I am interested in what everyone thinks the "evil" could be defined as. There has been a thread on here before about it(tis how i found the forum) but most of the replies were book definitions, which dont fly universally. I have my own, but since im writing a paper about it, it would be nice to see what everyone has to say about it.

Later

whatever society defines it as
it does not exist outside of the the "subscription" we buy.

evil.. hmm to me is the way a person can just do something just god awful with out a second thought or even second look... the way a person or thing has no soul no forgivness no love.. no emotion. There is really no right description i think.. like burningbush said up there.. it is whatever society defines it as.. you said it right.. but there is my definition.. everyone has there opinion..

The question i was asking, is more along the lines of "is a universal (all societies included) definition possible?" Yes i know that most definitions dont work for multiple cultures but i am just looking. The best i have been able to come up with is "Lacking of conscience" which kind of plays into what angel said.

But angel does evil have to mean awful/bad/mean?

Evil seeks to destroy or oppose what is good. It could be an action, a person a place, anything can have the name evil tagged to it. groups that are seperated geographicaly may have entirely different views on evil. Another thing, the better part of most cultures follow what their religons say about evil. The people that believe in the vague evil spoken of by the church, fill in the blanks with their own beliefs. Personal beliefes are prompted by expierences the person has had and tagged "evil" because it might of been to bad to call a coincedence.

EVIL!!!!!!!! awe...my speciality.

Seriously, if there's anyone to listen to on the subject of evil, it is I. It was my forte in obtaining my degree in philosophy. I even took a course titled: The Philosophy of Evil. And several other courses geared towards the age-old Evil Vs' God debate. Which is another discussion altogether, but I'm more than happy to share.

Anywho, evil. First and foremost, let me address FIGHT CLUB KID's: There's a few problems with that statement. The biggest one being that it's in the realm of the theory of the Correlation of Opposites. An old Pre-Socratic philosophical inquiry, the Correlation of Opposites was once a key contender in understanding things in the world of philosophy. Today, however, it's another story. We now know that the theory of the Correlation of Opposites is flawed, and doesn't hold in its logic. It's a simple concept, the Correlation of Opposites: how does one explain "hot" without the idea of "cold?" One has day, one has night. Etc. etc. The problem lies in two disctinct inquires:

1. the simplest lies behind mathematical ideas. For example, what is the opposite of a square? There isn't an opposite of a square. HOWEVER, one could say: the opposite of a sqaure is no sqaure at all. But then, you don't really have an opposite do you? All you have is nothing??? And that doesn't quite fit the spectrum of the Correlation of Opposities. What is the opposite of day? No day? Well, that would be night. So what's the opposite of a sqaure?

2. more philosophical in its approach, the theory of the Correlation of Opposites fails in comparison to "existence." Non-existence, simply put, DOES NOT EXIST! Meaning, that if something were CONSIDERED "non-existent," then surely it exists as such. Therefore, the term "non-existent" is, in itself, a flawed statement. It's logically (symanticaly) impossible TO HAVE non-existence.

3. The theories of perception also has problems with evil being the opposition of good. For, what is good? What is evil?


Which brings us to the next problem at hand. A few have already stated, more or less, that evil is all based on perception. But, then again, you have several problems. The biggest being the ideas behind perception.

Perception has always been a huge factor in the world of philosophy. It's still an on going subject today. A very sound and profound subject, but still catering to several flaws. For example, empiricism is a huge problem. A star may look like a spec of white light in the sky at night [did you like that rhyme there?], but we obviously know it isn't. You also have other situations such as: mirages, hallucinations, a man who lost an arm will often times claim that the-limb-no-longer-there is itching, etc. etc. etc. So perception...how sound is it?

And how sound is it to claim that evil is based on perception?

Well, some say lots. Some say that if a mass of individuals, that if a society or community all abide by the same predeterminations (laws, morals, etc.), then that itself is enough needed for a justification. But is it really? I, myself, say no. I don't agree with the justifications behind perception. Besides, perception being as flawed as it is, is yet another example of a small t truth that isn't necessarily true. The existence of something requires more than said truth.

So, what is evil?

Generally speaking, philosophers agree on two types of evil. Natural Evil: tornados, hurricanes, earth quakes, a lion killing a gazelle, etc. etc. etc. Situations that bring about some type of "harm" that disrupts the already "normal" state of things free from an sentient control. And then you have Human Evil: murder, rape, etc. etc. etc. Situations that are brought forth by "will" of one's thoughts or motives or what have you.

But still, are these things evil? But that isn't necessarily the question that should be asked. What should be asked is: does evil exist?

