The nature of evil

[Diremongoose]

I can't accept subjective good and evil. It raises too many problems, too many questions for me.

Maybe you should be figuring out those problems and searching for the answers to those questions, rather than subscribing to a 2000 year old morality system that doesn't change? Questions are good.[DOUBLEPOST=1372830111,1372829974][/DOUBLEPOST]Besides, who wrote the bible? Who REwrote the bible over and over again over the last two millenia? Think that's still the word of God, or is it a politically sanitized version? What about all of the conflicting versions, the other testaments cut from the current draft.

 

[dainjre]

I can't accept subjective good and evil. It raises too many problems, too many questions for me.

Okay, so Evil is not subjective in your eyes, well let me retaliate with this argument that I came up with...

A fly is in your room, or buzzing around your head right? What's the first thing you think? I'm guessing it's something along with "FLIES ARE A PEST, KILL IT WITH FIRE." So you get a flyswatter and/or try your luck at the karate kid action of killing the fly with your hands (epic). You kill the fly, in your mind, you think "Yes, I got rid of the pest, win." And most people would agree there.

But there are groups of monks in Asia that believe that killing of any living creature, be it a fly or a cockroach or any other thing you or I would consider a pest, as an evil act, and they don't do it, no matter what. Now, to you, you're ridding yourself of a pest, to them, you've committed a murder of a living creature. You see the difference here? The grey area?

The same principle can be applied to anything in life honestly. You believe that you're taking an action for the good of yourself and others, but you don't specifically speak for everyone and this is why the concept of good and evil is subjective. Because subjectively, you killing a fly or a spider, is evil to someone.

 

[Keleynal]

Wait, I need to get a few things straight here.

1. You believe only actions can be classified as evil?
2. Do you or do you not believe that evil is a subjective idea?
3. Do you believe you've ever made an evil action before?

As far as human beings go, I believe that we are hard wired to behave selfishly. Left to our own devices, we would destroy ourselves and each other. Lord of the Flies style. But one that makes us unique among animals is our capacity to perceive morality. We all have it, we just disagree on where it comes from, but we all know it's essential. To the point that those lacking it are deemed socio- or psychopathic.

That said, I believe the same human that decides to kill could have also decided to heal. Once the evil decision is made, the person is corrupted by it on a spiritual level. This corruption causes separation from God (the source of good), making it easier and easier to make more evil choices, until finally one is completely depraved. This corruption is commonly referred to in Christian circles as "sin." Even in that state of total depravity, I believe that repentance and redemption can take place. It has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with a grace and mercy that surpasses human understanding.

So I see evil (ie sin) as a result of action that kills the individual on every level- physically, emotionally, and spiritually. I believe that God sees and condemns the corruption while still loving and wanting to redeem the individual. I try to take the same view.

That was a long answer to your first question. I'll make the other 2 shorter: I believe that evil is objective. At its most basic level, it is defined as rebellion against God. And finally, of course I've made evil actions, and I have no doubt I will make more. Because I'm human and in spite of our best efforts, that's what we do.

 

[Krakuun]

For me, it is a firm foundation. Let God be true and all men a liar. There is a comfort and a rest in that. Some may write that off as being intellectually dishonest or having a crutch, but when you get right down to it, it takes just as much faith as atheism, agnosticism, or any other belief system.

I can appreciate the honesty of that statement. I'm not religious, but I can understand the motivation behind faith laid out like you have. Motivations in general are interesting when you look at faith or a lack there of. Why did we decide to believe what we do? But, trying to bring it back around to the original topic, I agree evil is a byproduct of society. Ultimately it's a human construction (my take), but that shouldn't reduce the concept or undermine it's importance. Good and Evil, or similar concepts, play a huge role in our society. Does this concept serve us well though? As Keleynal implied (sorry if I'm misinterpreting), the simplicity of the religious structure with good/evil is appealing. Are we naturally drawn to a duality because it helps us cope with an otherwise overwhelmingly complex set of circumstances?

