are not alone. The universe has an abundancy of life. Of course rhere is a small chance of no life being there, but then again, around every Sun-like word there are planets with life. That's no Russel's reapot.
This doesn't make any sense at all. As @TheMadFool says with his not so accurate but lovely quote:
Also you contradict yourself with it.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
If knowing good and evil is instinctual, then not knowing what good and evil is would be impossible. Hence, as "knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts" there is no evil in this world.
On the most basic level though, I see a problem with your definition of evil.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
What is justifiable and what is not is completely subjective. Hence by your definition, what is evil and what is not is completely subjective, ruling out "pure evil".
If I try to justify NOT justifying something I'm trying to justify, well, there you go. A simple example in practice. You see, I can't try to justify something by NOT justifying it.
So what IS justification then? Being justified means you did something that can either be intended or unintended, but you have proof that it was still the logical thing to do.
So I can be justified in getting up in the morning even though I'm so tired and really don't have enough energy to do it in a healthy manner, if I notice my house is on fire and I need to get out. So, in this case, the intention is survival. However, I do not intend to purposely interupt my sleeping patterns, which causes me a bit of frustration and discomfort, but I justify doing it for the purpose of survival.
In the end, "justification" is a provable, logical event, and not at all subjective.
A non-conscious organism has robotic properties. However, it is not a robot, it's body is designed to house consciousness, but for whatever reason is unable to do so. This results in a body that can certainly adapt itself to it's environment, but is not truly aware of itself or it's environment, much like a robot is not really aware of itself or it surroundings.
Again the difference between a p-zombie and a robot is physical and thus, behavioral. The human body is interconnected to itself, so any attempt it makes to change itself does not necessitate strict instructions to follow. Any mistakes it makes can be correccted. Severe damage to the brain and other organs, bones and tissue in the body can be repaired and re-adapted.
Whereas, the robot must follow some strict code, and have it's core components in working order, even if it's programmed to be able to reprogram itself. It still requires something that doesn't change. If it does not do this, it can result in unrecoverable crash even though physically it may be identical to it's original state.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Are you saying then that a person can commit an act they themselves consider unjustified?
Why do put them in jail or even execute violent criminals if they can't be responsible for themselves? SIMPLE: To prevent them from hurting anymore people.
You see, criminals being philosophical zombies, is really the only way to explain why some people are evil.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Is this not a contradiction?
UNCONSCIOUS beings cannot comprehend anything, and are completely at the mercy of the elements and their own uncontrollable impulses and urges. Now, these urges and impulses WILL eventually come out, no matter the amount of deterrance we give them. This is why we put them in prison, and sometimes execute them. The point is, they know nothing of the concept of evil or good, and that being the fundamental level of knowledge, they cannot possibly know about the higher level that is "justification".
I’m contending that if a person always considers their own actions justified then evil is always a mistake, never deliberate.
This is the term that has multiple definitions. Is the son of Hitler, no someone who say didn't get their ass kicked and who actually succeeded, say successfully killing off oh.. half the world's population and enslaving the other half to grueling labor and torture, not just for punishment, but often for fun.. let's take this fictional person. He has a kid. That kid is as innocent as you or I. Is he not?
Somewhere down the line, there's someone related to you who got away with unspeakable acts that by pure fact, enabled you to become the person you are today.
That said people far too frequently confuse evil with animals who simply don't know any better and thus need to be controlled. Mental illness too.
If a conscious person always considers their own actions justified but is sometimes wrong about this, then they are capable of committing an evil act that they considered justified (i.e. they’ve made a mistake). So evil doers aren’t necessarily unconscious.
Quoting Giordano Bruno
[quote=Giordano Bruno]In space there are countless constellations, suns and planets; we see only the suns because they give light; the planets remain invisible, for they are small and dark. There are also numberless earths circling around their suns.[/quote]
Giordano Bruno was, unfortunately or not, burnt at the stake for heresy. Now, no one would look askance at you for asking the same questions he did. My, my, how the times have changed.
Mistakes are unintentional. Not deliberate. Evil is deliberate.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
And intention in a conscious act; so if “evil doers” are unconscious then they aren’t capable of intention, and so aren’t capable of evil.
So this appears to be your main problem. Evil can’t both be deliberate and unconscious.
Nowhere did I state that intention was a conscious decision.
Do you think deliberation can be an unconscious act also?
Now let me clarify, organisms are different from inanimate objects. They are also different from robots.
