In the book "Between Good and Evil", the author asserts that the world is "in a war" between good and evil, and that evil "adapts" and takes on more subtle forms; I thought it was a fascinating read.

You really gotta learn how to do quotes.

I do not think you can define evil by itself, I think you need to define what is evil and what is good at the same time, as one is meaningless without the other.
Wouldnt it be best to keep it simple, and define evil as that which opposes good? I realise thats shifting the burden but I think thats where it belongs (rather than shifting the burden as a dodge of the question).
Evil as the destruction of agency is interesting, but wouldn't that make all punishment immoral. It would also mean people would be constantly committing evil unawares, as their actions will almost certainly, at some point, effect the agency of others. Not sure if thats the best way of defining evil that way. What is the utility of that definition?

That sentence makes no sense. @IvoryBlackBishop

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.
— Banno

No, but it may be I think of agency as more inclusive than anything remotely mindful of an algorithm, or AI/machine based models of mental plane of existence. There is agency and event. Even if we have our agency perfectly defined, leaving nothing to chance or intuition, it is still informed by the ongoing event or informational environment, which itself is informed by incomplete information (at least the limitations of your agency would, in honesty, have to admit it is incomplete information). So the concept of God or nature, what have you, shows up again in incomplete information or the wholly other.

Taking the concept of agency too far risks mistaking self and other in oneself and the other (in the most abstract sense of supreme systemic network, or nature, anima mundi), resulting in interloping of personal space, frigidity, and monotone values. The limits of agency are what needs to be sketched out in an honest fashion. Would instinct be informed by nature? If not, then what would it be?

Anyway, as I see it the limitations of an individual are the limitations of mankind. We can't mistake what is and has been known by our species for all there is to know. The Abstract will always be a limitation no matter the ascension of someone or everyone. Agency is informed by abstraction. Extra-human, precisely.

Good mushrooms?

Whatever you say, cap'n

"Evil" for me is "that which threatens the state of existence /stability of being of something which has been attributed a positive value. Evil is not inherent but applied."

If I see what I believe is a beautiful masterpiece and someone comes along and alters it a little and I suddenly no longer see the beauty, I could argue that they have destroyed a wonderful work. It should have been left as it was and the act was evil or malicious or idiotic. But if someone else saw the same masterpiece being altered and they said "Wow you've just improved it so much! And they now see more beauty. They would see the act as good and my reaction as harsh, critical or negative.

The social norm of a society dictates what is evil and what is not. Slavery used to be the norm now it is considered evil. Unrestricted plundering of our planets resources is still somewhat the norm now but I suspect in the next few decades it will be reflected on as a great evil against mother nature.

Legal philosophy isn't based on "norms", it's based on harm and defined acts (e.x. murder, rape, and so forth), popular "opinion". is irrelevant.

I'm not aware of any modern "society" that runs on norms such as "ambiguously defined popular opinions" to begin with - such as how "popular opinion" has no bearing on the interpretation of a law by the federal courts, and was never intended to to begin with.

(Much as saying that if "popular" opinion is that the earth is flat, that this dictates whether or not it actually is flat, is rather absurd, I'd view this as absurd for the same reasons).

Likewise, the rationale behind something becoming a popular "norm" to begin with obviously plays a role (e.x. abolitionists considered slavery evil for various reasons even before it became ambiguously "popular" to think so).

I subscribe to the view that every human is capable of good and evil. The problem of good and evil is definitely through actions and looking at these actions through a moral lens. However, sometimes people do bad things or good things with no intention. So, the intention is where one needs to look.

If someone plots murder and also revels in the fact of what if they are going to do and carry out the act, I would say this an example of evil. The Nazi government's decision to intentionally exterminate millions of people through gas chambers, firing squads, and reveling in the fact that they did it, evil. Joseph Stalin intentionally holding faux courts on his people that opposed any action he did and to instill cruelty and fear into the minds of his people, evil. These leaders and individuals committed atrocities, but they didn't just commit an atrocity, they reveled in the fact that they did and they planned to do so as well. So, if there is a plan, if there is an act, and their pride in the act, I would constitute this as what evil is. To get more specific, if someone murders someone as a part of gang violence due to the pressure of someone else killing them or their family, is this considered evil? I don't think so. This is a typical example of where we must examine dilemma's like so by going 'Beyond Good and Evil' as Nietzsche would prescribe. The absurdity and odd dilemma's life presents require one to go beyond good and evil to examine them properly. Not examining problems like so would be to assume that things are evil when they are not as clear as one thinks...However, the problem of good and evil is nothing I am an expert on, this is all just my humble opinion.

Forgive me Im new and don't study evil but for me we would have to start with a definition and since we likely have no real origin of the word lost to time I'd go with the current which would be the lack of good or a villian it has been said no person can be wholly evil or good as it cannot be done all the time the nature of things dictate then that an evil must be an act . Now what parameter are required for an act to be evil , what is evil must be perspective based on environment and learned experiences example ,is it an evil commit the ultimate evil act to stop evil ?to play a trick or set a trap ?to be evil can be summed up as avoiding confrontation perhaps often associated with darkness which is another argument I will not be writing an essay on at this time but from what I know is that you choose to act unaturallly that you choose to lie is the simpalist way to avoid this actual lecture is to sum up evil as to knowingly lie .

