Coming Soon to a Store Near You!

posted on June 13th, 2011, 9:53 pm

UnknownSaiyan: So nothing is consistently evil? (although, some things may be perceived as consistently evil from culture to culture, but your definition doesn't require that) If evil changes from culture to culture, and age to age (generation to generation), evil becomes a very abstract term that could really mean almost anything.

Hence normative ethics.

If this is the case, we could just as well search for a means to create a culture where evil no longer exists, yes? If we deem nothing to be evil.

But as already posted earlier in the thread, there are quite a few things out there (suffering, fear, pain, etc) that associate well with evil. So finding a way to bridge that gap, and reduce evil to nothing seems promising.

In any case, the replies are helpful. The number who responded who don't believe that anything is innately/inherently evil is a good sign. Will make providing an alternative much easier.

What evil would actually be if it existed, and what it has come to mean over time - these do not necessarily coincide.

Hopefully this will transfer well with those who have a more deeply rooted belief in evil as well (as for that, I do not know). The comments seem to allow for a certain leniency so far.

[Terra_Inc]

posted on June 13th, 2011, 10:20 pm

Last edited by Terra_Inc on June 13th, 2011, 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, let me add my 0.02$.

I'm a Lovecraftian. I believe that human values such as good and bad are not an intrinsic trait of this universe. They are based on the perception of human beings. The universe itself is neither good nor evil, but simply uncaring. What we interpret as good and evil are merely things that affect us and our world in a positive or negative way, but without being actively "good" or "evil".
Thus, something or someone you might perceive as being evil may only be exerting a negative influence on you or the world around you for a moment. In the same way, something or someone you might perceive as being good may only be influencing you or the world around you in a positive way for a moment. This does not imply that they are inherently good or evil.

Extrapolating from this worldview, we can say that "evil" is a way mankind deals with the unpleasant aspects of the universe's uncaringness. From my experience, people can deal with misfortunes much better if they know that there's a reason for it. Saying that it happened because someone or something is evil provides them with such a reason, even if there is none. All over the world, bad things happen every day. Why? Not because of evil things or people. There is no reason for it. It's just the way the universe works.

posted on June 13th, 2011, 10:42 pm

Actually that is not what I said.... "Now what is considered wrong is determined by many factors, and those factors change along with culture and technology." If anything fear, pain, and suffering will become more "evil" as technology grows. Something doesn't have to be constant to exist.

posted on June 13th, 2011, 11:14 pm

UnknownSaiyan: My apologies, when you stated "Evil is very simply a word used for describing actions or thoughts that are considered wrong. Now what is considered wrong is determined by many factors, and those factors change along with culture and technology.", I took your meaning incorrectly evidently.

When you stated "factors change" I assumed you meant over time, generation to generation? And by these changing cultures and technology, again over time? So I was thinking in terms of say at time x, there was a disease and was considered evil, but at time y with new technologies and developing cultures, this disease was cured... so no longer (consistently) evil. When you said technology, I thought you meant for improvement.

Again, with my reply of fear, pain, and suffering, these do not necessarily grow with technology over time. Many technologies have assisted us in overcoming those things that caused us past fear, pain, and suffering. Extended life, better quality of life. But those factors change as in new technologies create new problems for the modern generation, even when previous ones are eliminated. For instance nuclear power is something only recent generations have had to contemplate. Giving us new reasons to have fears, witness pain and suffering of a new kind. Again, with responsibility, knowledge, and understanding, hopefully humanity can reach a level where we bridge the gap, and reach a state of being that extends beyond past fears, and allows us to face the future with a degree of control that prevents unnecessary new ones.

Terra_Inc: I would agree with much of your statement, in that people utilize the concept of evil to deal with certain misfortunes, as things are easier to deal with if there is a reason.

While certain concepts of good and bad may only be superficial, I would think the universe is equipped to be more caring. Ideally, we would be able to identify some quality as being intrinsic to the universe, that could in turn expand our worldview so that understanding may be reached without the use of evil as a concept.

[Gorandius1256]

posted on June 14th, 2011, 12:24 am

Last edited by Gorandius1256 on June 14th, 2011, 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Another point I have come across is from a philosopher named Bertrand Russell, he believed that neither Good nor Evil actually existed.  He felt that what we say is good or evil is merely our expression of pleasure or disdain for something.  So, if evil does not exist, then neither does good.  Everything is simply our reaction and feeling towards that which we call good or evil.

