• Shar
    3
    As many would say, Evil comes in many forms and sizes. it has many faces. over the years. I have thought a lot about what is evil. as well as what isn't. for there are many things in life. many would consider evil. while I would simply mark it out as nothing out of the ordinary. There is also this popular saying going around. "Evil is in the eyes of the beholder." which for several years. I myself have gone by. but as time went by. I have come to realize that even this statement is so flawed. that it is to be discarded. because Evil is more then just being a persons perspective against that of another.

    Let's put down some simple suggestions of perspectives. and give thought on if it is evil or not.

    An Earthquake has happened, many lost their homes, and loves ones within. and some condemn the Earthquake for being a source of evil. hard to phantom. for nature may be cruel. but nature is certainly not evil.

    A Teenager mugs a grandma with a knife. Sure a heavy crime, one that shouldn't go unpunished. but without knowing the motive of the act. the act itself can not be called evil.

    So what is it that I consider Evil. well. to put it in one word. Selfishness. The act that you do for yourself with no other in mind. All forms of Evil. stem from this. within nature. within animals. within human. There are those that would say. That Selfishness is part of Evil. but I have come to realize. it is the source of it. there is nothing that I have been able to come up with that I would mark as Evil. that did not have its roots in Selfishness. putting oneself before the other. One might argue that group mentality or religious believes also are cause for great evils. but if that is watered down. it is still selfishness. Kill a 100 babies to save 10.000 people. if that was the only choice presented. I would do it in a heartbeat. does that make me Evil? possibly in the eyes of many. does that make me evil in the grand scheme of things. or in my own eyes? Not in the slightest. Babies get many emotions bonded to them. so a loss of a baby is heartbreaking just to hear about. but in truth. a baby is just something that has been alive for 9 months inside a belly, and no more then a year or two on this planet. there is barely a person alive that can remember anything before they were 3 years old. and even the grieving parents. can have a new baby within a year. so is it ethically okay? of course not. but is it evil? if 10.000 people died. among which the parents of the 100 babies. then you have a 100 orphans on your hands. that would take at least 18 years to have babies on their own (by accepted norms). of course. in real life, the option and only single option available of killing 100 babies to save 10.000 people would never come along (hopefully). the choice itself I can't consider evil. for there was also no selfish reason behind the choice. But society will see you as evil till the end of days. because of ethics and emotions. now of course. this is an extreme. so on lighter node.

    Things we do every day. that I DO consider evil. and we are all guilty of these.
    For just to be able to have bread on our table. I am in believe that we all perform unspeakable evils. and there is but the excuses or illusions that we tell/show ourselves. or in many cases. are being told and shown to us. that hides the evils we perform every single day. Such as the easy examples. Fossil Fuels. we all use it. not just for our cars. but plastic as well. any product that has combustion in its manufacturing process. why is this evil? because of the cause and effect. the cause is. millions and billions of years ago. plants lives. plants died. oil reserves were created. and now. in just the last few hundred years. we found these reserves. and started to drain them dry. but why? because of our selfish needs. there would be no need to offer supply if there was no demand for it, sure. green energy. the 21st century debate. but all that requires manufacturing as well. it won't stop demand for the fossil fuels. just bring it down a few percent. all this really does is extant the limited resource that fossil fuels offer us. not replace it. But we are easy to label this as necessary evil. for it makes our lives so much easier. Selfish I would say. for people from 500 years from now. look back at us with likely labeling the 19th to 22th century as where humans were most greedy. no longer greedy toward each other but greedy for the worlds resources. draining them so that there is almost nothing left 500 years from now. Humans in group mentality is utmost evil. for it can be considered the most selfish beings to have ever existed on this planet thus far. a conscious mind does not even have to do with any of such. it is just our selfish desire to just take and give almost nothing back. I am certain. if humanity. dropped the mindset of looking out for only themselves. be it individual. group or religion. humanity as a whole. then evil would simply not be. it doesn't even have anything to do with free will. because even in the animal kingdom. selfish acts are there. it is what the animal kingdom runs on. eat or be eaten. this concept on its own. I consider evil. but again. an accepted evil. and one I won't go into right now. the law of nature in itself is evil.

