Does Evil Exist?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Does true evil exist? As in, a person who not only does evil, but is evil? And what does it [or, if you said no, what would it] look like in our world?
This isn't about how you define evil, except tangentially. This is about what evil looks like, when it appears. And it can be hypothetical, to avoid judgment of individuals. In other words, if a person in situation Y did X and Z, I would see reason to at least run with the assumption that the person was probably genuinely evil, if not actually judge them as evil.

Now, full disclosure, if you think evil has to do with your relationship to God, and thus, two people can be doing the same action (for even the same reason, perhaps) and one of them can be evil, while the other is not, I'm asking the question in part, to elucidate the fact that then, we have no way to examine evil without telepathy, even in theory.

I understand this question skirts dangerously close to asking people to judge others, but I am at least attempting to construct the question in such a way as to avoid that. It's also perhaps clouded by my minority opinion that outside of egregious edge cases of absolutely justified misjudgment, if there's going to be a judgment of evil/good, it should be about what you do, not how well you can justify it.

[TRANSPONDER]

I almost hate to respond, because this one has been done to death, and it goes like this -

Evil exists no more and no less than Art, music and language exist. Yes, they so and very importantly, too. Yet they do not exist as Cosmic Laws or entities outside man.
T'hey are 'subjective' in the struct sense of the term and matters of human opinion though with some common basics. Evil and good is non - existent Other than as mans' opinion.

This is regarded by Theism as Not Good Enough and it ought to be the Objective word of a god.

Sorry, but that's One dictator's opinion and that dictator seems to change his mind and says 'do what I say, not what I do' quite a bit. It is on all evidence and reason a human construct like art and music, yet just as valid, and is not the engraved and inscribed Law of some god or other and thank heavens for that.

[Miles]

Question for Debate: Does true evil exist? As in, a person who not only does evil, but is evil? And what does it [or, if you said no, what would it] look like in our world?
This isn't about how you define evil, except tangentially. This is about what evil looks like, when it appears. And it can be hypothetical, to avoid judgment of individuals. In other words, if a person in situation Y did X and Z, I would see reason to at least run with the assumption that the person was probably genuinely evil, if not actually judge them as evil.

I fail to see how one can avoid confusion and say anything meaningful about the existence of evil or how it looks without agreeing on what it is. So I believe it's essential to establish an acceptable definition of evil. Hence the following from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Concept of Evil
First published Tue Nov 26, 2013; substantive revision Mon Oct 3, 2022

Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil. This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers. It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’ We need the concept of evil.

To avoid confusion, it is important to note that there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. The broad concept picks out any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw. The suffering of a toothache is evil in the broad sense as is a harmless lie. Evil in the broad sense has been divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils.

Evil in the broad sense, which includes all natural and moral evils, tends to be the sort of evil referenced in theological contexts, such as in discussions of the problem of evil. The problem of evil is the problem of accounting for evil in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. It seems that if the creator has these attributes, there would be no evil in the world. But there is evil in the world. Thus, there is reason to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator does not exist.

In contrast to the broad concept of evil, the narrow concept of evil picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc. As Marcus Singer puts it “‘evil’ [in this sense] … is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable” (Singer 2004, 185). Since the narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, it is appropriately ascribed only to moral agents and their actions. For example, if only human beings are moral agents, then only human beings can perform evil actions. Evil in this narrower sense is more often meant when the term ‘evil’ is used in contemporary moral, political, and legal contexts. This entry will focus on evil in this narrower sense. The entry will not discuss evil in the broad sense or the problem of evil to any significant degree .

The main issues discussed by philosophers on the topic of evil have been: Should we use the term ‘evil’ in our moral, political, and legal discourse and thinking, or is evil an out-dated or empty concept which should be abandoned? What is the relationship between evil and other moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil action? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil character? What is the relationship between evil action and evil character? What types of evil actions and characters can exist? What is the proper analysis of derivative concepts such as evil institution?
source

So, if one agrees with the differentiation above and cares to more carefully define evil I think it's appropriate to consider the following and let others know what kind of evil is being talked about.

Broad evil: any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw.

1. Natural evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents.
2. Moral evil. Moral evil result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents.

Narrow evil: Involves moral condemnation. The most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc.. "The worst
.................... possible term of opprobrium imaginable”


Of course, if one doesn't care about these difference, c'est la vie.


.

[Purple Knight]

Evil exists no more and no less than Art, music and language exist. Yes, they so and very importantly, too. Yet they do not exist as Cosmic Laws or entities outside man.

