Philosophy of Evil

Brandon's quote, "in general, evil is a term that describes people who habitually choose to benefit themselves even when others are harmed,..." I think there are many situations where a person benefits themselves at the 'expense' of others, but the problem arises on how we determine "harm."

I guess the definition of "harm" would be that the individual in question believes that his action to benefit himself will or easily might cause harm to others as great as the benefit he will derive, yet chooses to do it anyway because he cares more about himself. The important point is that the individual himself believes that harm as he understands it will befall others as a consequence of his action.

Perhaps now is the time expand on the relationship between good/evil and order/disorder which is an unexplored aspect of rufio's concepts.

In as much that "order" implies "correct prediction" (for rufio "goal attainment") we assume that this is essentially a cognitive activity or a property of human thought (or for some (not me) an aspect of the divine). So "goodness" promotes harmony or reduces discord, and is the agent of "order", the ultimate order being that of "life itself" (or for theists "the creator"). A similar train of argument links evil, disorder, bestiality, and death.

Now a potential problem arises with "evil regimes" which purport to promote order within by obedience of the individual. However this "order" is traded at the expense of the cognitive "life/freedom" of the individual, and hence the removal of "choice" does seem to figure somewhere in the equation . However, note also that "religious obedience" could by viewed in these terms as an "evil regime" (and I for one lean that way).

"Your statement [....] is a significant shift in your original position in accordance with my point 3. above."

Not so much a shift in my position as it is in your reading comprehension skills. That's what I've been saying this whole time. Good actions are defined as acheiving a pre-determined objective. Bad actions are defined as not acheiving that objective.

Twyvel, I meant this to be used for choices that people consider moral, but if you want to replace "evil" with "bad" would work for other things as well. And some people might consider tripping as "evil luck" in any case.

This may not apply to accidents, as there is no choice involved, but it definitely applies to spontaneous behavior. Not all actions have objectives. Objectives can be broad, like a life-time goal, or a life-long philosophy. If an accident or a spontaneous action helps or hinders that objective, it will be considered good or evil in relation to that objective.

If an action is bad for someone's health, it is bad in relation to an objective to be healthy, or mentally sound. Or vice versa, if you have a strange desire to be unhealthy.

Name one choice that is unintentional, if you think such a thing exists.

Objectives were always dependant on a person's morals. Why did you think it was otherwise?

truth
Rufio, you say that objectives are always dependent a person's morals. You mean by this, of course, moral objectives (as well as standards). One can have goals that are inconsistent with their moral standards. I know I have planned and executed actions that represent my perceived INTERESTS but are inconsistent with my MORALS. Guilt was the price I paid. Nevertheless, I did them. I think I understand you to emphasize the importance of INTENTIONS in a determination of moral action. We know that our good intentions sometimes result in negative consequences, at least in the long run--we cannot control the long-term results of our actions. We capture this reality in the dictum "The way to Hell is paved with good intentions." The answer to this cyncism is that "The way to Heaven is ALSO paved with good intentions." The point here is that we never know what the long-term conseqences of our "good" intentions may be. Nevertheless, I think, we SHOULD always mean well. AND take responsibility for times when our good intentions resulted in bad results. This refers to an individual's "ethical maturity" and is quite different from a person's "moralism", a stance in which if his actions result in negative consequences he hides behind one of the commandments, saying "Well, it's not my fault; I was simply following the X commandment."

It's my belief that time and place changes the whole dynamics of what is good and/or bad. Morals as a human quality is difficult to define, and broad statements usually do not apply as a universal truth. Even the christian commandment, "thou shalt not kill" becomes fuzzy depending on the situation. If a family member or close friend asks to be killed, because they can no longer have any hope of having a quality life, or a painless one, what is the right moral answer?

Terry, perhaps you should read my post again. The last paragraph is not the premise.

"You have not given us any reason why the universe (or the alleged forces of good/evil) would care whether people are "good" or not"

And I don't think it does.

"why you consider it ethical for people to be endowed with evil urges"

This is about personal morality of humans in general, not what I think is ethical.

"Instad of presenting your case rationally, you insulted many of the people in this forum"

I presented my case rationally and was attacked by people. So I responded accordingly.

"If you had actually read my post, you would know that I gave examples of evil"

Don't worry, I know you did. You're very concerned with force-feeding everyone else your ideas of what is evil and what is not.

"the gist was an objective definition of evil: harm to others. I never even mentioned hell, nor did I condemn anyone."

That's your definition - a subjective definition, not an objective one.