    There are ways of course. for us to stop being evil. such as.
    Stop using anything at all that we can not replenish.
    One might be quick to think. Water. can't go without. but Water is a resource that does get replenished faster then we drink it. sure. we use water for many things that it doesn't need to be used for. and cutting down on that. would aid in bettering us. but other examples. nature grows its own seeds. so do trees. and yet. we cut them down. and don't replant them. all because of costs. if this topic picks up. I'll talk about the evil that is money. and greed. but right now. let's just stick to this. where I say. if for each tree cut. a new one was planted. then a new tree would have grown to full size again on the east side by the time the west side of the amazon has been reached. and we as humans can help nature in successfully growing strong trees. so that's two out of the way. Enough wood supply. enough water supply. as for food supply. we already do the right thing. sure people protest against slaughtering animals. but we only eat the animals that were offered life in the first place. Just so we can eat them in the end Evil? possibly. Wrong? not in the slightest. because we make the world a better place for doing it this way instead of hunting the wild till extinction. same story with crops.

    So tell me. What is Evil? What are the things you always considered evil while others have not. or things you have never seen as evil. but society does. I wonder what stories you may bring to a topic such as this. What is Evil?

    P.S. I know this post has gone all over the place. but its a draft of my thoughts. unfiltered.'
    Do I believe if Humanity can shed its selfish nature? most certainly. do I believe it will ever happen? Unlikely. Do I believe that should stop us from trying? Nope. Do I believe I should be vocal about it? Not at all. for all I can do is open a discussion. and see where it leads us.
  • Nils Loc
    1.4k
    Evil carries with it a dangerous sense of absolute judgement, a word once used by ideological or theocratic tyrants to mark their enemies as targets. It once might have rendered heightened emotional feelings of intense disgust and resentment in those obeying the will of these authority figures.

    The word evil is a bit anachronistic.

    Selfishness in the service of conserving the self is a necessary part (biological motivation) by which societies are constructed and maintained. Reciprocal altruism is driven by selfishness.
  • praxis
    6.5k
    So what is it that I consider Evil. well. to put it in one word. Selfishness.Shar

    (Y)
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    Thanks for your post! Welcome to the forum. Or welcome back if you were at the old PF, or if you are an alter-ego of a current member! :D j/k

    This was my response to a similar thread awhile back. The expiration date on it is good for a couple more days, so what the hay.

    The choice of words one uses to describe inner conflicts may be a subtle but critical point. I am referring mostly to connotations and possible associated meanings here, rather than strict dictionary definitions (denotations). The word "evil" (as technically accurate as it may be) may possibly not be the most helpful here, as it is a loaded term.

    Speaking for myself, the word evil (or Evil) has associations of being extremely powerful, perhaps nearly irresistible or unbeatable, along with being related and similar to the word "Devil". As powerful more or less as "Good", as though it is some kind of dark Dionysian counterbalance to the Apollonian light. Or that evil is the inevitable Yin to the holy Yang, or something. (Both of which it definitely is NOT. But of course evil and wrong will almost always quickly lead to negative and painful consequences. This is a most important ethical and social issue, by all means.)

    Personally though, whenever i have thought this way (that good and evil are somehow equally powerful or necessary) and acted upon it, i have gone astray into confusion. At times, there has been almost an obsession concerning evil/devil. Perhaps this is understandable, given the current world circumstances. (Disclaimer: this is NOT meant as a theological statement, affirmation, or denial). But as someone once said, "where attention goes, energy flows". I find it clearer and more effective to use words like wrong, bad, mistake, error, imbalance. They seem to have less baggage than the word "evil". Just a preference one may or may not find useful.

    Breaking down the "wrong" into its component ingredients of ignorance, greed, and hatred, as Buddhism does for example, may shed light on how to recognize and neutralize it within oneself. Since most would agree that we can only control ourselves... and often even that is difficult. This is not meant to downplay the seriousness of the issue at all. It is meant more as a strategy to embrace the good in one's life.

