Defining Evil

I'll reply to this here, because my reply is more suited to the religion section of this forum than to metaphysics.

To define evil I will first define good. God is good. Everything else is evil.

I dont mean to offend you, but your reply is a simple one. King Solomon says "Who is Righteous? The one who knows his Evil"
So clearly this simple answer is not enough to be Righteous. Actually I went into the trouble of defining evil and your simpleton answer is quite insulting.

You have also phrased your answer in a flawed manner. Saying that "God is Good" is one of 3 possible things that you did not specify.

God = Good (they are one and the same)
God is described as Good (this is one of his Qualities)
God is a part of Good (Good is made up of many components and God is one of them)

You can say God is the source of Good
But God is the source of everything, so therefore he must be the source of Good.
God is also the source of evil for that matter. Evil is a creation like any other but it serves a necissary purpose to creation.

What is Good.. Perfection is Good

In hebrew there are too words for Good
"Tov" and "Keddai"
"Keddai" means something is good for you.
Example: It is "Keddai" that you dont insult the intelligence of other people by posting a simpleton message.

Then you go and make a blanket statement saying "Everything Else is Evil"
What does that mean?
I am not God, therefore I am Evil?
The rock outside must be evil because it is not God.

The Torah states "There is nothing other than Him"
So if everything is Him then everything must be Good and there must not actually be any Evil at all!

What about actions. There are many non-beleivers that go and do Good actions all the time. They don't do it for the sake of God, does that make all of their actions evil?
If I did 100 random actions what are the chances that one of them will be good and one of them will be evil?

Please, next time go and actually read my post and then comment

I read your post, and like everything else that you're saying, it was meaningless. What I provided was a simpleton's answer, in that you were right. But it was also the only answer. If you really understood anything about God, you would know it.

Qualifying or quantifying actions as good or evil is simply a state of dillusion. You quote the Torah and you have no clue what it means. "There is nothing other than Him." Only God exists. Everything else is a lie. Lies are evil. If you understood these things you wouldn't go around looking for confrontation simply for confrontation's sake.

If that is your definition of "Evil" it is not helpful because it is circular.

There are a good many unselfish people who do survive. In fact, most people.

Argumentum ad personam has no place in a philosophical discussion, and should be avoided.

Selfishness is not absoluteness, it is a gradient.
If you were truely unselfish you would give all of your food to the poor and die of starvation.

But you must eat to survive thus you eat. That is selfish. It is not overly selfish and not evil.

Read the post about the RAMBAM's definition of the soul. He states that all character traits have two extremes and a center. The perfect balance is in the middle. Evil is when the desires are unbalanced.

If you are too selfish that is evil, if you are too generous that is also evil (evil to yourself).

Understand?

I know what you are saying is true, but if you want to boil everything down to "everything is God" then there is nothing to talk about. How is everything God? What was God's intent? Why?

"Ain Od Milvado" Translated as "there is nothing other than Him" Means that everything is a part of him.
The Gemara states "Hu Lo Makom BeOlam HaOlam Makom Bo"
Translated as "He is not a place in the world, the world is a place in Him"

Evil was created by him as written in Psalms "He Creates Evil"

The question is why? And what is this Evil he created?
Are we not in a Philosophy Forum where we are encouraged to ask questions and discuss?

I didnt go looking for Confrontation, Confrontation came at my front door and his name is Solace. A Hippocrate points at his neighbour when he is to blame.

"Tov" translated to Good implies perfection.
"Ra" Translated to Evil implies imperfection.

Thus actions can be qualified as Tov or Ra. Not all actions. Some actions are meaningless, such as this discussion which is why I will end it here before I waste any more of my time.

You're far too easily riled, Binyamin. My original post in this thread contained nothing that was confrontational and you know this. The post was an over-simplification of the themes you wanted to explore, I won't deny that. But I recall reading somewhere in another thread a post that you made pointing out that if one cannot examine the basic then they can't hope to understand the more advanced. Well, all I did was state the basic, which you acknowledge above to be true.

Allow me to apologize for my second post. I could have chosen words that were less confrontational to make my point. But I am not your enemy. Debate is not war. If you feel that my manner or point of debate is not to your interest, then just ignore it. You wouldn't be the first to ignore me. It's all on the level if you just take it that way.

I thank you for your appology and I also appologise for my comments.
I didn't really get riled up, I was just defending against your statements and throwing in some low blows along the way.
If you truely think that my posts are meaningless then you are also welcome to ignore me. But I hope that you find something to say and discuss with me about the topic. What is evil in your oppinion? Do you disagree with the definition in the Metaphysics section? Do you have anything to add?

