Does evil know it is evil?

@Deckard,

Deckard;124789 wrote:

Assuming that there is such a thing as evil, do evil people necessarily know that they are evil? Can a person that does not know that s/he is evil still be called evil? Can a person be evil if s/he doesn't believe there is such a thing as evil? Well you get the point.

For this discussion please assume provisionally that there is such a thing as evil.

A person can be deemed evil even if that person doesn't look at themselves that way. The term evil is, after all, a sentimental judgment of a person's character. I think that some people are incapable of feeling guilt for their actions (psychopaths, for example), even though they may be aware that other people judge them as such.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;124867 wrote:

So if I am in England, and I happen to drive on the right rather than on the left because I am ignorant of the traffic laws I am ignorant of good and evil? What happened to malum in se, and malum prohibitum, which you thought was a good distinction?

Yes thank you. Before they ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil they understood only malum prohibitum (God said don't do it) and after they understood also malum in se (they were ashamed). That's a great way to think of the Adam and Eve story. So it is a question as to whether eating the fruit was evil in itself (malum in se) or wrong because it was prohibited (malum prohibitum). I'm not sure. Was eating the fruit an evil act or just an illegal one? That's the crux of the allegory. For the sake of argument I'm going to say that the act of eating the fruit was malum in se.

A slave-master keeping slaves in 18th century USA is an example similar to Adam and Eve eating the fruit. Slave-master thought he/she had a right to own slaves since there was no malum prohibitum that said otherwise. However, slavery is in fact malum in se the slave-master just didn't know it or refused to believe it. The slave-master was evil the whole time he/she kept slaves even though he/she didn't think so.

@Deckard,

Deckard;124927 wrote:

Yes thank you. Before they ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil they understood only malum prohibitum (God said don't do it) and after they understood also malum in se (they were ashamed). That's a great way to think of the Adam and Eve story. So it is a question as to whether eating the fruit was evil in itself (malum in se) or wrong because it was prohibited (malum prohibitum). I'm not sure. Was eating the fruit an evil act or just an illegal one? That's the crux of the allegory. For the sake of argument I'm going to say that the act of eating the fruit was malum in se.

A slave-master keeping slaves in 18th century USA is an example similar to Adam and Eve eating the fruit. Slave-master thought he/she had a right to own slaves since there was no malum prohibitum that said otherwise. However, slavery is in fact malum in se the slave-master just didn't know it or refused to believe it. The slave-master was evil the whole time he/she kept slaves even though he/she didn't think so.

"Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--" Romans 5:12 --American Standard

So when I discover that I sinned, I feel like crap. Whatever my excuse might have been: the condemnation stands. That's what the sinner is: that state of realization... which reconstitutes the past. You have to have the awakening from subjective naivete. So yes, Adam sinned even though he didn't know it at the time.

So no, evil doesn't know it's evil. The completely innocent doesn't know what evil is for lack of a point of reference. That leaves only one other party: the sinner who has realized a little something. That's the one who knows evil. (hey I never thought of that before!)

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;124936 wrote:

So no, evil doesn't know it's evil. The completely innocent doesn't know what evil is for lack of a point of reference. That leaves only one other party: the sinner who has realized a little something. That's the one who knows evil. (hey I never thought of that before!)

I think the slave-master example is better at illustrating my position than the story of The Fall.

Does evil necessarily know itself to be evil?

Some say yes. Meno's speech as mentioned by Dosed is a good summary of this position. You cannot be truly evil without knowing yourself to be evil.

Some say no. I think the slave-master example is a pretty good example of this at least for those of us who believe that those who enslave others and perpetuate slavery are evil. You can be evil whether you know yourself to be evil or not.

To go further we would have to delve further into the knowledge of good and evil. In the process we would have to discuss whether or not evil exists rather than just assume that it does. This would go against the limitation I have set on this thread in the original post so we can go no further (malum prohibitum).

@Deckard,

Doug set his friend Larry up with a girl named Alice, for Larry liked diminutive blonds, and Alice was just that. Alice had crabs and herpes but Larry only found out the hard way. Doug was sorry. Larry tried not to hate him for the consequences, for Doug meant well.

@Deckard,

Humans can not do anything they truly believe is evil -- we can only do that which we justify.

Do you think of yourself as evil? Have you ever heard of anyone who honestly thinks of themselves as evil? In reading any history, those who are now thought of as evil, did not believe themselves to be evil....Nope in the sense you have proposed Evil knows itself as just -- often times Evil believes it is correcting someone else's evilness does it not?