I actually misspoke above, robots themselves do not have intentions, rather, their creators do. And even if they were created by another robot, who created that robot? And so on. It comes down to some organism that created the first robot. Thus, the robots intentions are not it's own, it is merely the intentions of the organism that created it.
Whether you know it or not, your description of evil puts your thinking in the category of ‘secular’ religion. You may have absolutely no affiliation with organized religion( thus it is secular) , but your approach is a classic example of a religious metaphysics, and not even a very modern one at that. It is incompatible with the implications of evolutionary biology as well as modern psychology.
I agree. But I also say that those organisms providing the intentions can do so precisely because they are conscious, and intentions spring from consciousness.
If evil doers are on your terms unconscious just as robots are, then they can’t actually intend anything and so are not capable of evil.
I'm saying evil is NOT a choice. And that people who are evil are NOT redeemable, and you should never attempt to forgive them. I'm saying GOOD people are the ONLY conscious beings, and evil people lack consciousness entirely.
All of this is absolutely counter to all religious sentiment. Again, all religious argue that evil and good are within all human beings. I do not believe that, therefore I cannot consider my understanding of this as "religious".
A human needs no such instruction set. A human can completely override a genetic predisposition and change their lives however they want. Obviously they can't disobey the laws of logic, but they are fundamentally capable of changing anything about themselves. Although it may take time. Robots can never do this.
Humans have innate interconnectedness, whereas robots can only attempt to mimick that. If robots were to ever have our fundamental interconnectedness, they would cease to robots, and would then become organisms.
Even if they’re unconscious?
This is what I’m getting at. If an evil doer is unconscious then they lack that intention.
Have you studied all religions for all of time?
What is the relationship between sinning and doing evil?
It seems to me that we’re going in loops because your view isn’t coherent and you’re being obtuse about it.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
If an organism is unconscious then in what sense can it “set out to do something”? Is the fact that a robot doesn’t have its own intentions not a consequence of it being unconscious?
@AlienFromEarth
I'm glad. I was in a bad mood yesterday. When I saw how upset he was, I knew I'd gone too far.
Also the fact that the majority rules, so if everyone agreed with my sentiments the wouldn't be so passive about coming up with a solution to the all the violent crime in the world. Certainly most ppl are not evil so I don't blame them. Rather I recognize the need to educate them.
Maybe true for those who defend themselves. Not for the attacker, whose purpose is only to dominate, exploit, get profit, and so on.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
BTW, there's no such a thing as "instinctual knowledge". An instinct is an innate behavior in response to certain stimuli. And knowledge refers to facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. It involves reasoning and it includes evaluation of good and evil. Instinct doesn't. It's just automatic reaction.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
I agree.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
What acts? I suppose that the word "evil" or "bad" is missing, right?
Well, does knowing what is good for you prevent me from harming you? This in fact could be called a "conscious evil act".
Neither knowledge of evil prevents one from harming others.
So, it's not knowledge that prevents someone from doing harm. It's "personal ethics". It one's ethical level. It goes on a scale from immoral (unethical) to amoral (lacking etches) to moral (ethical)
Quoting AlienFromEarth
This might happen but it's not usually the case. A good --I prefer "ethical"-- person can go easily astray and commit a bad action. But he will know, he will be aware that he did something bad. It is the evil ("unethical") person who usually manages to "unknow" what evil is, i.e. to hide, burry the evil nature of his acts. That's why most really unethical persons cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad". They are characterized by "no remorse". They are actually mentally ill. That's why when such a condition is established in courts, the culpable is sent usually to a mental clinic rather than in prison.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Certainly!
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Certainly!
Quoting AlienFromEarth
Certainly. I'm glad you brought the "mental" case! I mentioned already myself in (3) above. However, there are various degrees or levels of mental illnesses. They start from simply irrational behavior and go up to complete madness. At the lower levels the individual can still think rationally and recognize the evil of his actions. As he goes up on the scale, he loses any sense of moderation to finally get totally disconnected from reality. He acts automatically, totally compulsively, in a way that would resemble instinct. So, since reasoning in such a case is inexistent one cannot talk anymore about reasons to commit evil.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
I am afraid that I have to disagree in that. (What a pity, the last thing I'm commenting on! :smile:)
OK, we have agreed that evil cannot be committed by mistake but only on purpose (intention).
However, in the case of mental illness one cannot talk about intention, because intention involves aiming and planning and these involve reasoning and this is missing in most cases of mental illness.
