what is evil?

alice144

alice144

Community Member
MBTI
ENTP
Enneagram
5w6
I think I asked this question before, but I can't remember.

Did any of you see that movie Bad Lieutenant? Nicolas Cage does a lot of awful things, but then it turns out okay. But then, it seems that, compared to his environment, he's quite an ethical guy. It's the 'do the ends justify the means' sort of question.

A lot of people don't like to define stuff as 'good' or 'evil' because they prefer to believe that everything is relative and situational. On the relative---->universal scale, I tend to believe that morality is more universal. Morality is a more useful concept if we consider it to be universal.

What makes a person bad? And what makes a person good?
 
Most people seem to believe in subjectivism, or relativism (in regards to morality).. I think, however, that there are some objective universal truths to be found. It's not easy to define them.. because they're constantly evolving ~ my personal belief is that life of all sorts has some inherent value (universal truth imo)... and so if you disregard that value for the sake of personal gain (i.e. murder and rob someone) ~ the act itself could be considered evil (universally).

A lot of this is situational though, meaning... it really depends on the circumstances and the individuals involved.

My thoughts change on this at times ~ The history of humanity should be observed carefully and conclusions of this sort should not be made lightly.
 
Last edited:
Personal interest will always trump morality in my opinion. Everyone is capable of good and bad deeds. The issue becomes problematic when you see things in polarity; black and white; when in reality all things are shades of gray.

On the other hand; universal truths of evil and good is hardwired into our subconscious and instincts for most humans. I think an interesting question would be if one is born to do more good versus bad. Or if a child can actually be evil and do bad things even if raised in a good environment. I always wondered this.
 
*Answer influenced by my Catholic upbringing*

Evil is not something absolute in itself. It is the absence of some good, which could, or should be present in order to complete a particular nature. I remember reading Aquinas on this matter.

Recently I came across an anecdote from Albert Einstein's life which holds an identical view:

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.
The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."
After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.
The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

​
 
Evil is a human creation that is completely relative to one's own beliefs (sort of like God).

There are people out there who believe that all human laws are inherently good and that breaking any of them is inherently evil-- as if there couldn't be unjust laws. That is just flat out stupid.

I would say that most things that we consider evil are related to our survival instincts as humans, and the degree of 'evil' mostly depends on the returns of committing the act-- generally, the greater the damage and lower the return, the more evil it is.

For example, you can kill someone to save ten lives, and that would be a big return because you just saved 10 people (strength in numbers). But if you kill one person to save just one other person, that would probably be closer to evil because you didn't get such a big return-- but again, if you killed a serial rapist to save a humanitarian, you'd probably be closer to 'good', because the humanitarian is going to save lives and the rapist is going to ruin them. If you killed a person to save an animal, you might get away with it being good-- depending on who the person was, what the animal was and how much other people like that animal (panda yes, cockroach no... endangered animals maybe, depending on whether they were edible, cute, or useful to us in some way).

It's even more evil to kill people for reasons unrelated to these things-- killing for money is wrong but not exactly evil, because there's a return and we can all relate to it... killing over jealousy, secrets, rage, and revenge is getting closer because the returns, if any, are intangible and only relate to individuals involved. Killing for fun or sport is probably the point where we cross into fullblown evil... because the returns are extremely small and completely disconnected from the majority.

So yeah, that's how I would describe evil: damage - returns = your score on the evilometer.
Assuming it's something you intended to do, of course.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
*Answer influenced by my Catholic upbringing*

Evil is not something absolute in itself. It is the absence of some good, which could, or should be present in order to complete a particular nature. I remember reading Aquinas on this matter.

Recently I came across an anecdote from Albert Einstein's life which holds an identical view:

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.
The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."
After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.
The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

​
Click to expand...

There is zero evidence that this story ever took place. There is no mention of it in Einstein's biography or any major works that depicted his life. It has the same merit as the story of Darwin's supposed revelation upon opening the bible before his death, meaning none.
 
IMHO: [MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION] is evil.
 