    One could compare the difference between right and wrong to two people cooking their dinner. One person is cooking it at an optimal temperature, and it is hardly noticeable except for a pleasant aroma. The other person cranked up the heat way too high, and there is smoke and flames which triggers the alarm. A real panic which naturally grabs the attention. An error in judgment leading to danger, but the basic elements are not essentially different than the first case. (just my two cents worth)
  • Shar
    3
    I am new indeed here. I often have philosophical thoughts. and decided to share some here for discussion among the like minded. I must say. not disappointing at all with the replies received.
  • dclements
    498
    For humans, "good" is anything that is productive and/or useful and "evil" is anything that is counter productive. Almost all societies have certain social customs and rules which are kind of like rules of thumbs according to what our experiences tell us which actions causes something productive or counter productive to happen but all they are are rules of thumb to often handle the more trivial of situations. In something a little more than pure trivial situation one might need to make a judgement call and in situations even more complicated than that it might require a judgement call of several people instead of one person alone.

    The way I'm wording it may make it sound like I believe it is simple, but I assure you it is not. Every action we take every thought that we make in some way is tied into what we believe is moral and what we 'ought' to be doing. However the trickiest part of it all is that, NEVER REALLY KNOW WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING because the information that would allow us to do the most productive actions (ie. using science and technology currently not present) is never an option or available to us so therefore we spend most of our lives doing the equivalent of pushing an egg with our nose (and trying to maintain our sanity while doing it) while at the same time wishing that these better option where available now.

    Of course many of us are unaware of this problem since their religion tells them there is nothing better to be expected of them and this world we live in so they are blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are wasting their lives pushing eggs with their nose and that they could be doing something much much better, if such options where available for them at this time that is.
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    For humans, "good" is anything that is productive and/or useful and "evil" is anything that is counter productive.

    No. "good" and "evil" go beyond productivity. They denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity. For example, it could be argued that it would be productive to force a group of people into slavery for the productive good for the majority, but an ethical notion of good valuing human rights and freedom would call this "evil."
  • dclements
    498
    "No. "good" and "evil" go beyond productivity. They denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity. For example, it could be argued that it would be productive to force a group of people into slavery for the productive good for the majority, but an ethical notion of good valuing human rights and freedom would call this "evil."
    --Thanatos Sand


    Humanity, one's sanity, and our sanity as a whole when preserved can be quantified if one bothers to measure it against the extra goods and resources that are not produced that could created by using forced labor.

    You see that which is "productive" and "counter-productive" when used to evaluate morality and/or when using something like game theory, hedonistic calculus, etc. isn't the same as used to create a spreadsheet and determine that which is produced from a factory. Your misreading my post and constructing a simplified but incorrect version of the system of morality I'm talking about instead of getting real mental picture of the system I have.

    The thing you don't even understand is that our "human morality" that we base our societies on today in fact creates thing like wage slaves who often have to work longer and harder than those above them while at the same time they get less wages and benefits than others which I see as unfair (ie because it uses the same double standard used in slavery). And with livestock we raise the animals until they can be used for food, and then they go to the butcher in order to make food and profit for those that raise and process them. We treat such animals almost (or sometimes worse) than we treat slaves, but it is socially acceptable to do so since our need and desire for such food makes it all but a necessity.

    Because of "manifest density" and similar doctrines we often place our needs (or at least the needs of those who are most wealthy in our society) above all else, which makes everything less important on the human social pyramid (which often includes other human beings) as merely some thing or resource to be used as one sees fit, or at least if they are the one who has access to it.

    Although we are often taught as children to be kind and respectful of each other, as adults the game we call human morality becomes different where some are still expected to obey, while other merely preach to others how they need to behave while at the same time merely using anyone and everything around them. Or as they say "Do as I say, not as I do", or at least if your in a position where you can get away with it.

    While I may be a bit Machiavellian I'm aware that when one thinks of others as merely things and how they can be used, it may hard to perceive them as human after some time and/or if one behaves as such they can no longer really expect to be treated as a human being if it is too obvious they don't respect human life themselves.
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    Your misreading my post and constructing a simplified but incorrect version of the system of morality I'm talking about instead of getting real mental picture of the system I have.

    No, I read your post perfectly fine, and the only one constructing a simplified but incorrect (and ahistorical) version of "good" and "evil" is you. Congrats.

    The thing you don't even understand is that our "human morality" that we base our societies on today in fact creates thing like wage slaves who often have to work longer and harder than those above them while at the same time they get less wages and benefits than others which I see as unfair (ie because it uses the same double standard used in slavery).