Here is a link to a short essay detailing his ideas regarding absolute good (and by relation, absolute evil)
http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=russelljournal&sei-redir=1#search="Bertrand+Russell+Absolute+good"

posted on June 14th, 2011, 2:08 am

I'm more or less familiar with dealing with the issue by taking out both good and evil together. I don't think it's very coherent however.

By saying we judge something by our feelings or expressions towards an external object, we are giving an independent absolute measure for what evil / good would be: subjectivism (ourselves). But then we turn the tables on that standard, objectively, and attempt to say that in "reality" our subjective views have no meaning, that good and evil do not exist. I find this at the very least an unproductive approach with no benefits. It's circular and leads nowhere.

We are human beings, we live we breath, we experience the world according to the subjective nature of what we are. To discredit that, with the view that despite our own experience of how we feel, it has no meaning because we have no objective reference, I find rather demeaning to the human state.

This again however, leads fairly close into my own personal views so I will be brief, and attempt only to illustrate a small but significant point (in my understanding at least).

If one argues that living animate creatures represent a sort of subjective state, and that non-living inanimate things demonstrate a coexisting objective state of reality... so be it (at this point, I won't tackle the dualism in objectivism and subjectivism). However, taking it to the extreme, and turning everything we experience as subjective living things upside down and trying to be something we aren't (objective, and inanimate) is close to insanity. As a society, we've taken a road of extreme materialism, scientific dogma and tried to make everything overly objective (scientific method etc). To an extent, this is acceptable, but we can't solve our problems by rejecting our own subjective nature and trying to embrace and make our selves inanimate. We'd lose everything we are by doing so.

At some point, we need to be subjective in our standards. How can we aspire not to be? It would reject our very nature. The short sighted attempt of labeling that nature to be evil, greedy, or otherwise is quite simply juvenile. (not that I'm saying anyone here is doing that, we seem to all agree nothing in fact is inherently evil at least for the most part). By viewing our nature as being evil, we're already stacking the deck against us. What we need instead, more or less, is to take responsibility for all that our subjective nature entails (moments of weakness that might include), and be thoughtful in the principles we set.

I skimmed over the essay, thanks for the reference. Reminds me of past reading assignments, I'm looking to make my written presentation much more simplistic and approachable. I won't be making it to heavy of a philosophy reading for people (if I can, somewhere or other, it's bound to get a little messy).

Quite obviously, since I have already given the main thought of the book, I believe it best to hold on to our notions of good, and better explore the nature of why we seem to have a notion of evil, if nothing can be said to be inherently causing evil. If we eliminate the tension between good vs evil, perhaps a new orientation where only  good is present would serve us well. 

posted on June 15th, 2011, 6:47 pm

Evil is very simply a word used for describing actions or thoughts that are considered wrong. Now what is considered wrong is determined by many factors, and those factors change along with culture and technology.

I pretty much follow that short description. Good and evil were made up by some cultures and therefore what counts as good or evil may change from one society to another.
I think a good explanation of the terms will be the most important part of your book . Because good and evil are very abstract terms.
I'm not sure where the dicussion is getting at. Isn't good and evil always connected to actions and decisions of humans? In my opinion human behaviour and decisions are the result of their environment, education, economic situation of the society. Therefore it's hard to label someone good or evil, he's just the product of his live, or his actions are the product of how someone in his situation reacts on life.
Are there things that are objectively evil? if you kill Hitler, are you an evil man then? If you rescue someone and find out he's Hitler, are you a good man then?

Pretty much only throwing in some thoughts, nothing well thought out here, sorry. Language barrier is also a problem for me to properly take part in the discussion, but I hope you may get what I'm aiming at.

posted on June 16th, 2011, 12:10 am

First, I'd like to just clarify my previous post a little bit. I kind of streamed into objectivism and subjectivism (the article and comment before sort of hinted towards that, more or less, with a view that good and evil are human made concepts (subjective) with no real outside reference (or objective reality).

However, to be fair, the idea is a fairly good start, and probably one I entertained for at least a time. Coming with the approach that neither evil or good exist is one way of breaking up the dichotomy. If you get rid of them both, then it sort of resolves the problem. but.. you are still left with everything they previously describe... that would then be considered - well what?