"(and you really should learn to used the quote function)"

I like this better. It's faster and more efficient.

"we disagree with you because your ideas are illogical"

Would you like to derive that one for me?

"People on drugs KNOW that they are making bad choices, but cannot resist their addiction."

In that case, the drugs have limited the choices they may make, but have not impaired their ability to chooise between what they are left with.

"I never said that God was good, nor that Hitler was evil according to your definition of the term."

Then why did you bring Hitler up as an example of evil in my thread? What does he have to do with my definition?

"If you condemn anyone who makes even one bad choice in their life, then there are no good people."

I stated very clearly at the beginning of this thread that there were no good people. I am not condemning anyone. You are the one who is comparing evil to Hitler.

"The point is that people make less-than-optimum choices for a lot of reasons,"

Duh.

"and that a world where people had no evil urges to harm others would be a nicer place to live yet would still provide sufficient choices for humanity."

Yes, it might be nicer, but then no one would have the choice to hurt or to kill without reason, and so they would not think about what they were choosing because the choices would all be very much the same. They would become drones. They would bascially have only one option taking many different forms. Is a person truly good if he treats people well, if he didn't consciously choose to treat people well instead of hurting them?

"Yes, a cross between a dog and a wolf."

That's not a dog. It's a cross between a dog and a wolf.

"Not necessarily. Some people know that their objectives are immoral, illegal, unethical, or even evil"

To who? Not them. Nothing short of a complete lack of all other choices will convince a human being to do something they do not want to do.

"People give in to the temptation to do what they know perfectly well is "wrong" for many reasons."

If they chose that over a good thing, than they considered the temptation to be a better choice than the other, as you said, for many reasons.

"That does not make them evil, just human."

All humans make evil choices, wrong decisions. It is a part of being human. If you only make right choices, you are not human. Why does this bother you?

" People may truly believe that helping others is good and moral, but fail to make it their primary objective. They may choose not to devote any time and resources to others, even though they think that they "ought" to do so."

For any given person, there are many objectives. Actions may help any, many, or none. They will be varyingly evil or good in comparison to various objectives. If you have a moral objective and do not go through with it, that is an evil action - either that, or you have misinterpreted your true objective. Many people talk about giving to charity, or make a big deal of giving to charity, in order to impress someone or to advance their social status. If they fail to give to charity and instead advance themselves in other ways, they are still being true to their original objective.

" Re persons A, B, and C: they all believe their actions are justified, but that doesn't automatically make them moral, ethical, legal, or good. Suppose person C chooses to lock A up without legal representation or cut off B's hand."

If they believe they believed they did the right thing, than their actions were moral for them. If C has an objective that people should not murder, than locking A up without trial would a moral solution to it. But if C also has an objective that all people should be given a trial before sentencing, than that is not a moral solution to that, second, objective.

"Moral is right according to a social or religious code."

Social codes and religious codes vary. They only affect what the individual code dictates. The individual code is what determines morality for the individual.

"Ethical is right according to a universal standard."

Who's universal standard? Yours, I suppose? What right do you have to presume to make decisions for the rest of the universe?

"Some Europeans consider corn to be animal fodder."

I know this is completely off-topic, but just for reference, corn was aritficially engineered through many thousands of years of agricultural advancement, was fed originally to animals and only given to people when it could be produced at a massive rate and could feed the large populations that were appearing at the time. It has no nutritional value at all.

"But the desire of children (and adults) for sweet snacks is reinforced by social conditioning, such as advertising and being told you only get dessert if you eat your veggies."

I don't know, wouldn't that enforce the desire to eat vegatables?

"If your objective is survival but you start a forest fire that kills several firefighters, was building that campfire good or evil?"

Building it was good, if it kept you from dying when you built it. Not keeping it under control was evil to that objective. There was always the choice to build the campfire safely.

"The obvious question is: Who determines whether the objective is good or evil?"

The person who's objective it was. As you said, good is subjecitve.

"Is waging war on a small Middle Eastern country a good objective?"

"Is building a dam that will wipe out several villages, archeological sites and endangered species a good objective?"

"Is sending people to Mars a good objective?"

All of these things can be either objectives or actions that accomplish an objective. My best guess is that the Iraq war was not Bush's objective, but a means to acheiving a different objective. Obviously, Bush thinks that that objective is more important than the objectives of not killing people and not starting wars. I can't think of a situation in which simple destruction would be the objective rather than the means. I personally consider the objective of not causing destruction to be more important than any other, but that is just me and my personal morality. I'm not sure where sending people to Mars might be an objective, either. Usually, you send people to Mars in order to gain information about Mars, or in order to save the human race when the Earth gets swallowed into the sun or in order to talk to the Matians or something, not just for the sake of going to Mars.