    The thing that you don't understand is what you are discussing has nothing to do with the terms "good" and "evil" and the great cultural history behind those terms.

    Although we are often taught as children to be kind and respectful of each other, as adults the game we call human morality becomes different where some are still expected to obey, while other merely preach to others how they need to behave while at the same time merely using anyone and everything around them. Or as they say "Do as I say, not as I do", or at least if your in a position where you can get away with it.

    This is a fascinating ramble, but it has nothing to do with the terms "good" and "evil" and their history. You need to stay focused...or finally get focused.

    While I may be a bit Machiavellian I'm aware that when one thinks of others as merely things and how they can be used, it may hard to perceive them as human after some time and/or if one behaves as such they can no longer really expect to be treated as a human being if it is too obvious they don't respect human life themselves. ]

    This is true, but again, we are discussing the terms "good" and "evil," not analyzing why humans behave in certain ways. Again, it lacks focus.
  • BC
    13.6k
    I often have philosophical thoughts.Shar

    You are very fortunate to live in a time where effective treatments are available to suppress philosophical thinking. >:)

    How about an old definition of evil: Radix malorum est cupiditas. Greed is the root of all evil. The expression was famously used by the Pardoner in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. The Pardoner was an itinerate preacher (who always preached on the subject of... Radix malorum est cupiditas and sold promises of forgiveness. He also used fake relics as part of his racket.

    Note, it is not "money" that is the root of all evil; it is a love of money that is the root of evil.
  • dclements
    498

    Do you really want to discuss things or are you merely just trolling the forum and trying to argue with anyone that posts something that doesn't agree with you?

    I'm at the point where I feel the need to just completely ignore anything you post since all you are doing is arguing without any idea of what I'm trying to say or what my position is. If you don't want to bother trying to understand what it is I'm saying then there is no reason for me to bother with anything you have to say about such posts.
  • BC
    13.6k
    They denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity.Thanatos Sand

    CAN someone "transcend" the economic system? Wage slavery (per dclements) is an evil that is part and parcel of the economic system. There are many things about society (not just the western society of crooked white people, but the societies of crooked colored people as well) that are inherently evil and are part and parcel of the social/economic/religious institutions of those societies.
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    Do you really want to discuss things or are you merely just trolling the forum and trying to argue with anyone that posts something that doesn't agree with you?

    The only one who has been trolling is you. I made this polite initial post to you:

    "No. "good" and "evil" go beyond productivity. They denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity. For example, it could be argued that it would be productive to force a group of people into slavery for the productive good for the majority, but an ethical notion of good valuing human rights and freedom would call this "evil."

    And all you did was respond with a troll-post that failed to address anything I said. So, I responded as politely and relevantly as possible. So, your trolling and our discussion is done. I won't read any more of your posts on this thread.
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    They denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity.
    — Thanatos Sand

    CAN someone "transcend" the economic system?

    As you can see, I said transcend "productivity," not transcend the "economic system."
  • BC
    13.6k
    So you did -- I widened the concept, since production is always part of a system. Well, can you or can you not transcend production?
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    They denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity.
    — Thanatos Sand

    CAN someone "transcend" the economic system?

    That's the second time you straw-manned me. I never said one could transcend production. I said "good" and "evil" denote moral and immoral behavior that can be irrelevant to and transcend productivity, and they can.
  • 0 thru 9
    1.5k
    About moral choices, no matter how much it may bug you, always choose the lesser of two weevils.
  • BC
    13.6k
    How do abstractions like "good" or "evil" transcend productivity? Just explain it. I'm always suspicious when people use the word "transcend".
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    ↪Thanatos Sand How do abstractions like "good" or "evil" transcend productivity? Just explain it. I'm always suspicious when people use the word "transcend".

    Because good and evil are concerned with more than productivity. If productivity was humanity's only concerns, we would all put some people into slavery and others into extremely low-wage labor with no concern of the "good" or "evil" of it. However, since many of us--if not enough of us--do concern ourselves with being "good" and not "evil," we put aside our sole fixation on productivity for concerns of human dignity, human rights, and the minimalization of suffering. Thus our concerns for "good" and "evil" can transcend issues of productivity.
  • BC
    13.6k
    Good.

