The neseccity of evil

Evil is subjective. One man's meat is another's poison. Arafat vs. Sharon. American Liberalism vs. Conservatism. Business vs. Environmentalism. The old man participating in left lane squatting suddenly speeding up to prevent you from passing on his right is obviously evil...at least temporarily. It is always painfully obvious that the other entity is evil, especially when it is obstructing one's equally obvious attempts at goodness or progress.

Defining others as evil automatically affords us the mantle of "good".

Was there evil in the world back in the Stone Age? Devonian period? Were the prokaryotes, 4 billion or so years ago, that consumed whole those we call mitochondria today, evil? Perhaps to the mitochondria, but that implies mitochondrial awareness and, if so, modern eukaryotes might strenuously disagree.

JM

JM, good perspective.

Morrison
I understand your point, but I wouldn't say that evil is subjective. Evil is relative. It depends on historical, social, cultural, economical conditions and moral standards. I think this is also your opinion.
It's a matter of choosing Plato vs Protagoras. I choose Protagoras.

In our western society stealing is bad. But I dont think it is subjective. You see, the thief that steals from you does not want to be stealed himself. He is not in favour of stealing, as something good.
But, in a society where there were no private property stealing would have no sense.

Evil is not relative.

You people by are giving examples of things that are bad - not evil.

Burning babies with gasoline for fun is evil.

This is because I have smuggled in intent. In vals example (although I have never seen a society where there was not private property concepts - even is comunism I don't share my wife - she becomes 'mine' and I hers). The intent is the difference between evil and bad.

All the examples of James Morrison's are people intending to do good. Business, wants to make money and money for a society is good - so they are willing to sacrifice the environment to do so. But, if they were simply wantonly destroying the environment simply for thier own enjoyment - this is evil.

I believe Val has contradicted herself above (in that she has given an example that has no real application in life) - I simply have no clue and have never read of a society that had no idea of private property. Even in communists cultures thier property is private to the communists - if I were to come in and steal one of thier tanks - I would be taking something that is thiers.

This is why Locke made property one of the inalienable rights of humans. She can chose Protagoras - but EVERY human (that is sane humans) feels they have been done wrong when someone steals from them.

Now, that does not mean that if I were to steal from Val that I am evil. If my intent were to feed my starving kids and this was the only way I could get it done - I have done bad to Val - but perhaps not evil. I could also see Val in this situation, once she knew my intent, not seeing this as evil - but bad. However, if I stole her car and smashed it into a brick wall just to laugh, she would have to see it as wanton evil.

If burning babies with gasoline for fun is relative then we all seem to feel the same way about it - which seems to be a universal.

TTF

TFF

Perhaps my example was bad. But we could find thousands of other examples. In Islamic countries it is considered bad that women show their faces unveiled in public. That doesn't happen in western countries.
I still believe that the concepts of "good" and "bad" are relatives, according to social, cultural, economical or historical conditions.

But you pointed another problem, and I think it is a very serious one.
The distinction between "bad" and "evil". In all my life (by the way, I am a HE not a SHE) I have been faced with terrible things, even one case identic to your example. I must judge those people. And frequently I cannot understand them, the "why" they did it. Most of the times they are not insane, they are calm, polite. They say that they cannot explain why they did it.

I dont believe in an absolute "evil", something or some entity exterior to our experience. But I still can't understand those extreme cases of gratuitous cruelty. And I doubt anyone can.
But answering with the idea of an "absolute evil" is not an answer, because then we must ask what is that absolute evil, its nature, characteristics, origins. And, there is no answer for that question.

Val, I thought your distinction between bad and evil could be reduced to the fact that "bad" functions as an adjective--bad men, bad acts--whereas evil is a noun. A metaphysical entity that infects people making them bad or do bad things.
Personally, I think these are cultural constructs by which we make our sense of the world. I can't find evil anywhere, and my observations of bad acts and bad men are my judgements, not concreta in the world.

