Define "Evil"

Then how can you disagree?

Why are we even discussing physical evil, in a philosophy forum, under the branch of philosophy of religion? Pain or suffering as the standard of evil equates evils, because suffering is subjective. I was speaking morally i don't understand why you were speaking physically. You cannot empirically measure suffering, therefore making it the standard or barometer of evil is useless. You have tied evil to linguistics, when the concept, in itself, transcends language. I dont see the relevance

I disagree with you and have told you why , so have others. I just dont see that its worthy of so many posts. I understand what your saying and it goes beyond the accepted meaning. If you want to take it further your on a difficult mission, mission impossible.

Okay, and you slap the label of "evils" on natural disasters. I think that is an overreaching extension of the word. I think suffering as a basis for "physical" evils is irrational. That is what i believe and for my own reasons. You have accepted a different philosophy

It is suffering, it is suffering and only suffering. What i don't like is that you define evil by suffering. Suffering is the product of evil, not the essence. Evil is in the act, not the result. Suffering is not evil, what brought about the suffering is, though not exclusively or unconditionally, evil.

It is suffering, it is suffering and only suffering. What i don't like is that you define evil by suffering. Suffering is the product of evil, not the essence. Evil is in the act, not the result. Suffering is not evil, what brought about the suffering is, though not exclusively or unconditionally, evil.

If someone says that typhoons are evil, what they mean is that typhoons cause suffering and pain, and those are evils. So, we can say that what causes evils, is itself, an evil. But what causes evils need not be an intentional being. It may be a typhoon. But still, suffering and pain are, themselves, evils, aren't they?

I agree with you that this isn't the most common usage of "evil". But, that said, there is such a thing as natural evil, as shown by the excerpt kennethamy just posted. If you wish to argue that the term "natural evil" doesn't exist, then I'd say that's a pretty difficult task. Because, after some research, I see that many philosophers have, and do, use the term.

We're arguing about nothing here.

I don't think that nowadays the term "evil" or "an evil" is used very much at all except tongue in cheek. Or in comic books. The great exceptions in the last two decades was President Reagan's calling the USSR "the evil empire" (and that came from a cartoon movie, "Star Wars") and then there was President Bush's, "The Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union speech. Of course, in both cases, they were talking about nations. Are nations intentional beings? Sort of, I guess.

Perhaps you do not hang around any sort of religious crowd then. The Catholics I hang with use the term all the time. Even those non-religious I know still use the term "evil" when they believe a person has done something horribly wrong - they'll generally curse and then say, "He's just evil!". I've heard this quite a few times.

But maybe I'm just exposed to a small minority who still uses the term.

Yes, I have heard that too, or rather my wife reported she heard it about a sister office worker from another office worker. But I wonder even that isn't said, tongue in cheek, just to emphasize how bad the person is thought to be. I don't hear children or teens use it (they may not even be sure what the word means) and if they don't use it, it is hard to argue that it is in common use. It may, as you say suggest, only be in the idiolect of Catholics (of a certain age). That would not, of course make it a part of common speech.

But what makes you think that it is not a part of common language?

I don't think that nowadays the term "evil" or "an evil" is used very much at all except tongue in cheek.

I know what you just said. But you also said:



So, this led me to believe you thought the term "evil" isn't part of common language. And, if this is what you meant, then I'm asking why you think such a thing. If this wasn't what you meant, nevermind, I misunderstood.

An idiolect is (by definition) a way of speaking confined only to a part of the speakers of a language. And, if this restricted use of the term, "evil" is (as you agree) part of an idiolect (namely the idiolect of Catholics of a certain age), then in follows that this restricted use of the term, "evil" which to describe, is not a part of common English.

I never agreed to any of that. I simply stated that the Catholic friends I know use the term. This does not carry the implication that "evil" is part of an idiolect. For it could be that my Catholic friends use the term and it also be a part of common language. It may be part of an idiolect, but I do not know. I was asking why you thought "evil" was part of an idiolect prior to seeing any of my text (if you do in fact believe it is part of an idiolect).

vernacular and colloquials becoming an issue now?