Mudflappus Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 As browsed through my usual gambit of web sites the other day, I came across another version of the Theist argument "How can there be good or evil without God?". Later as I walked around in circles in my back yard having a smoke and gazing up at the stars, I began to wonder exactly what Good and Evil really are. Let's talk about Evil for a moment. Can Evil exist without an act to associate it with? If not, what is Evil? If it can't be described as a tangible, physical thing then it must simply become an adjective. The same applies to Good. The descriptive nature of either of these words relegates them to an arbitrary existence as they are used to define a myriad of acts and offenses which are nothing more than the opinion of the collective. Social standards give these words vague boundaries however ultimately they belong to the eye of the beholder. If this is the case, the concept of Good and Evil is nothing more than a matter of perception and one that is as varied as there are opinions. I don't think a deity would create something so abstract only to pick one side and throw rocks at the other. What would be the point? How would a supreme being exist beyond the confines of an adjective? An adjective that holds no specific meaning at that. I think this is going to become my De Facto position when faced with this specific argument. I realize that most garden variety Baptist Evangelicals are going to have a really hard time grasping this as their answers are usually laid out for them by their leaders and they are not generally very light on their feet when it comes to original thought. Thanks for reading, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well, one thing that is evil is telling people things that no evidence can be provided for, and presenting such things in a threatening manner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedah Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 My answer is the same way there can be a good or evil with God. Think about that for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudflappus Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 Well, one thing that is evil is telling people things that no evidence can be provided for, and presenting such things in a threatening manner... I agree with you that this act is evil. We share the same view on the act itself however the opposing argument might be that they are trying to save us for our own good and that any manner of this is an act of good. So once again, it's the act itself that makes the distinction and not the labels used to describe it. Good and Evil simply do not exist outside of the philosophical realm. Only the highest orders of primates (including ourselves) on this planet even consider the consequences of good vs bad. The rest of the universe gives less than two shakes of a rats petunia whether or not there is good or evil. It just rolls along in the order it rolls along in with no regard for concepts such as fair, good, evil, compassion, empathy or any of the other things we'd like to think separate us from it. In this respect, we are alone with our differences and this is what truly makes us as a species unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudflappus Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 My answer is the same way there can be a good or evil with God. Think about that for a bit. Trust me, I spent a long time thinking about the nature of God before dumping Christianity and embracing Deism. I'm not arguing from an atheist perspective. I'm refuting the notion that is held very dearly by many practicing Christians that without their version of God, good and evil can not and would not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MultifariousBirdLady Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Let's talk about Evil for a moment. Can Evil exist without an act to associate it with? If not, what is Evil? If it can't be described as a tangible, physical thing then it must simply become an adjective. The same applies to Good. The descriptive nature of either of these words relegates them to an arbitrary existence as they are used to define a myriad of acts and offenses which are nothing more than the opinion of the collective. Social standards give these words vague boundaries however ultimately they belong to the eye of the beholder. If this is the case, the concept of Good and Evil is nothing more than a matter of perception and one that is as varied as there are opinions. These are great questions, and you're correct, there are quite a lot of different opinions/perceptions of it out there. There are even those who don't believe that "evil" or "good" exist at all, but are merely social constructs which some cultures don't have or need whatsoever. I don't have my mind made up on this issue. If I need to think about concepts of "evil" I try to consider whatever particular example I'm dealing with from at least a few different perspectives. One thing I have rejected (since as far as I can tell, it's completely unsupported) is the concept of some kind of active agent or force of embodied evil. So yes, it really does tend to be a subjective adjective, and it might be a completely empty one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Let's talk about Evil for a moment. Can Evil exist without an act to associate it with? If not, what is Evil? If it can't be described as a tangible, physical thing then it must simply become an adjective. The same applies to Good. The descriptive nature of either of these words relegates them to an arbitrary existence as they are used to define a myriad of acts and offenses which are nothing more than the opinion of the collective. Social standards give these words vague boundaries however ultimately they belong to the eye of the beholder. If this is the case, the concept of Good and Evil is nothing more than a matter of perception and one that