JL Nobody
I agree with you. That is my position too. But look at TFF reply - I was answering to him - and see some of the points he suggests about evil.

Val. Sorry about the misgender. Assumption on my part - Thought Val was short for Valerie. Guess I should appolgize to Mr. Kilmer as well.

Need to give more thought to your response before I reply.

Jason

I don't think there's really an 'evil' per se, just selfishness unchecked by morality. This brings up an interesting point: since being 'good' means reining in our greedy impulses, does that mean that there's only amorality, not immorality?

Taliesin:

This is the view point of Augustine. Evil is simply wanting a lesser Good. Thus Natural Evil is Nothing - Not that Nothing is something - but that Evil does not exist.

I tend to agree with this. (Not the entire Dogma Augustine but this portion) that there is no inherent evil. There is only good.

Thus there is not evil - there is only good - and the privation of good is evil. So Evil becomes wanton bad - and is thus subjective. The intent must be measured. Bad is intentless and relative - Evil is intentful and subjective.

TTF

Thinkfactory, what is the difference--logically speaking--between saying that evil is merely the absence or reduction of good and saying that good is merely the absence or reduction of evil?

Nobody

There is a great difference for those who, like Augustinus - or Leibniz, who used the same argument - believe in God. He saw God as the absolute platonic good. Such a God would not create a world were evil exists, because in that case he would be forced to choose between two alternatives:
A) Evil is part of God.
B) Evil is not part of God.
In the first case, God would not be the absolute good he believed He was.
In the second case, he would be forced to accept that there was something in the world strange to God. This was what Manichaean believed, but -although he had sympathized with that theory in his youth -Augustinus later rejected it.
And, if evil was not part of God and was not created by Him, then the only conclusion would be to deny the existence of evil. Evil was then defined as absence of good in the sense of absence of God's grace.

Re: The neseccity of evil


THIS IS A TAUTOLOGY

MORALITY PRODUCES PEACE AND PEACE PRODUCES MORALITY
SO ONE CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE OTHER

FOR EVIL TO EXIST MEANS THAT THERE MUST BE IMMORALITY AND IMMORALITY WILL LEAD TO EVIL
SO ONE BREADS THE OTHER

JL: I'll add a bit of causality into Val's retort: saying that good is the reduction of evil means evil is our natural state - while saying that evil is the reduction of good means that good is our natural state. It's sort of an optimist/pessimist argument.
What I meant in my earlier post though, was that since we're all selfish and motivated by Freud's Id/pleasure principle (one of the few things I agree with Freud on), that morality (his Super-Ego) is simply a way to rein in the Id. SO, I'm not really saying that we're all essentially evil, I'm saying that we have both, and any unbalancing either way determines whether you're a good or a bad person.

There is a growing tendency here to equate good and evil to hot and cold (e.g.);

There is only heat (the result of the motion of molecules), and the loss of heat is defined as 'cold' (less active molecules); they are, of course relative, but cold is understood to be the absence of heat.

Evil, on the other hand is a subjective concept, and does not, in my opinion, depend on a relationship, or comparison to 'good', another subjective concept, but can be seen to not have an actual phenomenization, but to exist only as a concept, and have no 'concrete' meaning or existence.

I find that most "good" seems to result from carefully considered logical actions designed to maximize positive results, and minimize (though possibly not eliminate) negative effects.

This being rarely the case with 'kneejerk' instinctive responses to a situation which tend to create the more 'natural' effect of a winner, and a 'loser', or 'victim', which, while they may have 'survival' value for the dominant participant, bring up the concept of 'evil' with respect to the 'victim'.

Is it 'evil' for jlN's bear to kill and consume its prey; no (it is operating on a level of consciousness that serves only to allow it to survive), but is there 'evil' in humanity's refusal to turn from the old savage ways, and embrace fairness, and compassion?

