Do you know what EVIL is?

[Sealeaf]

We all want to be good and want not to be evil. We can not avoid Evil unless we know what Evil is. So what is evil? Let's just define evil in simple every day language. Lets do it without reference to any religious text or authority. This way we have a standard that we can all agree to regardless of our particular faith. We all talk about "evil" and "good" as real things so they must be definable.
What is Evil, in human terms? Why in human terms? We are human, we are neither gods nor angels nor, for that matter, devils. We need to recognize evil as a thing that humans do.

So the challenge is to define EVIL, without reference to God, the Bible, the Koran, the Prophet, Alla, Buddha, or any other divine entity or Holy book. It is OK to try to define "good" while you are about it.

So do you have a moral compass? Can you articulate it in terms that are not dependent upon some one sharing your belief system?

 

[Sealeaf]

I will take a stab at answering my own question. Not as a final answer but as an effort to get the conversation going.
"Evil is that which, if it happens to me, I don't like."

 

[Tambora]

Am I readying you right?
Seems like you are seeking an answer that you like, and then want to make that answer mandatory for everyone else to abide by.

 

[Tambora]

So the challenge is to define EVIL, without reference to God, the Bible, the Koran, the Prophet, Alla, Buddha, or any other divine entity or Holy book.

Why on earth would using any of those sources be eliminated?
Just seems like another excuse to squeeze everyone into such a tight narrow box just to help you receive an answer more to your liking.

 

[Tambora]

I may be reading you wrong, but that is my first initial thought on it.
So I'll keep an eye on the thread to see how it develops, and try to keep an open mind.

 

[popsthebuilder]

First; why capitalize the word evil or put it in all caps?

Second; bad works too; especially when using it in contrast to good.

So bad is anything that has a more negative effect on profitable, peaceable existence as a whole, than positive.

My most simple take anyway.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

I will take a stab at answering my own question. Not as a final answer but as an effort to get the conversation going.
"Evil is that which, if it happens to me, I don't like."

Quite a selfish little stab wasn't it. And so quickly too.




Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Sealeaf]

Pops; What I did was rewrite the "golden rule" from the first person point of view. Interestingly no one recognized it. I find that casting behavior into the first person is helpful when seeking moral perspective. One can also avoid assigning blame at least a bit: "I'm not saying you did wrong but if I did that I would be a sinner."

As to Caping "evil"; Just did it for emphasis and to make clear that I was talking about a large philosophical concept.

So bad is anything that has a more negative effect on profitable, peaceable existence as a whole, than positive.

So you have slipped a definition of "good" in by the back door. You have defined "Good" as "profitable", and "peaceful". You have also introduced the concept of grey morality. You have made morality a mathematical proposition requiring us to decide if there are more negative or positive effects. By using the words negative and positive you have made your definition a bit circular. They are more or less words for good and evil. Using the term you are trying to define as part of the definition is circular reasoning. I'm not sure that a capitalistic definition of "good" is acceptable without serious reservations. The invasion of the new world by Europeans certainly was "profitable" and was mostly "peaceful". Just occupying another person's land is not really attacking him. Do we want to define it as "Good" ?

 

[quip]

How about anything or any such act thats antithetical to the individual and collective continuation and or sustenation of life

 

[Sealeaf]

Tam:

Why on earth would using any of those sources(God, the Bible, the Koran, the Prophet, Allah, Buddha, or any other divine entity or Holy book.) be eliminated?

So as to eliminate the argument from authority. Allowing the appeal to authority opens us up to confusion about the validity of competing authority's. Both the Bible and the Koran justify slavery and killing of those who do not share your beliefs, depending on how you read them. Both works trace their authority to a spiritual being whose existence cannot be proved. We need a stronger base for morality than that.

 

[Sealeaf]

Quip;

How about anything or any such act thats antithetical to the individual and collective continuation and or sustenation of life

I like it! It does have a back door definition of "Good", as "life". Good =life seems a bit simplistic but may be OK. Worth thinking about.

 

[Nihilo]

Raping and then murdering babies is evil. It's not like the categorical imperative-type definition you're looking for, but you'd think it'd be easy to find complete agreement with the sentence, but people worry about what they're stepping in, so they'll refrain. But, raping and then murdering babies, is my answer.

 

[quip]

Quip;
I like it! It does have a back door definition of "Good", as "life". Good =life seems a bit simplistic but may be OK. Worth thinking about.

I believe that's totally unavoidable...musing upon the concept of badness inevitably implicates a notion of goodness.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Pops; What I did was rewrite the "golden rule" from the first person point of view. Interestingly no one recognized it. I find that casting behavior into the first person is helpful when seeking moral perspective. One can also avoid assigning blame at least a bit: "I'm not saying you did wrong but if I did that I would be a sinner."

As to Caping "evil"; Just did it for emphasis and to make clear that I was talking about a large philosophical concept.



So you have slipped a definition of "good" in by the back door. You have defined "Good" as "profitable", and "peaceful". You have also introduced the concept of grey morality. You have made morality a mathematical proposition requiring us to decide if there are more negative or positive effects. By using the words negative and positive you have made your definition a bit circular. They are more or less words for good and evil. Using the term you are trying to define as part of the definition is circular reasoning. I'm not sure that a capitalistic definition of "good" is acceptable without serious reservations. The invasion of the new world by Europeans certainly was "profitable" and was mostly "peaceful". Just occupying another person's land is not really attacking him. Do we want to define it as "Good" ?

Okay....

Evil is that thing that is detrimental towards existence as a whole.

Positive and negative must be used to accurately describe as good and evil aren't wholly black and white.

Not necessarily mathematical per say, though bad or evil things added together do equal a higher amount of negativity, as good upon good equals more good.

It is simple logic.

Would you like it from a different angle?

Perhaps a list?

Greed, pride, hate, and fear are the roots of evil.

Would you like to guess at the roots of good and right?

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Ben Masada]

I will take a stab at answering my own question. Not as a final answer but as an effort to get the conversation going. "Evil is that which, if it happens to me, I don't like."

Evil is in the action to break the Law without any regards for the consciousness of pain for having committed an evil deed.