Philosophy of Evil

Subjectivity never entered into the arguement with good and evil, until someone decided to mention Hitler, seeming not to read or comprehend my post.

Anything that will affect an outcome in some way is an action, yes, so doing nothing could be an action in certain circumstances. I'm not sure what else you want me to clarify. I'm wondering if you guys can ever get over your reactionary impulses to talk about things like adults or if the whole premise of discussion is lost from the start.

rufio, You're climbing up a tree with too many branches, and definitive answers will not be forthcoming. Good/evil are subjective perceptions that cannot be dfined by any one person. Although you say "subjectivity" never entered your mind, all humans base their decisions on "subjectivity." What may be deemed good for the moment may turn out to be evil in the future. Values change from culture to culture, and from person to person. You're asking the impossible for an answer.

Well I'm defining them. You could give them any name you wanted to, and they would still not be subjective, because they're meaning wouldn't change. Subjectivity is what allows people to choose, not what determines what they choose.

In the context of an objective, the choice is good if it helps fulfil the objective, and evil if it does not. It is not subjective.

Hypotheticals are cultural, personal, and biological vacuums. That is pricely why this is all hypothetical.

Some cultures believed in cannibalism. Good or evil by who's definition?

The Donner Party ate human flesh. Good or evil by who's definition?

I think I know what rufio is getting at actually, and I would tend to agree on the theory that given every situation, all human beings have choices. However, rufio's thesis, beginning there, seems to one of positive and negative influence, not really good and evil, as we define them within religious context. I'll follow and come back.

There would be no good without the evil or bad. Everything would be neutral. Trying to decern what is good or bad is when the problem arises.

Cavfancier.

Surely if we define a "situation" as "an event where there is choice" then we must examine concepts of "free will" and "subjective perception".

The common sense meaning of "evil" involves either "individuals knowingly doing harm to others" or "sociopathic forces within a society". It has nothing to do with lack of efficiency at achieving some goal as implied by rufio. That is straight cybernetics. Within that model "doing harm to others" could be a legitimate "goal" !

fresco's quote, "individuals knowingly doing harm to others" depends upon one's perspective. If a soldier kills another person in defense of his country, is that evil or bad?

c.i.

Exactly ! This is the "subjective perception" and "choice" problem. It also raises the problem of definitions of "boundaries of society" from parochial to global and hence the analysis of ""sociopathic". The philosophy of "evil" must capture the essence of these issues.

I use a simple example to illustrate what I define as 'good' and 'evil'.

'Good' is the equivalent of the greasy pole. You have to do things and supress other things in your nature in order to be perceived as good. Like the religious leaders, political leaders, military leaders etc... etc... they all have to supress natural parts of their characters in order to progress up this greasy pole and be seen to be 'good'.
If one keeps on doing the 'good' things and not doing the 'evil'/bad things they you're obviously getting more good.

And now the flip side.

'Evil' is the opposite of the greasy pole. There is no striving for others perception of you as 'good'. You simply act according to your nature. That your nature is to wish to cause harm to others or help others doesn't matter.
You are acting in a manner that is true to yourself.

This is more honest and open than the internal supression of your nature.
So, if being true to oneself could be perceived as 'evil' then count me in.
I am the embodiment of pure evil in that case.
I act entirely true to my nature, I do not supress my nature and I am completely happy with that.

Now naturally many of you are going to be horrified that I haven't said anything about the 'evil' of murderers or child molesters or terrorists etc...
Well now, here's another live grenade for you.

None of those things makes them evil. If they are acting true to their nature then they cannot be evil.
They are however acting against the wishes (note the word : wishes, there) of society or the people they are around.
THIS is the problem. These people who are acting against the wishes of society are described as evil when they are simply the enemy.
They are not right and nor are they wrong, they are simply 'Them'. They are not 'Us'.

Those in the 'Them' group are the enemy and those in the 'Us' group are with us.
This is also fluid by the way and the members of the groups change with alarming facility.
This is why most people can function even though they really don't like the way their neighbour runs their life.

So, to sum up.
Evil is truth and honesty.
Good is lies and falshood.

I'm evil.

If you guys want to debate the meaning of good and evil, feel free to do so, but that is not what this thread is about. Good and evil in this thread are universal. Whatever you believe is good you can substitute for the word "good". Whatever you believe is evil, vice versa. I am establishing a universal meaning for the terms. The way you all are basing them off of nothing, they lack meaning entirely. What "good" and "evil" are you refering to when you make vast statements that are supposed to be profound about them? Are you really adding your ideas to already established concepts, or are you just spewing about things that you like and things that you don't? It seems to me, mostly the latter. I did not make this thread to hear that you hate lies, or Hitler, or God, or Satan, rapists. I made this thread to discuss a philosophy. If you don't have anything to add except your personal pet peeves, kindly leave.

PLEASE.

The problem is rufio there is no universal meaning/understanding for good and evil; they are relative, context relative. Good and evil are not absolute. As others have pointed out, what is good in one situation is not in another, what is deemed "good" to one person/society is not to another etc.

rufio

Your "universal thesis" is that "good people" cannot exist with the " possibility of evil actions" but you refuse to discuss the qualities of "good" or "evil" except as binary opposites, like "right and wrong".
But this is clearly nothing to do with "the philosophy of evil" as announced on this thread, it is about the logic of polar dimensions. or complementarity of set membership.

If you think otherwise then explain why your in your argument we cannot for example substitute the word "musical" for "good" and "unmusical" for "bad".

Good point, fresco. Subjectivity is the key, and rufio fails to see the analogy.

I love the music of Bach, but hate the music of Brahms.

That's why I'm using the terms generally and abstractly, twyvel.

In every situation, fresco, there is a good answer and an evil one. There are no other options. There are ways that acheive the objective, and ways that do not. As for the rest of your post, I'm confused. I posted this as is. I did not mean to say anything other than what I posted. There is nothing here that I took from outside and adapted, except for my words. If you expected to see something you did not, it is because you did not come into the thread with an open mind.

rufio, To accuse anybody of coming to A2K without an open mind is also "subjective" on your part. I'm not sure anybody knows for sure what the other has an open mind or not. You come to conclusions too quickly.

rufio

Answer the challenge ! Explain why your thesis will not work if I put "musical" or "intelligent" or "simple" in place of your word "good" and their respective opposites in place of "evil".

Let me suggest your "confusion" is that you find yourself in a cleft stick. If you disagree with my challenge you are forced to discuss specific qualities of "good" and "evil", and if you cannot disagree then you realize that your argument is vacuous with respect to "evil" per se.