Define "Evil"

Xris:
Seems to me its a good thing that you aren;t a mod, being that the OP questions the definition of thus making a dictionary definition only a small part of the thread.

If i was a mod ide close this for being totally silly. If you cant agree on the definition of evil , just look it up in the concise English dictionary and leave it at that. It does not admit it to be malicious nor deny it. So prefix any definition with those terms. I think it to be the intent but if that is not acceptable, so be it...lets move on please...pretty please..

Its not silly just bleeding boring after an eternity of disagreement.Nothing new has been said in the last two dozen posts. Dosen if our phonetic cousin would have their way..Dosen off, the verb to sleep or to count to twelve.

Apparently, some others are not bored, but interested. The question is why people keep insisting that only moral evil is evil.

The concept of evil for the majority of people is in the intent. The intention to harm is seen as an evil act. I know you see it as another word for bad , if thats your perspective good for you. Now do you want every one to think like you, or understand your perspective? I understood your point of view after two posts and the objections to your view. All that's happened since is a repetition of stated views, nothing new.

I understand, honest i do.

To experience pain or to experience suffering is a subjective judgment and a subjective experience. To make "evil" synonymous with "bad" is to substitute one form of value judgment for another. In the end there are no "objective" criteria for "evil" it is a value judgment about better or worse outcomes or experiences.

Yes but that's just semantic. There has to be some objective standard for "evil" outside of linguistics. As a noun, evil is defined by intrinsic "evil" composition. Evil is an objective concept independent of language. I believe evil is a man made concept and doesn't exist in nature. It is derived from human transgression against natural law. Imagine a world without people, could you apply evil to anything? No. Evil is non-existent in a world of animals. Animals, who act on the range of minutes, who have no rational faculty, who have only the sense of being not becoming, and only the means of subsisting not expanding(cognitively) cannot be deemed evil. Evil is not natural, it is not rational. It is the product of man's capacity to forsake nature and reason.

It is semantic. But it is not just semantic. I said nothing about whether "evil was an objective concept". I just pointed out that people (and certainly philosophers and theologians) distinguish between moral and non-moral evils. Given that bad things happen to people (and I don't see how that can be denied" there are two kinds of bad things. Bad things done intentionally by people against other people, and, then, bad things that simply happen to people. Like accidents, and disease. Don't you agree? I don't see how anyone could not. It is just an obvious fact.

I believe the overarching word Evil, can be broken down into different categories (e.g. Moral, Natural, etc...) So in answering the question 'Define Evil?' the definition would need to incorporate both... Right?

Accidents aren't evil. There has to be a distinction between evil and accidents. Think about it logically, what is an accident? A car crash, an earthquake, etc. you can't define evil in terms of suffering since that is irrefutably subjective. I stubbed my toe, is that evil? Evil is defined in degrees of suffering? The more the suffering the greater the evil? That is an existential view that takes any and all objectivity out of the equation. There has to be another standard for evil.

maybe its ignorance but i dont see the distinction between "evil" and an "evil" except linguistically. It is synonymous with a bad thing. I can concede that suffering is objective, but such a standard equates EVERY moral "evils." Suffering is evident, but how do you suggest you measure it?

I don't have to measure the table in front of me to know it is objectively there. But we can tell that some pain is worse than other pain, can't we. And I think that scientists have a measuring scale for pain. I don't understand what you mean by, "equates EVERY moral "evils." Equates how? Some moral evils are worse than others. Obviously. Just as some non-moral evils are worse than others. The adjective "evil" is commonly used to mean "wicked" or morally bad. But, "an evil" is used as a noun to designate a bad happening which causes pain and suffering. Cancer is an evil, It is painful, and may cause death. But it is not wicked, or morally bad. But Hitler was evil. He was a wicked person who intentionally caused great suffering and pain. He, of course, also caused evils. The Belsen was an evil.