Does evil exist?

[KingandPriest]

Hello all,

This series of questions are directed toward any non-theist or agnostic.

1. Does evil exist?
2. What is evil?
3. Can "evil" be identified without knowing what "good" is? If so, how?

[KingandPriest]

1. Does evil exist?

Yes.

2. What is evil?

Evil is that we disapprove of very strongly.

Who is we in the above answer?

3. Can "evil" be identified without knowing what "good" is? If so, how?

I guess so, the concept of disapproval doesn't necessarily require the concept of approval.

I would disagree with you here. The concept of disapproval inherently requires the concept of approval. To have the antithesis of anything, one must be aware of a thesis in the first place, otherwise they would be neutral. To be in disapproval, one must approve the opposite action. The prefix dis stands in opposition to the attached word. So you cannot escape an inherent acceptance or adherence to an standard of approval (whether consciously or unconsciously).

If you disagree, can you provide an example?

1. Since you stated evil exists as a concept, my question is why are humans the only species on earth which perceives this concept?

You don't know that. There are animals that are smart enough, to make it plausible that they can hold abstract thoughts that could include morality.

As of now, I am not dealing with plausibilities or what is possible. I am speaking about what is known, and has been known through all human history. Also, I have not yet spoken of morality, just evil. If you have evidence for another species that has a similar use of evil as humans, I would welcome it here.

2. How can a person know evil without knowing what is good? How can something be measured, evaluated, determined to be "evil" without a standard (even if it is only subjective) to measure against?

Not applicable since we do have standards of evil.

What are standards of evil?
Where did they come from?
Who has these standards?

If good and evil are subjective variables, then every action is both equally good and evil at the same time. The only differentiation is who is observing, measuring or judging the act.

Equal in what sense? You've already pointed out how two actions are different depending on who is judging the act. That's like saying they are equal apart from where they are different.

This statement was in response to something Divine Insight wrote. My point was that if good and evil were subjective variables, then before any action is observed by another person or being, the action is neither good or evil, or both evil and good at the same time.

Personally, I do not hold this to be true, but it seemed to be what DI was suggesting, which is why is proposed the concept to see if he agreed.

[Bust Nak]

Evil is that we disapprove of very strongly.

Who is we in the above answer?

Us moral agents.

I would disagree with you here. The concept of disapproval inherently requires the concept of approval. To have the antithesis of anything, one must be aware of a thesis in the first place, otherwise they would be neutral. To be in disapproval, one must approve the opposite action. The prefix dis stands in opposition to the attached word. So you cannot escape an inherent acceptance or adherence to an standard of approval (whether consciously or unconsciously).

Does it have to be an antithesis involving approval though? Why not just disapproval and non-disapproval? Non disapprove covers neutral and approval. I am thinking of some grumpy old man who is either meh on something or disapprove of it.

As of now, I am not dealing with plausibilities or what is possible. I am speaking about what is known, and has been known through all human history. Also, I have not yet spoken of morality, just evil. If you have evidence for another species that has a similar use of evil as humans, I would welcome it here.

On the one hand you say you are dealing with what is known, on the other you say humans are the only species on earth which perceives evil - you don't know that.

What are standards of evil?

Our individual opinion.

Where did they come from?

Our brains.

Who has these standards?

All moral agents.

This statement was in response to something Divine Insight wrote. My point was that if good and evil were subjective variables, then before any action is observed by another person or being, the action is neither good or evil, or both evil and good at the same time.

Right, and if someone likes a pizza while someone doesn't, then the pizza is both tasty and not tasty. Why is that a problem?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 12 by Bust Nak]

Us moral agents

Do you mean, us humans, or another group? I just want to be clear.

I would disagree with you here. The concept of disapproval inherently requires the concept of approval. To have the antithesis of anything, one must be aware of a thesis in the first place, otherwise they would be neutral. To be in disapproval, one must approve the opposite action. The prefix dis stands in opposition to the attached word. So you cannot escape an inherent acceptance or adherence to an standard of approval (whether consciously or unconsciously).

Does it have to be an antithesis involving approval though? Why not just disapproval and non-disapproval? Non disapprove covers neutral and approval. I am thinking of some grumpy old man who is either meh on something or disapprove of it.

When the old man is "meh" to something, he is signifying a level of acceptance. He may not be in favor, but is willing to accept the possibility. If he remains neutral than he neither directly accepts or rejects, but is willing to accept it as a possibility.

If the old man disapproves, then he is not accepting. Both cannot happen simultaneously. One cannot disapprove of something and claim that they do not have a position. The mere disapproval substantiates an alternate position.

If you disapprove of something, and call it evil, you automatically affirm the opposite as not evil.

As of now, I am not dealing with plausibilities or what is possible. I am speaking about what is known, and has been known through all human history. Also, I have not yet spoken of morality, just evil. If you have evidence for another species that has a similar use of evil as humans, I would welcome it here.

On the one hand you say you are dealing with what is known, on the other you say humans are the only species on earth which perceives evil - you don't know that.