Your definition of evil was



Then you asked the question



Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't find the answer to this question in your post. Was the desire to survive or instinct the influence? I don't think that's what you meant, but I am confused. Without that answer, I really don't understand what you're trying to say evil is.

Is it selfish to eat the food given to you by another, by someone who wants you to eat the food?

I'm sorry Bin, but I totally disagree with your summation. The word you are using that is misplaced is "desire". Desire and need are two different things. Desire comes from a "selfish" desire to want. Need is an innate program to survive. The are immensely different.

To live is one thing, to survive is another. You are using desire totally out of context as it applies to the accepted meaning of the word. To desire life when one is "living" makes no sense, unless that life forces man to survive, then it is not life, it is slavery. Life and survival, IMO, are two entirely different things. No man should be "forced to survive" and that is the reality we have created.

Now let me back up a little. Bin you are trying to justify "life" as it is defined to give some kind of meaning to what society dictates one "must" do to dwell on this planet. That thinking is why we are on the verge of blowing each other up. We put a man's very life in jeopardy if he does not abide by the rules an affluent society mandates so that society can survive. How so very wrong. No human being has that right. Now I know that is the way things are and that is why they must change.

Perhaps in the beginning man needed "Commandments". I am not totally sold on the idea. What must be asked for instance is what necessitated man to steal and kill in the first place that would require a law stating he shouldn't. The need to survive. Desire had nothing to do with it. To instill desire when it is not needed is an illusion created as a means of control. Mankind cannot be controlled, and furthermore there will be no need too once he is treated like a human being. Man can be guided and cooperated with, but not ordered holding his very life in the balance if he does no obey. Of course those who controlled those needs did so in an attempt to "rule" man, and that just ain't gonna happen. No how, no way. Of course an affluent society will not hear of such a thing regardless of the consequences and the damage it is doing to the Earth we call home. That's is our problem. Desire. We are programmed to desire by that very societyn that profits from that illusion.

Desire in any other context other than that a man has for a woman is totally wrong in that those necessities required to live should not be held from any human being because they do not have "enough money" to abide by societies dictates. And those that do are motivated to desire "more" as a symbol of "status" that further separates us as a people. In short, desire sucks with that ONE exception.

Man needs surprisingly little to be truly happy. More than what you need will be a gift not of ambition, but by those whose lives you help enhance and it will be cheerfully endowed by those in appreciation for your unselfish aid.

Selfishness is not the "ticket" my friend, it is the cause of evil. I don't care how you try to incorporate it into man's program. It works well if you mean to rule, and that as I have said cannot be done.

If what you say is truly "Jewish Doctrine" then I can understand why your people have suffered so. I can only hope you are arriving at your thoughts as it is to your own understanding and not that of a tenet of a whole.
Thank you for your honest discourse for I feel it is truly how your were indoctrinated and taught. Nevertheless, I feel it is terribly wrong.

William

What is really evil in the world?
Are people evil?
Or are their actions evil?

It really boils down to actions.

So why do people act this way?
Why do people commit evil acts?

The answer is they must have some influence or desire to commit the act. We only do what we desire to do.

Instinct is this influence. Animal instinct stems from the Animal soul from our body, because our body is an animal. We have the same instincts as animals. These Instincts are what influence us to do evil but are not intrinsically evil. Their purpose is survival.
Look over the instincts themselves and ponder how they can be good and how they can be evil influences on mankind.

Back up and think a little more William.

What is the process to an action?
Why do you do what you do?
Why do animals eat?
Does hunger not cause the desire for food?
Does the Alpha instinct not cause the desire to compete?
Does the sexual desire not exist and influence you?

The question is, do these desires control you? Or do you control yourself?

Survival is simply where the desires came from. They are Survival insticts that ALL animals have and that we also have.

You brought the commandment "Dont steal". Why do people steal? Do they not desire the object in question. Are they not selfish?

The simple fact is that all of mankind has an animal body with animal instincts. Instincts are healthy in the Animal kingdom, but as you said, in civilization "No man should be forced to survive".

These survival instincts are what cause all of evil.

Let me go deeper into the Alpha male instinct.

Think about dogs. You can redirect their instincts into what is called an ALPHA game.
You play fetch. The dogs compete to try and get the ball first. The one that gets the ball brags and walks around.
You have effectively changed the rules of the ALpha Battle. Originally it was which dog is the strongest, now it has become which dog is the fastest to get the ball.