 

[Keleynal]

Maybe you should be figuring out those problems and searching for the answers to those questions, rather than subscribing to a 2000 year old morality system that doesn't change? Questions are good.[DOUBLEPOST=1372830111,1372829974][/DOUBLEPOST]Besides, who wrote the bible? Who REwrote the bible over and over again over the last two millenia? Think that's still the word of God, or is it a politically sanitized version? What about all of the conflicting versions, the other testaments cut from the current draft.

All good questions that I have actually struggled with and only emerged stronger in my faith.

I could put the same challenge to you: instead of brushing aside the Bible as fairy tale, why not give it an honest shot at being true? Work through all the tough ramifications and seeming contradictions that cause you to be skeptical?

You may have tried that already, but there may be something inside you that just won't let you believe. I have something similar inside me that cannot deny the reality of God. And the funny thing about truth- it doesn't change. Not for 2 thousand or for 2 million years does it become outdated. I'd be happy to talk to you about my journey, but I don't want to get too far afield here.

 

[Krakuun]

As far as human beings go, I believe that we are hard wired to behave selfishly. Left to our own devices, we would destroy ourselves and each other. Lord of the Flies style. But one that makes us unique among animals is our capacity to perceive morality. We all have it, we just disagree on where it comes from, but we all know it's essential. To the point that those lacking it are deemed socio- or psychopathic.

Don't forget dogs There are other mammals too that show a development of social behaviors that could be framed as morality. I would also say as a species, and many mammals, are actually quite selfless, which has ultimately helped us succeed (maybe I'm a glass half full person?). I have to stick up for our warm blooded brethren, the things we've accomplished are pretty amazing and it's been on the back of cooperation and dependence on each other. While any individual act is hard to describe as ultimately self-less, it's not hard to look at the cooperation we've used to achieve success as a species. Now, that cooperation might entail bashing the skulls in of another group, which is where that selfish balance comes in. Although, I'd say it's not so much conscious selfishness as the problem of the other. And isn't the "other" the root of all evil? I'd agree we are hard wired to perceive the "other", which maybe plays to the hand of the good/evil duality.

 

[Keleynal]

Okay, so Evil is not subjective in your eyes, well let me retaliate with this argument that I came up with...

A fly is in your room, or buzzing around your head right? What's the first thing you think? I'm guessing it's something along with "FLIES ARE A PEST, KILL IT WITH FIRE." So you get a flyswatter and/or try your luck at the karate kid action of killing the fly with your hands (epic). You kill the fly, in your mind, you think "Yes, I got rid of the pest, win." And most people would agree there.

But there are groups of monks in Asia that believe that killing of any living creature, be it a fly or a cockroach or any other thing you or I would consider a pest, as an evil act, and they don't do it, no matter what. Now, to you, you're ridding yourself of a pest, to them, you've committed a murder of a living creature. You see the difference here? The grey area?

The same principle can be applied to anything in life honestly. You believe that you're taking an action for the good of yourself and others, but you don't specifically speak for everyone and this is why the concept of good and evil is subjective. Because subjectively, you killing a fly or a spider, is evil to someone.

Your question still follows the premise that somehow the way WE feel about an action is what makes that action good or evil. I reject that premise.

The specific question is frivolous, but I'll address it for the sake of argument. It is pretty clear to me that animals were created and put on earth for our benefit, enjoyment, and sometimes sustenance. It is also clear to me that we are expected to keep in mind that we don't actually own any of it. We are simply stewards or caretakers of anything we happen to possess. Therefore, we can interact with creatures in a reasonable manner for health, safety, and comfort purposes.

So what is reasonable? Now we are in some grey territory. I can kill a fly and call it reasonable because I do not consider the life of a fly to be of value. Another may put a value on that fly's life that is equal to their own.

So now we come to the point: I am free to kill the fly and have my conscience remain clear. However, if I am in said monastery, and I know full well what their feelings are, and I kill that fly anyway, then I have done an evil action. The evil was not in the killing itself, it was in the disregard and disrespect that I showed to my fellow man.

If you would like the Biblical basis for this argument, the exact place escapes me, but I know it is in one of the New Testament epistles. The exact question before Paul was the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to false gods, but the applications of the principle are many.

