Curious what others thoughts on evil are, and how it can be defined. — IvoryBlackBishop

So broad you can define it to suit your purpose. Right for yours will be of course wrong for other's, but that's sometimes where you have to go, if you're going to parse meanings for the purpose of establishing other meanings. .

.

(My undestanding is that "evil" today usually refers to malevolent or cruel human behavior, however in other contexts, it refers to "adversity" or "hardship" in general, such as disease, famine, poverty, natural disasters, not necessarily evil acts or intentions by people). — IvoryBlackBishop

You could also add to that that “evil” is sometimes viewed as a force, as in the “forces of good and evil.” If I’m not mistaken, this is what Nietzsche was getting at in “Beyond Good and Evil.”

Also, somewhat related, is Mary Midgley’s book “Wickedness,” where she comes to the conclusion that wickedness should be defined in a negative way, as an inability or unwillingness to “do the right thing.”

It seems your conflating consequential decisions with "rightness" or "wrongness"; my argument is that a person choosing to "do" such and such a thing doesn't make it "right" for them.

Curious what others thoughts on evil are, and how it can be defined.

(My undestanding is that "evil" today usually refers to malevolent or cruel human behavior, however in other contexts, it refers to "adversity" or "hardship" in general, such as disease, famine, poverty, natural disasters, not necessarily evil acts or intentions by people). — IvoryBlackBishop

If what you say is true then evil is, quite possibly, the cause of suffering.

my argument is that a person choosing to "do" such and such a thing doesn't make it "right" for them. — IvoryBlackBishop

So is your question about ethical relativsm vs. objectivism? In other words, are some actions inherently wrong, regardless of an individual's persuasion, and how can that concept be defined? Just trying to understand.

It can be defined better or worse, as "perfectly" as pure mathematics, no not quite.

One defining "good" as putting Jewish people in gas chambers, and "evil" as promoting peace, is obviously doing a piss poor job of it.

I suppose one place to start would be in the broadest terms:
1] Evil, in terms of human actions, may be thought of as a violation of a standard of behavior.

From there it gets very messy.

edit - delete

My bad! My notion is that there are so many meanings for evil that unless and until you specify which, there can be no clarity in your thinking.

Evil is anti, not opposite to good, so not to be thought of as equal, rather, 'anti' or parasitical. Evil actions are definite, there're aren't many meanings (@tim wood).

The universe, when sensed, produces data that is in accord with mind, more than it is with any ledged doctrine about the universe.

The process of producing fecal matter, shows that a cycle completes, which, in accord with mind and not doctrine, shows that morality exists.

If a human eats, a cycle occurs, and feces is produced.

Evil is not ultimately wrong, but it is anti good or good parasitical, in the same way the start of a cycle is opposite to the end.

Evil is not a force. It is abject human stupidity.

Evil can be defined or not by various means and for different purposes.
Different ways to approach it as an experience are inextricably joined with whatever narrative brings it into view.
Is it something that has its own life or a myth of some kind? The only way to find out is to try and find out by using yourself. Maybe that won't be enough.
I encourage feelings of inadequacy regarding the topic.

Doesn't "evil" denote failure to obey, serve or worship some g/G? And, therefore, is a religious, not ethical, value? (Nietzsche) So that "natural evil" is actually an apologetic oxymoron?

Doesn't "evil" denote failure to obey, serve or worship some g/G? And, therefore, is a religious, not ethical, value? (Nietzsche) So that "natural evil" is actually an apologetic oxymoron? — 180 Proof

'Evil' is too absolute a term, but 'sin' can be re-immanentized, if you like. Call it a bone in the throat of flourishing. If I self-phenomenologize, certain things I do give me endless grief. Others make me feel better. It's not a matter of pleasure vs pain, but of a background ok-ness that allows me to focus on immediate pleasure and pains without tending to old memories and obsessively rub old sins, like dirty coins.

But is that just the programming I inherited, and if I could be free from that programming....?

I don't think so, though of course I could be fooling myself. I think you know what is right action & what isn't through a concatenation of sub-religious things (for example: memories of how the mood of a gathering changed when someone did this or that; knowing a person well and seeing how pain accumulates as they do one thing, seeing when they emerge brightly from it when they do another, and how that happened; so forth)

It seems like something we know instinctively. We learn, through slow-dripped hints, what is good and what isn't, as we grow. But - I don't think there's any choice but to flow from that emotional medium forward. You're 'thrown' into it, to use another language. And you work out from there.

At the same time others have advanced similar ideas, while also doing ethically unconscionable things. They know the inner textures of their ethical system, while not being able to see its contours from without. That's for sure a constant in human history. How to bridge that gap, I'm not sure, but it seems like there's no way but to bring in both poles.

I think since Wittgenstien in particular, it is philosophically naive to expect that there could be a universally accepted definition of a moral judgment, other than it being a moral judgment, usually but not always negative, for those who actually agree there is such a thing as morality in the first place.

Evil' is too absolute a term, but 'sin' ... — csalisbury

... isn't, as I recall, any less "absolute". Some immanent fat to chew on though. :chin:

Any such discussion must include Hannah Arendt. It's about our humanity, not about any deity. As with any ethical tale, god is irrelevant.

