Evil

@Albert Camus,

Dear Albert,

Given all your past literary works I am surprised that you ask this question.

@Albert Camus,

uhh huh... well their are obviously people that believe in Evil and I am sure their are probably people here that do.

@Albert Camus,

Don't you think that evil is a relative notion though? My version of evil may not be the same version of evil that someone else may have. Same thing can be said about the nature of good. There may be varying degrees of good which may in turn be considered evil by others.

One good way to start out with the issue as to whether or not evil exists is to define what evil is. In that respect, you can debate the finer points based of a unilateral definition. This is what I think is a sufficient definition of evil;

OnlineEtymology wrote:

evil O.E. yfel (Kentish evel) "bad, vicious," from P.Gmc. *ubilaz (cf. O.Saxon ubil, Goth. ubils), from PIE *upelo-, giving the word an original sense of "uppity, overreaching bounds" which slowly worsened. "In OE., as in all the other early Teut. langs., exc. Scandinavian, this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement" [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm, crime, misfortune, disease. The meaning "extreme moral wickedness" was in O.E., but did not become the main sense until 18c. Evil eye (L. oculus malus) was O.E. eage yfel. (Online Etymology Dictionary)

@Albert Camus,

I suppose we could say that. Varying degrees of evil may exist for every person, but as soon as say I die, all my beliefs, and thoughts on evil will completely vanish for eternity. If I was the only one that believed lets say rabbits are evil, then when I die where does it go? since I am gone then the rabbit can't really be evil anymore. I think only ideas and perceptions of evil exist, but the actual natural existence of evil is nowhere to be found. Never in human history has everyone all the time believed at least one thing was evil constantly.

(I apologize if this post didn't make any sense or that it was just... absurd, I tend to have trouble explaining myself in posts without going in circles.)

@Albert Camus,

Even if we have a relative viewpoint about evil, that does not mean that it necessarily disappear when we die. Think about it in terms of art and how we judge a particular piece of art to be beautiful. Art can be either subjective or objective. If I were to say I were an objectivist, I would say that a painting holds beauty even if there were no one to judge how beautiful it was. The beauty of the painting perseveres through without my opinion. If I were a subjectivist, I would say that the piece of art is entirely dependent on my judgment that the painting is beautiful.

Now apply that to the concept to the notion evil. One can hold a subjectivist or objectivist approach to evil. If I were a subjectivist, I would say that the notion of evil perseveres regardless of my opinion. If I were an objectivist, I would say that evil is based solely on my opinion. Obviously, this is an open ended point. We either think evil is based on our judgment or inherent in the object or whatever has that attribute.

But now here comes an application of philosophical doctrine to help solve the issue. Since we are on the topic of art/evil, apply Kant's idea of universal validity. We basically judge the aesthetic value of a painting on subjective

@Albert Camus,

Albert,

I'd really suggest searching for other threads concerning this topic; you wouldn't believe how many times this issue has been touched on (there was just a large thread last month, if I recall correctly, on the nature of good and evil). A new thread I don't think is necessary unless you have something specific to address.

@Albert Camus,

Albert Camus;60107 wrote:

I was wondering if any of you would like to discuss if Evil even Exists? I don't think there is a such thing as evil.

I'm emphasizing your words "exists", "is", and "thing" to highlight where I disagree with you.

Very few people think of evil as a thing, the way Mt. Everest is a thing.

Evil is a concept that is abstracted out of acts and people whom we judge as evil (in which evil is a quality of a particular instance). The concept of evil exists, and allows us to apply evil as a quality or judgment. If you were to say "I'd like to rid the world of evil", that would be a noble ideal with absolutely no specificity, because in the world evil is not independent of an evil thing, an evil person, an evil circumstance.

@Albert Camus,

Albert:
If you died believing that rabbits are evil, they would still have the same attributes that made them evil after you died and would have to retain some sense of evilness. I mean any mammal that lays pastel colored eggs once a year then hides them around church lawns has got to retain some evil, even if you are dead.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Even if we have a relative viewpoint about evil, that does not mean that it necessarily disappear when we die. Think about it in terms of art and how we judge a particular piece of art to be beautiful. Art can be either subjective or objective. If I were to say I were an objectivist, I would say that a painting holds beauty even if there were no one to judge how beautiful it was. The beauty of the painting perseveres through without my opinion. If I were a subjectivist, I would say that the piece of art is entirely dependent on my judgment that the painting is beautiful.