 

[Keleynal]

Don't forget dogs There are other mammals too that show a development of social behaviors that could be framed as morality. I would also say as a species, and many mammals, are actually quite selfless, which has ultimately helped us succeed (maybe I'm a glass half full person?). I have to stick up for our warm blooded brethren, the things we've accomplished are pretty amazing and it's been on the back of cooperation and dependence on each other. While any individual act is hard to describe as ultimately self-less, it's not hard to look at the cooperation we've used to achieve success as a species. Now, that cooperation might entail bashing the skulls in of another group, which is where that selfish balance comes in. Although, I'd say it's not so much conscious selfishness as the problem of the other. And isn't the "other" the root of all evil? I'd agree we are hard wired to perceive the "other", which maybe plays to the hand of the good/evil duality.

What I can't get around is that we do perceive morality. That has to come from somewhere, and I can't believe that it's a function of brain size or activity. When we see something evil, it bothers us. When we accomplish something good, it makes us feel good. It seems like there is more at play than the simple stimulus/response that rules the animal kingdom.

And I didn't understand what you meant by "other." I tried rereading it, but I couldn't figure what you were referring to.

 

[dainjre]

Your question still follows the premise that somehow the way WE feel about an action is what makes that action good or evil. I reject that premise.

The specific question is frivolous, but I'll address it for the sake of argument. It is pretty clear to me that animals were created and put on earth for our benefit, enjoyment, and sometimes sustenance. It is also clear to me that we are expected to keep in mind that we don't actually own any of it. We are simply stewards or caretakers of anything we happen to possess. Therefore, we can interact with creatures in a reasonable manner for health, safety, and comfort purposes.

So what is reasonable? Now we are in some grey territory. I can kill a fly and call it reasonable because I do not consider the life of a fly to be of value. Another may put a value on that fly's life that is equal to their own.

So now we come to the point: I am free to kill the fly and have my conscience remain clear. However, if I am in said monastery, and I know full well what their feelings are, and I kill that fly in front of them anyway, then I have done an evil action. The evil was not in the killing itself, it was in the disregard and disrespect that I showed to my fellow man.

If you would like the Biblical basis for this argument, the exact place escapes me, but I know it is in one of the New Testament epistles. The exact question before Paul was the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to false gods, but the applications of the principle are many.

Okay, so taking your argument, and reapplying it back to the dominion vs exile original topic... You said the action of the Dominion killing the Exiles was an evil action, if I remember correctly. What if the Dominion races perceive themselves to be the higher lifeforms and therefore don't consider the Exile races lives to be of any value? Using your exact same point, they are free to kill beings they consider lower than themselves and be guilt free and because there is no status quo on Nexus, their actions therefore are not evil but akin to you killing a fly.

 

[Keleynal]

Okay, so taking your argument, and reapplying it back to the dominion vs exile original topic... You said the action of the Dominion killing the Exiles was an evil action, if I remember correctly. What if the Dominion races perceive themselves to be the higher lifeforms and therefore don't consider the Exile races lives to be of any value? Using your exact same point, they are free to kill beings they consider lower than themselves and be guilt free and because there is no status quo on Nexus, their actions therefore are not evil but akin to you killing a fly.

Nope, because now it's not a fly, it's a sentient being. In reality, the only sentient beings are humans, and God places a value on human life that is astronomically high. So if I don't value that life as equal or greater than my own, then it is evil.

For the sake of the game world, I consider all species to be on equal footing. So the Dominion is not free to practice genocide willy-nilly. Their premise of superiority is at odds with God's objective morality.

 

[Krakuun]

What I can't get around is that we do perceive morality. That has to come from somewhere, and I can't believe that it's a function of brain size or activity. When we see something evil, it bothers us. When we accomplish something good, it makes us feel good. It seems like there is more at play than the simple stimulus/response that rules the animal kingdom.

And I didn't understand what you meant by "other." I tried rereading it, but I couldn't figure what you were referring to.