As this theory states evil doesn't exist, that works for me. What I'm not aiming for is an amoral approach. We still have choices. And our choices have consequences. Even just looking at karma, we reap what we sow. I'm not looking to remove meaning from our lives.

However, even if we let go of the traditional concepts between good and evil, saying that neither existed as we previously considered them. Something would still exist to replace them. There are still human actions and a world that can be seen anew, and with the old dichotomy of good and evil gone, what words we choose to define that world would start over, empowering us with a fresh start. Again, pragmatics, terms that are useful.

I would say there is a way of replacing the old, with a new system where good is much more prominent. Evil also, never comes back into the equation, at least nothing like before.

Lt. Comdr. Marian Hope: Indeed I would agree, the definitions will set the tone for the entire book. They will be broad  enough to give me room to explain myself the best I can. If I'm successful, they'll be more practical. But at the moment, they are indeed very abstract. For one, since it is my opinion that evil does not exist, a large part of the abstract nature is due to one notion being entirely false (fictional creations of many religious, or other type people), and defining the other, good, with the other in mind. We talk about evil, even though nothing is inherently evil... so um yeah. Abstract to boot. But well it may remain somewhat abstract, I can make "good" be much more practically based.

(I gave the definition for evil only insofar as the term can not be used, - a force actively opposing good, this definition will be deemed impossible, evil does not exist in this sense. I'll give a second for what evil has always meant.)

If it doesn't seem like the discussion is going anywhere, perhaps because I only asked for other's thoughts on the matter. I've really said very little of my own. So, I started the thread, but I'm not guiding it to the conclusion I would want people to reach. Although, to some degree, it took the right path on its own. Think we started with good and evil. How to define them. Went to them being opposites. Touched on subjective and objective. Pragmatism was touched on. All of which are important.

In the end, I'm not going to write all the main points in the FO thread posts. Although, showing evil not to exist is really going to be the shortest part of the book, as I picture it. A powerful first 5-10 chapters maybe, and then it's just, so then what's all the fuss been about all this time? Because obviously, it's more about that when you take the concept away, you have to refill all the leftover space and put all the pieces back together for what actually is.

posted on June 16th, 2011, 1:39 am

Jesus H. Christ....what did I stumble upon!??!  First, godsvoice, I commend you on making a post that my brother, UnknownSaiyan, would respond to.  He's been here longer than me (a few years at least) and you can see how low his post count is! :-p  Second, lol....I agree whole-heartedly with my brother.  Regardless of one's, or many's, belief system(s), if any, evil is just a word we use to define excessively bad things.  Things aren't perceived, universally, as evil.  For instance, some cultures approve of cannibalism, the objectifaction of women, or even slavery.  This issue is tackled several time in Trek as well as many other sci-fi shows.  Most noteably, to me, in the show "Sliders," they "slide" from one dimension of Earth's existance to another basically saying "your Earth is wrong and ours is right, so we're gonna 'fix' it for you and damn the consequences."  Ignore that last part about "Sliders"....it's just a gripe of mine, though I actually do like the show.

Basically, what you, Myles, my brother, myself, and the rest of the world find to be "evil" is going to be different all the way around.  To disagree with Myles (nothing personal Myles), proving something doesn't exist is as equally difficult as proving something does exist, without empirical evidence.  One of my favorite arguments is for the existence of "God," I've heard and seen various arguments like comparing God's existence to a container of milk, etc.  But my all time favorite argument is claiming that God does or doesn't exist is to assume one has all knowledge of all that has existed, exists, or possibly could exist.  Such is my belief on proving the existence of evil. 

BUT....please don't let me sway you.  One of my favorite things to do is when someone says "this is broken," or "I've had like 10 friends try to get this to work and none of them could," is to say "give it to me....I'll get it!"

[godsvoice]

posted on June 16th, 2011, 3:48 am

Last edited by godsvoice on June 16th, 2011, 3:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks, to be honest, I don't entirely disagree with either of your views. If it is true, and everyone has a different concept of what things are - then why not just pick the one that functions best? I'm all for pragmatics. I have no interest in "converting" people to my point of view (if my view is not useful to you, I suggest you move on, and find something that is). Although, I sincerely believe that it is one of the best around for the topic (problem of evil). It is largely a matter of being for those people who do want to argue for the existence of evil, because of say murder, that there is a response can be used for others, to say, well, yes, but what about...

