Definition of evil.

[meany]

What is your definition of evil? No webster. No encyclopedia stuff. Your own, personal definition. Here's mine.

Evil: The most refined version of apathy. The point at which the person in question may do as he/she wishes-be it negative, positive, or without purpose-without any form of moral/emotional/physical gratitude.

[superluser]

The opposite of good.

The propensity, inclination or desire to do something negative to the universe at large, or to a part of it.

[Jim Halisstrad]

A dream full of candy, hope, and forced sodomy

[Fuyudenki]

Moral opposite of "good," just like Superluser.

Of course, then we need to define "Good."  I just use the Biblical definition, and tell the Athiests to screw themselves.

[Toric]

An absolute mindset that something is worth doing if it benefits you, regardless of how it affects anybody else: after all, those other people aren't you, and they aren't your problem. Among other, more devilish things, this mindset rationalizes taking candy from a baby.

[Suwako]

to quote my languages teacher;

Doing something to someone that you wouldn't want to have happen to yourself. (agrees.)

An absolute mindset that something is worth doing if it benefits you, regardless of how it affects anybody else: after all, those other people aren't you, and they aren't your problem. Among other, more devilish things, this mindset rationalizes taking candy from a baby.

Which seems quite accurate to describe it for me as well, seconded it is.  Benefit can also be emotional..

Norms and values, everyone has their own set. 

The  Athiests to screw themselves.

We don't need the bible for knowing the difference between good and evil. 
I'm evil, -hi-. 

[Reese Tora]

What is evil? a good question, that.

Is evil what others tell us it is? probably not.

I think that evil could best be defined as those who hold a world view that is so incompatible with your own that you cannot peacefully coexist without one or the other of you changing your world view.

In other words, evil is what you can't stand to have exist, and it's relative to each person or society.

In a specific sense, from the point of view of me and a majority of what I would consider good people, evil is that which is completely selfish, each act calcualted to the maximum net benefit to the entity performing it.(by which I mean acts that do nothing for that individual, but harm others, has a net benefit to that individual because thier situation is now better relaqtive to those harmed.)

[Magic]

Evil is an opinion; a word used to justify that one is wrong (and as a corollary, that you are right). It is propaganda in it's most basic form, the ultimate expression of moral high ground (or the lack thereof). Going against what Reese said, evil need not necessarily be incompatible with you or your views, as that does not explain the existence of hypocrisy.

And in response to Toric's statement -- One's propensity for 'malevolent' acts is not at all a binary value. There are, indeed, various shades of grey between black and white and it would be very narrow minded to see the world as only either 'good' or 'evil'. One is not completely incapable of doing 'good', nor is one completely incapable of doing 'evil'. Therefore, evil is not an "absolute mindset that something is worth doing if it benefits you, regardless of how it affects anybody else: after all, those other people aren't you, and they aren't your problem".

Aiyno; Let's have a thought experiment:
- Let's say I am insane.
- I kill people by gouging a large wound across the lower abdominal region, pulling out their intestines for them to see and letting them die of either blood loss or infection.
- I commit suicide in the same manner.
- I am still called evil.

A possible flaw in your statement? Though, it still depends on whether or not everyone is also equally insane and would view my actions as acceptable. Evil is relative, after all.

[Darkmoon]

What is your definition of evil? No webster. No encyclopedia stuff. Your own, personal definition.

(waves)

[Netrogo]

Bill and Charline united.

[bill]

That is too evil for me.

[Madmann135]

Bill and Charline united.

That's not evil, that's the devil in mortal form.

[Goatmon]

What is your definition of evil? No webster. No encyclopedia stuff. Your own, personal definition. Here's mine.

Evil: The most refined version of apathy. The point at which the person in question may do as he/she wishes-be it negative, positive, or without purpose-without any form of moral/emotional/physical gratitude.

I believe that's called sociopathism.  Or something. 

[Alondro]

Bill and Charline united.

That's not evil, that's the devil in mortal form.

[Suwako]

A possible flaw in your statement? Though, it still depends on whether or not everyone is also equally insane and would view my actions as acceptable. Evil is relative, after all.

Oh, yes, true. 

Your definition of evil; So to rephrase it I should have talked in first person rather than 3rd, but again; I quoted my teacher and put little extra thought in to it, unlike yourself. 

no further comment.

[Tapewolf]

"My good is your evil.  Everywhere I tread I leave nothing but dust, ashes.  I find that good."
--Sutek the Destroyer  (Dr. Who, Pyramids of Mars)

Of course, then we need to define "Good."  I just use the Biblical definition, and tell the Athiests to screw themselves.

The problem with that is that the Bible decries a lot of weird things as evil like marinating goats in milk, eating shellfish, doing anything at all on a Saturday and drawing webcomics.  Conversely, killing people is often considered virtuous.

My own personal definition is basically the generic "doing things that benefit yourself regardless of the harm it does to others".

[Alondro]

"My good is your evil.  Everywhere I tread I leave nothing but dust, ashes.  I find that good."
--Sutek the Destroyer  (Dr. Who, Pyramids of Mars)

Of course, then we need to define "Good."  I just use the Biblical definition, and tell the Athiests to screw themselves.

