Definition of evil.

[Reese Tora]

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.

I don't see how it needs to explain hyporisy.

Hypocrisy isn't evil as such.  It's bad, yes, but not everything that is bad is evil.

There is very little that is evil, just lots of bad stuff.  Hypocrisy is a form of lying to get your way, which is bad, but not necessarily evil.  Since it essentially means to hold others to a higher standard than one holds oneself, you could be a hypocrite and still do good.

In any case, anyone telling you something is evil can be refered to my first point.

[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.

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.

No, no. You are assuming that I am calling myself 'evil' when I do 'evil' acts. The point that I'm trying to get across is that that is not always the case. A person can very well call someone who is doing something 'evil' as 'evil' and at the same time be doing the same thing but call it 'good' instead. That person can and probably does believe that he is not at all wrong. That is the role of my statement about hypocrisy.

Edit:

Hypocrisy isn't evil as such.  It's bad, yes, but not everything that is bad is evil.

No. I am not saying that hypocrisy is evil. I am saying that in the context of evil, one can hold another to a higher moral standard than one holds oneself, as you say. Again, returning to my statement above.

[superluser]

No, no. You are assuming that I am calling myself 'evil' when I do 'evil' acts. The point that I'm trying to get across is that that is not always the case. A person can very well call someone who is doing something 'evil' as 'evil' and at the same time be doing the same thing but call it 'good' instead. That person can and probably does believe that he is not at all wrong. That is the role of my statement about hypocrisy.

Are you claiming that people never do things that they believe are wrong?

As in, ``I know what I am doing is wrong and or evil, and yet I still choose to do it''?  If that's the case, then there are a lot of people who do not factor into your definition of evil.

[Feroluce]

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.

this actually comes close not to my definition of evil, but of Chaos. I'm not sure if Im unique in my distinction between chaos and evil, but this suits the former more.

let my refine my distinction slightly.

Evil as a definition is, using the blunt vocabulary, something bad happening that originates from a human source. It does not matter on a personal scale. So far in this topic, I see people trying to tie evil to a person or personal act, when this isnt always true. For example. War is commonly veiwed as evil. Yes, there are some people suffering and some people victorious, but the act itself is evil, generally destructive, and causes a hell of alot of pain all around.

I know some of you will point out here that often war has upsides, like technological advantages and, if all goes well, the overthrow of a possibly evil dictatorship. It has its downsides too, like general economic depression. But Im not talking about the aftermath or things that relate to war, simply the act of war itself.

I reiterate: Evil is something bad happening that originates from a human source.

'Bad' referring to things like death, suffering, famine, and other things unpleasent in general. Bad is also easier to define as an event then a person. 'Bad' people can occasional do good things. in fact, the worst, sociopathic serial killers are often the neighbourhood nice guy who coaches the football team and has a magic touch with plumbing.

however, I think most of us can agree that getting your guts ripped out through a cut in your belly is bad, done by someone in a calculating rational way or by a lunatic.

The evil is in the act. Evil can be at the hands of a calculating cold minded dictator, a raving lunatic, or the best intentioned soul. It does not always require reason: An evil deed only requires a human source to become evil.



Chaos is not evil. at least, not always evil. The whole deal with chaos is its lack of anything remotely resembling organisation, will, a perception of right or wrong, and any capability of rational decision making. It cannot be designated good, or evil, but is capable of acts of either. It Can be designated as ungodly, because wisdom is purported to be god-given. but thats about it.

the main reason people associate chaos with evil is because the chance of chaos redecorating your house and leaving it in any remotely livable state is astronomically small. And because a chaotic event has an equal chance of turning all your empty beer bottles into solid gold as planting you naked in a giant cactus patch in the middle of an earthquake, while being watched by your entire extended family, ex girlfriends, and media newscasters who inexplicably know your full name and address.

wow, sorry. rambled on there for a bit

[Caswin]

And in response to Toric's statement -- One's propensity for 'malevolent' acts is not at all a binary value.

I know it's not my post or anything, but... I didn't see any references to "malevolence" in his post at all.  I saw what looked like a pretty near textbook definition of sociopathy, where as a rule, hurting other people for its own sake usually doesn't factor in either way.

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?

