From a non-Christian perspective, why is there evil?

[True Scotsman]

I know there some other threads about evil, but I didn't see one specifically looking for a non-Christian answer to the question. Christians have an easy answer to the question of why there is evil. I'd like to hear non-Christian answers to why you think there is evil in the world (deftly avoiding how a non-Christian defines what "evil" is). Thanks.

Hi dysert,

I'll give you the Objectivist perspective.

I don't have any trouble defining what evil is. I define evil as not only something that is harmful to man's life qua man but more. I think that an essential component is the element of choice. There has to be choice involved. In other words it has to be a choice to do something that one knows is wrong. If I accidentally harm someone then it is not evil. I didn't intend to do anyone harm. If I choose to harm someone then that is.

You might ask now how a non-Christian knows what is wrong from what is right. That's easy. Anything which destroys life or makes it unlivable and is done intentionally is wrong. That which supports life and affirms it is the good. You see, for an Objectivist, life is the standard by which all values are judged. Man requires certain things in order to live. Life is a purposeful struggle for values. It requires a specific course of action and any other course of action will destroy it. This is the basis for an objective morality. For an Objectivist, morality is not handed down from a god or decided by the majority or the society but is based on man's nature as a rational being and the requirements for him to flourish and live a full and happy life.

Natural disasters like rock slides, hurricanes, lightning strikes, plagues, shark attacks and meteor strikes are not evil. They are tragic and horrible but they are not evil. Since "evil" is a moral concept, and the moral is the chosen, then there has to be volition for something to rise to the level of evil.

There is the answer. There is evil because men have free will and they sometimes choose to do bad things.

 

[dysert]

Hi dysert,

I'll give you the Objectivist perspective.

I don't have any trouble defining what evil is. I define evil as not only something that is harmful to man's life qua man but more. I think that an essential component is the element of choice. There has to be choice involved. In other words it has to be a choice to do something that one knows is wrong. If I accidentally harm someone then it is not evil. I didn't intend to do anyone harm. If I choose to harm someone then that is.

You might ask now how a non-Christian knows what is wrong from what is right. That's easy. Anything which destroys life or makes it unlivable and is done intentionally is wrong. That which supports life and affirms it is the good. You see, for an Objectivist, life is the standard by which all values are judged. Man requires certain things in order to live. Life is a purposeful struggle for values. It requires a specific course of action and any other course of action will destroy it. This is the basis for an objective morality. For an Objectivist, morality is not handed down from a god or decided by the majority or the society but is based on man's nature as a rational being and the requirements for him to flourish and live a full and happy life.

Natural disasters like rock slides, hurricanes, lightning strikes, plagues, shark attacks and meteor strikes are not evil. They are tragic and horrible but they are not evil. Since "evil" is a moral concept, and the moral is the chosen, then there has to be volition for something to rise to the level of evil.

There is the answer. There is evil because men have free will and they sometimes choose to do bad things.

A nice post. It kinda begs the question of how you've gone about defining "bad", though.

 

[Received]

People choose. That's why there's evil, and no, evil isn't exclusive to Christianity or even theism. And if you think it is, then we still feel the same repulsion toward those acts that theism labels as evil and atheism doesn't label as evil, so in the end we're just committing semantic antics.

 

[True Scotsman]

A nice post. It kinda begs the question of how you've gone about defining "bad", though.

Good question! Well I think the first question to ask before getting into ethics is why man needs values. Why does he need a set of principles to guide his actions. Man needs values because all living things face two fundamental alternatives: life or death. A rock doesn't face this alternative and needs no values to sustain itself. Living things do. Plants and lower animals act automatically to sustain their lives. Humans don't and we aren't born with the knowledge of what is good for us and what is bad. We have to be taught or discover it and we need some objective standard by which to judge what is bad vs. what is good. The standard comes from the fundamental choice we all must make to live or not. Does that answer your question?

 

[dysert]

Good question! Well I think the first question to ask before getting into ethics is why man needs values. Why does he need a set of principles to guide his actions. Man needs values because all living things face two fundamental alternatives: life or death. A rock doesn't face this alternative and needs no values to sustain itself. Living things do. Plants and lower animals act automatically to sustain their lives. Humans don't and we aren't born with the knowledge of what is good for us and what is bad. We have to be taught or discover it and we need some objective standard by which to judge what is bad vs. what is good. The standard comes from the fundamental choice we all must make to live or not. Does that answer your question?