Are you familiar with Karl Popper - falsifiability? I read a paper by him in highschool (about white swans, and black swans). It is quite arguable that it is impossible to disprove something (and I agree, I do not have universal knowledge, however, this is not a matter of scientific proof, it is one of practicality, among others). At the same time, (in the same class, different or maybe it was a joint paper, a different person argued the opposing side) it is impossible to prove many statements from an individual observation to a universal law. No human lives forever, you actually can't prove that. You can prove that "All humans live forever" is false however. Find one who's dead. (wikipedia example, not the best source, but in this case, is not important). Saying all humans live forever is pointless. But taking it to the extreme of no humans, even though it seems sensible, can't be proven.

To argue on such an extreme scale of logic is unnecessary. Unicorns. I can't prove they don't exist, and it is not necessary that I be able to.

I wish it were the case that everyone agreed that evil is just a word for excessively bad things. But, at the same time, an argument that offers a substantial approach for showing why it is unlikely that it exists at all, would potentially give many people good insight for better ideals. Keeping it on the relative level of truth, we all believe different things, and these views are equally valid, as each social structure survives does not address the issue of the thing itself. Aside from what people are saying about x, on a more absolute scale, what can we actually say we know about x, and I don't mind saying objectively, so that we can better understand how to interpret x subjectively.

Life goes on. How we experience life can be better or worse. Some people complain complain complain. It seems like some get stuck in more negative thought patterns than others though. Despite them believing that they have a right to that choice, ultimately, it seems like a waste.

So, ultimately, I would have to bring up that even though it may be said that things aren't perceived universally as evil, the question remains, is it even possible or likely that they can be?

Again, as far as motivation goes, I think its fair to simply consider all the people who live with notions of evil. If we split them into groups, how many are living with the thought that evil is, factually, a part of life - even if just a  relative notion changing person to person? (ie, evil even it is not a set thing, it does exist for all people, in some way shape or form) How many are aware that in fact, this may not be the case at all. More so, it is a choice to live with that world view. And actually, there are many positive world views that don't require evil at all (buddhism) which I'll reference, but I think my views stand independently.

Taking it a step further, given the choice, why would you want to keep it, knowing there is an alternative? Which means, they need to at least have the choice, it would be a benefit to know all the alternatives. Some might not be ideal (oh there is no evil, but there is no good either, no god, no devil, so life's just random and unpleasant, but you might get lucky and have fun). For some people, I think it's a paradigm that's to big of a trap to get out of.

I'm 22, and one of my earlier thoughts, roughly middle of highschool when I started thinking about this, quite originally actually, is even if their was an alternative to believing in evil - would it be worth it? You would still need to live in a world with all the "bad things" but you genuinely wouldn't perceive them to be "bad" anymore. In a sense, I wondered if that was to high a price - ie would it come at the price of compassion. Would it mean you wouldn't care about the poverty or hardships some people face. If it didn't mean that, then how would you deal with all those things, knowing they existed. Especially because of the chance that you might be wrong, if you gave up striving to make sure evil not prevail (which it is supposed to if good men do nothing), and you were wrong, would be quite a penalty.

Obviously though, I've had my own experiences and views, and reached the stage I'm at where I want to write this book, so, clearly, the answer is that it would be worth it.

It's your life, and your experience. That's the rub. As far as your experience goes, you only answer to yourself. You choose what's limiting and what isn't. It's worth it, because at the end you see the whole time the argument of good vs evil is empty. Because evil is a wholely unnecessary belief (with no reference - you can't go out and say, see that, that's evil). You spend large amounts of time thinking in terms of it (how evil was hitler, etc), and for nothing. There is no price for removing it, because by removing it, you don't take away the Good. Responsibility for your fellow kin doesn't just evaporate because you've had a recent mental neuron fire. You don't lose the meaning of all those things that are great. It is nothing more than an abstract way of dealing with things your experience says is bad. But it also makes you KEEP that in your experience. You HAVE to view SOMETHING as bad, because if you didn't evil wouldn't be in your experience. A cruel circle, and perhaps one hard to let go. But nothing requires your experience to operate that way.

original motivation of sorts, but none of the meat and potatoes for why and how to get there

posted on June 17th, 2011, 3:12 pm

Not really.

When some one I know or me dose some thing considered wrong by some, culture and technology is not checked with to see if the actions considered "Wrong" is wrong in there definition.