It has not been proven otherwise, so my statement has not been proven false. You may suggest that something is possible, but that is not evidence to refute my statement.

Also, you continue to suggest that "we" and "us" are the moral agents, and I presume this to refer to human beings, not another species.

What are standards of evil?

Our individual opinion.

Similar to the first question above, who is our? Is it a select group, every single human being, adults, seniors... who sets the standard?

Where did they come from?

Our brains.

If these standards came from our brains, then is it ok to say that any standard of evil devised by a human brain is acceptable?

Who has these standards?

All moral agents.

I will ask again to clarify, as you have resulted to answering in circles. I ask you who get to set the standards, and you say moral agents. I ask who these moral agents are, and you respond with us. I am not sure if you are speaking in general about humanity or a specific group of agents. If it is general about humanity, may I ask, at what point in human growth does a person become a moral agent?

I ask these questions not to be anal, but in the hopes of pointing out a flaw when humans are at the center of standard setting in terms of what is evil.

This statement was in response to something Divine Insight wrote. My point was that if good and evil were subjective variables, then before any action is observed by another person or being, the action is neither good or evil, or both evil and good at the same time.

Right, and if someone likes a pizza while someone doesn't, then the pizza is both tasty and not tasty. Why is that a problem?

That question about the taste of pizza has nothing to do with evil. You are confusing personal tastes and desires with a standard of evil. You suggested earlier that moral agents get to decide what is evil. Now you present a scenario about one persons choice of pizza. These are no where near synonymous.

[alexxcJRO]

I am thankful you have answered the first and second questions. Would you care to attempt the final:
3. Can "evil" be identified without knowing what "good" is? If so, how?

If something is constant, necessary and omnipresent, it seems to be undefinable as there is nothing to compare it with, it has no boundary and cannot be differentiated from anything else.

It is conceivable, for example, that in some possible world light and light alone exists. But you won’t know it in that world because your experience would be just light, and there is no way to say what light is because there is no way to say what it is not, and so you don’t know that all there is is light.

If there wasn't "evil", how would you define "good"? If wasn't "good" how would you define "evil". The "evil" or "good" are contingent upon each other.

I am thankful the copy and paste function works on your computer. Can we continue with one's own thoughts if possible?

You asked what is evil.

I provided what philosophy has to say about the subject and a definition of the term.

Please don't be lazy.

It is not that much text. I am sure you will manage.

[Bust Nak]

Do you mean, us humans, or another group? I just want to be clear.

Us humans is a good start, plus any thinking beings that we are not sure about, I am thinking of potential space aliens, deities and angels, or smart animals that I was talking about earlier.

When the old man is "meh" to something, he is signifying a level of acceptance. He may not be in favor, but is willing to accept the possibility. If he remains neutral than he neither directly accepts or rejects, but is willing to accept it as a possibility.

If the old man disapproves, then he is not accepting. Both cannot happen simultaneously. One cannot disapprove of something and claim that they do not have a position. The mere disapproval substantiates an alternate position.

If you disapprove of something, and call it evil, you automatically affirm the opposite as not evil.

That's fine by me, in which case no, you must have good to have evil.

It has not been proven otherwise, so my statement has not been proven false. You may suggest that something is possible, but that is not evidence to refute my statement.

I don't need to refute anything yet - you said only human, you prove it. I will think about whether I want to refute it after you've fulfilled your burden of proof. Alternatively qualify "only human" with "that we know of."

Also, you continue to suggest that "we" and "us" are the moral agents, and I presume this to refer to human beings, not another species.

"We" certainly include our species.

If these standards came from our brains, then is it ok to say that any standard of evil devised by a human brain is acceptable?

No, but an unacceptable standard, is still a standard.

what point in human growth does a person become a moral agent?

When one become smart enough to start process abstract thoughts of what ought and ought not be done.

That question about the taste of pizza has nothing to do with evil. You are confusing personal tastes and desires with a standard of evil.

Am I confusing it, or perhaps you are the one who is failing to spot the similarities? You are presuming that there is something fundamentally different between personal tastes and standard of evil. What if standards of evil ARE a facet of personal tastes, just like food taste, music taste or aesthetic taste?

You suggested earlier that moral agents get to decide what is evil. Now you present a scenario about one persons choice of pizza. These are no where near synonymous.

Food taste is not synonymous with music taste either, but they are analogous - a tune can be great and rubbish at the same time; just as a painting can be a mess and a masterpiece at the same time. I am saying the same applies to good and evil.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Hello all,

This series of questions are directed toward any non-theist or agnostic.

1. Does evil exist?

Considerin' on how "evil" is a religious notion, I challenge anyone to show a god has 'em them an opinion on it.

2. What is evil?

Republicans.

3. Can "evil" be identified without knowing what "good" is? If so, how?

See number 1, where one can't show their favored god has him an opinion on what's "evil", we'll directly find they can't show their favored god has him an opinion on what's good.

But if ya ask me, pretty thing there's the goodest thing I ever met. And she has cats. That hate me. Maybe it is, it's her cats that's evil!

