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]

... It is a proactive choice.

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

I think so. I see it as a human option, not some kind of extant entity or cosmic law. We make the rules, humans choose to adhere to them for the common good or ignore them for the individual gain. Morality is a human construct and choice and is nothing to do with religion or gods and never was.

[Purple Knight]

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.

So if everyone is racist, that makes it okay? If slavery is endorsed by all or most, that makes it good?

Ironically our society's best approximation of that holistic, beneficial consensus that furthers society is that the majority can be totally in the wrong: That Nazis would not be good even if they'd won, that racism isn't okay just because it's ubiquitous, and that the minority moral view is just as good, if not better than, society's.

It's kind of beautiful the way this defeats the idea that consensus generates morality, which it would even if this consensus that consensus can be wrong, only existed in theory - but it happens to exist in reality, which I feel really drives home a knockdown in this case. If the consensus is, the consensus can be wrong, then if believing the consensus can be wrong ends up as this most helpful, highly evolved moral belief, then consensus no longer generates morality and something else must.

[1213]

...
I think so. I see it as a human option, not some kind of extant entity or cosmic law. We make the rules, humans choose to adhere to them for the common good or ignore them for the individual gain. Morality is a human construct and choice and is nothing to do with religion or gods and never was.

It depends on what morality is. I think humans are too evil and stupid to make on their own the God's law that is in the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

So if everyone is racist, that makes it okay? If slavery is endorsed by all or most, that makes it good?

Ironically our society's best approximation of that holistic, beneficial consensus that furthers society is that the majority can be totally in the wrong: That Nazis would not be good even if they'd won, that racism isn't okay just because it's ubiquitous, and that the minority moral view is just as good, if not better than, society's.

It's kind of beautiful the way this defeats the idea that consensus generates morality, which it would even if this consensus that consensus can be wrong, only existed in theory - but it happens to exist in reality, which I feel really drives home a knockdown in this case. If the consensus is, the consensus can be wrong, then if believing the consensus can be wrong ends up as this most helpful, highly evolved moral belief, then consensus no longer generates morality and something else must.

I have to observe that this is apparently a common Theist - derived (if not Theist in actuality) misunderstanding of what humans consensus morality - like indeed science and philosophy and art and music for that matter, politics, and sociology and Law does as progression. It is not like religious Dogma, but evolves. Yes, just because it was a generally accepted thing at one time, slavery now isn't; the morality has evolved, just like politics, science and I hope, trust in religion.

What was once reckoned ok no longer is. It is religion does it wrong, thinking that the only right way is a cosmic law of morals that cannot change, but of course, it does, to stop being left behind. They have bamboozled you 'beautifully' with that one, old chum.

[Purple Knight]

I have to observe that this is apparently a common Theist - derived (if not Theist in actuality) misunderstanding of what humans consensus morality - like indeed science and philosophy and art and music for that matter, politics, and sociology and Law does as progression. It is not like religious Dogma, but evolves. Yes, just because it was a generally accepted thing at one time, slavery now isn't; the morality has evolved, just like politics, science and I hope, trust in religion.

What was once reckoned ok no longer is. It is religion does it wrong, thinking that the only right way is a cosmic law of morals that cannot change, but of course, it does, to stop being left behind. They have bamboozled you 'beautifully' with that one, old chum.

It's not just that what was once okay, no longer is. It is now discovered to have all along been objectively wrong. If you ask someone if slavery is absolutely wrong or morality just evolved to say so and could have evolved otherwise and it would be fine, they will spit on you for even suggesting the latter.

The consensus you will get is: Slavery is dogmatically, objectively, once and always wrong, absolutely and decidedly. That this was always true and simply had to be discovered. After all, if it was fine until it wasn't, nobody would owe reparations.

Evidence that people think this way about morality.

Yes but, in that bypass, we may be appealing to morality and using it simply as a tool of oppression.

Klingons don't think honour killing is wrong. If we go to their planet and enforce that murder is always wrong, we're oppressing them.

Sometimes we do this to other humans, saying something is morally wrong when someone just wants to have that thing they want, and they can plead all they want that it doesn't affect you, and all you have to do is convince people that their moral intuition is on your side, and boom, you get to oppress that person.

Why shouldn't evil doers be oppressed?

If they want to live that way, I don't see why we should bother trying to change it.

It's wrong, that's why. I'd wager that coming to that conclusion took me less time, energy and resources than it would to figure out the complexity re: pros and cons of honour killing.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to observe that this is apparently a common Theist - derived (if not Theist in actuality) misunderstanding of what humans consensus morality - like indeed science and philosophy and art and music for that matter, politics, and sociology and Law does as progression. It is not like religious Dogma, but evolves. Yes, just because it was a generally accepted thing at one time, slavery now isn't; the morality has evolved, just like politics, science and I hope, trust in religion.

What was once reckoned ok no longer is. It is religion does it wrong, thinking that the only right way is a cosmic law of morals that cannot change, but of course, it does, to stop being left behind. They have bamboozled you 'beautifully' with that one, old chum.

It's not just that what was once okay, no longer is. It is now discovered to have all along been objectively wrong. If you ask someone if slavery is absolutely wrong or morality just evolved to say so and could have evolved otherwise and it would be fine, they will spit on you for even suggesting the latter.

The consensus you will get is: Slavery is dogmatically, objectively, once and always wrong, absolutely and decidedly. That this was always true and simply had to be discovered. After all, if it was fine until it wasn't, nobody would owe reparations.

Evidence that people think this way about morality.

Yes but, in that bypass, we may be appealing to morality and using it simply as a tool of oppression.

Klingons don't think honour killing is wrong. If we go to their planet and enforce that murder is always wrong, we're oppressing them.

Sometimes we do this to other humans, saying something is morally wrong when someone just wants to have that thing they want, and they can plead all they want that it doesn't affect you, and all you have to do is convince people that their moral intuition is on your side, and boom, you get to oppress that person.

Why shouldn't evil doers be oppressed?

If they want to live that way, I don't see why we should bother trying to change it.

It's wrong, that's why. I'd wager that coming to that conclusion took me less time, energy and resources than it would to figure out the complexity re: pros and cons of honour killing.

It looks to me that when you talk of 'objectively wrong' you have done it all wrong. The whole point about human morality is that it does not have objective wrong or right but is a general and gradual consensus on what we think is fair and best for us all. Emancipation of all kinds is now given global support, like democracy, as a preferred political thing. Objective claims about a human social question looks to me like Theism leading you to believe that there is a Cosmic Law of morals. The evidence militates against that.