When we put someone in jail for murder or rape, we (most of us anyway) make a judgment that morality is higher than we doing the putting away, and higher than the fellow we're putting away, and that it's on our side, and not his. Atheists are completely comfortable seeing it this way and somehow they also don't see themselves as tyrants for it.

My perspective is different but most people scoff at it. I think it would be tyranny to impose your morality on someone else, but that without an agreement, there is no shared morality and each party is free to do anything he likes to the other. The idea that not only every People and country has a right to moral self-determination, but also that every individual has, follows directly from the idea that I can't just make up rules and impose them on people, which most people accept is true.

[bjs1]

Question for Debate: Does true evil exist?

No. The most evil being imaginable must still have some good in it to be effective at evil. Imagine Genghis Kahn without bravery, or Stalin with out his self-discipline, or Hitler without his charisma. Evil cannot exist on its own. It must borrow from good and attempt to twist or corrupt what is good in order to be genuinely evil.

[TRANSPONDER]

Evil exists no more and no less than Art, music and language exist. Yes, they so and very importantly, too. Yet they do not exist as Cosmic Laws or entities outside man.

When we put someone in jail for murder or rape, we (most of us anyway) make a judgment that morality is higher than we doing the putting away, and higher than the fellow we're putting away, and that it's on our side, and not his. Atheists are completely comfortable seeing it this way and somehow they also don't see themselves as tyrants for it.

My perspective is different but most people scoff at it. I think it would be tyranny to impose your morality on someone else, but that without an agreement, there is no shared morality and each party is free to do anything he likes to the other. The idea that not only every People and country has a right to moral self-determination, but also that every individual has, follows directly from the idea that I can't just make up rules and impose them on people, which most people accept is true.

You're missing the point of consensus. The fact is that democracy and popular election is adopted globally, even claimed and imitated by those who don't actually do it, and even dictators claim to be representing a popular choice.

That is this different from an individual opinion forced on everyone, which is what dictatorship is and is arguably what a god's opinion of Good and evil (even it it was consistent) would be. So yes, a holistic moral code socially evolved is the best we can do and is 'higher' than any individual opinions or indeed actions, and those who think they can abuse their position do what they like will soon be wearing a jumpsuit to match their hairpiece.

[1213]

Question for Debate: Does true evil exist? As in, a person who not only does evil, but is evil? ...

I think evil is like emptiness or darkness, nothing really. It is the lack of good, or desire for good. Some people may be without goodness, and thus they could be called evil.

[TRANSPONDER]

Question for Debate: Does true evil exist? As in, a person who not only does evil, but is evil? ...

I think evil is like emptiness or darkness, nothing really. It is the lack of good, or desire for good. Some people may be without goodness, and thus they could be called evil.

I don't think so. Good and evil is a moral choice, really. A man made one, hi - jacked by religions to bolster their own authority, sure, but man made, with a set of agreed rules. We can abide by them or go against them. Sometimes the same person can do both. It is more complicated than an 'absence of good'. It is a proactive choice.

[1213]

... It is a proactive choice.

I agree, it is a choice to not be good.

[boatsnguitars]

Question for Debate: Does true evil exist? As in, a person who not only does evil, but is evil? And what does it [or, if you said no, what would it] look like in our world?
This isn't about how you define evil, except tangentially. This is about what evil looks like, when it appears. And it can be hypothetical, to avoid judgment of individuals. In other words, if a person in situation Y did X and Z, I would see reason to at least run with the assumption that the person was probably genuinely evil, if not actually judge them as evil.

Now, full disclosure, if you think evil has to do with your relationship to God, and thus, two people can be doing the same action (for even the same reason, perhaps) and one of them can be evil, while the other is not, I'm asking the question in part, to elucidate the fact that then, we have no way to examine evil without telepathy, even in theory.

I understand this question skirts dangerously close to asking people to judge others, but I am at least attempting to construct the question in such a way as to avoid that. It's also perhaps clouded by my minority opinion that outside of egregious edge cases of absolutely justified misjudgment, if there's going to be a judgment of evil/good, it should be about what you do, not how well you can justify it.

Yep. Here is another well-worn topic.

But, I do love wondering where evil sits while awaiting to expose itself. After all, if it exists objectively, it must hang out somewhere. Biker bars? Nah! Too banal.
Churches? Maybe too cliche' now.
It must chill somewhere, while waiting for a dictator or serial killer to come along and use it.