A few things intrigue me about your post. First, I wonder if we really do need values to sustain ourselves. Couldn't we just go through life doing what we must in order to have food and shelter without having any values?

Second, you reference "the knowledge of what is good *for us*. Am I to infer that the values you're talking about are those things which are beneficial primarily to us, regardless of how they might impact the rest of society?

Third, you mention an objective standard, and that this standard comes from the fundamental choice we all must make to live or not. To me this sounds like a circle. Assuming we want to live, what objective standard exists to tell us what's good and what's bad? Does everyone share this same objective standard, or is it different for everyone?

 

[dlamberth]

I know there some other threads about evil, but I didn't see one specifically looking for a non-Christian answer to the question. Christians have an easy answer to the question of why there is evil. I'd like to hear non-Christian answers to why you think there is evil in the world (deftly avoiding how a non-Christian defines what "evil" is). Thanks.

I'd say that Greed, Fear and Separation are at the root of evil.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you think most Germans were stupid at that time?

Yes, they became stupefied by the Nazi cult. Cults do that to people.

.

 

[Chany]

Different religions explain evil, what it is, and how it functions differently.

From a more nonbelievers' standpoint: the answer is often there is no actual real force of evil. So, in reality, there is nothing to explain in terms of evil as an existing thing. We can talk about what we label evil, why, and how those things come about.

 

[True Scotsman]

A few things intrigue me about your post. First, I wonder if we really do need values to sustain ourselves. Couldn't we just go through life doing what we must in order to have food and shelter without having any values?

Second, you reference "the knowledge of what is good *for us*. Am I to infer that the values you're talking about are those things which are beneficial primarily to us, regardless of how they might impact the rest of society?

Third, you mention an objective standard, and that this standard comes from the fundamental choice we all must make to live or not. To me this sounds like a circle. Assuming we want to live, what objective standard exists to tell us what's good and what's bad? Does everyone share this same objective standard, or is it different for everyone?

Food and shelter are values. You can't live without them right? At a bare minimum you need food, water, clothing and shelter. These are all things that promote life. Beyond the basics there are many other values. I would define a value as something that promotes life or the enjoyment of life. Friends are a value. When you have friends it makes life more enjoyable. Love is an important value. Good food as opposed to gruel day in and day out. Nice clothes instead of a potato sack with arm and neck holes cut out. Music, art, a stimulating career, knowledge. The list is extensive but the common denominator is that they add to life or the enjoyment of life.

The opposite is a disvalue. Disease, hunger, pain, loneliness, loss, destruction, violence, murder, fear, suffering, poison, death are all disvalues. What all these things have in common is that they detract from or destroy life.

As far as what is good "for us" I mean in general, according to our nature. I don't consider society to be anything other than a collection of individuals so what is good for the individual is good for society. If you mean, can we do anything we want to do regardless of the consequences to others, then no. That would contradict life as the standard of value. Also there is the fact that living in a rational society is an enormous value. Other people, provided they act rationally, are an enormous value. Going around stepping on others and cutting throats is not going to promote life or the enjoyment of life.

The objective standard is how an action or thing affects life. This is not circular. It is applying a general principle to particular instances. What would tell you not to touch a red hot stove? You'd get burned badly and suffer pain. What would tell you not to jump off a cliff, pet a rattlesnake, eat poison mushrooms, stick your hand in a fire or go out in a blizzard in a bikini?

 

[Received]

Different religions explain evil, what it is, and how it functions differently.

From a more nonbelievers' standpoint: the answer is often there is no actual real force of evil. So, in reality, there is nothing to explain in terms of evil as an existing thing. We can talk about what we label evil, why, and how those things come about.

And I'd add to this by saying that there is something about labeling something as evil that adds another layer of negativity to the so-called evil act. Compare how someone reacts when you say "evil" doesn't exist, and the "evil" act we're talking about (e.g., murder) is really the deterministic result of forces outside of the "evil" person's control; and how someone reacts when you say that the evil person is responsible for his evil and its inflictions on a victim, could have done differently, and is culpable for this reason. With the latter, both the victim and anyone thinking about this case are more repulsed and offended (in a sense), whereas with the former it's almost -- and even should be -- forgivable that the determined culprit did what he did, because after all he couldn't do otherwise.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I know there some other threads about evil, but I didn't see one specifically looking for a non-Christian answer to the question. Christians have an easy answer to the question of why there is evil. I'd like to hear non-Christian answers to why you think there is evil in the world (deftly avoiding how a non-Christian defines what "evil" is). Thanks.

