This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What is evil?
*Back by popular demand"
Consider the following into your answers (If you want):
Is evil real?
Is it tangible?
Is it taught, learned, or absorbed?
Is it in nature or just in human nature?
Can you measure evil?
Are there evil people?
What is the opposite of evil? Is there one?
What creates evil?
"... it touches on ethics, morals, philosophy, perception, life, and many other things that we consider close to us" - Birdia Tak Wai Chan
Let's have a good discussion here. This question really can be tackled from every direction regarding thought.
**A side note: An idea worth spreading = thinking in open-ended terms can lead to a lot of different thoughts being connected, which is how a great thought is created. Being specific doesn't necessarily mean the answers are going to specific or good anyways nor any better.**
Kristofer Björnson 10+
Other very interesting online resources on this topic are Michael Sandel ethics course at Harvard[3], and a lecture[4] by Philipe Zimbardo that relates to for example his and Millgrams studies on authority and evil.
The lesson I learn from many of these is that it don't take exeptionally bad people to make very bad things. It rather seems like evil deeds more often are done out of either ignoarnce, or by people with a small tendency towards lack of empathy and that themself are in a troubled situation at the moment.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14scibks.html?ref=science
[2] http://glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/EmpathyQuotient/EmpathyQuotient.aspx
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY&feature=BFa&list=SP30C13C91CFFEFEA6&index=1
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUyDznt5V4I
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Great conclusion, I agree.
Thanks for the links and the insight.
Abhiram Lohit 10+
Moral values are crisp reflections of self-preserving anxieties of humans. Stealing is bad because you want to hold on to your possessions. And so on. Rape is also a form of stealing. For the person raped, his/her sense of free will was stolen. For a moment, let's be brutally frank. If rape was such an absolute evil, how come so many people reveal that one of their deepest sexual fantasies was to get raped. Society suppresses the connection of our subconscious with our conscious selves. And then stigmatizes rape "victims", who are now ashamed of their "condition", because they are a part of society. Historically, rape of women of a tribe was seen as stealing of the community's property. The men would then avenge that "property damage" by further damage of actual property or rape of more women.
Murder is also stealing. The person's life was stolen. But that's not what is "evil". The person's utility to others has been stolen. That utility might be physical, sexual, financial or emotional. How much do you really care about a dead person in the next city? You might condemn it to fulfill your inner societal obligation. By doing so, you are subconsciously contributing to your "insurance policy" against your own murder.
Kids don't know "right" from "wrong" unless they are taught - this shows morals are not in nature. Of course Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religion denigrates nature, which is a separate topic.
Ronald Kimani
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Tim blackburn 30+
Helen Hupe 30+
Vengeance has no place in our lives. In my opinion heaven is heaven because vengeance is never practiced there Peace (Of course I am not suggesting that we allow sociopaths to run loose in our society. Sometimes we have to lock people away from others and even themselves)
Helen Hupe 30+
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
pranoy sundar 20+
The intend behind a deed is more important than the deed in determining the evil involved in it.
An the intend while doing that deed depends on the way we think.
Again, the way we think depends on our ambience and pepoles arround whom we r brought up... It depends on what we have seen, heared, experienced and known in our life since then.
So, what u call as an evil deed, is not about the person who does that or the convict... Its a product of the society.
E G 10+
Mr Kebabsoup
E G 10+
pranoy sundar 20+
We dont hv to dump the responsability on society always... Before doing that we have to contribute our part.
As we know, a house is the smallest unit of a society. And to eliminate evil.... We should start from our houses, by eliminating evils in ourselves. Society as a whole cant do it for once.
And simply implimenting a tough judiciary alone cant eliminate evils from society,..
Fear of getting punished may prevent a few from beeing evil but not everyone.
pranoy sundar 20+
We made the society And everything that exist in a society..
Evil and good are both its byproducts...i think.
The term "evil" arise cos we belive that, everyone have the right to live in this world peacefuly as much as we have...
and anything that denies a peaceful life for someone or anyting that becomes injustis according to our social laws is called as evil.
On the other hand, in jungle...theres no evel no society or community. Its the survival of the fitest. U can do anything to survive, no matter how difficult will be the life of other creatures because of it.
If we have to eliminate evil, we have to do good. We have to create a peaceful ambience for the generations coming. We have to talk and think good.
Which seems impossible in todays world., where medias show more interest in spreading evil and criminal stories than good.,where there is an evil side for every movies made, where the vedio games and play stations offer kids to play action games wch mainly features killing...
We are living in a world where everyone is intrested to hear evil stories and do evil things...unless they are at the receiving end.
Helen Hupe 30+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Do you feel a more 'enlightened' society would have less evil in it? I mean enlightened in the most widely accepted way, Wikipedia is excellent.
I agree about the we don't need to experience evil to be value good. Bad things would still exist if we were all enlightened; tragedies (natural/human), deaths, attachment, and/or in my opinion lost love.
Helen Hupe 30+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
human has the option. human is free.
human can select to create evil or good.
all depend of decide of human.
you can say lie or not and can create both. it depends on your decide.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
the same question goes for you.
E G 10+
If you can destroy what I said you would be a god !!!!!!!!
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Colby McGrevey
Moral Ontology discusses the questions about about the reality of moral values
and
Moral Epistemology discusses the questions about how we come to know moral values.
I feel that people are making the mistake that human society defines what is moral. Hence, this is why there are many comments about the evolutionary nature of morality. We are aware of the reality that there are moral values (I think everyone can agree on that). However, how we come to know these moral values, is where the diasgreemnt arises. Because how we come to know these moral values is the inherent difference between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism.
Lucas Avelleda 500+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
evil is created to we can know good. good exist anyway.
" God created hell because otherwise paradise wouldn't exist, God wouldn't exist": I disagree. existence of heaven does not depend on hell. heaven can exist if hell exist or not. like when Adam was in heaven.
God not depend on anything.
God said 3 reason for creating human (3 level)
the lowest level is human examination.
but final goal is to human know God.
before creating human and world God was alone and Intended to be known.
please note time is a creature of God and time is for human, not for God.
but when we want to speak there is no way to not use such world.
the true knowing of God is just possible by Intuition. you just know God (not entity of God) just when you see it by your eye of heart. and when you see it you can not describe it for people by worlds. each human should experience it himself and it is impossible to say that experience to others by words.
as God has all good attributed unlimited so if some one want to know God, should know the attributes of God. and each attribute can be just by comparing to its opposite attribute.
so God created a suitable environment to those attributes be known. that environment is our world and universe and all thing is universe is created for human needs. so human is center of creature and all other is for human use.
so God created Satan (devil or bad attributes) to at opposite of bad attributes, good attributes (attributes of God) be known. and this is possible just when human have option.
if human have no option like animals, then good and bad has no meaning. and doing good has no value and good (at ext ream God) can not be known. if there is no cruel, then merciful has no meaning.
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qaribullah/11:7
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qaribullah/65:12
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qaribullah/11:118
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qaribullah/51:56
http://www.ted.com/conversations/2168/life_was_made_to_be_certain_no.html?c=2304
Lucas Avelleda 500+
Helen Hupe 30+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
right.
evil is created by human.
human is free to select do good or evil.
but from another view of point all of us are doing anything by power of God and we can consider all we do is do of God.
it is like you have a knife at your hand and cut an apple.
now the knife cut apple or you?
we are like a knife at hand of God.
without power of God we can not move even one millimeter.
but as human has option it is done by human "select" and so it is a deed of human, not God. while at the same time it is deed of God.
God punish and reward because of "wisdom"
no animal has wisdom. just human
the first thing God created was wisdom
Comment deleted
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
cartoons and movie use symbol.
how you can demonstrate a non-material thing?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
I disagree soul and sprite are some kind of materials.
they are completely non material.
material has some limitations like time, place, dimensions,...
if some thing is some just a much more subtle form which the human eye is unable to perceive, so it is steel material and still limitations of material.
but at sleep you go to other city or country of other plant very quick. this shows your soul is not material at all. or you can go to past or future in sleep. so at sleep you are free from limitations of material. does not it enough to show soul is not material at all?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"'eyes that see' "
our soul has eye.
spiritual things are seen by eye of soul. not by eye of head. but this eye is not open for all people.
the small example is dreams you see in sleep while your eye of head is closed. its by your eye of soul.
"Kirlian photography"
I am sure spritual things can not be detected by any kind of physical and material instrument. and I am not sure what they have photographed but I am sure it has not been a soul. the only way is perhaps spritual things can have some effects on some materials in special cases if they are allowed and may that effect can be photographed. effects like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ance soul of dead people can move objects in special board in Séance. the Séance is banned in Islam. but some people do it.
please see:
http://www.parapsych.org/
"It is this ethereal body which travels"
its soul, not any body. any kind of material is limited in time and place. just soul has not such limitation. soul is restricted in jail of body.
why you make it such complicated and make consents like 'subtle' body?
it is simply soul.
each human has 4 soul. just some special people like messengers and close friends of God has 5 soul. this is the reason they can see what is in your home now. did you hear the story of Jesus (peace on him) that he could say to people what they did in their home and said to some one: you have hided extra fish in your home, give some of them to this poor woman.
the 5th soul can see every where at any time.
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:87
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:253
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/5:110
Helen Hupe 30+
good does not have an opposite.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
please read my above post to know why God created evil.
E G 10+
Lucas Avelleda 500+
E G 10+
E G 10+
E G 10+
Lucas Avelleda 500+
E G 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Had he not created evil to test life, he would not be all that people claim he can be. It is like the Bible and how fictional the stories really are; I mean God created man yet destroys them when they take advantage of what nature presents them? That is saying he made mistakes. God made planted seeds yet we make those same plants illegal. God made man and woman yet women seem to come second in the Koran. How can a man exist without his mother? Like saying you are better than the person who created you. these are all stories Ed. Believing in God to be an absolution cannot come from a book or a religion, it cannot. Religions, books, and people time after time limit the idea of which God can exist in constantly. I say God is love because love is a powerful thing, it can unite the world if placed first into our morality ideals. Not because the Christian think they know what universal love is, they are the biggest sinners in history and no one can deny that. Love is my faith, and I do not even need an almighty God to tell me what I should do or not do morally. I figured it out on my own through educations.
Paradox = God created everything, but not this one thing.
God = Reality (start there)
E G 10+
Sorry Nick but your judgments are utterly nonsense , look only one example : "I mean God created man yet destroys them when they take advantage of what nature presents them? " if God created everything (and of course the man and the nature) He have rights upon us and upon nature , don't you think so ? if God created everything, all is His property and He can destroy everything without no problem because as I've said everything is His.
or this "God made man and woman yet women seem to come second in the Koran. How can a man exist without his mother?" it is really only nonsense , the answer is very very simple: God created the man(which is exatcly the idea with which you have started).
Sorry Nick , i wanna be friendy with you but I really don't see how you think (if you think , of course)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
simply by saying God is unhappy with our decisions is limiting God to me. Making god a reflection of humans, so thus someone had to of created God at that point.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
evil has two meaning: one=bad doing and one=Satan
Satan is a kind of creature called "Jinn". Jinns are creatures living in earth before human enter earth and now Jinns are living around earth. thy live like human and have their own societies.
Satan can see human, but humans can not see or measure Jinns.
Satan (evil) is who caused to Adam exit heaven.
Satan is enemy of human and not want to any human enter heaven.
for example when some one say you a damn, you become angry at a moment, at that moment Satan say you:damn him, but other thing say you: you should not be like him and should not damn him. the first is Satan and second is a messenger of God. or when you can have a money but with saying a lie. again evil and messenger of say you: say lie, not ay lie.
so by obeying or not obeying Satan your deed become evil of good
first time God coined good and evil and all people know them from God (religion)
each human has both evil and messenger of God in his heart.
Jinns have not limit of time and space as they are not material.
some people has connection to Jinns and get some Information from Jinns, for example contacting to soul of dead people(seance, some people say they can do seance but they are cheater. but some really can), or saying some things about future, or finding lost things, and such abilities is by connecting to Jinns.
for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ance
http://www.otherworldsociety.org
http://parapsych.org/ (The Parapsychological Association is an international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of psi (or 'psychic') experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition. The primary objective of the PA is to achieve a scientific understanding of these experiences.)
science still has no clear explain for such experiences.
what's difference of evil and Satan? maybe evils are child's of Satan.
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qaribullah/36:
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
if no religion existed, no good or evil existed. all humans learned good and evil from God and prophets.
if you do research find any good or evil had root in religion.
without God good and evil has no meaning.
good and evil are related to heaven and hell.
do you know any other source for good and evil?
how humans learned good and evil?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
You can never not talk God on TED.
Did you even watch the documentaries I posted for you?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
no, what documentaries you mean?
here or other topic?
Comment deleted
Tim Colgan 50+
I still think that at the foundation our social system is a basis in pain/pleasure (reward/punishment). Yes, as we develope we think longer term and we grow in empathy for others, but still we feel no hunger like our own and when we do things for others that aren't appreciated we tend to stop doing those things.
Helen Hupe 30+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Indeed Tim is most correct as another TEDster explains elegantly further.
Evil deeds are never intentional…
“Good point, I will assume your definition of evil to include what most western societies consider to be evil in their norm.
So here is the rule of thumb that I use to distinguish the nature of the act.
For individually committed "evil" acts it is essential to consider the underlying psychology of the act.
For mass "evil" acts that span entire communities. It's essential to consider the underlying economics of the act.”
- Budimir Zdravkovic
Tim Colgan 50+
You may be misunderstanding me. It's not that authoritarian impositions of rewards/punishments are what establish the foundation of our society. It's that life has it's inherent rewards and punishments which motivate our actions.
Even the case of altruistic behavior. We do it because it feels good.
E G 10+
Tim Colgan 50+
But at the same time, we can be empathetically selfish. Which is to say, our genetic make up gives us empathy to others in order to preserve our selves, our group, our species.
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Tim Colgan 50+
Yeah vengeance can be destructive. That's why we need the reward/punishment system to moderate it (both social constraints and legal constraints).
E G 10+
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Tim my best example of altruism in real life is a young child who continues to allow herself to be sexually abused in the face of the threat of the same being done to a younger sibling. Having considered the concept of altruism and self interest pretty deeply - in light of the fact that most people do not believe it even exists due to self interest. I can say that the child that I refer to is not getting any satifaction out of the experience, is not promoting the continuation of the species and simply loves the younger sibling. There are other examples of young children demonstrating such courage.
Tim Colgan 50+
Helen Hupe 30+
Deaven Morris
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
That was already concluded if that is not what you mean.
Deaven Morris
Maybe it's just me but searching for the underlying evolutionary benefit in most things is pretty interesting. I say the majority because after the majority has made up it's mind about how things should be, you are either in or you are out. Of course we have a little more luxury in stance these days, but the underlying premise still remains somewhere in our thoughts I suppose. Although I believe someone made a point close to that previously as well but...
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
you must expand, simply because it is a thought I had without being able to dictate such.
Now a question for you. The result of America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan killing over a million civilians, does this make Americans evil for their ignorance of these deeds? Are we in bad nature for not being fully aware of these actions of great destruction?
I feel this goes into what you are saying but correct me if I am wrong I am intrigued.
Deaven Morris
Being the only self-aware animals we really should consider ourselves sort of ambassadors.Neglecting that responsibility is like neglecting our children, and being uninformed about issues that have such wide consequences is exactly that.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
why "only self-aware animals"?
animals are not aware?
better to say:
"only wise animals"
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
interesting!
Koran has the same idea as you:
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/6:116
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
it is:
"controlling yourself to not do what your self likes to do"
also other definitions:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/2353/what_is_wisdom_and_can_wisdom.html
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
That is brilliant
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
can I need two comment?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Three = more scrolling
The psychology behind it is because do not like to do a lot of work to get to the work of reading. It ties into marketing.
Need to save space for text!! No whiteness.
Please one big is for the better.
Helen Hupe 30+
natasha nikulina 50+
What does it mean?
Tim Colgan 50+
Debra Smith 200+
Tim Colgan 50+
I'll repeat a portion of my response to Helen:
On the issue of intent. Must the act or thought be carried out with the knowledge that it may cause damage? Does simple lack of consideration or caring qualify? Or does any action/thought which might cause damage to others suffice?
Debra Smith 200+
A goofball who drives too fast and runs over a child is not truly evil - nor is a drunk who in trying to cope with his own demons hurts the lives of others but someone who with malice and forethought commits a psychopathic act is evil.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Indeed, there would remain unfavorable acts in nature, but nothing as unfavorable as humans can do with intelligence behind them.
So, yes and no.
Helen Hupe 30+
Tim Colgan 50+
In any case it seems we agree that evil is relative. That which may cause bad things to other humans is called evil.
Where do you stand on the issue of intent. Must the act or thought be carried out with the knowledge that it may cause damage? Does simple lack of consideration or caring qualify? Or does any action/thought which might cause damage to others suffice?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"Without humans, would there be any good OR evil?"
No, good or evil has meaning just for human.
good or evil has no meaning when there is no option.
the only animal with option of choice good or evil is human.
Debra Smith 200+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Davie Webb
i do however like the following quote:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Comment deleted
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
You must enjoy Bill Hicks lol.
Good answer
Helen Hupe 30+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
So here is the rule of thumb that I use to distinguish the nature of the act.
For individually committed "evil" acts it is essential to consider the underlying psychology of the act.
For mass "evil" acts that span entire communities. It's essential to consider the underlying economics of the act.
Tim Colgan 50+
I'm confused as to why you think that a social system based on reward/punishment is ridiculous.
Isn't that what all social systems are based on?
Comment deleted
Helen Hupe 30+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
That is just non-sense, the law of nature was discovered by humans long before Karma was.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Human understanding creates and broaden ideas of self in relation to the universe. Nature is the only absolution, what effects nature is nothing, what works within nature is everything.
"... is the concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect." Yeah I stop at action or deed because actions or deeds is human not universal. Cause and effects are physics which is universal. Indeed you need the actions and deed prior to the cause and effects when dealing with Karma.
Lol, nice try to making me seem like a total idiot. But really I read enough literature on Karma to know what I am saying. I am into that stuff you know... religion, literature, spirituality, and humanities.
Maybe you are the one who should have educated yourself on Karma first eh?
Even in your explanation of Dharma you only speak of human actions or deeds not universal. Physics is universal cause and effects. Karma is human.
P.S - relax, just because you clearly do not like me does not mean you cannot be civil, I dislike S.R more than anyone on TED, but he still deserves some respect. Get over yourself.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
I been trying to tell you nature has causes and effect but not by KARMA standards KARMA involves good and bad ideals. NATURE does not have good or bad, NATURE involves survival of the fittest on subatomic to astronomical scales.
I never disagreed on your original point, I wanted to correct you on Karma now before you continue believing false information. Humans are apart of the universe the universe is not a part of us. We are the result of cause and effect, we can change cause and effect, and even create cause and effects. HOWEVER Karma involves good and bad within human nature, not universal nature.
I have no idea what you mean by your last statement.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Indeed cause and effect was first developed in Karma before physics was developed/discovered, however not being able to understand the universe beyond human experience and perspective does not mean you can generalize Karma as being nature although the founders of Karma chose to, which is purely faith based. It is like suggesting the creationism, whose foundation was created by goat-herders 3000 years ago, is correct even though people then didn't know anything involving the cosmos and biology.
"The only difference, is that physics limits the laws to 'observable' nature"
So doesn't that make the principles, laws and relationship not entirely the same?
"We are beings of light (energy) and as such, ever bit as vital to the universe as the universe is to us. Everything in nature is dependent upon something else. To claim otherwise is to refuse the vital principle of your own nature."
Yes, we are components of chemicals, atoms, cells, and many non-living opponents. That which is not alive constructs life, is obvious. I do agree many causes create the effects in which we are developed on today. I may have been stretching it in saying the universe is not apart of us, as I just been expressing I agree with that. Metaphysics is also an interest of mine. The study of "relations in relation to relationships" is exceptional to consider due to the fact it is nature.
Like I said to you energies do exist and maybe humans cannot comprehend them, but what we can comprehend as of now is that we are just animals with an amazing intelligence. To think beyond what we are is good for thought experiments, but not for science. To not consider we are what we are today due to the meaning of all universal life (survival) is carelessness. Cause and effects got us here, not karma.
Do I still not understand?
Chris Leebor
Comment deleted
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Darkness does exist therefore it is the level in which light is lacking. Absolute darkness may not exist but darkness does.
Evil is a level of perception, okay so the more intelligence, the more understanding, the more wisdom we as a race have, the less evil? I can wrap my head around that thought nicely.
So you would suggest evil is tangible but we as humans do not have the sensory awareness to detect it beyond conclusive evidence? Also interesting claim.
Now, last question, is there such a thing as total selflessness?
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
For instance the trolley ethical dilemma bothers us very much, if morality was a direct instinct to preserve our species the choice would be very obvious but it isn't. Here is the trolley problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Comment deleted
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
The Trolly Problem was my very first introduction into philosophical dilemma. I love discussing it. So can't the same thing be said about the five, what if one of the five had a cure for cancer instead of the one you are thinking about sacrificing?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Edited: don't push it, respond to my other comments first to prove that. You slipped up on Physics, but that is okay I slip up a lot also. It is learning. Ego must be worked on for me indefinitely.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
That's why moral imperatives don't have to necessarily have a function, in the context of fact they can be completely irrational and absurd. But across cultures and between species there are some striking similarities. that at least gives evidence of specific inclinations in animal behavior from where morals could have predominantly originated although like I mentioned above these inclinations do not have to be the only source.
Your notion of self sacrifice is evolutionarily adaptive, there are many cases of altruistic animal species. The idea is that although self sacrifice does not promote survival of the one being sacrificed, it does promote the survival of the species as a whole, I've mentioned this before many misinterpret the survival of the fittest to mean only competition but that's wrong.
You mentioned love, love is an emotional response and a very adaptive one.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Surely you must agree emotions are in everything we as humans due, our intelligence is a reflection of our emotions. Higher emotional awareness can allow a person to either be able to manipulate emotions for good or for negative actions.
This is why Budmir is correct, he started with emotions and not the result of emotions.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Wow Kathy, Nicholas was not insulting you. If you are on my side that's cool, if you are being sarcastic which I suspect you are lets continue the discussion, it's only the internet at the end of the day you go back to your home I go back to my home like a bunch of drunkards stumbling in the dark. Why not play with the truth as oppossed to absolutely affirm with 100% conviction?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Ha, wow, seriously? Childish much.
Edited: Kathy,
I'm sorry I didn't know your feelings of people being one-sided on TED, but you cannot carry over emotion into every conversation you are going to have and expect the masses to know what you mean or how you feel about something. If you had read most of my comments you would have seen I am just as humanitarian as the next person and that I am very open to being wrong and understanding all points of perceptive. Also that my regards to being on Budmir's side was more so he is putting his thoughts in a very sensible manner with strong beliefs and facts not actually saying he is the better person, lol. So yeah childish is the world. Oh, and I missed the distinction because I am not childish, entirely.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
You were the original advocate for this question.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
The only reason why I thought you were sarcastic is because you said you were in the minority. So I assumed you didn't agree with me but I saw it as a playful sarcasm and nothing spiteful.
It's all a misunderstanding.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
I like the cyrillic "lol" :-)
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
I think in order to understand evil one has to look at morality, why is morality so culturally meaningful? I'd take a very intuitive guess and say that it somehow promotes the survival of a community. Moral restrictions tell you the limits of what a community values or tolerates. For instance these are two seperate cases but both of them promote survival but may widely be interpreted as good or evil based on their environment. I see my neighbours house on fire and a sense of solidarity prompts me to go in there and help, or call the fire fighters. If other neighbours acted like me. Then some would try and put out th fire, others would call the ambulence and othres would help me drag people out. The chances are that all of us as a unit working together ensures that each one of us has a greater chance of survival. Now we contrast that with wearing a burka. Well how does wearing a burka help anyone survive. The answer is the woman who wears the burka comes from a surrounding where if she doesn't she will get killed. In other words taking it off very plausibly can lead to negative consequences. However note that I am talking about the origin of morals. I am not talking about morals themselves because none of these are universal imperatives, they simply can't be but we make abstractions and codify them as being universal. And although most people will stick to these universals and claim that they are the most important thing in their lives few would be willing to give up their life for them. In a society where muslim women are killed for not wearing burkas will very likely take them down. In a instance where the house of a notorious serial killer is burning down, you wouldn't save him.
Aaron Nielsen
Evil isn't tangible.
Since I don't believe evil really exists as a definitive quality, I can't say it is in nature, although I think that certain elements of human nature are often construed as evil in excess. Namely, these would be things like greed, lust, aggression, etc.
I don't think you can measure evil, and I don't think that it is fair to call any person evil. We have to keep in mind that a person's motivations are shaped at least in part by factors outside of their control--think serial killers who commit horrible crimes, but do so because they are psychotic, or because they were beaten by sadistic parents during their childhood. It may be popular to refer to certain people, like Hitler, as evil, but I think a fairer term would be sociopathic, or psychotic, perhaps. These terms do more to describe the personalities of people popularly termed as evil.
Anything that is has to have an opposite; the opposite of evil is good, naturally. Good, like evil, isn't an attribute that really can be said to belong to anyone or anything with certainty.
People's perceptions create evil--they find it where believe it's appropriate to.
Christophe Cop 500+
Feel free to debate...or reasons why it is insufficient
(there is a slight problem as the opposite of good can be either bad or evil in English, so this causes some confusion)
1) There are things that can harm us, and things that can benefit us.
1.1. things that harm us I shall call bad
1.2. things that benefit us I shall call good
2) Each action or event, can contain both good and bad at the same time and in different proportion for the different affected people
2.1. I imply people, but you can extend this to animals and life in general.
3) If an action or event that is bad is causally attributed to a human, then we call that bad evil.
3.1. If an action or event that is good is causally attributed to a human, then we call that good good (hence my problem stated above)
I might want to stress the social dimension necessary to give "good and evil" any sense at all. "good and bad" don't need a social dimension.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
You do not cover external actions either. As such I find not doing something to help another being hurt by someone else to prevent/help the actions is contributing to the negative event as a whole. Doing nothing a problem or is it just nothing?
Good answer though.
Christophe Cop 500+
(where did I make such a claim?)
We can label an action in terms of good/bad and good/evil
I can imagine a world where there is only harm (though life would be unlikely to exist there) or beneficial (in which case only a few ever growing and unfolding developing entities have non-declining joy)...
So it does not need to exist. I observe that what I call good and good and what i call bad and evil exist.
What do you mean by external actions? I think my definition is applicable to any action
helping: depending on the aid, I guess you are doing something beneficial to a person, so that is Good. If you at the same time (by your action) keep something negative to exist (as in: otherwise it would have ceased to exist), you also did something harmful, and evil (though not intentionally)
Is doing nothing in a harmful situation for others good or evil?
It depends on a lot of factors, but it can be both and neither.
But we have something called reciprocity: If we assist when someone is harmed, they will assist us when we are harmed
(I know this leads to a debate with a lot of nuances, as we can now come up with numerous cases and examples with different degrees of good, benefit, harm and evil in it)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+