I wouldn't make such assumptions.
You didn't answer my other question. How are sinning and evil related?
As an aside. Egoism
Also, you might look into the role of freewill in religion. See theological determinism.
Quoting AlienFromEarth
I don’t have in mind religion in the way that you may be thinking about it ( the major faith groups and their doctrines of good and evil as understood in the most general and generic way). What I have in mind is a movement in philosophy dating back 400 years, commonly referred to as Rationalism. Yes, this is philosophy but it espouses a metaphysics that is theological in nature. Rationalism believes we were born with the ability to discern good from evil. We use our logical faculties to achieve this differentiation. Sounds a lot like your view. All we have to add is that in some people this innate capacity is faulty or missing ( or as you say they ‘lack consciousness’). So it sounds to me like your view is a variation on the Rationalist theme.
I’m not saying your thinking is identical with Descartes, Spinoza or Leibnitz, but it belongs within that era.
Where have I heard that before? :chin:
The Western need to re-interpret non-Western faiths (read Christian and non-Christian) into its own religious terms does great injustice to non-Christian religions. "Evil" as such may be far less of an issue for the rest of the world than it is for you.
So basically, because they are not conscious beings, evil people may attempt to rape you if they want sex. They may attempt to steal from you if they want what you have and without any reason to do it other than sctrictly wanting it. They may attempt to murder someone because they cannot control the impulses of what WE call anger. And by the lack of control, I mean, permanent.
Now, stupid people can do really mean things to you, the difference is they don't INTEND to do those things. They are just dumb and freak out and act like spoiled children. And they will actually feel bad about it at some point. They did it because they are mentally blind, but not mindless. So the difference between evil and stupid people is evil people are literally mindless, whereas stupid people are just retarded. But stupid people CAN LEARN to become smarter over time. Whereas evil people can never change as they lack consciousness.
ANd so, at the end of the day, evil people do what they do because they have no conscious ability to control their chemical urges, which give rise to muscle movements, and then perhaps even the most unspeakable acts of violence.
Yes they seem to be robotic, without actually being a robot. This is because their body is designed to still be able to evolve/adapt and re-structure itself as it sees fit at it's fundamental level, whereas a robot cannot do this as a robot requires chunks of separate materials that work together without being fundamentally dependent on the other chunks. If you make a robot fundamentally interconnected like an organism is, you in fact create an organism, and not a robot.
Evil doesn't exist as more than a description of things made by humans, who are free to dictate to others what their description means and what prompted or justified its use. Treatment of good and evil as objective truths is nonsense as is to attempt to dictate the rules these truths operate under. Your extensive list of assertions are all baseless, you seem intent on giving them an authority they're not entitled to. Your ideas have as much legitimacy as the rules written in a book like Harry Potter for a fictional world, mere productions of your imagination, hope you at least have some reason for bothering with it.
What gives you the right to title my work as baseless or wrong if, by your own beliefs, that evil is subjective? I mean my work can't be morally wrong. If you find something illogical about it, i'd be more than happy to debate you.
But you cannot defeat my argument that evil is real by saying it is objectively morally wrong to think so. That is a logical fallacy.
You could call a teapot evil, I wouldn't know how to "defeat" your argument but what I'd do in that or this circumstance, would be to tell you that your assertion lacks any utility or truth value and is uninteresting. I'm comfortable with my assertions coming from me, don't feel undermined by acknowledging them as assertions either.
Your logic can't be judged, some of your premises seem absurd, such as that humans can be consciousness, (did you mean conscienceless? that would make a lot more sense). Your logic can't be judged because "pure evil" is just some nonsense term you made up. It's like if I made a thread talking about "hyper evil" and saying certain crimes are hyper evil and some aren't, without defining what hyper evil was, totally meaningless. Meaninglessness isn't bad in some contexts, it's just pretty bad in philosophy.
FL...............PHYS.........ORG....CONSC ORG
Follows FL.....Y...............Y................Y
Can evolve.....N..............Y................Y
Self Aware.....N..............N...............Y
PHYS = physical
Org = organism
Consc org = conscious organism
FL means fundamental laws. I could have put "exists" as a category but that would have been the only function for FL
The org category is what we could consider evil as it has no consciousness. Anyway, each higher plane gains 1 ability over the preceding
Who colored the mirror blue? Inquiring minds want to know.
Basic courtesy dictates that you respond to someone you has replied to your topic and in fact in length ...
(Re:¨https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/598900, 6 days ago)