is Evil real?

[frogsong]

In asking "Is Evil Real?" we turn the adjective evil which is a property of an action or event and turn it into a noun. Suddenly we are asked to discuss a substance where there was only a property. I will talk about the property. I think there are plenty of things that happen that are not good. People suffer, they weep and they die.
There are at least two sorts of things that can happen that cause this pain. First there are the random acts of a complex world. We can get sick, we can fall down, we can loose a loved one. Then there are the delibrate acts of others intended to cause us pain. Some of these acts I would call evil. For example, a con artist talks grandma out of her life savings. So there are evil acts.
The real question is how to reconcile these evil acts with an all powerful god. People have been gnawing on this bone for a very long time and all the answers I am aware of come down to, "Sometimes we cannot understand God". Some would say that being unhappy with this answer is actually an unbridled act of hubris.
My own take on this question comes out of my vision of a divine spirit that is becoming, not all powerful and ever lasting but on the way to being. In this view, the problem with evil acts is two fold. First the person that commits the act is cutting themselves off from the divine and secondly is harming someone else and in that harming may make it more difficult for that person to know their own divine spirit. That is the short version
Pax Vobiscum
Dave

[Quahom1]

No, evil does not exist. When I steal from you, it isn't evil, when I steal your wife from you, that isn't evil, when I take all I can get from you...that is not evil...it's merely business. and you can not do a damn thing to stop me. Because it is not evil, it is just business... just business...shall I go on?

[Mus Zibii]

When I punch you for taking my stereo...? LOL

Anyway, evil does and does not exist. Just like love and excitement do and don't exist. Two thousand dead babies is horrible, the force that brought about the pile of rotting infants was evil, the same force was no more unnatural or hateful than that which brings about orgasm.

Stick that analogy in your pipe.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

When I punch you for taking my stereo...? LOL

Anyway, evil does and does not exist. Just like love and excitement do and don't exist. Two thousand dead babies is horrible, the force that brought about the pile of rotting infants was evil, the same force was no more unnatural or hateful than that which brings about orgasm.

Stick that analogy in your pipe.

"O, generatio incredula et perversa quousque ero vobiscum usquequo patiar vos..."


Oh, disbelieving and perverse generations, how long (until what time) shall the Master suffer you…

My Latin is a bit rusty, but I think I got partially right.

Anyway, what's with the "pipe" thing? Is that the new buzz phrase of the hour? I hear people using it all the time now (just not necessarrily at me).

You are correct, and you are incorrect (I think). Nature can destroy indiscriminantly, but that does not make nature evil. "The wind, no one can fathom, it can be heard, but it is not known from where it comes or where it goes, and it knows not what it does..."

Man, however, can choose to destroy, or to build, to harm or to heal. In short, Man can strive for the good of all before self, or place self before all.

This is why Man's actions can be (and are) judged as good, or evil.

v/r

Q

[Mus Zibii]

Well, its one of those, 'for all intents and purposes' kinda evil. LOL I remember having this preconceived notion of love when I was a kid and then looking the actual word up in the dictionary. Further down in the definition there was nuance, but the initial description was: affection for any given thing. Not exactly the gut wrenching search for completion that one might make it out to be.

Sticking your hand into a fire hurts. Physically its the body's way of relaying the point that the body is receiving damage. Its a blinding agony in the mind. In appearance it can be anything from a reddening to total loss of flesh. And that's just the tip of the nuance. The so-called evil would originate from whoever holds your hand into the fire. Now what are their motives, where do they come from, and on and on.

You can freely call that evil, and be accurate, but to think of that cause and effect as sitting squat in a corner waiting to pounce...

Well, everything is so relative, the closer you come to conclusion the further it retreats.

And I thought I was being old fashioned when I mention pipes and sticking.

[I, Brian]

Heh, I think one of the other threads is straying into the territory of this one.

As for "good and evil" - I find the whole subject of morality fascinating - how it is often considered a received notion, yet eventually people can learn to question it - and then find that answers are not necessarily forthcoming.

More specifically - and I'm not sure if it has been raised in this particular thread - I wonder how much any personal or social concept of morality is entirely connected to the general rules of social behaviour hard-wired into us - those same social rules that affect other social mammals, such as how the individual who puts themselves first can put the entire group at risk, and how only the higher "alphas" are allowed such indulgences, and therefore not so subject (to themselves) to the same sense of morality.

In other words, in comparison to human society, the alphas of our world feel less and less obliged to be bound by the same sense of morality as socially lower animals - the upper classes screwing over the lower classes. They are empowered to make decisions for their own benefit, because ultimately they control the direction of the wider group - or "troupe". The lower classes are not allowed to be so self-serving simply as a consequence of being a lower class, that must therefore work within a social heirarchy.

