Define "Evil"

Once it is all boiled down and the pretty decorations taken off, I have only ever really seen two ways that people distinguish between good and evil (moral, natural, or other).

1) Realism / Relativism - Most times this is actually explained as relativistic view. I think evil is this, you think evil is that; either way we have to define what evil is for ourselves (individual relativism). But what happens when what I think and what you think comes into conflict? We either fight to find who is right or we appeal to a higher authority, normally this higher authority is the majority of society (cultural relativism). Again, this can change from one culture to the next. So what happen when cultures disagree? WWI, WWII, French Revolution, etc... Might makes right (realism)

2) Evil is defined by an objective moral law because there is an objective law giver. The law giver, of course, would be some definition of the divine (YHWH, Allah, pantheism, etc...)

Once it is all boiled down and the pretty decorations taken off, I have only ever really seen two ways that people distinguish between good and evil (moral, natural, or other).

There is also the idea that an objective moral law exists in nature independent of human subjectivity.

People may very well believe that good and bad are objective without believing that someone makes them objective. People (for instance) who are Ethical Culturists believe that . And the philosopher Immanuel Kant believed there was ethical law which "hovered" between the earth below, and the starry skies above.

How do you make that case considering that almost universally (as stated in this thread) pain and suffering is seen as evil and nature is the cause of much pain and suffering? It seems you would have to exclude pain as an evil if nature were the objective point of reference.

---------- Post added 12-04-2009 at 08:05 AM ----------



I am doing some brushing up on Kant and studying on Ethical Culturists. It might be a while but I'm sure I'll have some questions regarding these views to ask you.

That people have different opinions about what is good or bad does not seem to me to go very far in saying what good and bad are.

I define evil as the 'privation of good'
but then that begs the question of 'What is good?' or 'Define Good.'

Kennethamy, once again, you aren't making it clear to others that when you say evil, you are not speaking of the moral evil. When most people hear evil, they think of moral evil. Generally, someone would not call the breaking of a leg evil, they would just call it bad. Bad, and evil, to many people, are two different concepts.

You must make it clear you're using them synonymously. Most people here are not, and you are confusing them.

He was using the notion of privation to define "evil". The classic notion of privation is not especially connected with moral evil. In fact, the standard example of privation is blindness (the privation of sight). And that is considered an evil happening. What, I wonder, do these people think is meant by "evil" in The Lord's Prayer; "deliver us from evil"? Just moral evils?

That's how I take it. Deliver us from the moral evils of humans and the evils that the Devil (Satan) has to do with. Pain from an accidentily stubbed toe would not be considered something that I am asking God for deliverence from. You think differently?

What are the evils Satan has to do with?

As I said before, stubbing my toe is not so bad I would call it "an evil". But discovering that I was going blind? Or that my child had a dread disease. You bet I would.

Well, that really depends on who you ask. Even ardent Christians and Catholics who speak that prayer, have different viewpoints on this.



Even if the cause of the blindness or terminal illness was natural, you would still call it an evil? The severity of the ailment is simply what makes the thing evil for you? Interesting. Oh yeah, wait, you're not talking about moral evils. You're just talking about something very, very bad. Very, very bad things you call evil. See how easily I just got confused? Could have to do with the 8 years of Christian school I attended.

I bet that "deliverance from evil" included blindness and disease.

It is the fault of the comic books and the kid movies that "evil" has now been confined to what The Joker (and his ilk) do. And even then, what do they do? Very bad things.

When you break your leg, how is that just the privation of good?

I would say it is "good" for a man to be able to walk. If that ability is taken away then it would be a privation of the good and thus evil.

They probably were. But probably not for the same reason you think they were included. We were a supersticious people back then, and I think things like blindness and disease were thought to be intended by the Devil.



When most philosophers analyze good or evil, it is presumed they are analyzing the moral good and evils (I am not saying they are, I am saying it is presumed such -- and this is from personal experience watching people discuss good and evil). More than the comic books and kid movies, I think religion has much to do with why we presume this.

Well, whatever the speculation is, the problem of evil is not just about moral evils. It is about all evil. So the free will defense is obviously not good enough.

Well, it's not hard to imagine why people would think the problem of evil only has to do with moral evils, since God is brought into the mix. And many people associate good and evil, within the presence of God, as morally such.

Philosophically, it would be your duty to explain to those people that the problem of evil encompasses all things bad, not just those things morally evil. If you just assume people think as you do, effective communication will not come to be.