I... er... don't see why it would.  "Stupid" does not cancel out "Evil."

[Magic]

I didn't see any references to "malevolence" in his post at all.

For lack of better term.

[Caswin]

I didn't see any references to "malevolence" in his post at all.

For lack of better term.

For... what?  Would you say it's impossible for somebody to completely not care about the problems of anybody else, and to act purely and utterly out of self-interest?  Is that malevolence?

[Valynth]

I didn't see any references to "malevolence" in his post at all.

For lack of better term.

For... what?  Would you say it's impossible for somebody to completely not care about the problems of anybody else, and to act purely and utterly out of self-interest?  Is that malevolence?

Depends on your perception.  If enslaving or killing others becomes the means to achieve/protect your self interest, that can be considered malevolent. 

[superluser]

I... er... don't see why it would.  "Stupid" does not cancel out "Evil."

That's my point.

Evil has nothing to do with being selfish.  You can have selfless evil, as well.  You can have people who will fight for the glory of their nation.  Remember Pickett's Charge?  A fierce and futile fight where men forfeited their lives for the future of their country.  Immortalized in song and verse, this is a battle that rates up there with the Charge of the Light Brigade.  The men who fought in Pickett's charge are seen as heroes.

...heroes who fought to keep black men and women enslaved.

(note that this applies to the first statement and not to Ink's.)

Also, I think a few of us need to read/watch Mother Night.

[Alondro]

I know evil when I see it!

*looks around*  Look at that!  Evil everywhere!  No choice but to sterilize the planet!  It's for the 'good' of things.   

[everance]

evil is not in the actions or thoughts of the "do-er", but in the perception of anyone and everyone else.  evil is anything that others feel threatens them in any way shape or form.  religion has lists of "evils", but if you notice, most of those evils could undo the logic and stability of their perceptions and ideals.  what i do is not evil until it effects someone else's life.

evil is not in the individual, but in society and majority views.

[Alondro]

evil is not in the actions or thoughts of the "do-er", but in the perception of anyone and everyone else.  evil is anything that others feel threatens them in any way shape or form.  religion has lists of "evils", but if you notice, most of those evils could undo the logic and stability of their perceptions and ideals.  what i do is not evil until it effects someone else's life.

evil is not in the individual, but in society and majority views.

If I kill someone in the woods, and no one is around to see it, is it still evil?   

[Tapewolf]

If I kill someone in the woods, and no one is around to see it, is it still evil?   

That's going in my signature.

[meany]

It is nice to see that you all have a healthy knowledge of what evil is. Yes, I've got nothing to add to the discussion, you people went beyond the point where I could add anything useful quite a while ago. And yes, I'm eating up precious seconds of you life by wasting your time explaining why I'm not going to add anything to the discussion. I'm mean like that.   

Edit: Is this better?

[Netrogo]

And yes, I'm eating up precious seconds of you life by wasting your time explaining why I'm not going to add anything to the discussion. I'm evil like that.   

Close. There's a word for that but it's not evil

[Valynth]

And yes, I'm eating up precious seconds of you life by wasting your time explaining why I'm not going to add anything to the discussion. I'm evil like that.   

Close. There's a word for that but it's not evil

Spam?... But spam saves the day!.... or at least the days in the 40's...

[Caswin]

I didn't see any references to "malevolence" in his post at all.

For lack of better term.

For... what?  Would you say it's impossible for somebody to completely not care about the problems of anybody else, and to act purely and utterly out of self-interest?  Is that malevolence?

Depends on your perception.  If enslaving or killing others becomes the means to achieve/protect your self interest, that can be considered malevolent. 

I'm assuming you're counting crimes besides the extremes of murder and slavery?  If not, I'm afraid I don't follow.

[lucas marcone]

evil is the opposite of what you belive to be right. (see my post in definition of good for my reasoning)

[superluser]

evil is the opposite of what you belive to be right. (see my post in definition of good for my reasoning)

Is this some variant of ``How do you keep an ethicist busy for hours?''

[Angel]

Evil is hurting someone emotionally or physically, beyond repair; knowing that what you are doing is morally wrong, even by your own standards; and doing it solely for your own benefit, not anyone else's.