[KingandPriest]

Do you mean, us humans, or another group? I just want to be clear.

Us humans is a good start, plus any thinking beings that we are not sure about, I am thinking of potential space aliens, deities and angels, or smart animals that I was talking about earlier.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

When the old man is "meh" to something, he is signifying a level of acceptance. He may not be in favor, but is willing to accept the possibility. If he remains neutral than he neither directly accepts or rejects, but is willing to accept it as a possibility.

If the old man disapproves, then he is not accepting. Both cannot happen simultaneously. One cannot disapprove of something and claim that they do not have a position. The mere disapproval substantiates an alternate position.

If you disapprove of something, and call it evil, you automatically affirm the opposite as not evil.

That's fine by me, in which case no, you must have good to have evil.

Ok, it appears we are in agreement here.

If these standards came from our brains, then is it ok to say that any standard of evil devised by a human brain is acceptable?

No, but an unacceptable standard, is still a standard.

How is an unacceptable standard still a standard. The point of a standard is that it is accepted. If no one at all accepts it, it wouldn't be recognized as a standard, just an opinion. A standard of measurement or evaluation is something that is generally accepted or recognized.

Furthermore, at what point would an individuals standard become unacceptable? When one person disagrees? Two? Twenty?

How can a person who is a moral agent, as you suggest, get their standard to become an unacceptable standard?

what point in human growth does a person become a moral agent?

When one become smart enough to start process abstract thoughts of what ought and ought not be done.

This would include most children and minors. Would you agree then, that their voices and ideas of what constitutes evil, should be included?

For example, if you were to ask an average 12 year old, what is evil, based on your statements above, their standard is just as valid as an adult, who has far more life experience. Would you agree that both are moral agents?

That question about the taste of pizza has nothing to do with evil. You are confusing personal tastes and desires with a standard of evil.

Am I confusing it, or perhaps you are the one who is failing to spot the similarities? You are presuming that there is something fundamentally different between personal tastes and standard of evil. What if standards of evil ARE a facet of personal tastes, just like food taste, music taste or aesthetic taste?

I would contend that based on your statements, you are the one who is confused, and has conflated a persons opinion or preference to equate to a standard.

There is no standard when it comes to taste or opinion. For example, there is no standard for how a pepperoni pizza should taste. Their is a standard requirement of basic ingredients if you want to call a pizza a pepperoni pizza. It should at least have some pepperoni on it. The composition of what additional items may be different depending on ones taste and preference, but the standard is not based on one's taste, but on the basic composition.

Aesthetic tastes are opinions about various goods. These are not standards with which we use to measure things via standardization.

The point here is to discuss how can evil be measured without a standard for what "good" is. Without this standard (not opinion), I suggest it cannot be done. It appears as though you favor the latter, and suggest that evil can be measured on a whim, and based on each persons opinion or aesthetic taste.

You suggested earlier that moral agents get to decide what is evil. Now you present a scenario about one persons choice of pizza. These are no where near synonymous.

Food taste is not synonymous with music taste either, but they are analogous - a tune can be great and rubbish at the same time; just as a painting can be a mess and a masterpiece at the same time. I am saying the same applies to good and evil.

How so, please provide an example relating specifically to evil, not food or music.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Hello all,

This series of questions are directed toward any non-theist or agnostic.

1. Does evil exist?
2. What is evil?
3. Can "evil" be identified without knowing what "good" is? If so, how?

Evil is not physical. So it DOES NOT exist. Evil is an opinion. And opinions vary. For most of us, judging evil is based on majority opinion. And majority opinion regularly sides against cruel actions taken against others which could just as easily be taken against ourselves. I am personally very happy to join in on the side of the majority when it comes to declaring the "evil actions" done by one person to another to be unacceptable behavior. Behavior which rightly should result in the most severe of consequences.

On the other hand, is it evil for a lioness to take down a baby antelope and bring it back for her cubs to eat? Lions need to make a living too. But in the opinion of the antelope, it's right to life was taken from it. The universe, having no apparent sentient conscientiousness, has no opinion on lion/antelope interaction. To the universe there are only events. Evil only exists as a non objective opinion.

[Willum]

Here are excellent definitions of good and evil, and more.

and it doesn't come from religion, a "great" philosopher, and certainly nothing divine.
The definition tells you explcitely if evil exists, and it does...

No God required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment ... 6_Dragons)

[liamconnor]

Hello all,

This series of questions are directed toward any non-theist or agnostic.

1. Does evil exist?
2. What is evil?
3. Can "evil" be identified without knowing what "good" is? If so, how?

The Bible says evil was created by God.

Isaiah 45:7(King James Version (KJV))

"7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Could we translate your answer as:

"Rather than answer a straightforward question which has nothing to do with the Bible, I would rather spin it so I can attack the Bible"?

Is that pretty much your mindset? If so, is this kind of thinking really a specimen of calm, collected, rational thinking? Or is it purely emotionally driven?