This is a very tricky question to ask. Again, perception can play a key role, but let's look beyond that. Let's take the metaphysical approach, an absurdist's logic.

I ask you: do mermaids exist? If you said no, you're sorely wrong. Mermaids do in fact exist. Sure, they may not exist physically, but metaphysicall they do. When you read the word "mermaid" you immediately imagine a fish/person entity. This image, this entity, it's not before you, it's not physical, and yet it exists. Therefore, it's a metaphysical entity. Something that exists, yet with no physical proof.

Therefore, when I say the word "evil" you also have some notion of the word. Doesn't matter how the notion came into being. Be it perception, or based on the Correlation of Opposites, or the factor in achieving good, or what have you, the notion is undoubtedly known in some way. Therefore, like the mermaid, evil may not be physical, but still exists.

So, what is evil? Well, roughly said, evil is what it is. It exists. Evil may lack definition, but what it does not lack is existence.



But, if the answer you're seaking, in regards to "universaly," evil would be that which is understood as thus. Evil, universaly speaking, is the understanding that "some thing" doesn't fit into the scope of a pre-conceived notion of that which is meant for a positive outcome based on a communities perception. So, roughly said, in regards to "universaly," it's hard to say what evil is without using the logic behind perception.

i think that nobody would be able to understand what evil is. untill they are drenched in the moment of it. because all that people have are nothing but what they think, feel, or express there own opinions on it. on what they think that evil is all about. into there own definitions of it. because it's leading to everybody being like you. asking questions about it. while there could be no true answer to it. except everybody's own personal beliefs on it. as all of them would be very different. but it will never reach to the true being of what evil is really meaning. from what they say about it.

i think i might know what it could be. but not really to sure if that is how evil actually is. because it could be something greater then what i think of it to be.

anyway that is my take on it.

i think a more interesting question would be why is evil? not what is evil or does evil exist. as the question is to what is evil is abrtrary and based on personal experince culture yatta yatta. and evil most surely exists if as a description and nothing elses. both questions are studies into behaviors and cultures.

why is evil? this is interesting as we establish the question is it a creation of an ideology to enhance the abliity of a society to development and function or is it truly a description of an experince one had with somthing beyond the realm of "natural evil" tornado's and lions oh my. Creationists beware it is unlikly that primative man would have established the concept from the destructions rought by nature. So is evil a development of our imangintion you know if you dont eat your peas the boogy man will get you or was it through experince somthing seen beyond the natural "plain"

Instead of quoting sic's(that would take another page), ill just refer to his post.

I can see where youre coming from, but y cant it have a defintion? thats like saying that "mean" or "pathetic" or "sad" or any other word that refers to the human nature as just "existing." So since these have all been defined, is it not right that "evil" and "love" and "good" can be defined? Not only have many people written books about the said question, but im sure many discussions have taken place. Ive never thought about how maybe it just "exists" and yet is not defined.

To all those that talk about perception, i am very aware, that yes, it does rely on that, but imo there exists a very strong definition(for lack of a better word) that may exist in all cultures for the above said words.

Maybe it doesnt have to mean "bad", but just "outside societal standards?"

Evil is the quality that makes things undesireable.

the interesting aspect is determining when the concept came into existence. Across the European and Asian continent there are many similarities in cultural and religous beliefs. Compare those beliefs, with respect to evil, to those shared with the people of the America's. Then follow those beliefs through history is there any divergence when does the divergence begin historicaly. is the concept so deeply rooted in our species that is existed before the species began to colonate different areas of the globe and theirfor no divergence exists. or is there no divergence in the concept because the diffrent cultures are all harassed by the same "demon(s)". if true what does that fact imply.

when someone comes to you and says that is evil.. what is the first thing that pops in your head? Bad.. evil means bad because that is the way we were all or most of us were brought up.. No matter were we really turn the first thing people are going to mention is evil is bad. weather you can come up with a meaning it will all be different but all boil down to BAD.

That concept stems mainly from an Absurdist logic, especially when concerning the flaws in Perception. For example, the man without the arm. Science defines it as nerves and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...which is fine, for said thing is physical in nature. But things that may only exist "metaphysically" in nature, science would claim as mental states and blah, blah, blah. But for those who don't concede to such scientific concepts, to explain things that exist, yet there's proof of it physicaly is questionable, then it's easy to just go the route of IT IS because IT IS. BUT REMEMBER, this is a "moot" point and doesn't make it a truth.

