BWE wrote:This is a weird thread. How about, name an evil thing and decide if it's evil. Forget the labels. Just the thing. For example, dehumanizing indiduals, evil?

Does it dehumanize someone to label him or her evil?

Human beings are evil. All human beings? Why does it have to be all? We wouldn't apply the term evil to anything except what human beings do. The Russian genocide in Ukraine is evil. Imperialism is evil, dominionism is evil, Christianity is evil. Is everything about Christianity evil? Does it have to be everything? It's just not a difficult question, unless you deal in all and everything. Which you would only do if you were a filosofeezer.

Chief Engineer wrote:Evil:

The meaning I apply is: results arising from bad behavior or conduct.

Offering circular arguments constitutes bad conduct. Want to reconsider?

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

jamest wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Other than saying "republicans" I think the question what constitutes evil is a deeply philosophical one. I think evil is unavoidable, we're naughty monkeys. I have done some things which are evil, like shoplifting a packet of chewing gum, some small acts of vandalism. I think I stole that chewing gum solely for the thrill of doing something I shouldn't. Evil with a capital E I think must always involve the knowing breaking of certain social or psychological taboos.

At times there have been certain [ethnic/racial/class} social taboos which most people would now categorise as wrong/evil, but at the time they were the norm and considered right and good. So, I don't think that the knowing breaking of social taboos is necessarily evil.

But that shows evil is relative to time. At the time it would likely be seen as evil, not now.

Or the reverse can happen, something which is now generally seen as not evil, at least by a majority, could be seen as evil in the future. I think this could happen with meat eating.

These things are socially determined. If there is an overwhelming pressure to regard something as evil, most people go along with it.

I agree, so the most we can say about knowingly breaking social taboos is that it is anti-social and perhaps unlawful, not necessarily that it is evil.

Boxing Day 2004 an underwater landslide leads to the death of almost a quarter of a million people, do we consider this event evil? Five police officers beat up a person and he dies, do we somehow consider the event evil? If so, what is the difference or differences between the two events?

jamest wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

jamest wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:Other than saying "republicans" I think the question what constitutes evil is a deeply philosophical one. I think evil is unavoidable, we're naughty monkeys. I have done some things which are evil, like shoplifting a packet of chewing gum, some small acts of vandalism. I think I stole that chewing gum solely for the thrill of doing something I shouldn't. Evil with a capital E I think must always involve the knowing breaking of certain social or psychological taboos.

At times there have been certain [ethnic/racial/class} social taboos which most people would now categorise as wrong/evil, but at the time they were the norm and considered right and good. So, I don't think that the knowing breaking of social taboos is necessarily evil.

But that shows evil is relative to time. At the time it would likely be seen as evil, not now.

Or the reverse can happen, something which is now generally seen as not evil, at least by a majority, could be seen as evil in the future. I think this could happen with meat eating.

These things are socially determined. If there is an overwhelming pressure to regard something as evil, most people go along with it.

I agree, so the most we can say about knowingly breaking social taboos is that it is anti-social and perhaps unlawful, not necessarily that it is evil.

But that leaves open the question of what evil is then. I can't think of another definition.

I think it's a bit like an emotion, an impression that forms in the mind when it is perceived that these sacredly held taboos are broken by someone. These taboos are relative of course. For Confucius it would be evil to not be properly deferential to one's parents. I am not sure some kind of pure, absolute evil really exists.

romansh wrote:Boxing Day 2004 an underwater landslide leads to the death of almost a quarter of a million people, do we consider this event evil? Five police officers beat up a person and he dies, do we somehow consider the event evil? If so, what is the difference or differences between the two events?

Intent... to harm/kill. Though one could argue that the intent to harm/kill is not necessarily evil if it's for the greater good, such as murdering Hitler.

I think that JS Mill's 'Harm Principle'* works well here to differentiate good and bad actions even though it concerns liberty.

* https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer- ... principle/

I think, ultimately, that the concepts of good and evil are subjective/relative unless applied universally - absolutely. As in actions that are good for all humanity/life or detrimental to all humanity/life.

Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil, but I'm struggling right now to think of an act of absolute good.

Pineapple is evil - and deep down we all know it.

THWOTH wrote:Pineapple is evil - and deep down we all know it.

They don’t grow them on Oahu any more, I’m told. You should’ve smelled it when they did. You could smell the sweetness when you got off the airplane.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:This is a weird thread. How about, name an evil thing and decide if it's evil. Forget the labels. Just the thing. For example, dehumanizing indiduals, evil?

Does it dehumanize someone to label him or her evil?

Human beings are evil. All human beings? Why does it have to be all? We wouldn't apply the term evil to anything except what human beings do. The Russian genocide in Ukraine is evil. Imperialism is evil, dominionism is evil, Christianity is evil. Is everything about Christianity evil? Does it have to be everything? It's just not a difficult question, unless you deal in all and everything. Which you would only do if you were a filosofeezer.

No idea what you are saying here. Were you addressing my question?

My point was that evil is a judgment so it makes sense to be specific when applying it, whether or not it has any objective qualities. I don't think you really need to be prone to all or none extremes to apply stereotypes.

jamest wrote:I think, ultimately, that the concepts of good and evil are subjective/relative unless applied universally - absolutely. As in actions that are good for all humanity/life or detrimental to all humanity/life.

Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil, but I'm struggling right now to think of an act of absolute good.

Being kind?

jamest wrote:
Intent... to harm/kill. Though one could argue that the intent to harm/kill is not necessarily evil if it's for the greater good, such as murdering Hitler.

I think that JS Mill's 'Harm Principle'* works well here to differentiate good and bad actions even though it concerns liberty.

* https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer- ... ciple/that evening

Do you think the five police officers went out that evening with the intent to beat up the victim, never mind kill someone?

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:This is a weird thread. How about, name an evil thing and decide if it's evil. Forget the labels. Just the thing. For example, dehumanizing indiduals, evil?

Does it dehumanize someone to label him or her evil?

Human beings are evil. All human beings? Why does it have to be all? We wouldn't apply the term evil to anything except what human beings do. The Russian genocide in Ukraine is evil. Imperialism is evil, dominionism is evil, Christianity is evil. Is everything about Christianity evil? Does it have to be everything? It's just not a difficult question, unless you deal in all and everything. Which you would only do if you were a filosofeezer.

No idea what you are saying here. Were you addressing my question?

My point was that evil is a judgment so it makes sense to be specific when applying it, whether or not it has any objective qualities. I don't think you really need to be prone to all or none extremes to apply stereotypes.

OK, it's a judgement; on that we're in easy agreement. As such, it's just an opinion. I'll see your "weird thread" and raise you to "stupid thread", one that was started by someone who seems content with pat answers or is mystified by semantics. Calling an act "evil" just triggers or motivates some people, and so it's politics as usual, for people who are moved by words. Reminds me of threads where somone complains about or celebrates the use of vulgar or obscene language. It owes its meaning to theology.

I think something like a utilitarian argument, the best for the most people, is what a lot of people these days would give as a definition for what is good. But that immediately runs into all types of problems, and also it can easily devolve into evil. What if it is best for the majority to oppress a minority? What if it is best to sedate or euthanize everybody since life is suffering? Etc

Ethics is full of these dilemmas. The golden rule is also difficult, you might be eager to treat others like you would want to be treated but what if some other person doesn't want to be treated the way you would want to be treated?

Would people be simply happy if somehow all their material wants were satisfied? Of course not. What if boredom sets in? What if there was anxiety this plenitude might come to an end? Oh, and it will. Lots of folks are unhappy that they're not going to live forever. Yes, they have psychological issues that can be labeled. They'd say the fact that they're going to die someday is "evil", or else they'll want to define what good and evil are for other people. There aren't any pleasant options for humans, and the reason for that is other humans.

BWE wrote:

jamest wrote:I think, ultimately, that the concepts of good and evil are subjective/relative unless applied universally - absolutely. As in actions that are good for all humanity/life or detrimental to all humanity/life.

Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil, but I'm struggling right now to think of an act of absolute good.

Being kind?

Yes, be kind to everybody. Except bad people, they can fuck off

BWE wrote:

jamest wrote:I think, ultimately, that the concepts of good and evil are subjective/relative unless applied universally - absolutely. As in actions that are good for all humanity/life or detrimental to all humanity/life.

Nuking the whole world would count I think as an act of absolute evil, but I'm struggling right now to think of an act of absolute good.

Being kind?

Being kind to a psychopathic mass murderer is counterproductive. At the very least, I wouldn't commend you for doing so. Turning Vladolf Putler into a pink mist comes close to candidacy for an act of absolute good. Of course, somebody worse might replace him. You pays your money and takes your chances. Just never forget, relativism is self-refuting.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:This is a weird thread. How about, name an evil thing and decide if it's evil. Forget the labels. Just the thing. For example, dehumanizing indiduals, evil?

Does it dehumanize someone to label him or her evil?

Human beings are evil. All human beings? Why does it have to be all? We wouldn't apply the term evil to anything except what human beings do. The Russian genocide in Ukraine is evil. Imperialism is evil, dominionism is evil, Christianity is evil. Is everything about Christianity evil? Does it have to be everything? It's just not a difficult question, unless you deal in all and everything. Which you would only do if you were a filosofeezer.

No idea what you are saying here. Were you addressing my question?

My point was that evil is a judgment so it makes sense to be specific when applying it, whether or not it has any objective qualities. I don't think you really need to be prone to all or none extremes to apply stereotypes.

OK, it's a judgement; on that we're in easy agreement. As such, it's just an opinion. I'll see your "weird thread" and raise you to "stupid thread", one that was started by someone who seems content with pat answers or is mystified by semantics. Calling an act "evil" just triggers or motivates some people, and so it's politics as usual, for people who are moved by words. Reminds me of threads where somone complains about or celebrates the use of vulgar or obscene language. It owes its meaning to theology.

Hmm. That's an interesting perspective. I'll have to go back and look who the op was but I still don't see it quite as all/none as you seem to be making it. Yes it's subjective, a rock can't be evil. Evil is a property of experience and has to do with foresight in general. We make all kinds of judgments about our experience and all of them are subjective but they still mean something even if the boundaries are fuzzy. To cause harm to others knowing that it will cause harm only for personal pleasure with no mitigating circumstances is a gradient that is only judgable based on the perception of harm by the harmed party. It it evil to eat a human who wants to be eaten?

But it's at least hard-core to eat someone who does not want to be eaten.

Cito di Pense wrote:Would people be simply happy if somehow all their material wants were satisfied? Of course not. What if boredom sets in? What if there was anxiety this plenitude might come to an end? Oh, and it will. Lots of folks are unhappy that they're not going to live forever. Yes, they have psychological issues that can be labeled. They'd say the fact that they're going to die someday is "evil", or else they'll want to define what good and evil are for other people. There aren't any pleasant options for humans, and the reason for that is other humans.

I find that I get very little satisfaction in trying to save the world or in convincing others to believe a thing I believe. But I do find it makes me more comfortable to be kind to people, regardless of their paths. But it's a mistake, I think, to equate kindness with enabling.

BWE wrote:It it evil to eat a human who wants to be eaten?

That is certainly the classic question. Canonically, we ask whether it is sadistic to refuse to beat up a masochist.

I take this as informing us that such questions are doomed to fail to inform us.

BWE wrote:I do find it makes me more comfortable to be kind to people, regardless of their paths.

That works when we don't know anything about a person, and is about prejudice or bigotry based on appearance. I don't have to treat someone as an enemy, but nothing obliges me to be kind to strangers, unless it's something with roots in religion. Too much kindness has led to the overabundance that threatens the ecosystem. Too many humans have needs they can't meet even though they have plenty of what anyone really needs in material terms. I owe such people nothing in terms of kindness. It's not about my personal feeling of well being. I can go meditate in a cave and feel good, though I do nothing for anyone.

Cito have you ever killed something on purpose, something mammal and larger than a rabbit?