I always liked to believe something along the lines of Stoicism, in that I believe that not all people can be considered truly evil, only narrow in experience or insight. A profound ignorance makes one much more likely to commit acts or espouse beliefs that could be considered downright evil by another party; the opposite is true in that ignorance can also lead one person to unreasonably claim that another's views are evil.
I can't even call sociopaths evil, because it's not their fault that they end up the way they do. They are genetically predisposed to be emotionally deficient, and they have no means to understand that it is something that is abnormal and unhealthy. In speech, it's much easier to condense that into the word "evil" when describing opposition to those types of people.
Personally, I have no qualms with calling a tyrant an evil person, because I and many other people believe what he does is harmful to society, even if he doesn't. Usually the person has to hold a high position of power like that to warrant such a response - for instance, I would never call a US Senator evil, only stupid (under the assumption that all elected officials do only that which they think is right and beneficial for their constituency.)
 
Evil is the other people.
 
Jacobi said:
There is zero evidence that this story ever took place. There is no mention of it in Einstein's biography or any major works that depicted his life. It has the same merit as the story of Darwin's supposed revelation upon opening the bible before his death, meaning none.
Click to expand...

Plus Einstein was a confirmed agnostic... but then again, he was just a kid at the time so who knows.

My religious uncle sent me that exact story in an e-mail-- I always thought that the point of it was to prove that Christians are smart and the know-it-all teachers who are probably evolutionists and God-deniers are dumb.

Seeing it again kinda made me rage a little.
 
Apone said:
Plus Einstein was a confirmed agnostic... but then again, he was just a kid at the time so who knows.

My religious uncle sent me that exact story in an e-mail-- I always thought that the point of it was to prove that Christians are smart and the know-it-all teachers who are probably evolutionists and God-deniers are dumb.

Seeing it again kinda made me rage a little.
Click to expand...

I know you qualified yourself at the end of the sentence but regarding Einstein's views towards God, this was one of his more famous quotes

""I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
 
Izan said:
""I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."
Click to expand...

Sounds like agnosticism to me.
What am I missing?
 
Izan said:
:P lol good point I just love that quote so I jumped at the first opportunity to post it
Click to expand...

I like it too, actually-- don't worry, we're all off topic right now.
 
alice144 said:
I think I asked this question before, but I can't remember.

Did any of you see that movie Bad Lieutenant? Nicolas Cage does a lot of awful things, but then it turns out okay. But then, it seems that, compared to his environment, he's quite an ethical guy. It's the 'do the ends justify the means' sort of question.

A lot of people don't like to define stuff as 'good' or 'evil' because they prefer to believe that everything is relative and situational. On the relative---->universal scale, I tend to believe that morality is more universal. Morality is a more useful concept if we consider it to be universal.

What makes a person bad? And what makes a person good?
Click to expand...

Rape, robbery, assault(not out of self defense or defense of another), killing(again not out of self defense or defense of another). Urinating and/or defecating on the floor or seat of public toilets. Looting culturally relevant materials from unrecorded or even recorded sites, that is pretty much like burning the last copy of a history text filled with knowledge that no one on the planet has in their head. Getting that next to last cup of coffee and leaving just enough in the pot to barely wet the bottom of the next cup, make...another...pot. Flushing the toilet while someone is in the shower(some plumbing systems this removes the cold water from the cold/hot mix).

There are bad to just plain ole evil things. Evil is the epitome of selfishness. I really don't think ethical is even in the same ballpark with Cage's character in Bad Lieutenant.

Edit: Yeah I pretty much went off on a tangent there. My point is there are evil things that are done in this world, some by evil people, some are done incidentally...and when it reaches a court of law we generally hope the right decision is made. What happens after, in the hands of God or the gods or...Goddess, that tends to be up to the deity in question. Then there is reincarnation and the cycle a soul goes through learning its lessons, but that is a whole nother rabbit hole for a later date.
 
