Evil

[Received]

Interesting, but why not draw the opposite conclusion? That is, why not think that your analysis points to the fact that there's something wrong with our notion of justice, since it so often leads us down the path to evil?

Hey Jordan! (The bar is that way, btw.)

To my thinking, there's a difference between justice as a faculty (if that's the right word to use) and the sort of ideological content that makes up our understanding of what is just. So (using a random example) one person might think that huge wealth imbalances in advanced capitalist societies is totally just because he thinks that everyone is responsible for everything that he does, but another person might think that these imbalances are unjust because people aren't responsible for everything they do. Behind both people is justice as a faculty, which is determined by different ideologies. This is presumably why we find very good people who hold ridiculous beliefs about justice (and vice versa).

When I'm talking about evil, I'm talking about the warping of a sense of justice, justice as a faculty.

 

[Kylie]

Because justice is a good thing.

Can you support this claim? If Person A kills Person B, what punishment is just? If you are the judge sentencing Person A, how do you make sure your personal feelings don't bias you? How can you reach a truly impartial, JUST decision? Remember, to be just, any other judge must be able to reach the same conclusion while knowing nothing about your particular case.

You could also say that evil is parasitic on goodness, in that you can't be evil without a sense of injustice (and injustice implies a standard of justice, which is good).

It could also just mean a sense of selfishness, in that someone who thinks, "I do whatever I need to do to get my own way, and who cares about anyone else" could easily do things that are considered evil.

 

[Kylie]

The existence of evil simply requires the existence of good.

I've never understood this. Why must we have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself? According to the "heat-death" hypothesis, one day many billions of years in the future all heat would have spread evenly across the universe, and all energy and matter, or something like that. In other words, the entire universe would be a near-vacuum, uniformly dense, only a few degrees above absolute zero. This would be very cold. But according to this philosophy, we can't have such coldness unless there is also heat - which is impossible.

 

[Received]

Can you support this claim? If Person A kills Person B, what punishment is just? If you are the judge sentencing Person A, how do you make sure your personal feelings don't bias you? How can you reach a truly impartial, JUST decision? Remember, to be just, any other judge must be able to reach the same conclusion while knowing nothing about your particular case.

No, I can't support this claim. The sense that justice is a good thing is either intuitive or not.

It could also just mean a sense of selfishness, in that someone who thinks, "I do whatever I need to do to get my own way, and who cares about anyone else" could easily do things that are considered evil.

But I have a hard time believing that this person is evil without having a sense that he's entitled to it or deserves it -- i.e., by appealing to a standard of justice.

 

[quatona]

No, I can't support this claim. The sense that justice is a good thing is either intuitive or not.

I don´t think you can be intuitive about abstractions.

But I have a hard time believing that this person is evil without having a sense that he's entitled to it or deserves it -- i.e., by appealing to a standard of justice.

People usually do things because they want their needs fulfilled. I have a hard time believing that restoring justice (or what they think it is) is the underlying motive. If they are hungry they take whatever they find to eat - without spending any thought on justice or entitlement, or whom it belongs or should belong to.

 

[Received]

I don´t think you can be intuitive about abstractions.

Justice is just as abstract as the intuition that the outer world exists.

People usually do things because they want their needs fulfilled. I have a hard time believing that restoring justice (or what they think it is) is the underlying motive. If they are hungry they take whatever they find to eat - without spending any thought on justice or entitlement, or whom it belongs or should belong to.

Then to me he isn't being evil given that he isn't willing badness on another but rather sufficiency for himself. Maybe I should say that the "badness" involved in my definition works along the lines of malignancy?

 

[quatona]

Justice is just as abstract as the intuition that the outer world exists.

No, these aren´t even in the same ballpark.

Then to me he isn't being evil given that he isn't willing badness on another but rather sufficiency for himself. Maybe I should say that the "badness" involved in my definition works along the lines of malignancy?

Yes, I have addressed that in a previous post.
If you´d apply your definition consistently, the motive "justice" wouldn´t be reconcilable with "willing badness on another"="malignancy"="evil", either.

In fact, people rarely - if ever - will badness on someone else just for the heck of it. There´s always a positive motive behind their actions (and it needn´t even be as abstract as "justice").

 

[Received]

No, these aren´t even in the same ballpark.