Hm...I'm not explaining it very well, but either way, I wonder how much of this hierarchial social development isn't a cornerstone of human morality.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Heh, I think one of the other threads is straying into the territory of this one.

As for "good and evil" - I find the whole subject of morality fascinating - how it is often considered a received notion, yet eventually people can learn to question it - and then find that answers are not necessarily forthcoming.

More specifically - and I'm not sure if it has been raised in this particular thread - I wonder how much any personal or social concept of morality is entirely connected to the general rules of social behaviour hard-wired into us - those same social rules that affect other social mammals, such as how the individual who puts themselves first can put the entire group at risk, and how only the higher "alphas" are allowed such indulgences, and therefore not so subject (to themselves) to the same sense of morality.

In other words, in comparison to human society, the alphas of our world feel less and less obliged to be bound by the same sense of morality as socially lower animals - the upper classes screwing over the lower classes. They are empowered to make decisions for their own benefit, because ultimately they control the direction of the wider group - or "troupe". The lower classes are not allowed to be so self-serving simply as a consequence of being a lower class, that must therefore work within a social heirarchy.

Hm...I'm not explaining it very well, but either way, I wonder how much of this hierarchial social development isn't a cornerstone of human morality.

Good explanation...however (however is not an if, and or but), not all alpha personalities act that way (consider self first). Some become altruists. When they do, they move the world (not just their world - everyone's world).

As far as good and evil (getting back to the origins of this thread), Judeac/Christian "Lore" states that God will (or has) writ the laws into the very heart of each man (human). What we do with it from there is up to us.

Hmm, evil and good seem to come from the concept of conscience. We must be self aware. Instinct does not work, natural forces make no difference. Deliberate choices must be made in order for Evil/Good to take effect.

In order to make choices, we must be self aware, aware of others, have the ability to descern between the two, and decide who is valued higher...

[Avinash]

Namaskar,

I think you can't see evil apart from harm. Without any harm being done, there can also be no evil. So when is anyone harmed? When someone's spiritual progress is thwarted, then that person is harmed.

Hurting someone physically or mentally may be harmful but could also have been done out of love in order to teach. If it furthers the person's spiritual development then it cannot be called an evil action because no real harm has been intended or done.
Which doesn't imply that crimes that are not evil should not be punished.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Well, its one of those, 'for all intents and purposes' kinda evil. LOL I remember having this preconceived notion of love when I was a kid and then looking the actual word up in the dictionary. Further down in the definition there was nuance, but the initial description was: affection for any given thing. Not exactly the gut wrenching search for completion that one might make it out to be.

Sticking your hand into a fire hurts. Physically its the body's way of relaying the point that the body is receiving damage. Its a blinding agony in the mind. In appearance it can be anything from a reddening to total loss of flesh. And that's just the tip of the nuance. The so-called evil would originate from whoever holds your hand into the fire. Now what are their motives, where do they come from, and on and on.

You can freely call that evil, and be accurate, but to think of that cause and effect as sitting squat in a corner waiting to pounce...

Well, everything is so relative, the closer you come to conclusion the further it retreats.

And I thought I was being old fashioned when I mention pipes and sticking.

Ah, but I think you looked in the wrong 'dictionary'. Even if you do not believe in God, the Bible has a splendiforous set of definitions for love...the kind you were looking for in Websters...I think.

The most famous biblical chapter on love is from 1 Corinthians:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)

This is a description of apage love. It is described as being patient, kind, truthful, unselfish, trusting, believing, hopeful, and enduring. It is not jealous, boastful, arrogant, rude, selfish, or angry. True love never fails.

Now, there are four other forms of love! Which one were your looking to define?

If you wanted romantic love, try Songs of Solomon. SHE searches for HIM everywhere, and HE comes to HER like a thief in the night.
(Sneaky little b*$@*&d ;-) ).

I do agree that sticking your hand into the fire is not wise, the fire does not care whether your flesh cooks or not. But the act itself is not evil, nor is the result. (stupid maybe, but not evil).

Any person who deliberately places you into the fire 'against your wishes' has comitted an evil. (Human choice to harm another is evil).

A cop defending self, and killing another in the process (or be killed), is not evil. But a cop who kills, because someone might talk of his/her indiscretions is EVIL.

Sharks kill indiscriminently, but the is no evil...they just know to kill and eat, and reproduce.

Evil...natural...ability to choose.

v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

Ability to choose? Ah, but even if we put aside determinism, we are still well-shaped by our genes and environment. Is it not that some degree of this very choice is taken from us by these factors? For example, I don't remember chopsing to be hterosexual; I don't remember choosing when I fall in love; and I don't remember choosing to have some creativity with music and words. Of course, I'm simply trying to stoke the discussion here.