Now apply that to the concept to the notion evil. One can hold a subjectivist or objectivist approach to evil. If I were a subjectivist, I would say that the notion of evil perseveres regardless of my opinion. If I were an objectivist, I would say that evil is based solely on my opinion. Obviously, this is an open ended point. We either think evil is based on our judgment or inherent in the object or whatever has that attribute.

But now here comes an application of philosophical doctrine to help solve the issue. Since we are on the topic of art/evil, apply Kant's idea of universal validity. We basically judge the aesthetic value of a painting on subjective

I have to say very well constructed :a-ok: now I just need to learn to express my ideas like that as well Smile

I understand what you are saying and it has made me do much thinking about my position. My position is this (if I can explain it well enough) The rabbits very much will still have the attributes that I thought were evil. But my thoughts and beliefs are completely gone by the time I die. Surly my thoughts cant continue to exist after I die? if it was just my thoughts that made it evil then when my thoughts are gone can the rabbit STILL be evil? since evil is suppose to be just based off personal judgments?

@Albert Camus,

Quote:

The rabbits very much will still have the attributes that I thought were evil. But my thoughts and beliefs are completely gone by the time I die. Surly my thoughts cant continue to exist after I die? if it was just my thoughts that made it evil then when my thoughts are gone can the rabbit STILL be evil? since evil is suppose to be just based off personal judgments?

Unless you lived and died in a vacuum your ideas about evil rabbits would affect some people. So at the very least the rabbit is residually evil. Its evil has taken on a life of its own within the thought and beliefs of your sphere of influence. In such a way 'evil' can exist outside your specific mind. These residual evil bunny beliefs affect the way these other's act and soforth giving evil a life of its own.

@GoshisDead,

Just to clarify again, "evil" only notionally exists (in terms of the classic social dichotomy). We can assign ontological qualities to the notion, just as we can assign ontological qualities to the notion, "Justice". But no matter what we decide to assign, we must realize these are abstract notions.

If there are those after your death who considered rabbits evil based on the qualities you assigned, then sure, the rabbit could still be evil. But we must consider some conclusions will naturally be more difficult to come to any sort of intersubjectivity concerning. For instance, if you decide tomorrow all rabbits are "evil" because they eat carrots, you'd have a more difficult time constructing a convincing ethical argument than if you proposed that a serial murderer was "evil". Though morality varies culture to culture, person to person, you're going to find intersubjectivity in regards to how certain circumstances and actions are perceived. A rabbit eating carrots and a masked man beheading someone generally elecit different feelings.

So, again, yes, after your death the rabbit could theoretically be considered "evil", but unless you create that "life of it's own" Gosh was referring, it probably won't happen since your idea wasn't convincing. If, on the other hand, you're asking, "Are there ontological properties of evil?", the answer, in my opinion, is "Yes". But we must remember the dichotomy of good and evil is conceptual.

As Shakespeare noted:

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"

@Zetherin,

Mass opinions about belief, religion, politics, education, and communally held tradition show that at some point people stop holding beliefs and beliefs start holding people.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Mass opinions about belief, religion, politics, education, and communally held tradition show that at some point people stop holding beliefs and beliefs start holding people.

Which is why we have forums such as this to encourage consistent critical thought Smile

@Albert Camus,

Albert Camus wrote:

Hello I didn't know where to put this so I decided to put it here. I was wondering if any of you would like to discuss if Evil even Exists? I don't think their is a such thing as evil.

Hey Camus . . . you're one of my favorite authors. I thought that you were dead. :perplexed:

Yes, I believe that there is a such thing as evil. Do I believe that evil is objective, in the sense that it is independent of the mind? Absolutely not. I believe that all notions that deal with value, whether they be ethics or aesthetics, are subjective, meaning that they are dependent upon the mind.

Evil is sadistic behavior, where one receives pleasure from inflicting misfortune or unhappiness on others as an end in itself.

@Albert Camus,

My opinion has been shifting towards a natural relativism for some time now...