If you say so.

Yes, I have addressed that in a previous post.
If you´d apply your definition consistently, the motive "justice" wouldn´t be reconcilable with "willing badness on another"="malignancy"="evil", either.

In fact, people rarely - if ever - will badness on someone else just for the heck of it. There´s always a positive motive behind their actions (and it needn´t even be as abstract as "justice").

I'm not claiming that people who commit evil are willing badness on others for the heck of it. I'm claiming they have a motive.

 

[quatona]

If you say so.

Yeah, it was an intuitive statement.

I'm not claiming that people who commit evil are willing badness on others for the heck of it. I'm claiming they have a motive.

Then your definition appears to be useless.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I've never understood this. Why must we have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself? According to the "heat-death" hypothesis, one day many billions of years in the future all heat would have spread evenly across the universe, and all energy and matter, or something like that. In other words, the entire universe would be a near-vacuum, uniformly dense, only a few degrees above absolute zero. This would be very cold. But according to this philosophy, we can't have such coldness unless there is also heat - which is impossible.

Can you have rust without metal?

Rot without a tree?

Cancer without an organ?

Certain things, i.e. the three things listed above (and more) are dependent on other things for their existence. Evil is the same way. It is a lack, or a deprivation, or a malignancy in that which is good. Just like rust is to a car, or rot in a tree or cancer in a lung.

You asked:

Why must we have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself?

But Christians when talking about evil necessitating good never say that you have to have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself.

They just simply say that if one asserts that evil exists, then one must also assert good exists, for like rust is to metal, so evil is to good.

It would be silly to talk of rust existing if there were no metal. It would be non-sensical to speak of cancer if there was no organ or substance in existence for cancer to malign.

 

[Kylie]

Can you have rust without metal?

Is rust the OPPOSITE of metal, or just something that can happen to metal?

Rot without a tree?

Is rot the OPPOSITE of tree, or just something that can happen to a tree?

Cancer without an organ?

Is cancer the OPPOSITE of organ, or just something that can happen to an organ?

Certain things, i.e. the three things listed above (and more) are dependent on other things for their existence. Evil is the same way. It is a lack, or a deprivation, or a malignancy in that which is good. Just like rust is to a car, or rot in a tree or cancer in a lung.

Is good the OPPOSITE of evil, or just something that happens to evil?

Unlike the above examples, good isn't something that happens to evil. Rust happens to metal. Rotting happens to a tree. Caner happens to an organ. But good doesn't happen to evil. The two are polar opposite, quite unlike the other examples you posted.

You asked:

Why must we have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself?

But Christians when talking about evil necessitating good never say that you have to have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself.

They just simply say that if one asserts that evil exists, then one must also assert good exists, for like rust is to metal, so evil is to good.

So you aren't saying that in order to have a thing, you must also have the opposite of the thing. You're just saying that if a thing exists, the thing's opposite exists as well.

Do you see the problem in this logic?

It would be silly to talk of rust existing if there were no metal. It would be non-sensical to speak of cancer if there was no organ or substance in existence for cancer to malign.

Rust is a thing that happens to metal. Cancer is a thing that happens to an organ. And I ask again, is good a thing that happens to evil? No, it is not. Your analogy does not work.

 

[ForJesusChrist]

What causes someone to be evil?

Satan

 

[FireDragon76]

Rust is a thing that happens to metal. Cancer is a thing that happens to an organ. And I ask again, is good a thing that happens to evil? No, it is not. Your analogy does not work.

the Christian understanding of evil is that it is not the opposite of good, it is the privation or lack of good. Evil as a metaphysical force, separate from God, doesn't exist in Christianity. People do evil things, but these evil things are evil because they take a good thing and distort or misuse it.

 

[Kylie]

the Christian understanding of evil is that it is not the opposite of good, it is the privation or lack of good. Evil as a metaphysical force, separate from God, doesn't exist in Christianity. People do evil things, but these evil things are evil because they take a good thing and distort or misuse it.

Except that it doesn't really work like this.

If I see an old man unconscious on the ground, what can I do about it?

I can call and ambulance and give him first aid until the ambulance arrives. This is good.

But let's say I don't do that and I just stand around doing nothing. This is the absence of good. But is it evil? No, it's just apathetic. Evil is not the absence of good. Apathy is the absence of good. It is also the absence of evil.