Also a point, that because morality is a very much a social construct - where society determines that some actions will be rewarded and others punished (especially when committed by the lower classes) - then just because an action is deemed punishable does not make it evil. The decision as to whether something is to be regarded as evil surely remains a relative point?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Ability to choose? Ah, but even if we put aside determinism, we are still well-shaped by our genes and environment. Is it not that some degree of this very choice is taken from us by these factors? For example, I don't remember chopsing to be hterosexual; I don't remember choosing when I fall in love; and I don't remember choosing to have some creativity with music and words. Of course, I'm simply trying to stoke the discussion here.

Also a point, that because morality is a very much a social construct - where society determines that some actions will be rewarded and others punished (especially when committed by the lower classes) - then just because an action is deemed punishable does not make it evil. The decision as to whether something is to be regarded as evil surely remains a relative point?

Hmm, seems to me you're describing the "tools" we are given at birth, or talents/characteristics for lack of a better term. How we choose to use them as we live is entirely up to us.

I also think there we are describing two forms of reprimand here, punishment, and then discipline. A reward is a reward no matter how one looks at it, but punishment, is usually used to make some one pay for a serious wrong (intentionally committed, for self interests), wherein discipline is used to correct/remind/reprove those who most likely erred out of ignorance or thoughtlessness, and to prevent/warn that further actions if left unchecked could become evil.

Punishing someone out of bigotry or loathing, or as a form of control over another (as in upper class towards those less fortunate materialisticly, or by virtue of pedigree, or as in spousal abuse, child abuse, etc.), is evil Brian.

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

I think you can't see evil apart from harm. Without any harm being done, there can also be no evil. So when is anyone harmed? When someone's spiritual progress is thwarted, then that person is harmed.

Hurting someone physically or mentally may be harmful but could also have been done out of love in order to teach. If it furthers the person's spiritual development then it cannot be called an evil action because no real harm has been intended or done.
Which doesn't imply that crimes that are not evil should not be punished.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Avinash. From my perspective, recruits in basic military training are broken down two ways, in order to be rebuilt and fine tuned for their new life (physically and mentally). But they are never to be harmed spiritually (at least in the US military). In my family upbringing, I had my share of spankings and groundings, and lectures, but I was never told I was worthless. In fact I was told the opposite, how important I was, and how neccessary it was that I knew right from wrong.

My backside stung, and my heart may have been heavy, but I still felt loved, and worthy.

v/r

Q

[I, Brian]

Yes, I sort of like playing with determinism and its principles.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Punishing someone out of bigotry or loathing, or as a form of control over another (as in upper class towards those less fortunate materialisticly...is evil Brian.

And thus is precisely one of the points I wished to push to next -> namely that if society imbues us with a sense of morality, but that this sense of morality then judges society to be "evil"...then doesn't that present some form of contradiction? Namely in that exploitation of the lower classes by the landed classes has been the absolute norm throughout human history.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Yes, I sort of like playing with determinism and its principles.


And thus is precisely one of the points I wished to push to next -> namely that if society imbues us with a sense of morality, but that this sense of morality then judges society to be "evil"...then doesn't that present some form of contradiction? Namely in that exploitation of the lower classes by the landed classes has been the absolute norm throughout human history.

Good point, and one of the precise reasons the colonial forefathers drafted the principals of the constitution (in the United States anyway), and specifically pointed out the way for the "common citizens" to beat that "evil" into submission.

We can start over...

Hmm, interesting thought - in Christian lore, we can also "start over"...

...not as invasive or immediately supplantive, but just as radical in thought, and undermining of the status quo.

v/r

Q

[pswfps]

Perhaps "good" is simply a set of life rules defined by society which in turn are based on the needs of the individual who in turn is dependant on society. So then "evil" is anything contrary to the rules of "good", ie, the rules of society.

Maybe the two concepts are a sort of psychological schism created by an inherently selfish and basic need for personal survival combined with mutual social cooperation as a tool for survival? Where is the line to divide the two?

That's my simplistic suggestion anyway.

Regards
Paul W.

[louis]

for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible. for those who do believe, no explanation is necessary.

From Louis.....
I've read that statement so often.... quite fascinating
to someone like me - one who neither believes nor
disbelieves - at least not in the "religious" sense.
The only belief I can understand is the kind that
DEPENDS ON explanations, proof, evidence, etc.
For example, I equate "evil" with "negative" - the
basic imperfection of all physical reality - no matter
how "good" something appears to be, there is always
the possiblity that something can go wrong with it.
And "Satan" is a personification of that real possibility -
like "Mother Nature, Old Man Winter, Santa Clause" -
all abstract symbols for REAL things.