Evil

[PsychoSarah]

Absolute standard = God's will

Which is...? And how do you know what god considers good actually is? You only have god, a biased source, on how good god supposedly is. That is me being generous of course and allowing one to hypothetically consider the bible true.

 

[variant]

Well I guess the Bible would be an acurate representation of God's will...

I've read the Bible.

In terms of a standard for objective morality I don't think it quite fits the bill.

As I posted earlier, I would probably think that there should be a rule against killing small children and other war crimes.

And, it's not even in question that I can cite the last 1000 or so years of history to point out that there is considerable disagreement on what God thinks even if the bible were a given.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In the Christian world, 'evil' is rejecting the will - the plan, the commands, the goals - of God.

Sarah (by the way, I think you should call yourself 'Psycho Psarah', it just has a 'ring' to it) asks to be presented God's absolute standard. It is found in the Bible, and presents as a total understanding, not just one rather odd statement here or there. I cannot present it here and now, as it is both too complicated for definition and too simple to be missed.

The simple version is, meet God on His terms and pay attention to what He says. If one is not willing to do that, one doesn't really care about the absolute standard. I'm not trying to be belligerent about it, but that's the way it works. Sort of like learning to play the piano; one either studies and practices, or one listens to someone else. There is no 'instant' piano ability. (Which I regret, by the way.)

Ana Ist; you are correct in a limited sort of way. Evil derives from 'desire' to please one's self. Good derives from 'desire' to please God.

Variant, that statement is an outright lie. If you are not aware that is a lie, I really feel sorry for you.

Actually I'm correct in an unlimited way.

At least you got the "correct" part correct though...

"Found in the bible...." even if that were true, the bible is a finite book very much open to interpretation isn't it? Even if it could somehow generalize "right" and "wrong" in some very broad non-specific ways...it can't do that for every situation now can it? That would require infinite (or very near infinite) pages.

And my name looks funny if you don't put the "the" in it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

In the Christian world, 'evil' is rejecting the will - the plan, the commands, the goals - of God.

Sarah (by the way, I think you should call yourself 'Psycho Psarah', it just has a 'ring' to it) asks to be presented God's absolute standard. It is found in the Bible, and presents as a total understanding, not just one rather odd statement here or there. I cannot present it here and now, as it is both too complicated for definition and too simple to be missed.

The simple version is, meet God on His terms and pay attention to what He says. If one is not willing to do that, one doesn't really care about the absolute standard. I'm not trying to be belligerent about it, but that's the way it works. Sort of like learning to play the piano; one either studies and practices, or one listens to someone else. There is no 'instant' piano ability. (Which I regret, by the way.)

Ana Ist; you are correct in a limited sort of way. Evil derives from 'desire' to please one's self. Good derives from 'desire' to please God.

Variant, that statement is an outright lie. If you are not aware that is a lie, I really feel sorry for you.

Sometimes I spell it Syko Sarah, but the P is silent in the word Psycho so I don't get how spelling my first name wrong makes it more catchy. Something too complicated to define certainly wouldn't be able to be defined in the bible. Also, besides god calling itself all that is good (which doesn't exclude god from having bad qualities or being capable of evil) there isn't much indicating that what god instructs people to do is actually moral. God seems to often make people do immoral things, such as when it hardened the pharaoh's heart in Exodus. Since when does god being the "ultimate source of morality" make it not also the "ultimate source of immorality"?

 

[quatona]

As a working definition, evil is the will to intentional badness.

And badness is the will to intentional evildoing?

Generally, I would agree with your emphasis on intention.
Two thoughts, though:
1. With the emphasis on intention, we can constitute "evil" only in ourselves, not in others.
2. In my experience, it is extremely rare that people do something with the intention of willing bad onto others. Usually, they have a different, positive motive and knowingly or unknowingly accept the bad effects as by-products.

You can't be an evil person without consciously and intentionally willing something bad upon someone else.

This may be a useful thought for someone who feels that judging an entire person good or evil is a good idea.

There is also no such thing as an intrinsically or objectively bad thing or event; something is only evil by intentionality, by subjectivity.

Yes, that´s what your definition says.
I do not, however, agree that this is the only criterium when judging things or events good or bad. E.g. another way to make this distinction is from the effect of the thing or event. Although this criterium doesn´t render "good/bad" necessarily "objective", at least it renders them measurable and detectable - without requiring the observer to make assumptions about the intentions of other people.

Another distinction should be made between an evil person and evil actions: the former is a person whose intentionality has become such that he constantly wills badness on others, whereas anyone can commit evil actions intermittently.

Maybe I am too optimistic or something, but I think people of the first category don´t even exist.