The problem with that is that the Bible decries a lot of weird things as evil like marinating goats in milk, eating shellfish, doing anything at all on a Saturday and drawing webcomics.  Conversely, killing people is often considered virtuous.

My own personal definition is basically the generic "doing things that benefit yourself regardless of the harm it does to others".

Many of those things weren't 'evil'.  You have to read those regulations carefully to see which ones were the moral code and which were the cultural ones.  Also, most of those applied to the Jewish nation only (thus would not apply to Christianity) and some specifically to the priesthood.

The basic moral tennets, namely the 10 commandments still apply, as the moral code is pretty much reiterated in a number of New Testament books.

Many of those laws don't make sense now, but they did have practical reasons long ago.  Some, like not boiling a calf in its mother's milk, were mainly because they thought that was kinda messed up to take a cow's milk and then boil its baby in it.  It was an aesthetic law rather than a practical one.

[Tapewolf]

The basic moral tennets, namely the 10 commandments still apply, as the moral code is pretty much reiterated in a number of New Testament books.

Yes, but that still includes the Sabbath rule, and no drawing (or watching TV).  I think it means that incest as OK, and so is treason.  In any case, he didn't actually specify which part of the Bible he wanted to use as a moral basis 

Many of those laws don't make sense now, but they did have practical reasons long ago.

Yes, and that basically summarises my point - some of the Bible has not dated well enough to remain a sensible code of conduct with our present civilisation.

[superluser]

OK.  I'm seeing a lot of people defining evil as selfish.

To those people, I would propose the following questions:

An absolute mindset that something is worth doing if it benefits you

1.) Can something be evil and not serve its own purposes?  If what you are doing is harming you, does that mean that you're not doing evil?

Evil is an opinion; a word used to justify that one is wrong (and as a corollary, that you are right).

2.) If you are thoroughly convinced that something is wrong, does that mean that if you do it, it cannot be evil?

[Omega]

I don't believe in good or evil. They're both just illusions that humans have created to make their flow of though a bit more simple.

For further bolster of my statement, go here

[bill]

I had forgotten about that thread because i hated it so much

[Omega]

it's not like anyone forced you to read that thing in the first place, you know?


Edit: I just don't like to repeat myself, that's all.

[bill]

it's not like anyone forced you to read that thing in the first place, you know?


Edit: I just don't like to repeat myself, that's all.

being a mod is hard when you dont read threads

[Alondro]

I don't believe in good or evil. They're both just illusions that humans have created to make their flow of though a bit more simple.

For further bolster of my statement, go here

I don't believe in you! 

Yet you still exist... 

[Magic]

2.) If you are thoroughly convinced that something is wrong, does that mean that if you do it, it cannot be evil?

That is why the word 'hypocrisy' exists.

[Fuyudenki]

I don't believe in good or evil. They're both just illusions that humans have created to make their flow of though a bit more simple.

For further bolster of my statement, go here

I don't believe in you! 

Yet you still exist... 

I can help with that.

*begs* pleeeeeeeeeease?

[superluser]

2.) If you are thoroughly convinced that something is wrong, does that mean that if you do it, it cannot be evil?

That is why the word 'hypocrisy' exists.

Your argument, if I correctly apprehend you, is that evil is defined as a way to classify that others are wrong and you are right.

If you believe that you are wrong, this would not seem to be a particularly useful definition of evil.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

1.) Can something be evil and not serve its own purposes?  If what you are doing is harming you, does that mean that you're not doing evil?

To quote Robert Heinlein (from The Sayings of Lazarus Long (or something like that) as quoted in Time Enough For Love:

All evil lies in hurting others. Hurting yourself isn't evil, just stupid.

[superluser]

1.) Can something be evil and not serve its own purposes?  If what you are doing is harming you, does that mean that you're not doing evil?

To quote Robert Heinlein (from The Sayings of Lazarus Long (or something like that) as quoted in Time Enough For Love:

All evil lies in hurting others. Hurting yourself isn't evil, just stupid.

Well, then if you harm yourself and others, is that no longer evil?

[Valynth]

Eh, religion is the only viable means to actually have a legitimate moral standard since that is usually what is introduced to us first.  This sets the stage for our various other moral holdings (or lack there of) in later life.  Without some form of Deity to instruct people in how to conduct themselves, the people would inevitably fling themselves into anarchy simply because everyone is out to get what they can right now.  Eventually people will become rampantly successful in their acclimation of wealth (in one form or another) that they will form a hierarchy.  And thus Dictatorships take hold, but even this requires some for of absolute order that can only be provided by some form of Deity or Deity structure.  Without some form of Deity to instruct the masses to some form of absolute truth, we're left with humans who hold a huge range of morals, and without an absolute truth (good or evil) there really is no distinct difference as to why one human shouldn't instruct the others as to what to do out side of being a strong man.

In short, in order to have anything that resembles morals (distinct self-limitations), you have to have a Deity or a human elevated to the level of a Deity or a Deity's mouthpiece.