Humans are similar, only our "Alpha Games" are far more complex. Each of us has some type of Alpha Vision and our instincts will push us to that vision.

Wealth is an alpha vision. Many people compete for money in order to be the richest. Strength is an ALpha vision. Many people go to the Gym and Body build way too much because this is their Alpha vision. In the military it is the rank system, in the office it is the promotion system.

Before the Greeks estabilshed Sport, the Alpha battles would be waged to the death. Sport was a solution to the Alpha confrontation to see who was more of an Alpha without battle and death.

Now, what happens when a dictator wants to rule his country and then rule the world? This is essensially the Alpha instinct. The Dictator wants Alpha rule.



Depends, I can see how it could be selfish and I can see how it may not be.
If I have already eaten, and I am not hungry, and I am just eating to be polite, then there is no selfishness involved.

But selfishness is not bad! It only becomes evil when one is overly selfish. One must eat, and earn money so that one can provide for his home and family. What becomes selfish is when one strives for too much wealth and loses sight of what he is actually earning that wealth for. Do you really need a Plasma TV? Would the money not be better used if you gave it to an Orphanage?

Binyamin,

While I applaud your sincerity in what you believe. Your arguments are filled with fallacies and "doesn't-follow" logic. To top it off: Using what someone wrote about something else isn't support - it's belief.

I'd like to address some of this, but it'd be far too argumentative and the folks engaging you here are correct. I'd humbly suggest you try and think some of these assertions through. They just don't follow

Thanks... that was a very useful post. You said nothing except for the fact that I was wrong and illogical. You generalized all of my posts.
Where are the holes in logic, what do you disagree with?

There are two types of argument
1. Argument to get to the truth
2. Argument for the sake of proving oneself superior or causing trouble.

As long as you take approach #1 your arguments are welcome.

`Evil` is a word, mostly used as an adjective. It is used to assign an attribute (of evilness) to an action that can cause suffering, or to a being that initiates said actions. But how do you recognize this attribute ?

Let's go back in time. For 3 billions years only unicellular bacteria lived on Earth. They consumed elements around it, then divided themselves to form more bacteria. But some bacteria consumed other bacteria to survive. So, in this case, being carnivorous, that is, destroying other living things to fulfill your objectives, is evil ? Not really. What's going on is "eat, procreate, eat, procreate, eat, procreate, eat, procreate." No evil there.

Moving on to a period of time we can relate to, I'm pretty sure you watched on Animal Planet a pack of hyenas tearing up a baby lion. Brutal stuff, isn't it ? Hyenas with their 'evil' looks and laughs tore up a cute little baby lion. Most people, even if only subconsciously, perceived `evil` in hyena's behavior, even if all it did was getting an easy dinner in order to survive. So, being carnivorous, that is, destroying other living things to fulfill your objectives, is evil ? Not really. Though, in this example, it sure as hell looks evil. How about adult lions killing baby lions of another ? Infanticide ! Horribly evil you will say again ! But it's not, from nature's point of view, its instinct tells the lion to eliminate future rivals so only its genes get passed on. We can't really speak of evil in this case either.

If animals had a conscious mind like humans, instead of simply being aware of their surroundings and be driven by instincts, do you think the lioness who just lost the cubs would think "That lion is evil." ? Probably not, since that would make the whole food chain mechanic of the ecosystem `evil` which is a somewhat strange conclusion to reach.

In contrast, nobody perceives herbivores as evil. Think about it. Evil cows ? How about evil goats ? Makes you laugh just thinking about it, doesn't it ? But what about evil hyenas ? How about an evil snake ? :sarcastic:

Humans. Humans thought up, "invented", the word and concept of `evil` to describe unfair, unpleasant, unjust intentions or actions. A cause for suffering. But it is all relative. There is no universal "source" of evil like some say.Let's have a look at some examples from the past.

Cavemen. Compared to hyenas, cavemen have a higher level of conscience, still being mammals. Yet they exhibit the same behavior. Tribe A kills a mammoth to eat it, losing some members during the process. Tribe B then proceeds to attack, kill and drive away the weaker Tribe A in order to steal their kill. Now the question is : how is this any different from what hyenas do ? Or from lions who fight each other for a kill ? Is it just because we're talking about humans, we can assign the "evil" attribute to Tribe B ? Why ? Exactly because of that higher level of conscience.

