How do you define an “evil” act versus one that’s just “bad”?
I got in a heated argument about this last night and had real trouble pinpointing what my definition of evil really was. For example, I wouldn’t necessarily classify a murder by a mentally retarded person evil, whereas a calculated murder by someone who’s intelligent enough to understand their actions I would certainly classify as evil. So, part of my definition is that you must be aware that what you are doing is reprehensible.
But then, exactly what acts are evil? Murder seems to be an ultimate. Child molestation & rape come to mind. Theft? I’d say no. Under most circumstances. I’m trying to arrive at a working definition here. Help me out. Or give me yours. I’ve been struggling all day.
Moving on, though, I don’t think doing something that’s “wrong” is necessarily “evil.” Such as it’s wrong to fart in an elevator but not really evil. That sort of thing. Sorry for the cheap joke, but I think the point stands.
Evil isn’t a concept I grasp readily. I see a difference between doing acts for gain or need versus doing acts for pleasure. If I shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die, that seems pretty damned evil. If I shoot him for a thousand dollars, that seems wrong, but less evil.
Dunno. I guess if I comprehend the motives, I tend not to think of it as evil. And that’s weird.
Honestly, I think I tend to categorize something as “evil” when I can’t comprehend the motivation. If I shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die, that’s evil. If I shoot him for the ten thousand dollars he’s carrying around, that’s wrong and bad, but kind of “normal” in a way. Explicable. That’s why serial killers seem “evil” to me, whereas “black widows” (if they exist) seem bad but not evil.
Well, from a religious perspective, evil is anything that opposes the purposes of good. Cutting down a tree is “evil” if it opposes the tree god, stealing is “evil” because it violates the Ten Commandments, etc.
From a secular perspective, evil, in general are things that delink effort from reward. People generally consider crimes against the defenseless (children, physically ill) “evil” while the equivalent against someone who is not defenseless is considered “not evil”. Few people would say that war is inherently “evil”, because both sides are shooting at one another and the victor is the stronger of the two; however, most people would say that rounding up Jews and gassing them is “evil” because they never had a chance.
Ok: the “people as things” quote is an interesting starting point, but I think we need to go further. Plus this is “sin” as opposed to evil. I wouldn’t consider not honoring one’s parent’s “evil,” although that does make you a disrespectful little shit.
I think motivation is the key here:
Stealing bread for my family because we can’t afford it? Not evil.
Stealing bread from a starving person because I really want a sandwich? Pretty goddamn evil.
So I think perpetrating a severe wrong without any need to do so is evil. “Severe,” I realize, is a little shaky, but it’s getting closer.
From my religious/spiritual perspective, it’s not a particularly useful word or concept, although I fling the word around informally all the time like most folks do.
But… since that which is in one’s personal self-serving best interests actually correlated with that which is best for the species and the universe as a whole and so on (for, if this were not so, it would no longer be in your ultimate best interests as an individual), the real and final cause of doing evil is “failure to understand”.
So there is no deliberate, fully informed, entirely cognizant Evil. Only acts committed in error, in ignorance, under misapprehension of how the universe works.
There’s no “other light”, there is only light, which is good, and darkness, in which people blunder.
And woe unto anyone who gets overly literal about the desirability of light vs darkness, you know damn well what I’m talking about!
When you do harm (and know you are doing wrong - I don’t think a mentally handicapped person can really be capable of evil) to another living thing for no reason other than the fact that you** can**, - that is evil.
People that abuse other living things are evil. I don’t mean use - I don’t consider eating meat or hunting evil - but kicking a dog who isn’t bothering you or beating your wife/husband is evil.
Taking something you don’t need from someone who does need it is evil.
Can there really NOT be fully informed evil? What about, say, a genocidal dictator? Rising to power shows a supreme understanding of the world & how it functions. To use that power for a large scale ill against humanity, I would consider sheer, unmitigated & deliberate evil. Regardless of what the person thinks they are accomplishing or what they think the good of the world is (however misguided their understanding), they must realize, at some level, that mass murder is a ruinous act that affects thousands. This knowledge would make this act fully evil, in my eyes.
Are you a genocidal dictator? Would you be one if you had the opportunity? (Assume for the duration of this scenario that there is no vengeful God to reckon with). Well? If not, why not?
Does your reason ultimately pertain to it not being what you want, not being what would make you happy?
Genocidal dictators aren’t “getting away with” anything. I would not want to be the victim of one, but I would rather be a victim of one than be one.
I like to use three catagories, not two. Good, evil, and amoral. Good is benevolent, evil is malevolent, and the amoral just don’t care.
I believe that a basic part of the definition of the concept is how do you react to the self-interest of others ( using “self-interest” in the broadest possible sense ). Do you give it a positive value, a negative one, or a zero value ? Someone who beats his wife because he thinks it’s fun is evil. A guy who kills someone for money without caring is amoral. Somebody who returns a lost wallet just to help the owner is good.
So what is evil ? Evil is malice and cruelty; evil is hurting others because you enjoy it, or because you simply wish them harm ( like terrorism, quite often ). Evil is more than selfish; it places a negative value on the welfare of others.
Evil people: those who hate life and love death, hate pleasure and love pain, hate kindness and love cruelty, hate creation and love destruction.
Evil acts: those motivated by one of the four conditions that make people evil.
I don’t think the concept of evil can be limited exclusively to views and actions related to hurting people. For instance, the destruction of the tow giant Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2001 qualifies as an evil act, despite the fact that it didn’t cause harm to humans. It was motivated by the fact that those people couldn’t stand the knowledge that some ancient Buddhist artist cared deeply about something other than the Taliban’s small-minded religious views. Thus, they decided to cause destruction merely for the sake of causing destruction.
I also don’t agree with the definition that evil acts are only those which the doer knows to be wrong. People who use this definition may underestimate the human mind’s ability to fool and delude itself. This effect is magnified when a person is surrounded by people with universally evil views; in such circumstances, the individual often finds it easy to abandon their principles and whole-heartedly adopt the evil mindset. Almost all of the Nazis who ran concentration camps or rounded up people for extermination firmly believed that the Nazi ideology was good.
The problem with the way the word ‘evil’ is often used, is that we don’t differentiate between the distasteful action and the person who carried out the action. Too often we say ‘evil people’.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as an evil person. If I were to meet someone who fitted the above description I would be meeting someone with an extremely damaged mind and heart, but no person is evil by nature for then they would be evil in every way. All people have the capacity for positive, creative actions as well as negative, destructive actions. No person is capable of being positive and creative every moment of their life and it works the other way too. No person is capable of being negative and destructive every moment of their life for the very reason that all people have the capacity to love.
Another problem with the concept of ‘evil’ is that it erases the concept of humanity. As soon as we call a person evil we begin to see them as monstrous and inhuman. If we think that then we are likely to treat them despicably and, in doing so, behave in an ‘evil’ manner ourselves.
I also want to say in response to:
What is so wrong with death? Loving to kill is distasteful but death is not. Death is part of life itself.
Sure. And it’s quite possible to embrace and love death as a part of life. but that’s not what he said. He said “people who hate life and love death.”
What is evil? Pineapple on pizza.