"Is it moral to sell guns and alcohol to natives if your objective is to become rich?"

For that objective, it is. There are probably other objectives for which this would not be a good move.

"Is it OK to exterminate your neighbors and take their land and property for the good of your own tribe?"

Again, if your objective is to aquire land for your tribe, yes.

"Do you think that the end justifies any means?"

Only if the objective to acheive the end is more important than the objective that the means follow certain restrictions. Is it more important that the US get oil, or that people not die? Is it more important to end the war quickly, or to end the war honorably? Is it more important to be safe, or free? Is it better to donate to charity, or to not steal? These are the choices we make - between the ends, and the means.

Pragmatic goodness applies only to actions as they relate to objectives - normative goodness is what governs the morality of objectives themselves.

"I don't believe that good or evil are conscious entities of any kind. I think that they are nothing more than terms that can be applied to someone's personality."

Yes, the two parts that war in a person's consciousness when making decisions that affect objectives. They are conscious because each person is conscious of what they are doing. They are consciously reminding themselves of the bad options, of the temptations, so that they can consciously choose against them.

That's an interesting idea, fresco, which actually gets past my definitions and into what I was really talking about, though not in quite the same way. There will always be discord among people, as they all have different objectives, and there will always be discord within people, as they always have the evil option of acting against their objectives. Judgement is also an important part of a good action, so yes, logic is involved as well. Reaction is generally based on a temptation, and is not moral. Evil things are based on temptations, on reactions, on feeling and emotions - good actions are based on logic. It takes a very logical person to find an action that is good in relation to all relevant objectives in a given situation. However, logic doesn't equal order. Order can only exist within an individual, not between individuals, and only happens in the case of pure good or pure evil, which also creates a moral vacuum because of the lack of choice.

JL, are you saying that your interests were one objective, and your morals another, and you chose your interests over your morals and realized it was a bad choice? Different objectives such as your interests aren't really evil, just less important than your moral objectives.

Intentions and logic are equally important. Without logic, intentions don't matter. If you don't reason through, a good intention will never come to fruition. In that case it would be an evil action faulted by lack of logic and serious consideration.

rufio, People make honest mistakes every day. Intentions does matter. People make decisions based upon personal experience and precepts. Whether they are logical ones can usually be seen by another person, but not by the actor.

To all

I think that despite, or because of rufio's meanderings some headway has been made in exchange of views on "evil" without having to resort to to theistic arguments which is often the norm with this topic.

However as an atheist I am intrigued by the fact that "the origin of morality" seems to be the last bastion of argument for belief in a deity for theistic scientists who have had the rug of "causality" pulled from under them by developments in quantum physics and mathematical cosmology. Such Christian writers as Polkinghorne (Cambridge Mathematician, England) have admitted that there is now "no need for a prime mover". But if we dismiss the "divine origins of morality" say on the grounds that "altruism" is merely an evolutionary trait (useful for successful breeding of humans who must sacrifice their freedom for the well being of their particularly demanding offspring) then we are left with morality as an objective rather than a subjective concept.

Good and Evil only exist by virtue of the ability of people to make judgements. They are not intrinsic qualities of anything except our thoughts.

truth
Fresco, what bothers me is that sociobiologists, in reducing altruism to an instinctive or genetic imperative, is not that they have rendered it objective, but that they have rendered it mechanical and material, ultimately a problem for (biological) engineers. As an atheistic humanist I hope to see us as both responsible for our good and great deeds and notions as well as our bad and horrendous ones. Sociobiologists, as I understand them, would reduce COMPASSION (as rare as it is) to a mere biological urge. If that were so, shouldn't we see more of it? They would also reduce the motivation for the writings of Shakespeare and Goethe, and the strivings for enlightenment of the Buddha to a mechanical pressure to spread their genetic material, or that of their closest kin, as widely as possible.
Craven, how come we don't have an emoticon to represent RAGE?

Yes JLN, I share your disquiet, but its a powerful argument. BTW "altruism" would only operate at the local level - i.e. your own genes. And perhaps a "natural step" would be to evoke "God the Father" to look after "the deprived children with no carers " otherwise known as "adults" !

CI, intentions always coincide with objectives. If goodness were measured by intention only, there would be no such thing as evil.