Lost1

@Deckard,

Deckard;124978 wrote:

I think the slave-master example is better at illustrating my position than the story of The Fall.

Does evil necessarily know itself to be evil?

Some say yes. Meno's speech as mentioned by Dosed is a good summary of this position. You cannot be truly evil without knowing yourself to be evil.

Some say no. I think the slave-master example is a pretty good example of this at least for those of us who believe that those who enslave others and perpetuate slavery are evil. You can be evil whether you know yourself to be evil or not.

To go further we would have to delve further into the knowledge of good and evil. In the process we would have to discuss whether or not evil exists rather than just assume that it does. This would go against the limitation I have set on this thread in the original post so we can go no further (malum prohibitum).

I think that in order for this discussion to accomplish something we must first define evil (I think we'd agree that's within the limitations of this discussion), and then define how evil is defined in order to question the definition and the basis for the definition. This would seem a valid way of setting up a base for the idea of evil in this discussion besides simply using the term which means different things to different people.

I think a broad definition for evil would be the intent to cause unjustified harm, and the basis for this definition rests in the struggle for humans to interact cooperatively or at the least defensively, since, if cooperation/defense wasn't a fairly common goal, the idea of evil would probably not be a fairly common construct of moral discussion. To say evil doesn't exist is to understand the idea of evil, so I think it easily maintainable that evil does exist, even if only as a symbol for something that is mis-defined or misunderstood.

The hardest part of my definition is the word "unjustified", for many people are capable of justifying actions that they wouldn't under normal circumstances. But I think for the sake of finding common ground, it can be agreed upon that defensive acts are more justifiable than most other acts that cause harm.

In the Adam & Eve example, there is great promise for discussion, I think. If the act of disobeying God, or a justified authority, is an act of evil, then biting the apple (disobeying God) could be seen as the source for the knowledge of good and evil. Since the act would be the first non-"good" act they had committed. However, if biting the apple opened their minds to good and evil, did they see disobeying God as an evil act? Or perhaps they were now capable of evil thoughts, "tainted" for the example's sake. It is the defining line of whether intent is required for an act to be evil. Although it is not related directly, I find it important to note that if biting the apple wasn't evil, then God's actions afterwards were evil, and one might consider them evil even if Adam & Eve's actions were evil. Assuming one actually believes such a thing.

So how about spelling out the basics? Does intent matter? Does justification matter? Does evil being symbolic or more matter? Does the existence of an objective moral authority matter? etc...

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;125064 wrote:

I think that in order for this discussion to accomplish something we must first define evil

Yea... any such discussion inevitably slides into that... like the actors on the stage eventually start examining the set... "hey, I'm not sure this is actually Venice... if it is, how come the bricks are painted?"

But one more take on evil being self-conscious occurred to me: Marilyn Manson... the upside-down case of narcisissm. The thing with that: being the gate on oblivion might seem evil, but it doesn't lead to action. It just swallows up reality... similar to De Sade. Self-conscious evil is self-defeating... self annihilating... it just hasn't gotten around to disappearing yet. That sort of thing.

@Arjuna,

It seems we are nearly as unsure of what evil is as Adam and Eve were before they ate the fruit which, given the resident flora in that general are of the Middle East was probably a quince not an apple (not that it matters).

Evil can be thought of as the polar opposite of Good, as two warring forces in a cosmic battle. Good and evil are polarized opposites like in the Manichean space opera Star Wars.

Evil can also be thought of as simply missing the mark. In the bible the words translated as "sin" such as the Hebrew "chata" and the Greek "harmartia" would be better translated as missing the mark. (Old Testament originally in Hebrew. New Testament originally in Greek) By this conception of good and evil, to be good is to hit the bulls-eye; to be evil is to miss it. Good and evil are not polarized.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;125028 wrote:

Doug set his friend Larry up with a girl named Alice, for Larry liked diminutive blonds, and Alice was just that. Alice had crabs and herpes but Larry only found out the hard way. Doug was sorry. Larry tried not to hate him for the consequences, for Doug meant well.

Oh, you. Welcome back! Very Happy

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;125147 wrote:

Oh, you. Welcome back!

Thanks!

"Does evil know its evil?" is a good question but perhaps more specifically answered if more specifically asked. Did so-and-so know he/she was evil at such a time and place?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;125303 wrote:

Thanks!

"Does evil know its evil?" is a good question but perhaps more specifically answered if more specifically asked. Did so-and-so know he/she was evil at such a time and place?

