A definition of "evil"

Benj96

I know there are a lot of philosophical approaches here to the topic of "evil". Some believe there is an objective qualifiable "evil" in reality, and by proxy an objective morality and "good" too. Perhaps even an objective truth underpinning them.

Others believe true evil doesn't exist at all or is just a construction. More again believe its subjective and depends on context and perspective.

But if you had to describe the most heinous evil one could commit what would it be?

For me the most evil thing I can think of in a broad sense is "a). Taking the object of love/need away from the one(s) who love/need it, b). when the act (of loving/needing) was harmless/benign in itself, and c). While having the intent to cause harm/ expecting suffer as a result by doing so."

If any of the three clauses of the statement a, b and c are not met than the act is not purely evil.

For example if the object of love/need was a threat to/ or actively harming their lover/needer then its removal is justified by minimising harm to the lovers/needers of it.

Or in the case that the object was removed either by accident or with an unsound mind - incapable of connecting with the consequences through empathy (as in the case of not guilty by reason of insanity) or in a crime of instantaneous passion where no time was taken to consider the outcome.

So basically if someone sees a love/need dynamic (between people, between one and their own body - self esteem, between someone and their precious possessions - food water, medicines etc) and plans/pre-meditatively destroys that relationship on purpose just so that the person suffers - this is the most unjustifiable and purely malign act whether it's murder, theft, rape or verbal abuse/bullying etc.

universeness

I personally do define evil as a purely human measure/judgement of behaviour.
I think the most heinous evil is to truly believe that YOU are the most important object in the universe and to act 100% in accordance with that belief. Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil humans who has ever lived and I think his narcissism was at a 100% level or as close to it as a single human can get.

T Clark

I personally do define evil as a purely human measure/judgement of behaviour. — universeness

I agree. I think the idea of evil is generally not a useful one. It often leads to responses that are not effective in addressing the behavior in question. E.g. revenge rather than prevention and deterrence. "Evildoers" are human. If you want to stop them, you have to understand that.

That being said, the worst thing a person can do is hurt a child.

180 Proof

But if you had to describe ~~the most heinous~~ evil ~~one could commit~~ what would it be? — Benj96

'To deliberately inflict and prolong, willfully ignore or derive pleasure from suffering' is my quick & dirty idea of evil.

Benj96

↪180 Proof

good summary I think we are both on similar lines of thinking.

Follow up question for you; having defined it now what would you think motivates such people to commit those kinds of perverse pleasures? As in do you think it's nature or nurture? Do you think people who do such things are redeemable? Do you think those that pursue evil things are simply mis-directed or do you think there's nothing one can do to salvage some civility in them?

Benj96

I think the most heinous evil is to truly believe that YOU are the most important object in the universe and to act 100% in accordance with that belief. Adolf Hitler was one of the most evil humans who has ever lived and I think his narcissism was at a 100% level or as close to it as a single human can get. — universeness

Interesting indeed. But what say you of a person who believes they are the only thing that exists (solipsists) - one who believes their "self" is unanimous with the "whole" but perhaps have a perogative to act in servitude of the self. In that case a crime against another is a crime against the self. They hold accountable their actions against another as if it was against their self and therefore are benevolent towards all people.

It is sort of positive narcissism. I wouldnt hurt myself therefore I cannot hurt another as it is equivalent.

Benj96

That being said, the worst thing a person can do is hurt a child. — T Clark

Is this because childhood is commonly viewed as a state of innocence and therefore unaccountability? If you cannot be held responsible for your actions you cannot have done wrong or right?

And if so at what age do you believe one is suddenly responsible for their actions/ no longer innocent? Is this age the same for every person? Is it defined or arbitrary based on intelligence, self awareness, experience or a specific age?

hypericin

Evil is to act without regard for the well being of the other. This is epistemically objective to the degree motivations can be objectively determined.

Sadism is a perverse evil, that cause pain and permanent damage to gratify a psychic or sexual need.

Narcissism is evil, because the narcissist acts with only their benefit in mind.

Sadistic narcissists are the most objectively evil humans we've got *cough* Trump *cough*.

T Clark

Is this because childhood is commonly viewed as a state of innocence and therefore unaccountability? If you cannot be held responsible for your actions you cannot have done wrong or right? — Benj96

Not exactly. For me, at the heart of all moral questions is the need to protect the vulnerable. Beyond that, I think the purpose of human society is to raise and protect children. Why else go to all this trouble?

180 Proof

Follow up question for you; having defined it now what would you think motivates such people to commit those kinds of perverse pleasures?
As in do you think it's nature or nurture? — Benj96

I don't know. Besides, I think that's a psychiatric problem and not a philosophical question.

