Printable View
Perhaps evil is simply the storage of anything.
If you think about it, once we deem that we "own" something and wish to use that something at some further point, we incorporate laws to "protect" our possessions.
But if nobody owned anything nor tried to posses it for later use, than outside of physical violence, would evil exist?
hmmm, maybe evil needs to be redefined.
To really redefine Evil, you must first define evil. And I doubt that you can find even a roomful of people who will truly have the same definiteion of evil, unless they all subscribe to a particular Religion, and even then, some religions are far less structured in their particular beliefs than others.
So, the debate really is what is evil, since it is not so easily understood that there is really a significant consensus on what it is.
I would define evil as that which is a corruption of good. Greed a corruption of desire, bitterness a corruption of justifiable anger(though it can also result from unjust anger ^ ^)
OF course, this definition relies on good to function, so you must define good. Which would be that which is in balance with the universe. This can also be summarised as that which demonstrates love and respect for other people, as well as for yourself.
And even in this there is the need for further redefinition, as these concepts are really essentially above human language. That is why such things are so hard to define.
--Susano
It's good to come back to a topic after someone has responded to it, it gives new perspective.
I think the key is to never use the word evil in and of itself.
Situational Evil is perhaps what I am referring to.
All evil is situational, really. To shoot someone with a gun, to blow them up with a bomb, to, dare I say it?, behead someone. It is not evil in and of itself, it depends on motive and situation. I think it is perfectly reasonable to shoot someone in self defense, or in defense of others, but to shoot someone at random, or just because you don't like them...well, that would be obviously wrong.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is what I mean.Quote:
Originally posted by Susano:
All evil is situational, really. To shoot someone with a gun, to blow them up with a bomb, to, dare I say it?, behead someone. It is not evil in and of itself, it depends on motive and situation.
The same situation can be viewed differently by the same people. If O.J. Simpson had anything to do with his wife's demise, perhaps his motivation was his wife saying she didn't want him around the kids.
I'm not justifying that as a reason for what O.J. may have done, but from O.J's. perspective, he could have felt outrage that the person who he had supported financially might also be the same women who probably used O.J's. money to lure other men into her life and who now was making some kind of veiled threat about stopping O.J. from visiting his own offspring. In O.J. eye's, that could have been seen as a situational evil that needed to be quelled.
If in fact O.J.'s murdered wife was using O.J's money to lure other men into her own social life and if she was threatening to stop O.J. from visiting his own children, then her portrayal in the public light as a complete victim could also be viewed as situationally evil.
Even though what O.J. may have done was wrong, it may be situationally evil to lay all the blame at his feet and none at the "situation" that provoked the alleged violence.
Defining evil would involve social standards,and that changes depending on which society we are referring to.In Middle Eastern cultures,women going in public with their heads uncovered is evil.
Yet all cultures have standards that are somewhat universal.Theft,murder,rape are all considered evil virtually everywhere,so then the definition of "good" and "evil" exist for a given social structure to function.Having said that then,you can look at other lines of questioning.Does evil exist unto it's own or is it merely the abscence of good just as darkness is the abscence of light(a rather Judeo Christian allegory)?
Hi interesting thread
i don't think that evil is simply the absence of good , surely we are talking about human action here with real effects. so, no action is just that , actionless thus neither good or bad this is an intuitive response.
so if we take rape as an example which we all agree is bad or evil action then by my reasoning if you didn't have the thought to commit rape this would be a non issue in your brain although if you had the thought and didn't commit the act of rape this wouldn't be good it would be self control.
"All evil is situational, i think this argument works for the situations you cite yet when could one justify rape? perhaps most evil is situational would be better? just a thought
<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ November 24, 2004 10:09 PM: Message edited by: drumkid ]</font></font>
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ November 24, 2004 10:14 PM: Message edited by: drumkid ]</font>
So, self control isn't good?
Admitedly it would be better not to have the impulse at all, but is it not better to have the impulse and not act on it, than have it and commit the act?
...and without impulses, are we in lithium land?
I would assume that it would be "impossible" to have only "good" impulses???
Good and evil are concepts relative to dogmatic justification of events by a religion/leading sect. Its all in analysis.
Evil needs no redefining. As time shifts, as empires rise and fall, so will that definition.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While I can agree with that all encompassing definition. If one were to rely on that definition and never "stand up" against evil (since it's all relative), then the salient definition of evil as described above can actually play a role in situational evil.Quote:
Originally posted by Christopher Lee:
Good and evil are concepts relative to dogmatic justification of events by a religion/leading sect. Its all in analysis.
Evil needs no redefining. As time shifts, as empires rise and fall, so will that definition.
Evil could be defined as what is contrary to the well being of society,which is the reason morals exist in the first place (see my post of morality:universal or societal construct?).
"Morality is the herd instinct in the individual."
F.W. Nietzsche
-------------------------
That is really a great definition, but situationally speaking, shared resources require a herd instinct mentality.
Once again, situations can arise that change the meaning of a great saying such as the one by Nietzsche up above.