Some people do what's right in a given situation. Some people do what's wrong. Most people do both in their lives. This is not hard to explain.

 

[ananda]

So you do not know what is evil.

No, I'm just saying that your responses seem to be nonsensical riddles to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know there some other threads about evil, but I didn't see one specifically looking for a non-Christian answer to the question. Christians have an easy answer to the question of why there is evil. I'd like to hear non-Christian answers to why you think there is evil in the world (deftly avoiding how a non-Christian defines what "evil" is). Thanks.

Evil exists where people decide there is evil. It's actually that simple.

 

[Inkfingers]

Evil exists where people decide there is evil. It's actually that simple.

Are you suggesting that child abuse is only wrong to those who say it is wrong?

Or are you saying something else? If so, what?

 

[Received]

Evil exists where people decide there is evil. It's actually that simple.

There's also systemic evil, which goes beyond the intentions of the individual. Actually, we often see the case where people have good intentions and so in a real sense are good people, but whose actions fit within a broader systemic context which might be considered evil (if that's the word to use). Take Republicans, for example.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Are you suggesting that child abuse is only wrong to those who say it is wrong?

Or are you saying something else? If so, what?

It's just a matter of how we identify evil. If you say something is evil, then to you it's evil.

I know there are plenty of people on this forum who would say abortion is evil. I don't think it is. It's all a matter of opinion. No one can "prove" something is evil anymore than someone can "prove" it isn't.

As for your question...what is child abuse? Is spanking your child when they misbehave "child abuse"? Where does the line between abuse and discipline occur? Many people would say neglect is abuse...as in only being with your child often enough to feed them or take care of basic needs...but what if we're talking about a single mother who rarely sees her child because she has to work two jobs. Is that neglect?

Those were all rhetorical questions btw, you need not answer.

 

[Inkfingers]

It's just a matter of how we identify evil. If you say something is evil, then to you it's evil.

I know there are plenty of people on this forum who would say abortion is evil. I don't think it is. It's all a matter of opinion. No one can "prove" something is evil anymore than someone can "prove" it isn't.

As for your question...what is child abuse? Is spanking your child when they misbehave "child abuse"? Where does the line between abuse and discipline occur? Many people would say neglect is abuse...as in only being with your child often enough to feed them or take care of basic needs...but what if we're talking about a single mother who rarely sees her child because she has to work two jobs. Is that neglect?

Those were all rhetorical questions btw, you need not answer.

Sorry, can you clarify please (because the word "evil" is used in a few different ways).

Are you saying that Child Abuse is only wrong to those who think it wrong, and that it is not wrong to those who do not think it so?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's also systemic evil, which goes beyond the intentions of the individual. Actually, we often see the case where people have good intentions and so in a real sense are good people, but whose actions fit within a broader systemic context which might be considered evil (if that's the word to use). Take Republicans, for example.

Lol you take them...I don't want them.

I remember reading about the black death several years ago and I got to this chapter that described what it was like for survivors once the plague had ended. One could argue that across the board, they benefited greatly. There was essentially all this land and wealth with no one to claim it, tend it, profit from it. There was a huge demand for skilled and unskilled labor alike. There was a huge demand for goods and services.

Now, you can make the case for the poor kid who's entire family was wiped out by the plague...saying that he lost everything and didn't yet have the skills or strength to profit from this disaster...and you'd be right. You also have to consider though, that this boy never had such a huge chance to improve his lot in life. Upward mobility had tripled for him.

My point is that good and bad almost never happen in a vacuum where the consequences are solely good or bad. I'm not saying that every cloud has a silver lining... and often with matters of good and bad, one outweighs the other. This is a matter of opinion though...not fact.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, can you clarify please (because the word "evil" is used in a few different ways).

Are you saying that Child Abuse is only wrong to those who think it wrong, and that it is not wrong to those who do not think it so?

Well, I think people who would define something as abuse would view it as wrong. That's a bit like asking me if crime is illegal. I'm just saying what you would call abuse is not what everyone would call abuse.

 

[Inkfingers]

Well, I think people who would define something as abuse would view it as wrong. That's a bit like asking me if crime is illegal. I'm just saying what you would call abuse is not what everyone would call abuse.

No, I'm simply asking you to clarify whether you are saying that Child Abuse is only wrong to those who think it wrong, and that it is not wrong to those who do not think it so.

This is hardly a trick question is it. Is pinning down a child and having sex with that child only wrong to those who think it is wrong, and so not wrong to those who do not think it so?