Does Evil exist?

[sin_is_fun]

Man is a selfish animal.So whatever harms his selfinterest he calls it as evil.But in practice nobody can live a life which doesnt harm others.

I think evil is our perception of an act.A person who does evil,does the act in his self interest.To attain that self interest he harms others.But this is practically done by everybody.The harmed person labels the selfish person as evil monger.But is being selfish evil?

Can we define evil?Or is it just a perception of the harmed person?

[Dilettante]

sin_is_fun wrote:

I have never seen anybody calling a metorite or flood as 'evil'.They are natural happenings.We can call them in any name we want,but it wont make much of a difference to them.

I am yet to hear somebody call tsunami as 'evil' and flood as 'sadist' and so on.People classify them as 'good' and 'bad'.For example 'rain is good' and ';rainfall above 15 inches is bad' and so on.But they dont call it as evil or magnanimous.Those adjectives are more apt for humans

Philosophers have long differentiated two kinds of evil: natural evil and moral evil. You are right that some adjectives are apt for humans but not for things such as tsunamis and the like. And it's true that ordinary people do not use language in the same way as philosophers do, and perhaps they would never call a tsunami "evil". (And anyway that's an adjectival use of the word "evil", which can also be a noun, as in "the lesser of two evils"). But people do talk about an "evil smell" or "evil days". "Evil" in this sense carries no reference to morality, it probably means just "extremely bad". I see nothing inappropriate in using "evil" as a synonym for "extremely bad".

[The Happy Humanist]

sin_is_fun wrote:

I have never seen anybody calling a metorite or flood as 'evil'.They are natural happenings.We can call them in any name we want,but it wont make much of a difference to them.

I am yet to hear somebody call tsunami as 'evil' and flood as 'sadist' and so on.People classify them as 'good' and 'bad'.For example 'rain is good' and ';rainfall above 15 inches is bad' and so on.But they dont call it as evil or magnanimous.Those adjectives are more apt for humans

Philosophers have long differentiated two kinds of evil: natural evil and moral evil. You are right that some adjectives are apt for humans but not for things such as tsunamis and the like. And it's true that ordinary people do not use language in the same way as philosophers do, and perhaps they would never call a tsunami "evil". (And anyway that's an adjectival use of the word "evil", which can also be a noun, as in "the lesser of two evils"). But people do talk about an "evil smell" or "evil days". "Evil" in this sense carries no reference to morality, it probably means just "extremely bad". I see nothing inappropriate in using "evil" as a synonym for "extremely bad".

...unless the intent is emphasize or acknowledge an external force called "Evil," a willful infliction of unnecessary harm. I think for the purposes of this debate it might be a good idea to adopt this definition of evil, to distinguish it from merely "bad things that happen." For instance, in a naturalistic universe, I doubt the existence of "Evil." I think the natural stuff that happens is just bad stuff that happens. The things humans do to each other, I call "wickedness" or "baser instincts" or the like; I think of Evil as being "the Devil made me do it." In other words, an outside force. I think we have to make that distinction in order to be clear on the Problem of Evil; to wit, why does an all-good God countenance Evil, when he doesn't have to?

[Arya]

Pertaining to the original question-can evil be defined, or is it just a perception of the harmed person? That is a good question.

I believe that in order to survive, all creatures commit acts that do harm the wellbeing of another (killing and consuming the flesh of another). But can that be considered an evil? In my opinion that is not so.

An act of evil, I believe, would be the willful act of deliberately committing harm to another being for reasons other than base survival.

For example, if one man decides that he wants his neighbor's land and posessions and then kills that neighbor to aquire them. That would be a definition of evil from my perspective.

[sin_is_fun]

I believe that in order to survive, all creatures commit acts that do harm the wellbeing of another (killing and consuming the flesh of another). But can that be considered an evil? In my opinion that is not so.

An act of evil, I believe, would be the willful act of deliberately committing harm to another being for reasons other than base survival.

All of us eat animals while we easily can live with vegetarian food.Are we evil or not?Vegetarian food will satisfy the 'base survival cirteria'.So are all of us evil?

[Arya]

I believe that in order to survive, all creatures commit acts that do harm the wellbeing of another (killing and consuming the flesh of another). But can that be considered an evil? In my opinion that is not so.

An act of evil, I believe, would be the willful act of deliberately committing harm to another being for reasons other than base survival.

All of us eat animals while we easily can live with vegetarian food.Are we evil or not?Vegetarian food will satisfy the 'base survival criteria'.So are all of us evil?

Basing my response to the reasonings in my first post-if the consumption is based soely on survival, as we all must consume another life form to survive (with exception of water, minerals, etc), then the answer is no.

But you pose a different aspect-the vegetarian lifestyle would eliminate the killing and consumption of another animal. But aren't plants considered life forms? Wouldnt a vegetarian, then, be still killing another life form in order to survive?

[keltzkroz]

I believe that in order to survive, all creatures commit acts that do harm the wellbeing of another (killing and consuming the flesh of another). But can that be considered an evil? In my opinion that is not so.

