Definition of evil

No Gwenmead, quite the opposite.

I'm in total agreement with you....
Right down to the struggle one has with ones' self regarding the justification in taking another person's life... even in self-defense, even in the mortal combat and fight for self-preservation, are the actions of the other person fuelled simply by evil, or are they influenced by Desire? Hunger? Drugs? 'Wrong' upbringing?

And as for the 'Evil' perpetrated by Nation against Nation, narrowing down the responsibility to some politician is blinkered and narrow-minded. If we live globally, we must accept the consequences and responsibilities, Globally.....

Hi, Annoula!

I'm a Baha'i, and am happy to provide the Baha'i understanding of this!

What follows is from the Baha'i scriptures.

Best,

Bruce
_ _ _ _ _

that was very interesting. thank you.

so if i understand correctly evil is the non existance of a good quality.

there is no some kind of universal evil, like the devil for example.

but how does your faith view for example the killing of people.
if i kill a person (innocent or not), what will your faith say?

i am giving this example cause i think it's really bad.

My response:

Bruce may respond but since he hasn't yet and your question stands allow me to also respond here...

First off let me say that "evil" in the Baha'i Faith by itself is not a "positive" reality but is more understood as simply the absence of "Good" just as a shadow is the absence of light. We also see "evil" as often a "lesser" good, that is we view it in situational terms... We expect that a child will pass through a selfish stage in their developement which in that context is not "evil"...Later in life if the adult acts like a three year old, this is not "good". Also a snake is armed with venom and fangs as a protection for itself which is "good" but may be simultaneously viewed as "evil" by an encroaching human and so on.

Now to your question about killing.... It seems you have an absolete view that "killing" is wrong. Baha'is also view killing as something to be avoided if possible... Baha'u'llah revealed it is better to be killed than to kill. Baha'is are also opposed to recreational killing say as in hunting for sport... but we accept that some will need to hunt in order to live for food. As in some parts of the world agriculture is not possible.

But there are times we believe where killing may be unfortunately necessary as in a case of self defense...regretable but necessary... or when one's family is attacked. Baha'is support the concept of a Police Force that from time to time may have to "kill" someone who is a threat or menace to society and we accept that society may execute those who have deprived others of their lives. So these are some of the situations where "killing" in our view may be necessary.

- Art

Arthra said:

Baha'is support the concept of a Police Force that from time to time may have to "kill" someone who is a threat or menace to society and we accept that society may execute those who have deprived others of their lives. So these are some of the situations where "killing" in our view may be necessary.

- Art

Click to expand...

Whereas I concede that occasionally, if one is faced with no option but to "take the criminal out" then there is very little else anyone can do. From what I have heard and understood, and also believe, Buddhists do not accept the latter part of this statement, ie, that 'Society may execute those who have deprived others of their lives'.
It is not a belief that one should punish in kind, or extract "an eye for an eye". I have already used this term.
Whilst everything possible should be done to punish and to reform the criminal, and to make them understand that under no circumstances will this form of behaviour be tollerated, Buddhists do not believe that the taking of a life, as a punishment is a Right, Mindful and Skillful Action.

From what I have heard and understood, and also believe, Buddhists do not accept the latter part of this statement, ie, that 'Society may execute those who have deprived others of their lives'.
It is not a belief that one should punish in kind, or extract "an eye for an eye". I have already used this term.

Reply:

Well my main repsonse here is from a Baha'i perspective...

I realize past legal systems worked around the principle of vengeance, however most modern societies I think would deny they were simply operating under "an eye for an eye" retributatory system.

My own view though is that while Buddhists in principle may not accept that 'Society may execute those who have deprived others of their lives' but in actual practise the case may be otherwise:

The Nation (Thailand)
01-20-2000
Thai society is unlikely to buy the argument that criminals are mere
victims of social diseases and that capital punishment is a crime, writes
Thana Poopat.
Many would kill with a clean conscience to protect their loved ones
from heinous crimes such as murder and rape. That's why the majority of
Thais feel it is only right that society should deal in the most severe
way possible with criminals convicted of such abominable acts.

________________________

Also there may be different codes of conduct say expected of monks from lay Buddhists which can expain this. In the Baha'i Faith we have no distinctions between clergy and laity as there is no professional priesthood


- Art

Hi, Annoula!

Annoula said:

so if i understand correctly [the Baha'i view is that] evil is the non existance of a good quality.

there is no some kind of universal evil, like the devil for example.

but how does your faith view for example the killing of people.
if i kill a person (innocent or not), what will your faith say?

Click to expand...

You're correct: evil is the relative absence of something good.

And there is no "devil" or evil power competing with God, Who is One, Supreme, and Unequalled!

"Satan" merely refers to our own lower (animal) nature when we give it control instead of our higher (spiritual) nature.

And someone killing someone else is a perfect example of this lack of positive (spiritual) qualities! Please note that as we are also firm supporters of justice, we stipulate that such a person may properly be punished by the appropriate governmental agencies (although individuals are to maintain a sin-covering and forgiving eye). (Reward and punishment are both pillars of justice.)

Regards,

Bruce

Art, Annoula, and others, hi!

There's one other aspect of capital punishment that should be considered.

It is true that the Baha'i scriptures permit capital punishment in some cases. But there are several important points to bear in mind:

• The Baha'i scriptures also state that long or life imprisonment is an acceptable alternative to capital punishment.
• They also state explicitly that if a criminal is executed, God will then consider him to have atoned for his crime, and will therefore impose no further punishment on him in the Next Life because this would be (in effect) double jeopardy. (IOW, the common "execute him so he'll fry in hell" attitude is in fact completely incorrect.)

So given this second fact, there may indeed be circumstances where a criminal might actually prefer to choose capital punishment in order to give himself a more favorable outcome in the Next Life!

Food for thought . . .

Bruce

AlexandraB said:

How about the dog that bites you? Does he have a reason?
If none is apparent, does that therefore make him evil?

Click to expand...

Does that dog have a choice? Or is biting an instinctive situation?

Granted that I surely missed some necessary details. One would obviously be "Does the 'evildoer' have a choice?". Another would be "Does the 'evildoer' comprehend that there are alternatives?".

I believe that evil is a purposeful and acknowledged wrongful action done from malice or wantonness. I would not however use the term “evil.” I would also like to say I believe in no universal evil. For instance, let us say there is an imaginary cult. The leader of this cult knows it is a fraud, but his followers do not. Together, they attack and kill several people. The followers believe this is for these people’s or the universal good, and their act is not evil. The leader does this from a wish for power, and his actions are evil.

Right now you are probably saying “Oh my! He condones murder!” Well I most certainly do not! But the act from the followers, though one I believe heinously wrongful, was not evil because it was not done with the intention of being or knowledge that it was wrongful.

I guess what I am trying to say is that there is, in my opinion, no universal moral code and that evil is subjective. Each person needs to try their best to be a good person, but should not judge the morals of others.