    Now, I think it is important to apply our concerns for human dignity, human rights, and minimization of suffering to the workplace where production goes on. Granted, there are many workplaces which are far from the 'dark satanic mills' of Victorian England. Though, some of our workplaces are brightly illuminated, air conditioned satanic mills (because the work is so excruciatingly dull and dehumanizing).

    Then, a lot of primary production sites (like slaughter houses, auto plants, etc.) are in physical terms, very bad places to work, and while some unionized workers receive decent pay, only a fraction of workers are unionized, and most workers are at the mercy of the profit extracting companies. Suffering is hardly minimized.

    Human rights are a nuisance in the workplace, so best not be too concerned about them. Workers in America, for instance, do not have "freedom of speech" in the workplace. Workers can be ordered to not talk about certain subjects (like the deficiencies of management or the need for a union) and can be fired for disobeying those orders.

    If human dignity, minimized suffering, and human rights isn't honored where we spend the bulk of our time for the largest chunk of our waking lives (at work), then we are getting cheated.
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    I agree with all that, man.
  • Shar
    3
    It is fascinating to see how this has sparked an argument. but an argument is there to proof one right other wrong. and such in not the topic we are going for. it's a debate. discussion. for an argument in itself is rooted in selfishness. the desire to have your opinion value over that of another. bringing forth conflict. which many would say, conflict is healthy for it stimulates progress toward a better path. I honestly disagree with this. and rather have this topic on What is Evil. focus on that soul question. the views which you all have on this.
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    Your telling everyone they need to debate the way you want them to is an argument rooted in selfishness.
  • Shar
    3
    Hahaha. That was an opinion. not a request or me telling. but a show of my personal desire. Which is selfish yes.
  • Thanatos Sand
    843
    LOL. It wasn't just an opinion or a request; it was a statement that how we've been debating has been wrong and how we need to change it. So, your statement was rooted in selfishness:

    It is fascinating to see how this has sparked an argument. but an argument is there to proof one right other wrong. and such in not the topic we are going for.
  • dclements
    498
    Because good and evil are concerned with more than productivity. If productivity was humanity's only concerns, we would all put some people into slavery and others into extremely low-wage labor with no concern of the "good" or "evil" of it. However, since many of us--if not enough of us--do concern ourselves with being "good" and not "evil," we put aside our sole fixation on productivity for concerns of human dignity, human rights, and the minimalization of suffering. Thus our concerns for "good" and "evil" can transcend issues of productivity.
    --Thanatos Sand
    I merely wish to note that I more or less agree with what you wrote in this post. Even in Machiavellian / "ruthless pragmatic" type ethics it is optimal to be able to minimize suffering where ever possible by the best means available. This may sound counter intuitive at first until on takes into account the negative effects of misery on a society and the counter productive effects that it causes such as increased medical costs, higher crime, drug use, etc. Even Henry Ford understood the value of trying to accommodate his workers to the best of his abilities and that their only value isn't in their abilities and work in building his cars. There is also many other forms of usefulness/productive value in certain intangibles such creativity, music, art, etc which likely far outweighs the stuff made in factories (which are often merely consumer goods which may or may not really be necessary at times).

    If transcendence your talking about more about viewing the world from a Jain/Buddhist's perspective (instead of something a spreadsheet and/or income statement), I guess that works for me as well even if for me it is merely just another religion and/or belief system so I don't know if transcendence is the right word for it.
  • dclements
    498
    "Now, I think it is important to apply our concerns for human dignity, human rights, and minimization of suffering to the workplace where production goes on. Granted, there are many workplaces which are far from the 'dark satanic mills' of Victorian England. Though, some of our workplaces are brightly illuminated, air conditioned satanic mills (because the work is so excruciatingly dull and dehumanizing).

    Then, a lot of primary production sites (like slaughter houses, auto plants, etc.) are in physical terms, very bad places to work, and while some unionized workers receive decent pay, only a fraction of workers are unionized, and most workers are at the mercy of the profit extracting companies. Suffering is hardly minimized.

    Human rights are a nuisance in the workplace, so best not be too concerned about them. Workers in America, for instance, do not have "freedom of speech" in the workplace. Workers can be ordered to not talk about certain subjects (like the deficiencies of management or the need for a union) and can be fired for disobeying those orders.