If I was evil, I'd probably kick him a few times and steal his wallet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Satan

Evidence for this claim?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can you have rust without metal?

Rot without a tree?

Cancer without an organ?

Certain things, i.e. the three things listed above (and more) are dependent on other things for their existence. Evil is the same way. It is a lack, or a deprivation, or a malignancy in that which is good. Just like rust is to a car, or rot in a tree or cancer in a lung.

You asked:

Why must we have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself?

But Christians when talking about evil necessitating good never say that you have to have the opposite of a thing in order to have the thing itself.

They just simply say that if one asserts that evil exists, then one must also assert good exists, for like rust is to metal, so evil is to good.

It would be silly to talk of rust existing if there were no metal. It would be non-sensical to speak of cancer if there was no organ or substance in existence for cancer to malign.

You do realize that this argument only works if good creates evil. Rust comes from elemental iron when it is exposed to oxygen, although technically you could have all iron be in the form of rust. But anyways, this example doesn't really work to your benefit.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Rust is a thing that happens to metal. Cancer is a thing that happens to an organ. And I ask again, is good a thing that happens to evil? No, it is not. Your analogy does not work.

You are right. The analogy does not work if you say good is something that happens to evil.

I never said that. You have taken what I have said and reversed it.


Evil is parasitic. It needs good in order to exist. Like a parasite needs a host in order to thrive.


Good is not something that happens to something evil. Rather, evil is something that happens to something Good. Like rust to metal or cancer in an organ. The metal and the organ are what is being maligned by the rust and cancer respectively.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

You do realize that this argument only works if good creates evil. Rust comes from elemental iron when it is exposed to oxygen, although technically you could have all iron be in the form of rust. But anyways, this example doesn't really work to your benefit.

No it does not.

Evil is not something that is created at all. You incorrectly assume this.

Rust is not something that is created in the sense that it exists in and of itself like a piece of metal exists.

Rust like evil, is something that happens to something pre-existing and is due to a degrading or breaking-down of the pre-existing object. Rust comes from various degrading solutions/agents acting upon metal. Evil comes from free moral agents (the pre-existing good) who by choice have chosen to malign themselves, thus resulting in the degradation of said good (themselves).

Lucifer was created by God and was good. He was not evil when He was created for God could not create anything evil. He was good until he freely chose to malign himself by going against The One Good who made Him good. Choosing to abandon The Good was the cause of him becoming evil. Evil came into existence as the product of a choice made by a pre-existing good creature to turn away from The Good.

It is like standing in a pitch black room with a bright light shining on you and you are looking into the light. While you are looking into the light, you are illuminated and can see.

But if you choose to turn your back to the light then you are plunged in pitch black darkness and are no longer illuminated.

The light represents the good. The dark the evil. But the dark does not exist on its own or by itself, but only in the ABSENCE of light.

P.S.

If something is all iron it cannot have any rust on it. The minute something that is iron begins to rust, the amount of iron begins to decrease in proportion to the rate of rusting. You cannot have something that has no rust (all iron) and rust on it at the same time.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

But let's say I don't do that and I just stand around doing nothing. This is the absence of good.

Not necessarily. You could be in a state of shock or panic.

If you would have sought help had you not been in a state of shock, you would not be evil for standing there doing nothing. Culpability here is key.

Intentionality is something you must consider also.

But is it evil? No, it's just apathetic. Evil is not the absence of good. Apathy is the absence of good. It is also the absence of evil.

It is evil if you intended harm to the man by not helping. Apathy is not caring which is evil. Therefore apathy is not the absence of evil but is evil.

If I was evil, I'd probably kick him a few times and steal his wallet.

That would be a clearer instance of evil.

 

[Kylie]

Not necessarily. You could be in a state of shock or panic.

If you would have sought help had you not been in a state of shock, you would not be evil for standing there doing nothing. Culpability here is key.

Intentionality is something you must consider also.

No, I'd be apathetic, not evil.

Apathy is just not caring what happens. Evil is wanting harm to be done.

It is evil if you intended harm to the man by not helping. Apathy is not caring which is evil. Therefore apathy is not the absence of evil but is evil.

I disagree. Evil requires an intent, a desire for harm. Apathy does not require intent.