Evil is the outpouring of a failure to partake in one's humanity, of not recognise the diverging, organic nature of people; of not seeing oneself as having a choice; the thoughtlessness of Eichmann the mere uncritical functionary.

Doesn't "evil" denote failure to obey — 180 Proof

Quiet the opposite.

(edit: but I think you knew that, 180...)

Doesn't "evil" denote failure to obey
— 180 Proof

Quiet the opposite. — Banno

Well, then, Arendt's "evil" distinction from bad doesn't make much of a practical difference to me.

I think human actions are motivated by a desire for happiness.

Ignorance of what makes us happy is what causes evil.

Evil is ignorance.

Well ... if personal conduct (e.g. murder, torture/rape, betrayal) or systemic practices (e.g. peonage/slavery, capital punishment, tyranny/terrorism) or natural events (e.g. psychosis, plague, famine) which, at least in effect, gratuitously destroy moral agency are not "evils", then I don't understand what is meant by "evil".

Evil: Human behaviors that increase the suffering of others.

That which is nescient of nature's example is evil. What isn't biomimetic would be evil. Not that we should copy nature's activity, but we should accept its delimitation without substituting our own.

E.g. - nature is creator and destroyer. It decides how long a species will exist. Humans are aware of death, our gift and curse. Instead of resisting death, we should accept it. Otherwise a malign and insidious evil will arise as a displacement of and substitution for death.

People use the word 'evil' to describe things they don't like, things they don't know how to cope with, things they fear.

Evil isn't ulimately wrong, you can be evil and nothing can judge you.

As I said before, see: cycles.

You run, and get tired; both are good, but you may notice the fact tiredness is a cycle completed and running is the process of that cycle.

Other examples; fecal matter, life and death, day and night.

Evil, then, is dis-harmomics.

The chances of a humans organic system becoming chaotic are slim. Yet there is this action that is more relevant to a completed cycle than it is to cycling. Neglect of cycles using completed cycles, is evil. Again, activity as such is not ultimately wrong, but we must control evil to prosper.

So you deny your own agency in order to follow what you take to be the natural law. In doing so you are dishonest to yourself, denying that you have a choice while in the very act of choosing.

Again, you have it exactly wrong.

It would probably be helpful to distinguish between ‘bad’ and ‘evil’.

It would probably be helpful to distinguish between ‘bad’ and ‘evil’. — I like sushi

Not addressed to me, I know, but ... Assuming, for discussion's sake, a non-supernaturalistic / non-theological (i.e. wholly secular) agency-centered, negative utilitarian/consequentialist ethics, consider this way of distinguishing

• Bad is suboptimal agency conditioned, or reinforced, by ONE'S OWN wrong conduct or wrong practices.

• Evil is ANY conduct, practice or event that gratuitously destroys agency.

It's the difference between (inadvertently) cultivating 'vice' on the one hand and needlessly amputating, so to speak, any capacity to cultivate, or (reflectively) exercise, 'virtue' on the other. The latter may often - though not necessarily - be aided & abetted, of course, by the former. Makes sense, no? If not, then ... :chin:

I think that’s sound enough. I wonder what @IvoryBlackBishop makes of this?

Destruction of agency is a nice way to put it. I’m certainly more inclined to go with virtue ethics than side with strong subjectivity (I by no means dismiss highly nuanced scenarios though).

This sums it up the nuance for me: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/63?fbclid=IwAR1Of9Panlkd4jPstu31iRYemGijUF1Goc--eFq6MVdE-a18HDO0upUIIfU

[reply="Any such discussion must include Hannah Arendt. It's about our humanity, not about any deity. As with any ethical tale, god is irrelevant.

Evil is the outpouring of a failure to partake in one's humanity, of not recognise the diverging, organic nature of people

Then you're arguing that it's evil to "not partake in one's humanity" or "recognize the diverging, organic nature of people.

of not seeing oneself as having a choice; the thoughtlessness of Eichmann the mere uncritical functionary.Banno;402329"]
Then you're arguing that it's evil for people to not be given a choice.

Likewise, I'm not aware of any arguments that a person "doesn't" have a choice in regards to good and evil; presumably the Nazis "had a choice" as whether or not exterminate Jews, but rather the arguments are in favor of steering people in the direction of good choices, as opposed to evil ones.

So you deny your own agency in order to follow what you take to be the natural law.

So again, you're arguing that "denying one's own agency" is evil.

Simply by living and partaking in the acts you currently are, you're already "denying" your agency in other potential ways, since you could always invest the same amount of time you do posting here in raping, murdering, torturing children if you were so inclined.

Whether or not you invoke "natural law" (which arguably isn't any more relevant in this discussion than "God is"), or simply your own agency or "free will" to choose to post here instead of raping, murdering, torturing children, the end result is the same.

In doing so you are dishonest to yourself, denying that you have a choice while in the very act of choosing.

So it's evil to be dishonest to oneself as well? One doesn't have a choice as to whether to be honest with themselves as well.

If it's not evil to destroy agency, then who cares, if that is what someone wishes to do (whether it actually means, anyway).