What happens is some one dose some thing, and another distinguishes it s "wrong" and meny time there is disagreement about it.

The disagreement alone points to there is no over all consensus for what is goodevil. If culture and technology had a messier for what evil is there could be no debate.

Evil is very simply a word used for describing actions or thoughts that are considered wrong. Now what is considered wrong is determined by many factors, and those factors change along with culture and technology.

posted on June 17th, 2011, 4:28 pm

I think that is more or less what unknownsaiyan was talking about.

If one does something that another distinguishes as wrong, (that's what evil is used to describe) then thats pretty much what he said.

About there being disagreement, that's exactly what he explains. "what is considered wrong is determined by many factors"

I think culture and technology were just an example for larger scale type stuff. I don't think he meant they dictated what evil is considered to be.

I think he was being more general. He didn't offer culture and technology as being the definitive decider. He said it right at the start, "evil is very simply a WORD, used for describing actions or thoughts that are Considered Wrong". What's considered wrong, and by who, changes.

posted on June 17th, 2011, 5:14 pm

so if u want to prove there are no diabetics in a town, by arguing that insulin R us has zero insulin sales, you would need assumptions such as: all diabetics would buy insulin from insulin R us. which is a bad assumption as they could buy from insulin 2 go, or steal it from a hospital.

wow that's profound myles. I got mixed up with insulin Rus and insulin 2 when you can read all of the statistics. 

[godsvoice]

posted on June 19th, 2011, 6:27 pm

Last edited by godsvoice on June 20th, 2011, 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

"But my all time favorite argument is claiming that God does or doesn't exist is to assume one has all knowledge of all that has existed, exists, or possibly could exist.  Such is my belief on proving the existence of evil." Borg101.

And by proving the existence of evil, I know you meant showing the non-existence of evil.

After giving it some thought, I've decided I might need to take a more careful look at wording my approach. Anyone who has read Karl Popper knows the problems with proof, as do I, even anyone familiar with scientific method to an extent. High standard.

Furthermore, while it may involve certain assumptions, it does not include assuming one has all knowledge of all that has will does exist etc.

Especially in the case of theories, hypotheses, and simple idea making. It is a view that fits. And trust me, it fits in quite well with everything out there.  In effect, I'll never once have to actually state that I'm proving the non-existence of evil. I'll just explain my view, and it will be self-evident that the resulting implications will be that evil doesn't exist.

As for the other parts on proving existence of God, while it is not my aim, it would take out a huge junk of one of the reasons not to ... problem of evil. There is no problem of evil.

I never liked the way sin has been described. There are many words in Hebrew used to describe sin. To wander, or turn away from God I like the best. Another word I think translates to missing the point, or mark. (It is a far stretch to go from, a person was walking alongside next to god, and then he wandered away from him, or, he was already a ways away from him, and in trying to get back he just slightly missed the mark, and ended up on the other side of the river away from god, and while he was a away, because he lacked gods guidance for a short time, he made some transgressions that went 'against' what god would have advised, he ate meat, can you believe that? ... to where youre at: because he wandered away at all, proves that evil exists, and is trying to harm everything - I mean, I know it's so overly simplified, but still, its almost laughable). All words I believe were translated more or less directly to sin. Some translators got lazy and just made everything sin sin sin. Silly really.

More directly, the view is simply that there is no active force that exists for the sole purpose of working against the common good. What you get is a byproduct, that is still not an active force, when you stray away from good.

That is the crux of what I'm going to demonstrate. It is quite an extreme belief to hold that evil is an actual force out their seeking to work against good. (Very short description, it gets quite a few points to back it all up, and make it clear, but thats where I'm going with it)

Again, I liked the idea brought up of privation of form. Evil is not a thing. Funny how that works out. Just incoherent to hold that view in your theology, with also holding the existence of the devil in a positive sense, as well as hell.

Anyways, I've decided to start! I've actually already written out a lot of the terms I want to include, and gone over some chapter outlines with the purpose of the chapter highlighted to keep me on track. I have a few days off coming, I'll see what I can get done. I'm imagining there will be a lot of editing.

I think the big thing is just the tone and wording of it. so easily semantics can get in the way. the downside is how long this may take, the upside is that its completely voluntary with no deadline! and I just have to write down whats already worked out in my head.


in the meantime, thanks to everyone who commented.