What we perceive as evil we can only perceive as evil in opposition to that which we perceive as good. There is no real good nor real evil in the natural world; it is amoral. Good and evil are human regulatory constructs; in general, good actions are the actions one does that wins the approval of one's peers; evil actions, actions that wins disapproval.

Thus, while good and evil are really only moral propositions inherent to the human mind: only this and nothing more: they are also governed by the perceptions of society--effectively, the law of the crowd.

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier wrote:

My opinion has been shifting towards a natural relativism for some time now...

What we perceive as evil we can only perceive as evil in opposition to that which we perceive as good. There is no real good nor real evil in the natural world; it is amoral. Good and evil are human regulatory constructs; in general, good actions are the actions one does that wins the approval of one's peers; evil actions, actions that wins disapproval.

Thus, while good and evil are really only moral propositions inherent to the human mind: only this and nothing more: they are also governed by the perceptions of society--effectively, the law of the crowd.

I agree, but I don't call moral sentences propositions because they are not objectively true or false. Instead, moral sentences state either universal or relative rights or wrongs that have emotive and prescriptive underpinnings. The only moral sentences that can be justified are those which are universal, impartial, compatible, and maximal.

@Albert Camus,

hue-man wrote:

The only moral sentences that can be justified are those which are universal, impartial, compatible, and maximal.

One can justify a moral proposition regardless of intersubjectivity. Please give me an example of a moral proposition you're referring so I can better understand your contrast.

hammersklavier wrote:

What we perceive as evil we can only perceive as evil in opposition to that which we perceive as good

The reactions from "Evil" and "Good" are entirely independent from one another. That is, what we perceive (I'm using synonymously with "feel") is not dependent on the dichotomy. The dichotomy, as you note, is a human regulatory construct, but we must be sure to distinguish perception from social norms or constructs. One can perceive X situation and have X1 perception and it does not require that the same person perceive Y situation and have Y1 perception. One can experience "Good" feelings without ever experiencing "Evil" feelings. Thus what we perceive as "Evil" is not because it's in opposition of anything; the socially constructed dichotomy does not apply.

Remember, it only becomes "Evil" (the term!) after evaluation. The *feeling*, however, is independent of this. I just want to clarify because I see a lot of people mistake morality (and other notions, such as "race") as having no substance, as if it's just a term used in social banter. The substance is real, the feeling is real, regardless of the labeling. We must acknowledge syntactical meaning when people speak, and not just ignore them because we have in our heads it's just some socially constructed term!

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

One can justify a moral proposition regardless of intersubjectivity. Please give me an example of a moral proposition you're referring so I can better understand your contrast.

A moral "proposition" can be justified regardless of intersubjectivity? Are you saying that a moral sentence can be justified without the criteria of universality and impartiality?

Here are two moral sentences that I believe fit the criteria: The practice of wisdom and fortitude can yield a powerful optimism for all people. People should treat each other with dignity and respect in order to yield a good outcome for everyone.

Here is a moral sentence that cannot be justified: I should be allowed to treat people with unwarranted disrespect and contempt but they should never treat me with contempt or disrespect.

@Albert Camus,

hue-man wrote:

Are you saying that a moral sentence can be justified without the criteria of universality and impartiality?

I don't understand what you mean by "universality". I do understand, however, how you're using impartiality in regards to the justification of moral propositions (thanks for the examples). Though, I'm not convinced that a moral proposition must be impartial to be justified. A justification is simply a good reason in this case (still ambiguous, I know). Depending on what epistemological theory of justification we decide to use, we would see the necessary conditions of moral propositions being justified, change.

For instance, I believe the logical positivist view would be no moral propositions could be justified at all -- they are meaningless. Whereas, the irrationalist would deem moral propositions can be justified (though I'm not certain of the necessary conditions). With 'pure' logical deduction, one could say a moral proposition could be justified in some sense (I say "some sense", because I believe it varies when speaking of moral, aesthetic propositions and non-moral, non-aesthetic propositions).

But the point is: Yes, it is possible, depending on the theory of justification one uses, to justify a moral proposition regardless of intersubjectivity and impartiality.

Philosophy Forum

Evil

Quick Links

My Account

able2know