"Good and Evil only exist by virtue of the ability of people to make judgements. They are not intrinsic qualities of anything except our thoughts."

And that is precisely the level at which I am looking at it.

Some people will try to reduce anything to biology. Altruism (or, indeed, morality, since that's what we actually were talking about) can't be biological, simply because human beings are basically have all the same abilities biologically. We might have different brands of the same gene, but we all have that gene, exempting abnormalities. If morality were truly determined by genetics, than we would all have the same morality, or maybe the same morality as our parents. Clearly this isn't the case.

w


that is interesting.

sure, there is a right and a wrong, a correct and an incorect, however, this deals with objective reality. You have been talking about extremes of good an evil, human emotional perception. Emotional perception and social perception is relative, where, I would argue, the desk being made of wood would not be relative, it would be objective. I could test and confirm the desk was made of wood. I couldn't test and confirm ____ was evil, as evil is not a material thing, but a concept in minds.

Humans try new foods at their peril, and cake, being white with bright colors on it, and being spongy, might not look or smell like food to someone with a primitive culture. Or, if you saw somthing starving eat it and die, you wouldn't be inclined to try it. Our bodies seek out sugar and fats, but we also want to avoid being poisoned. This is a large reason for eating the foods your ancestors ate - you know it served them well and didn't kill them.

I agree with you that actions can often have choices which could be more or less to your benefit - thinking ahead, considering implications. What I disagreed with is that there is always a right or wrong to those choices. To think so presupposes a fatalistic infrastructure to life. You never really know what's going to happen, and some choices don't have comparable or drastically different individual cost-benefit analysis.

You make your mistake in taking logic and superimposing it over a human social value structure. The social structure exists for logical reasons, but is not necessarily a logic-based value structure.

"Some people will try to reduce anything to biology. Altruism (or, indeed, morality, since that's what we actually were talking about) can't be biological, simply because human beings are basically have all the same abilities biologically. We might have different brands of the same gene, but we all have that gene, exempting abnormalities. If morality were truly determined by genetics, than we would all have the same morality, or maybe the same morality as our parents. Clearly this isn't the case."

sure, we have similar abilities. But, we can perform a wide variety of beneficial functions for each other. Altruism doesn't require different abilities, only somthing you can give to each other. Think of the traditional family unit - someone gets money, someone makes the food, someone does the cleaning. Living together, this is much easier than each individual doing all of these things. Humans specialize. There is also strength in numbers - in war, and in predator hunting.

You seem to have a very limited understanding of genetics and biology. Please do somthing to remedy this - I recommend a biology class (from a college or community college, perhaps?) or reading a textbook.

a. you can express different traits than your parents did (because of combinations and dominant - recessive patterns)
I wouldn't say mutations would make a personality difference in many people - unless you're dealing with things like down syndrome and autism.

b. life influence has much bearing on an individual, this is part of biology, biology is not soley about genetics. Biology is the study of life, using the scientific method. This applies to much more than genetics.

c. If your parents had a certain value structure, it would strongly influence your value structure. Look at how religion is passed down in families - even the ceremonies take place with the family.

truth
Portal Star, thanks for making the corrections.
Fresco, yes, altruism, in the anthropological picture, does tend to be local. You often may kill strangers but not members of your own community. This does not provide a likely basis (a natural step) for a universal (World, non-tribal) religion, does it?

rufio wrote:


You didn't say that before. You said all actions that fail to reach the objectives they were intended to reach are evil, if I remember correctly. Why do you think others including myself have been calling you on this issue of "evil"? You should acknowledge your errors and the changes you make in your position rather then pretend that it was your position all along.

Spelling mistakes are no longer evil, thank you, Nor are they necessarily bad as some mistakes can have good consequences, as I think JLNobody has mentioned. In that case an action that did not fulfill the intented objective could be considered good, contrary to what you are saying.

And actions are neither good, bad or evil etc. Acts are just acts, it's the judgements we bring to them from our ethical, moral systems that label them as such.




Yes, you're just repeating what I said, i.e. Not all actions have objectives etc.


You wrote:


Yes there are other options. They are called agnostic.




That's trivial. An unintentional choice is an oxymoron.

JLN

Agreed ! (and there isn't !).

Sometimes it's the other way around; turf wars and family feuds and civil wars often result in many local deaths but strangers are not signaled out and killed as there is no motive to do so, "family", or "local" often is understood as "country"

What about Dan Ayckroyd's choice of the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man in "Ghost Busters"?