Do you think people who do such things are redeemable?

No. They are more lethal pathogens than bad people. I've never heard of remorseful animal torturers, child / elder rapists, serial killers, or mass murderers, have you?

Do you think those that pursue evil things are simply mis-directed or do you think there's nothing one can do to salvage some civility in them?

In every culture "the devil" is portaryed as a being of utmost "civility". Folk instincts in this regard are instructive. All that glitters is not gold ..., etc. Such inhuman folk, it seems to me, forfeit the right of inclusion in any human community. Put out both of their eyes and permanently exile them to the remotest place on Earth – under constant electroonic / satellite suveillance with RFID tags like wild animals – with prefab shelters and enough training (while medicated) and tools to manage subsistence living – either they blindly work togrther to survive or they don't.

universeness

"Evildoers" are human. If you want to stop them, you have to understand that. — T Clark

This is a crucial point for me, there are no supernatural scapegoats available, there never has been and there never will be. Humans must own evil and only by fully understanding why humans do what they do, can we successfully combat evil, in all the ways humans demonstrate it.

universeness

But what say you of a person who believes they are the only thing that exists (solipsists) - one who believes their "self" is unanimous with the "whole" but perhaps have a perogative to act in servitude of the self. In that case a crime against another is a crime against the self. They hold accountable their actions against another as if it was against their self and therefore are benevolent towards all people.

It is sort of positive narcissism. I wouldnt hurt myself therefore I cannot hurt another as it is equivalent. — Benj96

I think if you are a solipsist who declares solipsism as an objective truth, then you have declared yourself as the most important object in the universe, based on your delusion, that only you truly exist, which would fit with my definition of an extremity of evil.
I personally think solipsism is nonsense but your connection between solipsism and the golden rule is a nice but unlikely connection.
A solipsist who is benevolent towards everything because they believe everything is of them and they therefore treat everything as they themselves would want to be treated, is an angle on solipsism I have not heard of before and I find it too much of a stretch for me. I would consider a solipsist to be narcissistic by default, unless they only put solipsism forward, merely as a small possibility.
Based on your agreement with @180 Proof, do you consider masochistic humans as behaving in an evil way?

'To deliberately inflict and prolong, willfully ignore or derive pleasure from suffering' is my quick & dirty idea of evil. — 180 Proof

Why do you use 'dirty' here? Are you referencing masochism? and if so, do you see masochism as an evil behaviour in all cases?

180 Proof

↪universeness

"Quick & dirty" is just a common phraase.

universeness

"Quick & dirty" is just a common phraase. — 180 Proof

Not common to me. Do you think masochism is an act of evil?

180 Proof

↪universeness

Not if it is victimless, which it almost always is.

universeness

↪180 Proof

Can a human therefore not perform an evil act on themselves?

universeness

↪180 Proof

If a human stands by whilst an innocent child is murdered, (to use the example offered by @T Clark)
could such be offered as an evil act you have performed against your own self?

180 Proof

↪universeness

No. Self-victimization doesn't make sense.

↪universeness

No. The evil act is done to the child, whether or not she is his child. Same as above.

T Clark

This is a crucial point for me, there are no supernatural scapegoats available, there never has been and there never will be. Humans must own evil and only by fully understanding why humans do what they do, can we successfully combat evil, in all the ways humans demonstrate it. — universeness

You and I agree that evil, to the extent it exists at all, is human. Maybe that's the difference between us - I don't believe there is such a thing. Evil is just something we call the worst human behavior. I've never seen it as a religious thing.

Agent Smith

The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself. — St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)

:snicker:

180 Proof

Addendum to

↪180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

With g/G, scripture says "evil is sin against g/G". However, with or without g/G, evil is also sin against all descendants. :mask:

Agent Smith

With g/G, scripture says "evil is sin against g/G". However, with or without g/G, evil is also sin against all descendants. :mask: — 180 Proof

You have good taste in music mon ami! I wish I'd made time for all these other aspects of life - music, literature, etc. - that make bios worth living.

mon ami!

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

:nerd: :up:

Tzeentch

To me, the concept of evil has always been closely related to deceitfulness and lying or being untruthful to oneself or another.

There is a category of harmful actions that we commit out of ignorance, which is seperate from evil.

Then there is a category of harmful actions we knowingly and purposefully commit. That is evil. Such actions are always accompanied by some form of justification, which I regard as self-deceit.