That is to say the only act that could be considered truley evil without another answer another side of the story is to knowingly lie because that is the only real choice you have is to lie the rest is fate there cannot be freedom without fate without knowing everything you simply cannot be evil based on any single act from any single perspective there's almost always 2 arguments if not more, so the only real evil is to knowingly tell a lie .

so the only real evil is to knowingly tell a lie — Dan Hall

I think I was in 6th grade at a new school, for troubled students. The classrooms are windowless as were the doors, so turning off the light switch was a funny yet understandably dangerous thing people would do on occasion. We were about to go to lunch or something and were lined up more or less by the door. Someone flipped the switch. Once the teacher turned the light back on she demanded to know who was responsible with the ultimatum that we would stand there and miss whatever if nobody fessed up. Selflessly or perhaps in a state of hunger I said "It was me" and was told I would face later punishment for doing so. After that I kind of backed out softly like "I was just saying that to get the line moving". Nevertheless I was not believed the second time. As I walked to the back of the line I eyed each of my peers intensely. Was I 'evil' for doing that?

I honestly cannot say if Evil is a law of nature like I said there is two sides to every story what I do know is freedom and fate are tied together some might say fate is not real but I would argue it's much realer than evil. Thomas Boston says Satans power is very limited on earth it says so in the Bible and that God makes the crook in the lot or "evil" so that we may learn from it and fight it when we become "good" so there is no good or evil simply gods will or nature's law he's trying to teach you how to be stronger so you don't get taken advantage of. How can a good person fight evil ? He can't he's naive and would be destroyed so there is no good and evil, however if the universe has freewill why do we all have to lie how can we believe in gods sovereignty and claim freewill so you see fate is simply knowing all the facts if we see the whole we know the outcome so by lying we are denying each others freedom and fate. Hope that help my friend.

Purgery is one of the oldest crimes predates murder and is an evil in all religions ancient pagans ones Semitic ones ect ect

It's one of the ten commandment and in the courts it comes from Anglo law or Vikings whom took purgery or giving their word very serious

To reiterate, given that both agencies, humans, and non-agencies, like earthquakes, floods, etc. are generally considered as evil, it makes sense, doesn't it? that evil boils down to causes of suffering. There's no other way, no common thread in them, to refer to all of the above mentioned as evil.

That said, there's this feeling of uncertainty, a sense that something's off, in defining evil as simply causes of suffering. I mean when an agency, a person for example, is evil it implies this person is inclined to, has a propensity for, maybe even prefers/likes being, evil but the same can't be said of an earhquake or flood or a tornado.

I'll leave it at that.

Well I think that would be very neglectful for any philosophy to involve generalities such as a flood being evil without giving it parameters to test but perhaps it has caused an evil or evil perspective but if we take that statement of " the earthquake was evil it killed my mom" I think most rational members of society would not accept that as fact .

Which removes it as a philosophy.

Well I think that would be very neglectful for any philosophy to involve generalities such as a flood being evil without giving it parameters to test but perhaps it has caused an evil or evil perspective but if we take that statement of " the earthquake was evil it killed my mom" I think most rational members of society would not accept that as fact . — Dan Hall

I'm simply working with the official position on the issue - natural evil?!

By the way, evil as causes of suffering doesn't actually cut it since punishment for criminal behavior counts as causing suffering but no one would treat that as evil. Another poster made a mention of this. Hopefully, fae sees this post.

Right but let's look at that what I'm saying is for there to be society you need atleast 2 rational people that means they compromise on some things that's the rational part now so I think most people would agree while it may be said that it was evil that the disaster killed a person but that if society then entered a debate the only reasonable course of action would be to admit that perhaps is was not the disaster. now if what your implying is historical then perhaps they would say the gods were angry or evil was being punished evil was wrought by the volcano but never the volcano was evil so I cannot fathom why I'm even answering this but perhaps this is my duty to society certianly freedom involves setting others around you free if you can.

I think it is very easy to define Evil. Evil is the intentional violation of the Golden Rule Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .”
Ideologies like Nazi Fascism, Islamic State etc. purposefully do to others what they would not have done unto themselves, they are therefore easily identifiable as evil. They invoke a dog eat dog survival of the fittest rationale to apply to human races / religions.
Thieves, rapists, murderers, do the same, they purposefully break the Golden Rule, and their acts are therefore considered evil.

Evil is always ingrained in your mind by what your religion/culture has taught you. I try to define evil in a completely Non-Biblical way (since we all were not raised in the church or like me abandoned Abrahamic Religions). I call Evil “That Which Increases Suffering” and Good as “That Which Increases Quality and Enjoyment of Life”. To ex: the Catholic Church forbids birth control which causes overpopulation and poverty! So, in my definition that makes the Catholic Church EVIL!!! Even though I’m not Christian - I see the Protestant Christians as “Less Evil”.

I would hope you realize that’s a little ridiculous. Your view has to be more nuanced than that. Vaccines cause suffering (getting stuck with needles hurt), and doing anything you don’t want to do causes mental distress (paying taxes, going to school/work, etc.), cognitive dissonance is also unpleasant, but surely you wouldn’t consider all these things evil? If this post happens to rub you the wrong way and makes you upset, does that make me evil?

Even aside from these issues there’s the issue of who’s suffering to consider. I think we would be surprised at the amount of suffering we cause others just by going about our daily lives. Virtually all products we consume rely on exploitation. If your goal is to make everyone appear evil, then you’ve accomplished it.