Took me a long time to decide on that. I know that many "evil" people are just doing what they believe is right for the good of others, and that evil changes with perspective. But some things, everyone agrees on. Certain commandments just seem to tell basic human standards: "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," etc. No matter what religion you are, certain things are always seen as bad. So there must be some standard of evil that everyone agrees on.

[Tapewolf]

But some things, everyone agrees on. Certain commandments just seem to tell basic human standards: "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," etc. No matter what religion you are, certain things are always seen as bad. So there must be some standard of evil that everyone agrees on.

While I'd like to agree with you in principle, the Commandments are seriously not the best way to illustrate that point.  "Thou shalt not kill" is IMHO, not what it actually means - in most of the more recent retranslations it is rendered as "Thou shalt not murder".  Killing is fine, as we shall see.

If I remember the sequence correctly, the very next thing they do after getting the commandments is that Aaron bears false witness by telling Moses something like "I threw the ear-rings into the fire and this calf came out" (probably one of the most awesome whoppers in the whole book).
But more to the point, under Moses' guidance, they then go off and kill something like 30'000 people - pretty much without blinking.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

But more to the point, under Moses' guidance, they then go off and kill something like 30'000 people - pretty much without blinking.

But... they weren't Jews, so obviously they weren't people people, and God meant killing people when he said "thou shalt not kill", right? Right?
/sarcasm

I've got to wonder how much history would have been changed if "God" expected everyone to eat what they killed...

[rabid_fox]

Punching raccoons in the face is pretty evil, especially if they don't expect it.

[GabrielsThoughts]

taking unessisary advantage of people, intentionally causing physical harm without justification, having a fore knowledge of future events and not stepping in to change the outcome, using kittens, puppies, and world peace to manipulate an audience, telling people that the individual that brings peace to the middle east is going to be the anti-Christ, fear mongering people to accept your religion/beliefs/laws, and any form of terrorism or violence that is done in the name of God. 

[Caswin]

taking unessisary advantage of people, intentionally causing physical harm without justification, having a fore knowledge of future events and not stepping in to change the outcome, using kittens, puppies, and world peace to manipulate an audience, telling people that the individual that brings peace to the middle east is going to be the anti-Christ, fear mongering people to accept your religion/beliefs/laws, and any form of terrorism or violence that is done in the name of God. 

...got somebody in mind?

[superluser]

While I'd like to agree with you in principle, the Commandments are seriously not the best way to illustrate that point.  "Thou shalt not kill" is IMHO, not what it actually means - in most of the more recent retranslations it is rendered as "Thou shalt not murder".  Killing is fine, as we shall see.

Well, they're really not retranslations.

Many of the older translations into English were based on other translations, like the Textus Receptus (translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek) or the Vulgate (into Latin).

The modern translations go back to the original sources as much as possible, finding the most ancient sources and treating those as more important than more recent ones or ones that have been translated or even backtranslated(*).  In addition, around 300 AD, an orthodox version of the New Testament was promulgated, and textual variants pretty much cease, so that everything after that is pretty much the same--the ``majority text.''

The problem is that this version was very flawed, and earlier texts show that the originals were different in many cases.  When Erasmus made the Textus Receptus, he had little other than this text to go by.  This Textus Receptus is the one used for the 1611 King James version and basically every Bible between then and the late 19th century, when we got the Westcott and Hort version of the Greek New Testament.  Modern translations tend to use the Nestle-Aland version, which has been influenced by the discoveries at Nag Hammadi and Qumran (the Dead Sea scrolls).

Both Westcott and Hort and Nestle-Aland translate directly from the original languages, and prefer the older readings.  Interestingly, however, many of the older readings are from translations and indicate texts that we no longer have.  They also make use of these, when appropriate.

If you're interested in this, read the Text of the New Testament, by Bruce Metzger and his protégé Bart Ehrman.


(*) There are a few passages in the apocryphal/deuterocanonical works (I think Esther) that people swear up and down were originally Hebrew, and there are Hebrew sources for them, but the Greek originals don't show the typical translation artefacts.

There are also a few cases where there's one text, far more ancient than anything else, that says one thing, but everything else says another.  Such cases have to be evaluated carefully.

[gh0st]

i personally define evil as a lack of good... other than that an act of evil would have to be something that ends with the general state of worse well being of the person after the act