Another interesting aspect is the Veil of Appearance. I'm not going to go to deep in this, but basically what this is is an inquiry about the "understanding" of things. A concept I believe strongly in. Here's the best way to explain it: The Moon. What is the moon? You can give me all these facts about it: it's this far from earth, it reflects sun light, has a mass of blah, blah, blah, and etc. etc. etc. etc. And yet, you can never actually tell me what the moon is for YOU ARE NOT THE MOON. You truly do not understand the moon's "essence." And for that matter, perhaps you don't even truly know yourself. Savvy?

That is yet another example of how philosophers tend to agree that "Yes, there probably exist things beyond our understanding, but not our comprehension."



TO MR. BURNING BUSH...and FAID

Why is evil? In other words, where did it come from? Believe it or not, I would almost be willing to bet that it derived from desire. I'm not joking. There's a very interesting book titled: The Moral Animal by Robert Wright. Most of the book is an essay on what drives animals (humans included) to do as they do. As the essay shows, and as many philosophers have agreed, that quite possibly the most basic instinct/thought is derived from a sense of desire. A desire to live, a desire to eat, a desire to mate, etc. etc. etc. Now, how does that lead to evil?

As I learned it, you take for example two squirrels. Let's say, for example, the first two squirrels. There they are, picking acorns, when all of a sudden a cat jumps out and eats one. The other squirrel freaks, because that doesn't seem very pleasant, and runs. In accordance to empirical observations and learning, somewhere along the way squirrels learned that cats are bad!

Now, I know that's a very kindergarten-ish example, but just take it in stride. But the point is, through empirical observations, things are learned. Both good and bad. A trial and error of sorts. Somewhere, along the chain of evolution of both animal and sentient thought, evil was identified as that which doesn't have a very pleasant outcome or disrupts the natural order of their understanding. Savvy?


But yes, evil...sadly, there's nothing in my Dictionary of Philosophy concerning the subject, and most philosophical books I have on the question of evil basically deal with it in a religious context. Sad. But I'm sure if I look hard enough I might find an answer you're looking for.

good points..... good points..

i think that we need evil. If every thing in life was good and that we lived in this Utopia we would never really be happy. my point is that evil puts good in to a new light and shows us how we can live our lifes. but thats just me so what do u think

Think about what you just wrote, say it aloud, and then question if that really makes any sense at all. If you think it does, then say it aloud again, and again, and again.

Now, what you just suggested is basically the argument of a means to an end. Fairly self-explanatory, but also logically flawed, simply because it limits the power of things. If evil exists simply because it is a means to an end, and we understand that, then it's need is no longer needed. The end is understood and theoretically could be achieved through that knowledge. Now, again, perception comes into play. One doesn't truly "know" anything unless it's experienced and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...so say empiricists. But then you have the problem of whether or not it is possible to achieve an end without the means. Theorectically, yes. It's possible to have a man lead a purely good and wholesome life, althought with the comprehension of evil, and can still achieve the same end, but theorectically without the means.

And then you have the problem that basically coincides with the Correalation of Opposites. That to truly understand "good" one must have "evil." And yet, we can understand "thing-x" without having "thing-y." For example, gravity. Us as humans can have an understanding of gravity without having its opposite. Thus, does one truly need evil to understand good? Logically, no.

So are u saying that because the first thing that pops into a racist's mind when "black" or "white" is mentioned is hate, and therefore its ok to hate ppl because of color?

Ok the utopia thing...sic said that well...but the whole statemetn...how does it help define what evil is? Yes it shows the good, but does the good need to be shown?. In a utopia-which is unfortunately also based on perception- the good doesnt need to be put in a better light.

FInally, sic. I wish i could rewrite the main point of my paper...but i cant. I agree with most of what your saying, the only problem being that your argument could be put to use when defining anything. IT IS what IT IS...no comment.

"Moot"...haha....funny........ha

well if you think about it there is no real meaning to the word "evil" the meaning changes with popular culture. i also think that what one person can precive as good might seem evil to some other people. its a very hard question how can we truely know whats Evil and whats Good. i dont think i know what the truth is thats if there is any truth. hey thats a thought how do we know whats true. Do u know that something is really for sure. i dont how can u. its the same thing as trying to find the meaning of evil yo cant really know for sure.

[quote=Faid]So are u saying that because the first thing that pops into a racist's mind when "black" or "white" is mentioned is hate, and therefore its ok to hate ppl because of color?

What wooohhh.. no no i have not said anything about racism or color.. no i am refuring to if someone came to YOU or me even and says that is evil you think bad or atleast i do.. I never said anything about racisim.. never... NO it is not ok to hate because of color.. It is not ok to hate at all.. I see were you are going with this but i don't want you to think I think hate is ok because its not. I was stating that ppl all over think evil is bad because of the way it is presented all the time.. movies, radio, books, tv, ect ect.. get were i am going with this..?