What causes someone to be evil? We often speak about this like people choose evil just for the heck of it, or are evil because they differ ideologically or culturally than us. But I think what motivates evil is accumulated perceived injustices in a person's life which the person displaces onto others in a decontextualized way. "The world screwed me over, and so I'll screw the world over back," is the motto for evil. One commits evil as a way of punishing others for the unfairness that the self perceives has been done to it, not just from the particular other but also additional instances of injustice done by others as well. Evil often involves overpaying the other person in badness given this displacement, and this is one of the big problems of evil: it repays too much badness on a single person at any given time. Hence, perhaps, the "blindness" involved with evil. Think about the people who grow up in bad homes or neighborhoods. They're much more likely to commit evil actions because they've had more accumulated injustices thrown their way.

1. Substantiation for the last claim is needed. Either you are preassuming that those "accumulated injustices" that they react to were not "evil", by your definition, and that the reactions are "evil", by your definition (which would be quite an assumption to make); or - in case you allow for the possibility that those "accumulated injustices" had been themselves "evil" actions, and that the reactions aren´t necessarily "evil" - there remains little space for your idea that "evil" is more widely spread in "bad homes and neighborhoods".
2. It seems to me that "injustices" is too narrow and too abstract a description of the perception that leads to such reactions. "Evil" actions (in your definition) can be committed without any thought or concept of "(in)justice" quite fine. They just require you to e.g. want something badly - the abstraction "justice" needn´t even cross your mind.

Another way of saying this is that evil would be impossible without a standard of justice.

Disagree.
Twice I have done something evil by your definition (in my childhood), and none of these actions had anything to do with perceived injustices or the will to restore justice. There was no other intention than to harm the other person. That´s exactly why I would call them "evil". Had there been another motive or intention or abstraction that caused me to merely accept the harm these actions wouldn´t have been "evil", per your very definition.

If this is true, then all evil has an element of goodness in it, and in a real sense goodness is a main ingredient in motivating evil.

Doesn´t follow.

This goodness (justice) is twisted or misapplied, but still, without a sense of justice there could be no evil.

You use "sense of justice" and "justice" here as though they were the same. A "sense of justice" that results in "misapplied justice" isn´t "justice" - if anything, it would be "injustice". I really wouldn´t know what´s good about a "sense of justice" that causes people to commit injustices.
Plus, your first sentence violates your very definition of "evil": If the driving factor is goodness (even though misapplied) the action isn´t "evil" (as in driven by the will to do bad).

 

[OrdinaryClay]

"God is with us" is the translation if you don't speak German.

The Nazi's were occultists and were not even remotely Christian. Here is the research to demonstrate this for those who care to know the truth.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Holocaust-Bible-Scriptural-Anti-Semitism-ebook/dp/B003ODIAVG


Again, your clear and vigorous claims to identifying what is evil is your acknowledgment that an absolute standard exists.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I guess holocaust against innocents depends on the context.

Unless you don't think the writer of numbers was sincere in thinking that God wanted it.

Again you concur with an absolute standard of moral values.

For those interested in the truth here is an interesting book on whether the God of the Old testament acted immorally.

http://www.amazon.com/Is-God-Moral-Monster-Testament/dp/0801072751

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I can't think of any justification I would find acceptable for it off the top of my head.

Of course you can't which is because you and I are imbued with a sense of absolute right and wrong.

The question becomes, in any possible culture or world could you, or I, imagine a case where child rape is moral. I certainly can't and I'm sure you agree. Even if every person in the world was brainwashed into thinking that such a crime were moral it would still be wrong. It is absolute.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Absolute standard = God's will

Yes.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

PsychoSarah asked for a presentation of an absolute standard and now two people have said the same platitude "Gods Will" which neither person can present in anything approaching an absolute manner.

I don't even know what "present in anything approaching an absolute manner" means.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Which is...? And how do you know what god considers good actually is? You only have god, a biased source, on how good god supposedly is. That is me being generous of course and allowing one to hypothetically consider the bible true.

First, having God's word as dictum is based on His being the Creator. So it is reasonable to treat the word of The Creator of the Universe in special stead.

Also we have our own moral compass. Your reasoning is based on the obvious falsehood that you and I don't know good from evil.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I've read the Bible.

In terms of a standard for objective morality I don't think it quite fits the bill.

As I posted earlier, I would probably think that there should be a rule against killing small children and other war crimes.

And, it's not even in question that I can cite the last 1000 or so years of history to point out that there is considerable disagreement on what God thinks even if the bible were a given.

Again you acknowledge to an absolute standard.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Even if it could somehow generalize "right" and "wrong" in some very broad non-specific ways...it can't do that for every situation now can it? That would require infinite (or very near infinite) pages.

First, don't confuse cultural mores and societal laws with good and evil. Evil behavior is often sanctioned in cultural mores and laws. Second, the Bible teaches a set of principles that will result in following God's will if we follow them. So it does cover "every instance" in that sense.