When I say other I mean the tendency we have to contrast our group with that of another group, usually holding our own up as superior. It also allows us to convince ourselves of things about the other group that lets us do horrible things. It's a really strong tendency we have, essentially an us vs them. In a mostly innocent way (certainly not always), it's the blind fanaticism we have for the home (or favorite) team. At the other end of the extreme is genocide.

 

[Keleynal]

When I say other I mean the tendency we have to contrast our group with that of another group, usually holding our own up as superior. It also allows us to convince ourselves of things about the other group that lets us do horrible things. It's a really strong tendency we have, essentially an us vs them. In a mostly innocent way (certainly not always), it's the blind fanaticism we have for the home (or favorite) team. At the other end of the extreme is genocide.

Ah, yes. I totally agree about that tendency.

Have you seen the musical "Into the Woods"? It's hilarious, but also raises some interesting questions about the nature of right and wrong. The best version is the original Broadway cast starring Bernadette Peters... but I digress.

 

[dainjre]

Nope, because now it's not a fly, it's a sentient being. In reality, the only sentient beings are humans, and God places a value on human life that is astronomically high. So if I don't value that life as equal or greater than my own, then it is evil.

For the sake of the game world, I consider all species to be on equal footing. So the Dominion is not free to practice genocide willy-nilly. Their premise of superiority is at odds with God's objective morality.

You keep putting that you, yourself, are assigning the worth of a life on things. That, there, is subjective. Thus, making the entire argument a subjective argument which has a lot of grey areas. I get it that you're saying human lives are worth more because the bible says they are, however in the realm of Nexus there is no such thing. Lastly, the bible was written by humans for humans, and therefore written subjectively. Regardless of if the bible is right or wrong, God did not write the bible. If He did, there would not be so many versions of it.

 

[Keleynal]

I'm not sure how I'm assigning value here. God is the one who set man apart from the rest of His creation. It was God that appointed man the steward of the rest of creation. It was God that put such a premium on humans that He became human and died for us. I use the phrases "in my view" or "I consider" out of respect for you and your opposing views. I'm not here to dogmatically proclaim truth to the masses, I'm trying to have a discussion and gain some perspective on other points of view.

I'm not sure what "many versions" of the Bible you are referring to, I'm only aware of one.

And the argument is starting to cross over more into a theological rather than philosophical realm here, which I guess was inevitable.

The problem we face is that if you reject the Bible as truth, then we have little common ground to work with anymore. For myself, I am satisfied in the veracity, reliability and God-inspired nature of the Bible. If God put that much work into inspiring over 40 authors from 3 different continents over the course of more than a thousand years to write a single tome, it would follow logically that He would also preserve that work through the ages.

I recognize that takes a leap of faith that you may be unprepared to make, just as I am unprepared to take the leap of faith that would allow me accept that monkeys and man have a common ancestor.

I'm happy to discuss my faith with any that are interested, but I don't want to derail into apologetics here.

 

[TIG]

For me, it is a firm foundation. Let God be true and all men a liar. There is a comfort and a rest in that. Some may write that off as being intellectually dishonest or having a crutch, but when you get right down to it, it takes just as much faith as atheism, agnosticism, or any other belief system.

This right here is the basis of my statement that started this thread.

In my personal ideology evil is a byproduct of society. I fully understand that in yours, evil is laid out by the laws of the Christian God. The nature of the differences in our ideologies will always prevent us from finding a middle ground, because each supports its own definition.

My sister is as deep in her faith and as open hearted as you are with her Christianity. She listens and doesn't judge individuals even when she disagrees. She doesn't preach at them or brow beat people with other beliefs. That's why I could make that statement seemingly out of the blue.

I was raised in the same church system as her, but I no longer believe. I consider myself agnostic. I don't believe there is a higher power up there that even knows about us, let alone cares about us. I also know that if there was one it would be so high above us that we probably couldn't comprehend it unless it wanted us to. So I don't believe, but I don't dismiss.

Further I've stopped judging people for believing in whatever they believe in. Just because I feel I'm right doesn't give me the right to judge or mock people who I think are wrong.