Who is "evil"? You don't mean that stunt man, do you? I imagine the answer is what we would all expect. Some people know they are doing evil, and they don't care. Others try to rationalize what they are doing. And, still others, really don't realize what they are doing. What else is likely to be the answer?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;125308 wrote:

Who is "evil"? Some people know they are doing evil, and they don't care. QUOTE]

I still doubt that that can possibly be true. Now if you would have said that there are some people who know that others will believe them to being doing evil, and do not care what others think/don't care, I would probably agree with that.

If you were to ask the so called evil doer if he/she is purposely doing evil I'm willing to bet they would say no they would not. As well added justification for their thoughts and/or actions.

Lost1

@Lost1 phil,

Lost1;125405 wrote:

kennethamy;125308 wrote:
Who is "evil"? Some people know they are doing evil, and they don't care. QUOTE]

I still doubt that that can possibly be true. Now if you would have said that there are some people who know that others will believe them to being doing evil, and do not care what others think/don't care, I would probably agree with that.

If you were to ask the so called evil doer if he/she is purposely doing evil I'm willing to bet they would say no they would not. As well added justification for their thoughts and/or actions.

Lost1

I don't think you are right. Some Mafia hit men (for example) believe they are doing evil, but they simply do not care. Some psychologists call such people, "psychopaths". Have you ever watched that very popular show, "The Sopranos"? Many of the characters know they are doing evil, but simply don't care. They would admit it, and laugh the accusation off as naive.

@Deckard,

You do know that "The Sopranos" is fiction right? -- Just teasing.

I'm not sure psychopaths honestly know they are doing evil. It's more about not having impulse control -- i.e. not so much that they know it's evil and don't care as it is about they do not take it the step necessary to decise whether or not it is evil.

Hitmen, Mafia or otherwise -- must first justify their actions -- it is not evil to accept a job and then do the job, it is likely in their minds it is the honorary thing to do, right? Once again, you are confusing knowing others believing it to be evil as being the same thing as believing it to be evil. No I need to clarify this futher?

Lost1

@Lost1 phil,

:shocked:Does God knows it is God?

Why does God permit evil?

Maybe God is not aware of evil.

@Lost1 phil,

Lost1;125457 wrote:

Hitmen, Mafia or otherwise -- must first justify their actions -- it is not evil to accept a job and then do the job, it is likely in their minds it is the honorary thing to do, right? Once again, you are confusing knowing others believing it to be evil as being the same thing as believing it to be evil. No I need to clarify this futher?

Lost1

I think you give them too much credit. Ir is not evil to accept a job, or to do a job. But, if to do a job, you have to do evil like murder, and you know it, then you know you are evil. You simply do not care. I am not making the confusion you say I am making. They know that what they are doing is wrong. They just don't care about it. They are like Satan in Milton's Paradise Lost, who says, "Evil, be thou my good".

@Deckard,

How exactly are you so sure they believe themselves to be doing evil? As I have prior posted -- they without a doubt know that "others" believe what they are doing is evil -- that is not the same as their believing themselves to be evil.

They do not believe murder is an evil -- they would not do it if they honestly thought that. They believe sometimes one is asked to do something distasteful for the good of what they believe in.

That is why man do not call the acts of war where one side takes the lives of their enemies murder. The actions and results are exactly the same yet one is seen as murder and one is seen as just. That my friend is the thinking of your hitmen.

If they are so pathological as you describe they do not make the decision one way are the other.

Lost1

@Lost1 phil,

Lost1;125745 wrote:

How exactly are you so sure they believe themselves to be doing evil? As I have prior posted -- they without a doubt know that "others" believe what they are doing is evil -- that is not the same as their believing themselves to be evil.

They do not believe murder is an evil -- they would not do it if they honestly thought that. They believe sometimes one is asked to do something distasteful for the good of what they believe in.

That is why man do not call the acts of war where one side takes the lives of their enemies murder. The actions and results are exactly the same yet one is seen as murder and one is seen as just. That my friend is the thinking of your hitmen.

If they are so pathological as you describe they do not make the decision one way are the other.

Lost1

I imagine some of them know they are doing evil, and they don't care. And others don't know it. What makes you think they don't know they are doing evil?

@kennethamy,

Here's another Bible verse from Rev. Deckard
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." - James 4:17 This implies that those who don't know, don't sin and this seems to line up with Meno's conception of evil.

Philosophy Forum

Does evil know it is evil?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know