And my name looks funny if you don't put the "the" in it.

What does your name mean?

 

[Ana the Ist]

First, don't confuse cultural mores and societal laws with good and evil. Evil behavior is often sanctioned in cultural mores and laws. Second, the Bible teaches a set of principles that will result in following God's will if we follow them. So it does cover "every instance" in that sense.


What does your name mean?

"First, don't confuse cultural mores and societal laws with good and evil."

I haven't...don't worry about that.

"Second, the Bible teaches a set of principles that will result in following God's will if we follow them."

So you would say that no matter how morally ambiguous the situation...there's always a clear "good" and "evil" that can be ascertained by following God's will?

Please note, that if you say "yes" to the question...I intend to ask you a relatively easy moral question, then little by little change it's details until you reach a moral ambiguity.

 

[epluribus36]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flWgALa-en4

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

Which is...? And how do you know what god considers good actually is? You only have god, a biased source, on how good god supposedly is. That is me being generous of course and allowing one to hypothetically consider the bible true.

Well I think that the Bible is a good representation of God's will and character...

I know what God considers good because of His word. And if God is biased then isn't He biased for good? To be biased you've gotta have a certain inclination for this thing or that, and I think it's right to say that God isn't evil so if He is biased, which He totally is, then He is biased for what is good. Then I think that is a pretty good reason to listen to Him about what is good and not good. Also because He's God, and that alone I think gives Him enough credentials to say what is good and not. This is of course assuming that the Bible is true, which I totally believe

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

I've read the Bible.

In terms of a standard for objective morality I don't think it quite fits the bill.

As I posted earlier, I would probably think that there should be a rule against killing small children and other war crimes.

And, it's not even in question that I can cite the last 1000 or so years of history to point out that there is considerable disagreement on what God thinks even if the bible were a given.

Well you are right that there is a lot of dissention among Christians and non-Christians as to what this means or what that means, but I think that that is mostly because people try to explain parts of the Bible in a way that doesn't really mess with the way that they perceive God and the world. I try not to read the world into the Bible, and by that I mean worldy opinion and conviction and such, and instead I try to just take the Bible as it is. I'm not trying to change it. If the translation I am reading mistranslated one word or another then I'd like to know, but beyond that I take it pretty literally, at least the parts that were meant to be taken that way...

I'm pretty sure that there is a rule against killing small children. If you are talking about when the Isrealites were commanded to kill all the men, women and children in a place then yeah I think those are exceptions where God was looking at a certain group of people and saw that they were too far gone to be brought back, so He had them defeated and killed so they couldn't spread their evil any further.

I know that some people still think it's wrong, but from God's point of view it was a mercy on the rest of humanity to rid the world of cultures like that. But maybe I'm reading too much into your comment, I dunno... And I see know other standard for objective morality anywhere that could even hope to measure up. Do you believe that there is objective morality? Just curious...

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

Actually I'm correct in an unlimited way.

At least you got the "correct" part correct though...

"Found in the bible...." even if that were true, the bible is a finite book very much open to interpretation isn't it? Even if it could somehow generalize "right" and "wrong" in some very broad non-specific ways...it can't do that for every situation now can it? That would require infinite (or very near infinite) pages.

And my name looks funny if you don't put the "the" in it.

Hello I just wanted to comment on what you said about the Bible not being able to be applied in every situation. In any moral situation, when we have to ask what is the right thing to do, we do have a way to know what is the right and wrong things to do are, and that is found in the Bible. The verses below tell us that God has, since the establishment of the New Covenant, placed His laws on our minds and hearts. Each of us has a moral compass so to speak, and I believe that that comes from God. We know intuitively the difference between right and wrong and absent some outside factor we have the ability to make choices both right and wrong. I think that where the Bible isn't specific, we just have to turn to our God given morality. Anyway, thanks!!



Hebrews 8:10-13

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

 

[Heir to the Kingdom]

"First, don't confuse cultural mores and societal laws with good and evil."

I haven't...don't worry about that.

"Second, the Bible teaches a set of principles that will result in following God's will if we follow them."

So you would say that no matter how morally ambiguous the situation...there's always a clear "good" and "evil" that can be ascertained by following God's will?

Please note, that if you say "yes" to the question...I intend to ask you a relatively easy moral question, then little by little change it's details until you reach a moral ambiguity.

Just a little curious, what would be your idea of a morally ambiguous situation? What sort of situations do you imagine finding yourself in that would be so enigmatic or uncertain that you wouldn't have a clear idea of what to do?

 

[variant]

I don't even know what "present in anything approaching an absolute manner" means.

This much is obvious. Standards are specific, an absolute standard is so specific it is never granted an exception.

Again you acknowledge to an absolute standard.

You speak words that you don't seem to understand what they mean.

All I am demonstrating is that I have standards.