Last edited:
Flavus Aquila said:
*Answer influenced by my Catholic upbringing*

Evil is not something absolute in itself. It is the absence of some good, which could, or should be present in order to complete a particular nature. I remember reading Aquinas on this matter.

Recently I came across an anecdote from Albert Einstein's life which holds an identical view:
The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.
The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."
After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.
The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.

​
Click to expand...

Jacobi said:
There is zero evidence that this story ever took place. There is no mention of it in Einstein's biography or any major works that depicted his life. It has the same merit as the story of Darwin's supposed revelation upon opening the bible before his death, meaning none.
Click to expand...

Even if the story's authenticity is dubious, the argument it contains about the non-existing nature of evil is not.



Concepts stand on their own merit, irrespective of the authority, or fame of the person explaining it.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Even if the story's authenticity is dubious, the argument it contains about the non-existing nature of evil is not.



Concepts stand on their own merit, irrespective of the authority, or fame of the person explaining it.
Click to expand...

That's beside the point. I could post a brilliant argument for atheism and say the pope wrote it which would give it a stronger impact.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Concepts stand on their own merit, irrespective of the authority, or fame of the person explaining it.
Click to expand...

That's a nice thing to believe in, but the point is that you presented the story as depicting a universally-respected scholar of science. That does, as much as you might hate to admit it, indeed give the story a different weight. It's pretty obvious that anecdote is attempting to induce a cognitive bias in the reader, especially seeing how ALBERT EINSTEIN is written in all capital letters.

Reread the story, replace Albert Einstein with any other name or no name. Does it have the same impact?
 
SealHammer said:
That's a nice thing to believe in, but the point is that you presented the story as depicting a universally-respected scholar of science. That does, as much as you might hate to admit it, indeed give the story a different weight. It's pretty obvious that anecdote is attempting to induce a cognitive bias in the reader, especially seeing how ALBERT EINSTEIN is written in all capital letters.

Reread the story, replace Albert Einstein with any other name or no name. Does it have the same impact?
Click to expand...

Whether that story is authentically about Einstein is a debated question - having looked into it since posting, it seems that most, not all people think it is not authentic. However, that story has only ever been attributed to Einstein, so I think it suffices to call it a legend about Einstein in his youth.

But this is a dirgression from the point you raised. Any impact that a particular name will make can only work at the emotional level. The young Einstein story was not so much about the person, but about the argument. Either you understand the points made in the story about the nature of evil, or you don't.

So, turning it around [MENTION=6650]SealHammer[/MENTION], are you willing to engage the topic of this thread?: What are your views about the nature of evil?
 
Flavus Aquila said:
So, turning it around SealHammer, are you willing to engage the topic of this thread?: What are your views about the nature of evil?
Click to expand...

I already engaged the topic. Read the thread.

Whether that story is authentically about Einstein is a debated question - having looked into it since posting, it seems that most, not all people think it is not authentic. However, that story has only ever been attributed to Einstein, so I think it suffices to call it a legend about Einstein in his youth.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and legends don't hold so much water when the person in question lived very recently and had a reputation that runs contrary to the legend in question.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

But this is a dirgression from the point you raised. Any impact that a particular name will make can only work at the emotional level. The young Einstein story was not so much about the person, but about the argument. Either you understand the points made in the story about the nature of evil, or you don't.
Click to expand...

I understand the point that was made - I never said that I didn't. You, for some reason, want to argue about a point that was never put up for argument in the first place. I haven't challenged, even implicitly, the philosophy you've posited. I don't care. It's good as far as I'm concerned. What I have argued is that you are working on the cognitive biases of other people by juxtaposing that argument and the name of a world-renowned academic and quantifiable genius. It creates a logical misstep in the mind of the reader, not an emotional one. The reader isn't going off of what they feel about Einstein, they are going off of what they know about Einstein: that he is an intelligent man with many accolades and a history of producing work which permanently altered his field of study. If you didn't realize you were doing this, I totally understand - we've all used logical fallacies before - nevertheless it's ethically objectionable and you should be aware of it in the future.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top