Animals probably get over such an event with much more ease. But the cavemen, with their higher level of conscience, get chewed by it. It eats at them. They experience that suffering, that sense of injustice, the loss of loved ones. So Tribe A, the victim, thinks "Why did Tribe B attack us ? Couldn't have they killed their own mammoth just like we do ? Why did they have to kill our people. Because they are evil !" On the other side of the plate we have Tribe B who, like the hyenas and the bacteria and the lions I talked about earlier, just got an easy meal.
In this case, because Tribe B, the attackers, chose an easier way to survive, they got stamped with the `evil` attribute.

So simply because a man's mind needs explanation and causes for the existence of any events it encounters, even if the experience takes place in his own mind in the form of suffering, a cause for said encounters, events and experiences is also necessary to be thought of. That is how the mind works. "I suffer and my suffering is caused by your actions. You are evil."

Witches. How about witches ? White magic, black magic. For three hundred years women have been burned at the stake because they were thought to have sold their soul to the devil. They were 'evil'. White magic was ignored though. If someone, for example, used herbs to cure people of afflictions, that was deemed as a white magic practitioner, and said person was largely ignored. But early medicine failed sometimes, and when it did, the result caused suffering. So fingers had to be pointed. "Evil ! Burn them at the stake." Tens of thousands of human persons, the early creators of medicine and chemistry were prosecuted as witches and sorcerers because they practiced an imperfect science which sometimes produced suffering. Yet again, the cause of suffering wasn't as you'd expect, lack of scientific understanding of drugs or dosage on the white witch's part, but it was the `evil` behind her (sold soul to devil etc).

Present time. What about the source of "true evil" ?
That's a nice one. Like `evil` can be a false or true attribute. Let's call it "inexplicable" evil instead. Anyway, like with any `inexplicable` things, `true evil`, attributed to mass murdering psychopaths, is not as inexplicable as you might think. It's all about abnormal development of the human psychic. Yet people think "How could a human being commit such horrendous acts of atrocity and barbarism. The Devil must have put them to it !" Just like with the witches ? Hah!

The development of a mind is a really tricky process we don't have complete knowledge of. A mind under 6 years old will take most things it perceives as granted without a single second thought. Put a mind to develop in a not so adequate environment, add some chemical imbalance in the brain caused by a faulty gene and you have a murdering psychopath cooking. So there is no "true", or inexplicable or divine (satanic) `evil` in human beings, no source of evil.

What about sudden traumatizing events ? A woman walks her dog on the street and a brick from a construction site falls and kills it. Pure physics. Splat, and the woman suffers the loss of her dog. Is there anyone to blame ? Where is the evil ? Who cause it ? How about a locust swarm that destroys a culture leaving hundreds of people to starve to death ? People will suffer but... where is the evil there ? No human being can be punished for either of these 2 events. It's all physics and ...whatever science deals with migration of locusts :whistling: ... But all that suffering ? Fingers need to be pointed! -> :devilish: Yep! That's right! In times of psychological distress (i.e. 'suffering') the human psychic needs imaginary friends. A supportive, loving friend (the benevolent deity) and the evil scapegoat you can blame it on (the malevolent deity).

Thanks for reading.

Ariciunervos!
Great post. I never thought I would be congratulating you on a post.

This is the exact point I have been trying to get at. Did you look at the metaphysics post?

Evil is our animalistic natures. It is the same definition. My sole attempt was trying to break down these Instincts into more specific cases.
Evil is a result. Where does the influence come from?
Evil is based on perception.
Instincts are not intrinsically evil as you so lovely demonstrated but can lead to evil results.

All of the acts of Nature you described were not Evil but survival. This is the role of instincts. Instincts are necissary for evolution and survival. But we have evolved to a point where they are no longer necissary. Our logic can tell us that we must eat, we no longer need hunger. "Try feeding a child without hunger... impossible"

Finally we have found some common ground to stand on.

Caustic sarcasm aside, my reply to you seems to be taken as it was intended; a generalized "you're off" statement. I'm glad you got the message.

Yes, I think it generally preferable for individual points to be explored on any given outlook of philosophy; however, what you've posted is so saturated with holes, assumptions and the largest collection of bold-dogma I've seen, that I think it counterproductive to the intent of these forums for me to address in detail. I simply felt it important to note - as gently as I could - that your prophesies, at their most-basic, level are flawed and suggest you re-think them.

As I said, I think those who have the fortitude to engage you in a level of detail manner are doing fine - and they have the thanks of this old man.

Thanks and good luck!

So, to put a finer edge on it, can we say that following an instinct that prompts harmful action, without taking the time to ponder the affect of our action with logic and due reason, is evil? Thus we should only act upon consideration, rather than impulse.