Evil is a denial of reality itself, and perpetrator and victim both suffer.

unenlightened

Evil is a denial of reality itself, and perpetrator and victim both suffer. — Tzeentch

This.
We are fragile, and so we are fearful. And of those whose fragility is exploited and abused, there are some who are destroyed psychologically. One can see it sometimes in the eyes, a deadness, and other times it is covered by the brightest of smiles.
Those whose own fragility has become intolerable, seal themselves off from the world and present themselves as strong. Their strength is to project their own weakness onto the world and punish the world for it. This is hell, because it can never end, and there is no one left to save. Pity the pitiless!

Benj96

In every culture "the devil" is portaryed as a being of utmost "civility". Folk instincts in this regard are instructive. All that glitters is not gold ..., etc. Such inhuman folk, it seems to me, forfeit the right of inclusion in any human community. Put out both of their eyes and permanently exile them to the remotest place on Earth — 180 Proof

Ive heard this too.. The devil being the most masterful/artful liar and appearing like an angel. It worries me that such a level of deceit could exist in the world. How would one ever prove who they are?

universeness

No. Self-victimization doesn't make sense. — 180 Proof

I agree and therefore I think that the label self-victimisation is inappropriate. BUT, the label 'responsibility,' is appropriate or perhaps 'shared responsibility.' 15000 children die every day for preventable reasons. Do you consider this daily occurrence to be evil? Do you think that all humans who know about it have a shared responsibility to stop this?

That being said, the worst thing a person can do is hurt a child. — T Clark

I think the purpose of human society is to raise and protect children. Why else go to all this trouble? — T Clark

Two good points. So, 15000 child deaths per day, from preventable events cannot be allowed to continue. We all share the responsibility for this imo.

universeness

You and I agree that evil, to the extent it exists at all, is human. Maybe that's the difference between us - I don't believe there is such a thing. Evil is just something we call the worst human behavior. I've never seen it as a religious thing. — T Clark

I think the label 'evil' is ok to use as a convenient descriptor for certain judged human behaviours. I see it similar to other labels such as 'time.' Time may well have no reality outside of a convenient way to measure the 'duration of events'. I agree with you that evil has no relevance outside of the human experience or perhaps more accurately, outside of the experience of all creatures capable of emotional feelings. If you remove 'evil' from religion and you don't see evil as a religious thing, then what do you leave the Christians (for example) as their main tool of judgement. Why do you jump so quickly to their defence, if you think one of their most important tools is being used by them, falsely? Is it because you, in truth, fully accept my first sentence above?

Benj96

Two good points. So, 15000 child deaths per day, from preventable events cannot be allowed to continue. We all share the responsibility for this imo. — universeness

Yes I agree. If you truly see eachother as being valued, if you really think other people deserve the same protection and care that you receive/ or ought to receive from others then there's no other option than their pain and suffering being your pain and suffering, it's empathy, otherwise you only fool yourself while they starve to death through no fault of their own.

If 15000 children's deaths can be prevented. And we see all children on the planet as deserving protection. Then it's imperative to try and do so. Otherwise we are just spectators observing bad and good things being done but not actively contributing to it ourselves or worse... Being manipulated by bad people and liars to do their bidding for them unbeknownst to ourselves.

Benj96

I don't know. Besides, I think that's a psychiatric problem and not a philosophical question. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure I agree. I think it is a philosophical question. If psychiatry and philosophy are both referencing the quality of thought, behaviours and beliefs of the mind... I don't see how there isn't massive Overlap. I think philosophy (thinking and questioning) can and should be applied to all disciplines - for the sake of ethics at least.

universeness

The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself. — St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)

The more I read quotes that people use from this St, Augustine character from history, the more I dislike him, as I do when I read words attributed to most historical characters given the title saint. A title I find personally, particularly ridiculous. What do you think people really do love here. I understand that a person may be 'mentally ill,' have 'bad wiring' etc and therefore get all 'jack the ripper' or 'ted bundy' on people and feel no regret or compassion afterwards but that's because of their psychiatric problems.
A child who steals candy from another child, and sits and eats it whilst the first child is in tears? Is that evil? or is that just behaviour we learned in the wilds?
A program I watched recently showed an example of a time of lack of resources amongst a group of monkeys. A male monkey decides to attack one of the children of another. He kills it and starts to consume it. Other monkeys in the troop join in on consuming the infant monkey. The mother of the monkey screams her protests at the group. One of the female monkeys stops eating the infant for a moment to embrace the screaming mother in what can only be described as an attempt to console her.
As a human, I cannot label this scene as anything other than pure evil but I also feel the need, not to do so and see this event as what can happen if you continue to live under jungle rules.
I think the same applies to 'romanticising' statements (I am not suggesting you are doing so, but some people do) such as the one above from Augustine. If you love your own perdition and your own faults, then your thinking is rather flawed imo. I think you need to accept responsibility for such but to LOVE such is folly.

A definition of "evil"

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions