48 replies to this topic

[Armen]

I want to discuss the general nature of evil. Where it starts and what are its roots? How it finds its place in this world? What would be the world and the human being like without the evil? What's the struggle between the Good and the Evil (God and Satan if you want)?

In my view the general evil is rooted in two basic processes and projects itself through them. One is the acceleration of processes, the other one is their deceleration. I believe (my view) in religious literature these processes are represented by Ahriman (acceleration) and Lucifer (deceleration).

Historically the development of the human being and its different social groupings have been subject to these two processes and has resulted in various catastropheis. Even when viewing the impact of acceleration or deceleration of processes on a given person, one could notice that it is this imbalance that eventually leads to the mutation and transformation of the desired results.

[shiner]

And another question (which I don't know the answer to) is what exactly is the definition of evil?

[Sasun]

Armen, interesting question. And Shiner, I think you are right at the point: the definition of evil. My short answer is, evil is lack of good. However, I disagree with the commonly held view that God struggles with Evil/Satan. Evil is infinitely less powerful than God - the Absolute. There is not struggle - God simply tolerates evil most of the time.
If Domino reads this he will remember that we also compared Good with order and Evil with the lack of order.

[Twilight Bark]

I think the order/disorder way of defining evil would not work. It would not correlate all that well with our intuitive sense of what constitutes evil. How about this one: Anything that reduces our freedom from its maximum possible level. By "maximum possible" I mean a level that would allow as much freedom as possible without trampling on other individuals' freedom. I would view anyting that unnecessarily reduces my freedom as evil.

Edited by Twilight Bark, 16 December 2003 - 01:02 AM.

[Sasun]

I think the order/disorder way of defining evil would not work. It would not correlate all that well with our intuitive sense of what constitutes evil. How about this one: Anything that reduces our freedom from its maximum possible level. By "maximum possible" I mean a level that would allow as much freedom as possible without trampling on other individuals' freedom. I would view anyting that unnecessarily reduces my freedom as evil.

That's an interesting take. But I think that needs to be refined. For example, gravitation severly limits our freedom. Is gravitation evil? Mind you, gravitation also holds the universe together.

What I mean by order is perfection, and various degrees of perfection would define the measure of goodness so to speak. Then comes the question - what is perfection? My answer would be perfection has no definition, it is self evident. We can't define something that is higher than our standards based on our standards. The same applied to Good. Good is self-evident. We cannot define Good based on our human standards because it is the other way, we understand our goodness and goodness around us in comparison to the absolute goodness that in its turn is self-evident and not explainable.

TB I agree with you on using intuition in such matters. Intuitive look at perfection will cause spontaneos joy. Joy can only exist in a state of freedom.

[Dan]

An interesting link about evil:

http://www.orientali...article604.html

[Stormig]

That's an interesting take. But I think that needs to be refined. For example, gravitation severly limits our freedom. Is gravitation evil? Mind you, gravitation also holds the universe together.

Yes, Sasun, I suppose then we have to define our setting. We can't begrudge what the world has to offer us, and we wouldn't be crying at gravitation but lack of wings if it weren't for Newton.

I'm an atheist, but I also find this God struggling with the evil of Satan a joke. It sounds more like, I don't know, Far Eastern beliefs or something, or something to do with the gods of the Greek pantheon.

A question that's been in my mind for a while -
Can worse evil be begotten from something evil enough? Or evil from good?
OK, Satan wasn't begotten from God, but I read somewhere that the reason the bunch of nutcases that all themselves Satanists prefer to worship Satan is because their rationale is that your creation can't be more evil from you. Consequently, that imperfect and evil are far removed from each other tocks on my skull. Hence, yeah, order just isn't going to work, IMHO.

For me, evil is something that is against my will, going to harm me at the benefit of another, maybe something else, or various combinations of all.
Hence - what is sin? Most religions consider sex a sin, but is sex evil? Bearing false witness is sin, and it IS evil, too, though.

[Stormig]

Also, I don't think evil is limited to humans. A lot of people argue that animals kill to live, kill only enough to eat. Two things I have to say - the story of the wolf that finds itself among a flock of sheep and kills them all and then eats one and the story of the strong, robust female chimp (or gorilla, I don't know which and don't remember if it was some observation of Jane Goodall's or some other person's) that kills the young of a mother chimp, "all the while caressing the mother and trying to soothe her as if to say, 'It is not about you, but I had to kill your babies to fulfill my role in this ecosystem...'" (just paraphrasing). I don't know about the wolf, but the robust female chimp is definitely evil, even if ones like her are born now and then to promote population control in nature's balance. So, evil is not corruption of nature, no.

On a side note, the same is said of some lifestyles, particularly that of Gypsies - that they steal, but they steal only enough and to survive. IMO, that's not evil; it's just lawless, and somehow cool, considering the interest a lot of people have for their culture and music.

[THOTH]

Good questions Stormy (your first post here I am refering to)

I agree the concept of Satan is seriously flawed. But then again the Christian God concept is as well...so certainly this aspect - of the fallen angel - and all that it entails...but yeah - with God as all knowing/powerful and so and and so forth what is really the point...Perhaps the concept of Zorasteranism - with good battleing against evil on a more or less equal basis might have more apeal. Of course - in the end - IMO - its the allegory that makes these tales useful...not any actual belief that any of these stories is real...

h and i think many that call themselves Satanists are more just hedonsits - that rebal against the 10 commandments - sins in general - prohibitions against sex, drinking and partying specifically...so Satan becomes a hero...and in fact the story that the old testemant garden of Eden story is culled from - the Sumerian/Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh...in this story the snake (Satan?) is Enki (in my mind a THOTH equiivilant...as well as the same basic diety as the greekPrometheus!) - who is in fact a champion of humanity - human wisdom, freedom [from unfair restrictions imposed by the gods] etc etc

And I don't think that most religions view sex as a sin or as evil....its just these silly paternalistic mother-earth rejecting puritanical monotheistic religions that decree such....and in the end its just another way to marginalize females....

I'm not sure that "evil" can be easily defined...but certainly to me - the concept of causing needless harm to another is fundemental....(be it by unecessary restictions or actual malicious action etc)

ramble ramble...

[Twilight Bark]

I think that needs to be refined. For example, gravitation severly limits our freedom. Is gravitation evil? Mind you, gravitation also holds the universe together.

What my definition needs is not so much refinement as thoughtful application to specific cases and circumstances. For example, while gravity severely reduces my freedom to float away to space and suffocate (not that there would be an atmosphere left without gravity), it allows me (i.e. gives me the freedom) to enjoy what earth offers me. I think you would have to try much harder than that to find inconsistencies in my definition, if there are any. Of course you have the freedom to do so.

[DominO]

Evil for me is what is a threat to evolved species. I take the Kantian philosophy of thw "wrong" with some modifications to discribe evil as something that could lead the destruction of humanity(when restricted only to humans).

I do still believe that even if Evil in itself is not relative, what constitute evil may be relative, I know that it sound contradicting.

The conception of what is evil came into being from the capacity of man to have the concept of "right" and "wrong."

My brain is too tired now to continue on that.

[Twilight Bark]

My basic definition of evil is based on a couple of simple observations. One is the fact that we are self-aware, with (at least the illusion, if not the fact of) free-will, which compels us to do what we want. The second observation is that we have evolved as social creatures, and have integrated the requirements of a successful collective existence and survival into the nature of the individual, such as the ability to constrain one's own behavior and act altruistically, which superficially appear to reduce one's freedom (but on average it in fact maximizes).

The first one defines the fundamental force defining our very existence as self-aware beings: freedom to do what we want. The second one leads to the "maximum possible freedom" argument, which means we would like to optimize our freedoms in a way that allows us to exercise as much of our free-will as possible without wrecking our social environment, whose existence itself provides a platform to exercise the vast majority of these freedoms. Our intuitive sense of good and evil is the result of this optimization process engraved into us through evolution.

This also explains why freer societies tend to be more efficient and successful in the long run, if they don't get exterminated by a spurt of violence from an "evil" group first.

This should be my last post for some time. Best wishes to all, and enjoy your freedoms.

[Sasun]

What my definition needs is not so much refinement as thoughtful application to specific cases and circumstances. For example, while gravity severely reduces my freedom to float away to space and suffocate (not that there would be an atmosphere left without gravity), it allows me (i.e. gives me the freedom) to enjoy what earth offers me. I think you would have to try much harder than that to find inconsistencies in my definition, if there are any. Of course you have the freedom to do so.

Well, so what is freedom? The lack of gravitation example is exactly the type of freedom that is not desirable. The universe was designed in a way that we have limited freedom and the limits to freedom are helping us to be happy, as you also point in different words. You are suggesting to apply your definition thoughfully but don't you think it has flaw? Why doesn't it work with my example? If my car drives on some roads but doesn't drive on other roads then its a flaw in the car, not the driver

P.S. By the way, if you have freedom to float in the universe that doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. You can chose to stay on earth. Similarly we are free to jump in the ocean and sink but we choose not to

[Twilight Bark]

Well, so what is freedom? The lack of gravitation example is exactly the type of freedom that is not desirable. The universe was designed in a way that we have limited freedom and the limits to freedom are helping us to be happy, as you also point in different words. You are suggesting to apply your definition thoughfully but don't you think it has flaw? Why doesn't it work with my example? If my car drives on some roads but doesn't drive on other roads then its a flaw in the car, not the driver

P.S. By the way, if you have freedom to float in the universe that doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. You can chose to stay on earth. Similarly we are free to jump in the ocean and sink but we choose not to

But I said "maximum possible freedom". If I float into space and suffocate I will be dead. That means I will not have the freedom to live and have the freedom to do all the other things that I want to do. For one stupid "freedom", I would be losing every other freedom I have and might have in the future. It is quite far from "maximum possible freedom", don't you think? So your example highlights the sturdiness of that definition.

The choices we make are guided by what we consider good or bad. One does not need to resort to mysticism to understand good and evil.

TB

[DominO]

TB, I like your conception of what is Evil, but I fail to see where Sasuns "more order" conception is not humanly intuitive since this has already been proposed by a philosopher whom I forgot the name.

[Sasun]

I am not sure what you mean. What is maximum possible freedom? Do you think we have it. If not, what would be an example of that ?

I am not following the above logic. When we have freedom we can make good choices and bad choices within the limits of freedom. So it is not the freedom that could be good or bad, but our choices. We are free to kill ourselves but most of us don't make this choice. That could mean that whatever the maximum freedom concept intails we can still make plenty of bad choices.

As far as good and bad choices, I don't think it is always easy to know. I am not sure what you mean by "resorting to mysticism" but for fundamental questions such as abortion it is hard to find the good choice without referring to religious beliefs or some other beliefs. This of course depens on the person, some say it is good and some say it is bad. Well this is off topic, there is a thread on this question, just an example.

I wish to see a simple definition of evil that holds in every situation. A simple and always working definition of good would do, since I will assume that the lack of it is evil.

[Twilight Bark]

TB, I like your conception of what is Evil, but I fail to see where Sasuns "more order" conception is not humanly intuitive since this has already been proposed by a philosopher whom I forgot the name.

"Perfection" and "order" are not good correlators of what we know by intuition to be good or evil. A society with perfect order would be a nightmare, unless you make the definition of "perfect order" so plastic that it falls back to the definition I gave (i.e. everyone follows the rules, which are "just right" in order to optimize the amount of freedom individuals have). Conversely, one can easily imagine "perfect" or "perfectly ordered" societies that are thoroughly repugnant to us. The Borg of Star Trek may be extremely orderly, nearing "perfection", but they would come pretty close to what we intuitively consider pure evil. A dictatorial society in which individuals are "broken" and turned into the parts of a "perfect" collective machinery is the quintessential "evil" system.

A useful definition of good and evil should be self-consistent and correlete closely with our intuition about those concepts. However, a concise, non-arbitrary and useful definition of evil (or good) cannot come from intuition or mysticism.

[Twilight Bark]

I am not sure what you mean. What is maximum possible freedom? Do you think we have it. If not, what would be an example of that ?

I am not following the above logic. When we have freedom we can make good choices and bad choices within the limits of freedom. So it is not the freedom that could be good or bad, but our choices. We are free to kill ourselves but most of us don't make this choice. That could mean that whatever the maximum freedom concept intails we can still make plenty of bad choices.

As far as good and bad choices, I don't think it is always easy to know. I am not sure what you mean by "resorting to mysticism" but for fundamental questions such as abortion it is hard to find the good choice without referring to religious beliefs or some other beliefs. This of course depens on the person, some say it is good and some say it is bad. Well this is off topic, there is a thread on this question, just an example.

I wish to see a simple definition of evil that holds in every situation. A simple and always working definition of good would do, since I will assume that the lack of it is evil.

"Good" choices made in an "evil-free" context would keep the optimized level of freedom. "Bad" choices would lead to a reduction in the freedom level of the environment that allowed the choice to be made. Enough of these "bad" choices" could eventually make those choices themselves unavailable, or make them the "only choice" (which is of course not a choice anymore), which is a total lack of freedom.


Edit: Oh, and I agree that at the time of the choice we may not know hether its is "good" or "bad". Our temporary (or sometimes eternal) ignorance on the matter is not relevant to the discussion though.

Edited by Twilight Bark, 16 December 2003 - 04:09 PM.

[Sasun]

Conversely, one can easily imagine "perfect" or "perfectly ordered" societies that are thoroughly repugnant to us. The Borg of Star Trek may be extremely orderly, nearing "perfection", but they would come pretty close to what we intuitively consider pure evil. A dictatorial society in which individuals are "broken" and turned into the parts of a "perfect" collective machinery is the quintessential "evil" system.

That is a mechanical way of creating order. If people are unhappy this order automatically disqualifies to be perfectection. That is why I find it important to define perfection in the first place, which is not possible for us to do it "pefectly". What I mean is ABSOLUTE perfection that would be such for every individual.

The thing with intuition is that it is developed unevenly from one individual to another. On the other hand, one can't be sure if an understanding is intuitive or not, or if it is fully intuitive.

[Sasun]

Edit: Oh, and I agree that at the time of the choice we may not know hether its is "good" or "bad". Our temporary (or sometimes eternal) ignorance on the matter is not relevant to the discussion though.

Understood... this was an example of why mysticism/religion is useful. I find mystic knowledge the only reliable method in similar debates including this one of ours. By the way, mysticism comes from a much higher developed intuition which is real and complete knowledge rather than fragmental and often unclear intuition. So I don't understand why you would pick intuition but reject mysticism. Perhaps mysticism means something different to you.