I also guess part of my argument is do we really need the whole concept of evil.
I mean, take for example human welfare. Governments certainly should work towards that goal. But do we have to call that good or evil?
Also (as I said in my OP), I am also a little skeptical about so-called moral truths I once believed in without hesitation. I don’t know if I made that clear too.
I suspect “evil” is a term we use to describe others, since we can always rationalize our own actions. Most people probably think they have good intentions, like Walter White did in Breaking Bad, but to someone else the evil may be obvious.
Yes, Hitler and his Nazis wanted power and didn’t care who they had to murder to get it. Evil.
That’s what I said. Stripped down to the bare bones, evil is selfishness run amok. From the narcissistic parent who crushes their child’s spirit to the dictator who murders millions. Evil.
Very evil people on both sides.
I think there’s gotta be more too it than that, though. Some of the evil that people do is just about hurting others without benefitting themselves. Big extreme examples would include people like mass shooters and bombers, but there are smaller, more everyday examples too.
Either they’re acting on something other than selfishness, or, if your definition of selfishness is broad enough to include acts like these because those people are doing what they want to do, you still have to explain why the things that they want are so much more evil than the things that other, more benevolent people, want.
Fair point; the Nazis did try to hide the Holocaust.
Let’s use ISIS as an example then. ISIS made no attempt to conceal its beheadings; indeed they were publicized. The reason being that ISIS saw nothing evil about it, indeed, it believed it was enhancing zealous religious moral virtue and also exterminating vice or infidels or unbelievers. So, definitely a case of evil being misguided good.
This looks to me like something that happens when people think they need to teach kids in the most drastic terms possible. So they teach them that any drug use at all is Evil – and then they’ve got nothing left that’s any stronger to say about setting the dog or the baby on fire.
Almost inevitably, most of the kids who were taught that figure out that use of some drugs, by some people, in some fashions, doesn’t do any harm at all. And some of them then conclude that if they were lied to about that they must have been lied to about everything.
In most people, this seems to take the form of figuring out that one joint didn’t hurt them and then thinking that meth or heroin won’t either. The OP seems to have taken it further than usual.
– “Evil” as a religious term is going to vary depending on the particular religious belief being discussed. “Evil” as a secular term seems to me to properly apply to hurting others for the sake of hurting them; or to extreme cases of not caring how much one hurts others so long as one gets what one wants.
And then there’s always Terry Pratchett (yes, there is always Terry Pratchett, even now) who in the form of Granny Weatherwax says “Evil is treating people like things.” I would pick a nit about that one in that most humans define “people” as only other humans; and also in that treating, say, an entire forest like one can reasonably treat one’s shoes can IMO be evil even though the trees are classed as “things.” But as far as behavior toward humans is concerned, it’s a pretty good quote.
Did they all believe that, though? Or were they using that belief to get/keep themselves in power?
(I suspect the answer to that is ‘depends on which individual’s being discussed.’
I always looked at evil as being the deliberate choice to do something hurtful, bad or otherwise indifferent to others, when you have the choice to do the opposite, or at the very least, something orthogonal to it.
So seeing someone in distress- the good choice is to go help, the neutral choice might be to call for help, and the evil choice is to ignore it, or to go make it worse.
Because they want to get revenge for something hurtful, either real or imagined. And they don’t care if who they hurt or kill is the person who actually hurt them or not. Or else they want to be god’s instrument on earth, and they don’t care who they kill, even other believers. It’s all about themselves. Selfishness.
(Missed the edit window)
Think about the last time you were selfish. Either you did the selfish thing, and caused some to minimal to no hurt, or you restrained yourself and did the right thing. These evil people just think bigger and have no conscience to hold them back from their warped desires.
Agreement. I’ve always said, “The deliberate causation of needless pain.” Now, sure, there’s needful pain – surgery comes to mind. War might or might not sometimes be “necessary.” Hard to say. But a guy dropping stones from freeway overpasses, just for giggles…that’s evil.
You have money and I want it. It could be a mugger stealing your wallet or a drug company charging you 750 dollars for a 2 dollar life saving pill. That’s greed. Maybe qualifies as evil.
Killing 6 million Jews…mmmm probably just pure evil.
But Evil, I think, suggest Good. And for us (humans) we have mostly put good and evil in the context of a magic giant in the sky, who tells us what is good and evil.
Enlightened self interest is good for all.
Psychopath serial killers probably don’t have enlightened self interest.
Was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “evil”? well if you were a civilian living in those cities you’d probably think so. If you were a US Marine in the pacific theater you might have a different opinion.
If you were protesting George Floyd’s death and threw a brick at police are you Evil or Good? If you are a police officer that gets whacked in face by a brick and fires tear gas at the crowd are you Evil or Good.
If you are a police officer trying to maintain order and fire tear gas into a crowd are you Evil or good. Then you get whacked in the face with a brick from someone in the crowd. Is the brick thrower Evil or Good.
so killing 6 millions Jews, Seriel killers, probably alot other stuff we could all agree on is all Evil. Lot of the rest of it is a matter of opinion.
Definite agreement. In my formulation, “needful” is highly subjective and will vary wildly according to whom you ask.
This, 100%. It’s what it all comes down to.
There is a spectrum though.
I also wanted to say ‘evil’ (or whatever you choose to call it) is reality just a type of disorder IMHO. There’s little point in assigning blame. Just go to the source and eliminate that.
The real question comes back to whether or not it was necessary, or not. I mean, at the time we did it, we didn’t have any real indications that the Japanese were seriously suffering. We fully expected to have to invade the Japanese home islands, and were expecting Iwo Jima and Okinawa levels of combat intensity, except on a much, much larger scale. For a point of reference, the US military is STILL handing out Purple Heart medals made in 1945 in anticipation of expected casualties in the invasion. Think about that… all the wounded in Korea, Vietnam and every war since WWII have got medals minted for ONE single operation, and we’re still not out of them from what I can tell. And Japanese casualties were expected to be far worse.
So in light of that, it doesn’t seem so evil, considering the information available at the time.
We have phrases like “necessary evil” and “the lesser of two evils” that at least suggest that it’s possible for something to be necessary or justifiable yet still be evil.
Sure, but that’s true of anything like that where there are two unpalatable choices, even amputating a foot versus letting someone die of gangrenous toes. I think it’s more of a turn of phrase, rather than a literal syntactic discourse on the nature of good vs. evil.
I mean, nobody’s going to say that amputating someone’s foot instead of making them deal with gangrenous toes is evil in any way, shape or form. It certainly isn’t a pleasant thing, and it’s going to cause the person disability, but it’s arguably “good” in that it allows them to heal up and get better. Letting them just suffer with the gangrene in lieu of the amputation might be evil though, if it’s done out of callousness, selfishness or otherwise is chosen for reasons other than strict necessity (like maybe they don’t have a knife or something).
But people would say amputation is the lesser of two evils, when in fact it is good and compassionate.
Yes, of course there is “Evil” in the world. I deal with it almost daily. “Evil” is not some supernatural entity with a propensity for losing bets about golden fiddles. Evil is the kind of sick sonuvabitch that thinks the red hot eye of an electric stove is an appropriate child disciplinary device. Evil is the mother fucker that runs a dog fighting ring. Evil is the sick bastard that handed his 10 year old a loaded gun and told her to kill herself because she is stupid and ugly. Yeah. I know evil. And I do what I can to fight it. Takes a bad guy to take down other bad guys.