[perhaps]

BoGoWo, I agree that because they exist on different ontological levels, the value concepts, evil and good, are not interdependent in the same way that the sensual-descriptive concepts, hot and cold, are. Nevertheless, they ARE interdependent at the conceptual level. There can be no concept of evil without its complementary, good. Same with the directional concepts, up-down and in-out.

-edited

Val, Re:



You are correct. You have chosen to use the word "relative" in place of my use of "subjective". Using the term relative in the context of the above quote implies the question: "Relative to whom?" The answer resolves to specific humans whose judgment regarding "evil" actions is considered relative to specific indigenous social mores. Such individual human judgment is, well, subjective.

Regarding evil acts and their definitions: I have benefited from the collective wisdom in this thread and hopefully my thinking out loud will add to the discussion and allow others here to criticize and enlighten me.

The concept of evil seems to imply the ability of an entity to recognize the consequences of its actions. That is: an entity cannot participate in "evil" behavior unless it can both foresee the results of that behavior and then freely choose to so act. But what really seems to make an act "evil" is its devastating effect upon another entity plus its total irrelevance to a real world problem. That is, an "evil" act is one that is, not only horrible, but unnecessary.

A Polar bear kills and eats a female seal in front of its nursing pup. This is heart breaking (for us) and devastating (for the pup) but not evil and not even immoral.

An Eskimo kills and utilizes the same female seal for self and familial survival; the pup is left to fend for itself. This seems to approach immorality but not reach the parameters of "evil". This deed's character, itself, can be altered: The pup is taken home as a pet (unlikely, since Eskimo's purpose is to provide for himself and not take on an extra family member that will not pass on his "genes"). The pup is killed also...and so on (Would the Eskimo be judged more or less kinder if he also killed the pup to prevent its suffering?).

The same seal is bludgeoned by a European explorer who then blithely walks away unaffected by the pup's plight (not to mention the adult female's who now writhes in pain for the next two hours while it slowly dies). The explorer continues on with the hopeful expectation of soon finding another seal breathing hole where he may repeat the entire process. The explorer does not utilize the seal's remains.

If the last act is evil, what makes it so? The method used to kill, the slow death, the explorer's uncaring attitude, his intent to double the body count, or the pup's condemnation to a slow, starving, cold, lonely, arctic death? Is there one particular aspect of this that insures the explorer can legitimately be labeled "evil"? Is the summation of events involved when considering our final judgment? Would changing any of the events make the act more or less "evil"? If so, this would imply different degrees of "evil" and suggest that the explorer might be philosophically "rehabilitated" at some point. This may involve some type of BoGoWovian scale. BoGoWo's comparison of evil and good to heat and cold is interesting but begs the question of half empty vs. half full glasses: Is good the total absence of evil or is evil the total absence of good? But this, again, leaves us with gray areas not distinctly "evil" or "good".

Of course this last compound question leaves out an important (but not the only) aspect that allows this act to be termed "evil" (assuming that it can): Its utter pointlessness in relation to the explorer's welfare. He gains absolutely nothing in expending all the energy needed to injure/kill the nursing female seal. The second requirement for defining an act as "evil" would seem to call for suffering to be involved. So we find that an evil deed is one that causes suffering in the victim without providing any advantage to the evil doer, add to this the fact that the actor knew exactly what the outcome of his actions would be and we see the "evil" act is now owned by the actor which then allows him also to be termed "evil". But how sticky is this label? Can the actor be rehabilitated? Contrarily, is the explorer eternally so damned? But I suspect these are questions for theologists.

JM

JM, a wonderful post. Your assertion that "an 'evil' act is one that is, not only horrible, but unnecessary" brings Iraq to mind.

Augustine believed that all things found their truth and goodness in God (in the Platonic sense). Because God is truth and perfect, all imperfections are the result of deviations from the truth, not another quality in of itself. Evil exists to the extent that it is not good.

And we've come full-circle. But hopefully to a more refined beginning.