An act of evil, I believe, would be the willful act of deliberately committing harm to another being for reasons other than base survival.

Regarding the concept of evil, I just want to ask you some questions:

Do you equate 'somebody doing something wrong' with 'somebody doing something evil'?

Lets say I'm a bum. No money, no food, none of the things I need to survive. So what I do is steal stuff (money, food, etc.) so I can get something to eat and survive. Did I do something wrong? Did I do something evil?

[Arya]

I believe that in order to survive, all creatures commit acts that do harm the wellbeing of another (killing and consuming the flesh of another). But can that be considered an evil? In my opinion that is not so.

An act of evil, I believe, would be the willful act of deliberately committing harm to another being for reasons other than base survival.

Regarding the concept of evil, I just want to ask you some questions:

Do you equate 'somebody doing something wrong' with 'somebody doing something evil'?

Lets say I'm a bum. No money, no food, none of the things I need to survive. So what I do is steal stuff (money, food, etc.) so I can get something to eat and survive. Did I do something wrong? Did I do something evil?

Interesting question.

I believe that you can definitely do something wrong, and you can do something evil-but they both do not have to be the same. In other words, a person can do something wrong, like stealing money for reasons other than base survival, but I do not consider that to be evil.

Let's consider the "bum" scenario; if he/she had to steal either money or food in order to survive, I would not consider that to be wrong or evil. I would consider that actions taken in order to ensure that being's survival.

Different scenario; let's take the same bum who happens to have enough food or money for the time being. That person steals something that they do not need for base survival-they just took an item because they wanted it. I would consider that to be wrong.

Final scenario; let's say the same bum killed his/her neighbor, not for their food (survival concept again), but because this bum wanted his/her neighbors "spot" or "squat". The murder was committed purely out of greed or the selfish desire to aquire something material that the bum otherwise could not get. But that bum definitely could have existed without it and did not need to take a life for it- then I would consider that action to be evil.

[sin_is_fun]

Basing my response to the reasonings in my first post-if the consumption is based soely on survival, as we all must consume another life form to survive (with exception of water, minerals, etc), then the answer is no.

But you pose a different aspect-the vegetarian lifestyle would eliminate the killing and consumption of another animal. But aren't plants considered life forms? Wouldnt a vegetarian, then, be still killing another life form in order to survive?

If you are a vegetarian you kill and eat a plant.

If you are a non-vegetarian, you kill a plant feed it to a cow and eat it.Thus you kill two lives instead of one.

which is better?

[Arya]

Basing my response to the reasonings in my first post-if the consumption is based soely on survival, as we all must consume another life form to survive (with exception of water, minerals, etc), then the answer is no.

But you pose a different aspect-the vegetarian lifestyle would eliminate the killing and consumption of another animal. But aren't plants considered life forms? Wouldnt a vegetarian, then, be still killing another life form in order to survive?

If you are a vegetarian you kill and eat a plant.

If you are a non-vegetarian, you kill a plant feed it to a cow and eat it.Thus you kill two lives instead of one.

which is better?

This is an interesting twist to the topic of evil.

When it comes to the matter of survival, IMO there is no difference where on the "food chain" you partake from. In other words, the grass is eaten by the cow, thus one life form kills and eats another for food. Then a human comes by and kills the cow and consumes that. Yes, there were two successive deaths to sustain the life of that human.

In conclusion, it does not matter which is better. It is the way nature is designed. You may or may not agree, for I have a feeling that you have chosen the vegetarian example for a reason.

Out of curiosity-do you feel that it is evil to eat animal flesh (I am referring to the reference of killing two lives in one)?

[keltzkroz]

Interesting question.

I believe that you can definitely do something wrong, and you can do something evil-but they both do not have to be the same. In other words, a person can do something wrong, like stealing money for reasons other than base survival, but I do not consider that to be evil.

Let's consider the "bum" scenario; if he/she had to steal either money or food in order to survive, I would not consider that to be wrong or evil. I would consider that actions taken in order to ensure that being's survival.

Different scenario; let's take the same bum who happens to have enough food or money for the time being. That person steals something that they do not need for base survival-they just took an item because they wanted it. I would consider that to be wrong.

Final scenario; let's say the same bum killed his/her neighbor, not for their food (survival concept again), but because this bum wanted his/her neighbors "spot" or "squat". The murder was committed purely out of greed or the selfish desire to aquire something material that the bum otherwise could not get. But that bum definitely could have existed without it and did not need to take a life for it- then I would consider that action to be evil.

I can definitely see your point. However, things are rarely that simple.

Lets say I'm a bum. No money, no food, none of the things I need to survive. I see a fellow bum who is in the same situation with some food (given to him by some charitable soul) he needs to survive, so I steal it from him. Now what? Before, I stole from a person who can afford to have his sandwich stolen, but this time, I stole from a person who can't afford to lose his sandwich.

Did I do something wrong this time? In my view, if someone steals anything from me, its wrong, wether they need it for survival or any other reason.