Thats the problem with morals - subjectivity leads to conflict.
It raises the question of whether evil actions arise as a result of moral “subjectivity” when two parties have contradictory notions of the good and evil present in a situation. And thats where the concept of justice comes in. Looking at history I have to say that I believe God is not Just.
I have a problem with coming to this conclusion as I can’t imagine the universe to be created out of anything but love.
But as for the immense suffering through the years (much of it “justified”) this is obviously something “wrong” with creation. If there is a divine agency which is responsible (or a metaphor) for human suffering then the concept of divine Justice falls flat. For if those who do evil to others are punished as negative reinforcement, why isn’t the divine agency of evil also punished?
Also, looking at events like the Nazi holocaust it is hard to beleive that those 6 million people deserved to die.
I have to say that there is no reason to beleive that God is just, or to put it another way that Karmic law exists.
To the extent that a person feels bad about doing an evil act, then I see why their guilt would punish them. But for someone who has a warped nature, and has convinced themselves of the good of their actions, even if they commit evil by the consensus of the majority, there is not necessarily a fitting punishment.
I have to agree that evil really does lie in the eye of the beholder. Depending on who you are, and what you believe your definition of evil could be vastly differing. My best take(s) on it?
The concious decision to harm someone, with the knowledge that it will indeed cause harm.
Infringing in someone else’s happiness which has no relation to your own.
(To explain this, Ive been forced [likely by modern society] to believe that happiness is something we must struggle for and attain. For my own happiness to survive, I am prepared to fight for and win against those whose own happiness directly opposes mine. I will look for the perfect outcome, working towards it with all of my powers; but given this theoretical situation I would not find myself evil for achieving my goals. We’re all involved in this fight, which is at times beyond good and evil.)
Acting against the advancement (ie, improvement) of any given situation.
(again, the idea of improvement is a personal one. My idea of a perfect world could be far from yours.)
I think what we are looking for here is a clear-cut definition of “evil”
Let me put forth this game-theory inspired definiton:
You have two players, 1 and 2.
Player 1 has to decide between two actions: A, or B.
If he chooses A : he receives X benefits points, and player 2 receives Y displeasure points.
If he chooses B : nothing happens.
If player 1 chooses action A, and the ratio Y/X > E (universal evil constant) , then A is said to have performed an “Evil Act”
Of course, we almost never have the luxury of knowing values X and Y (and E is yet to be determined), so the whole thing gets very muddled up in real life. For example: Is attacking Iraq an evil act? mmmm, lets see: innocent people will die, on the other hand , the US may be preventing a nuclear war, on the other hand control of oil fields is an issue, on the other hand Saddam is a ruthless dictator, on the other hand…and so on ad nauseum.
Another question:
Should a person commit evil acts?
This of course, has no answer. It’s like asking: Is being evil, a bad thing?
If you argue that God will punish evil dooers, then the very equation which defined evil is altered. So de evil dooer is not really evil, but stupid. Any argument concerning the pros and cons of being evil (or good) suffer the same flaw.
So God (or the universe) left it entirely up to us.
-If i meet a nice girl, wanna go out with her, but she already has a baby from a previous relationship. So i kill her, we mate, and bring up my kid? Would that make me evil?
Same situation, Mr Lion see’s a missus lion, kills her baby and mates with her (True story this time), is the lion just as evil as me? And dont tell me Mr lion didnt have a choice here.
Maybe its a question of priorities… a lions priority is to mate, pass on its gene etc.
Another situation:
-I buy a cat, but have it sterilised. dont wanna deal with the babies, and all that. Does that make me evil?
If Mr lion is excuesed for killking, as procreation is his priority wouldnt sterilising be the nastiest thing possible to an animal?
Also someone posted animals act on instinct, meaning they dont think… thats fubar, just last night i watched a program on monkies where this one monkey slaped another in the face, for not giving the first one food. Like its an instict to slap someone, that monkey was just a jerk!
Im tossing out a quickie, because Im going to run into 24 hours of full wakefulness rather soon and I don’t intend to be thinking when that moment comes about. Anyways, the argument against this (as I see it) is as follows:
By my own definition (not trying to toot my own horn, but I have given long and serious thought to the subject) of evil, not only must it be a concious act but you must know it is not the ‘right’ thing to do. This indicates that you have some sort of moral law that you follow, which does not seem to be the case for any other species of animal (as far as we can tell, and honestly their idea of morality might be something that humanity could not relate to in the slightest) other than Homo Sapiens, US. As a society, (generally speaking) we believe that we can know right from wrong; thus elevating us above all other animals that walk/flap/crawl/flop/swing/trot/etc upon this planet.
This is where I jump onto my high horse; as a whole I think we’re barely more than the gifted cousins of those forementioned monkeys. Either a large portion of us cannot tell right from wrong, or many of us are in fact ‘EVIL’ (which as stated is in itself a choice). Furthermore, our very own oft celebrated mental capacities are what give us the capability to both percieve and commit wrongdoing.
Thats my two dollars and fifteen cents, please take a whack at it if you’d like. I love my pet beliefs, but there is always room for refinement and improvement.
I think that part with the Holocaust would still have been seen as pretty bad. Unless seeing as how he came to power, he re-wrote history Orwell style, so nobody knew.
Refer to the argument Mark Twain refers to about the distinctions between the Earl and the Andaconda in his essay “The lowest animal” (it’s too long to include here).
Basically my impression from the essay is that Man is the only animal with moral sense. The lesson is that too many people have no moral compass.
IMO- The two most dangerous types of people are
A. - The people who are not aware of the exsistance of a moral compass (or sense) who can’t figure out why they spend so much time in jail. Just mentioning the idea of Evil to this type of person is likely to lead into trouble. Sorta like telling a small child not to touch something and then leave the room. What happens? CRASH! “but mommy I didn’t touch it!” the child will wail.
B. - The people fully aware of moral sense and live to point their compass south as often as possible. This is not the blathering idiot. This is the type of person who derives pleasure from thier deeds and enjoys the misery and suffering of others. This is the serial killer, the telemarketer ripping off little old ladies, the engineer deliberatly sabotaging safety for profit, the CEO dipping into his employees pension plans and runniing away to Bermuda. The illicit gain and want for money, power, or recognition is what drives this type of person into selfish acts for purley selfish reasons.
I’m willing to bet that 99% of all Evil done in this world are from the type B taking indecent atvantage of the type A. The type A thinking they can beat the system one more time. I always think of the movie “Fargo” for some strange reason.
One last thought, at the time Mr. Twain wrote his essay about the Earl and the Andaconda was also the time the church was pressuring Charles Darwin to re-label his book to “Ascent of Man”. Mr. Twain comments he felt the title was appropriate as it was. So did Darwin.
I hope this helps in the quest to define Evil. Maybe it’s best not to look to deeply into this subject, lest we find ourselves staring back from the mirror.
Evil is probably a consequence of having a nervous system (which inflicts mental, emotional & physical suffering on its ‘owner’). I don’t think evil exists outside of earth, which means that concepts like good & evil are unnatural to existence at large.
Without emotions or thought there could be no evil, and emotions and thought only exist on earth.