The problem we face is that if you reject the Bible as truth, then we have little common ground to work with anymore. For myself, I am satisfied in the veracity, reliability and God-inspired nature of the Bible

What I mean by us not finding middle ground is that because you rest in the comfort of your faith you cannot agree with my point of view. The reason is that it goes against the fundamental building blocks of your point of view. And vice versa.

I believe morality is a subjective by product of empathy. Empathy is a survival and evolutionary tool to bring individuals into a society so that they have better chances to survive until they pass on their genes.
You believe that morality is a gift given to every person by God.

I believe evil is a list of things that are bad for each individual society to the point that they need to be shunned or the society as a whole would be harmed
You believe that evil is a list of things set down by God and is immutable fact.

 

[Keleynal]

One thing that wasn't looked at much in the previous discussion of evil is intent. The same action taken by the 2 people at the same time can be good or neutral for one and evil for the other.

Like the killing of the fly. I believe that a fly can be killed for hygiene purposes. Another may kill that same fly, claiming it is purely for hygiene, but in reality they enjoy killing and look for every excuse and opportunity to kill stuff. The intent of the 2nd person would make the otherwise neutral action an act of evil.

 

[TIG]

maybe, but the intent of another is impossible to know. Thoughts and intents are wholly owned by the person that had them. You can make guesses, but you will never know an others intent. Even if they tell you they may be lying or believing a falsehood.

I believe that anything internal in a person is not up for judgement. You can think the most evil thoughts in the world, but if they stay in your head then it doesn't matter. The only things we can judge are actions. And telling the truth, labeling something good or evil is judging that thing/action/whatever. Only someones actions are grounds to be dealt with.

 

[Keleynal]

maybe, but the intent of another is impossible to know. Thoughts and intents are wholly owned by the person that had them. You can make guesses, but you will never know an others intent. Even if they tell you they may be lying or believing a falsehood.

I believe that anything internal in a person is not up for judgement. You can think the most evil thoughts in the world, but if they stay in your head then it doesn't matter. The only things we can judge are actions. And telling the truth, labeling something good or evil is judging that thing/action/whatever. Only someones actions are grounds to be dealt with.

I totally agree, I'm not qualified to judge a person's thoughts and intentions. So it's entirely possible that I could believe that someone's action is not evil, when in fact it is, or vice versa.

This isn't a problem for me, but my ultimate arbiter of right in wrong can peer directly into hearts and minds and is qulaified to make that judgement.

How does that work for you though? If you can only go off actions and not intent, then is there no justifiable killing? Is it ALWAYS wrong to steal (assuming you live in a society that condemns stealing)?

 

[TIG]

I totally agree, I'm not qualified to judge a person's thoughts and intentions. So it's entirely possible that I could believe that someone's action is not evil, when in fact it is, or vice versa.

change the word action to intent and you have a correct statement there. We can only judge actions in relation to the laws we live by.

OR if you are saying your viewing of the action as evil or not could be wrong, shouldn't you be able to tell what action is evil from searching the bible? In my ideology I could find if an action is wrong by searching the laws of the society.

How does that work for you though? If you can only go off actions and not intent, then is there no justifiable killing?

There is justifiable killing if the laws of the society say there is. In the USA we have self defense, which if the circumstances (not intent) can prove that the killing was in self defense the person is let off. In stone age mongolia any killing you can back up was justified.

Is it ALWAYS wrong to steal (assuming you live in a society that condemns stealing)?

yes.

What we are running into here is the fact that just because something is against the law (stealing example) and can be called evil by my definition, people will still do it. They will commit wrong or even evil acts because they think they can get away with it, or are willing to take the consequences, or just don't care what happens next. That doesn't make the act outside the realm of wrong/against the law/evil. How bad it is usually comes down to personal perspective.

The world I live in in my head probably seems like a darker more sinister world than yours. I am happy with it. You essentially give up a portion of your choices as payment for a greater sense of hope and well being.

 

[Keleynal]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I could engage you in discussion, but my experience with people that come out swinging with those types of arguments aren't looking for rational discussion, they want to be dogmatically accepted at face value. Besides, if you truly know the book inside and out, you would know why that argument doesn't hold up. Can't argue with someone convinced they already know it all.

Putting theological differences aside, how do you define evil?