    If human dignity, minimized suffering, and human rights isn't honored where we spend the bulk of our time for the largest chunk of our waking lives (at work), then we are getting cheated."
    ---Bitter Crank
    I more or less agree.

    Those of us that have to work for a living have to pay in blood, sweat, and tears in order to have our daily bread or at least a better life style than if we were unable to work. However those that make a living out of managing workers often find it easier to exploit them then to put the extra effort in to manage them correctly. Sometimes it is done just to save a buck and/or cut corners or sometimes it is merely the incompetence of management, and since sometimes there is nobody to watch over such watchmen (or women) they are not really accountable for their actions and they can get away with it.

    In American we are "supposed" to have a government made up of checks and balances where one group isn't able to control the whole thing and turn us into an oligarchy or plutocracy but I'm unsure if those checks and balances still work.

    Here are some links from MotherJones that give charts and statistics to some of the income inequality / double standard here in America as well as why we have been heading into a plutocracy for some time now:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-ows/
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-americans-charts-graph/
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kadira-pethiyagoda/its-the-economic-inequali_b_13069356.html


    ..also if you are interested in it, there are a number of studies that show that people with wealth and power are more likely to be unethical than the people who are are not wealth. Below are some links to articles about this:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/are-rich-people-more-ethical/254689/
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/
    https://www.wired.com/2012/02/income-and-ethics/
    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS748US748&q=are+wealthy+people+less+unethical
    http://www.dailycal.org/2012/02/28/rich-people-are-more-likely-to-behave-unethically-study-finds/


    Kind of gives credence to the saying "power corrupts", but I think it is more along the lines of that it is the non-accountability sometimes comes with power that corrupts, not the power or money itself.
  • dclements
    498
    "Hahaha. That was an opinion. not a request or me telling. but a show of my personal desire. Which is selfish yes."
    ---Shar

    Being selfish is part of the human condition, and one of the aspects of having to deal with the human condition is the near impossibility of avoiding many of the problems of being human which includes selfishness. However I think it is kind of obvious that the selfishness you are talking about is a different
    and more powerful kind and the selfishness you are showing is one that is done in moderation.
    I'm unsure but the kind of problem you are talking about sound a bit in line what is talked about in the four noble truths of Buddhism where it explain that dukkha/suffering is caused by clinging and craving we have to our attachments (whatever form they may take)and we can "transcended" (whatever that means) the cycle that causes our pain and suffering by either stopping or controlling such behavior better.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

    Again, I'm unsure if this is what you are talking about...

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "It is fascinating to see how this has sparked an argument. but an argument is there to proof one right other wrong. and such in not the topic we are going for. it's a debate. discussion. for an argument in itself is rooted in selfishness. the desire to have your opinion value over that of another. bringing forth conflict. which many would say, conflict is healthy for it stimulates progress toward a better path. I honestly disagree with this. and rather have this topic on What is Evil. focus on that soul question. the views which you all have on this."
    ---Shar

    What if you are wrong, and there is no "evil" to define as you try to describe it? There may be NATURAL EVIL which causes natural distastes, disease, etc and what is called DUKKHA (imperfection in the world and the pain and suffering it causes) but I don't think these are exactly the same kind of EVIL you wish to define. Yet however these two aspects of our world are more or less the source of the process which causes the EVIL you wish to define.

    Think of it like this way, cancerous cells are often very harmful to the bodies they inhabit yet they are almost INDENTICLE to other healthy cells other than they have been "damaged" in some way. Part of the process that allows cells to live and divide make them very susceptible to such problems (if an animal lives much longer than the age they usually produce offspring). People often think of cancer as something that it is "EVIL" but it exists because the process that allows us to live ALSO ALLOWS CANCER TO EXIST; so in a way healthy cells and cancerous cells are two parts of the same coin.

    While one can dismiss cancer as merely a form of "natural evil" and accept that it exist the way it does, what reason do we have for not accepting that some of the "EVIL" caused by man isn't also in turn caused by something more or less caused by the same natural evil that allows cancer to exist?

    While there are times it may be useful to think of the natural evil that manifest itself in man as "EVIL" as we usually do, there are also many times where it is best to step outside of this kind of thought process and look at it as just another form of natural evil instead. I could go into which is which, but perhaps I should leave that for another post as I got to go right now.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.