is as varied as there are opinions. These are great questions, and you're correct, there are quite a lot of different opinions/perceptions of it out there. There are even those who don't believe that "evil" or "good" exist at all, but are merely social constructs which some cultures don't have or need whatsoever. I don't have my mind made up on this issue. If I need to think about concepts of "evil" I try to consider whatever particular example I'm dealing with from at least a few different perspectives. One thing I have rejected (since as far as I can tell, it's completely unsupported) is the concept of some kind of active agent or force of embodied evil. So yes, it really does tend to be a subjective adjective, and it might be a completely empty one at that. The words are loaded with religious baggage, and it almost becomes a tautology: Evil is that which God disproves of, so you can't have Evil without God. That is also meaningless. To give meaning and understanding, we must give context, and that means that good and evil are essentially social - and relative. Killing is evil EXCEPT... Adultery is evil unless you redefine it and exclude marriage with more than one woman, or concubines, or "if god says it's ok" (Abraham and Hagar). Gambling is evil, unless it's for a good cause. We look at benefits and harms of something and then decide if it is mostly good or mostly "bad" (evil), and then we pronounce judgement. That includes everything from taxes to flouridated water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted December 7, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted December 7, 2009 Evil is what the other guy does that you don't like. In the West we see Islamic terrorism as an evil, but to the Muslim fanatic it is service to god and is intended to make a better world. Killing an abortionist seems evil to most of us, but the murderer believes he is doing a good thing. Evil is relative to the individual, time and place. Then there's Dick Cheney . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MultifariousBirdLady Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 The words are loaded with religious baggage, and it almost becomes a tautology: Evil is that which God disproves of, so you can't have Evil without God. I disagree. Precisely because this term (like all others) are given meaning by the people who use them, I'm not surprised when I find people using the term without any associated belief in or reference to God(s). Wikipedia has its flaws, but I think the entry for "evil" here is useful in that it provides many different examples of what different people have meant when they use the term, or whether they think it should be used at all. Now, for many of us, the word could be very loaded right now because of our background. But with time and exploration of different ways of thinking about the topic this might not continue to be the case. At least, that's what happened to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 The words are loaded with religious baggage, and it almost becomes a tautology: Evil is that which God disproves of, so you can't have Evil without God. I disagree. Precisely because this term (like all others) are given meaning by the people who use them, I'm not surprised when I find people using the term without any associated belief in or reference to God(s). Wikipedia has its flaws, but I think the entry for "evil" here is useful in that it provides many different examples of what different people have meant when they use the term, or whether they think it should be used at all. Now, for many of us, the word could be very loaded right now because of our background. But with time and exploration of different ways of thinking about the topic this might not continue to be the case. At least, that's what happened to me. Apparently I didn't qualify the statement above sufficiently. I meant: For the religious who insist that God is the foundation of morality, they define evil in terms of God - so that it becomes a tautology (for them). Evil, for the religious (sorry to repeat myself) is then that which is disproved of by God because God defines good and evil. I was trying to show the circular reasoning used where the word is defined so that their beliefs are necessary for the word to have meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MultifariousBirdLady Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Apparently I didn't qualify the statement above sufficiently. I meant: For the religious who insist that God is the foundation of morality, they define evil in terms of God - so that it becomes a tautology (for them). Evil, for the religious (sorry to repeat myself) is then that which is disproved of by God because God defines good and evil. I was trying to show the circular reasoning used where the word is defined so that their beliefs are necessary for the word to have meaning. OK, I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying. I've been pondering the more non-religious views of evil and how different they are, so that's where my head was when I responded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 I've been pondering the more non-religious views of evil and how different they are, so that's where my head was when I responded. Unless I'm talking with a theist, I don't use the word "evil." I also don't call bad acts "sins." The church appropriated and changed these words so that there are unwanted connotations. Good and Bad seem to be value judgements that are relatively free from unwanted meanings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 evil: anything contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudflappus Posted December 7, 2009 Author Share Posted December 7, 2009 Let's talk about Evil for a moment. Can Evil exist without an act to associate it with? If not, what is Evil? If it can't be described as a tangible, physical thing then it must simply become an adjective. The same applies to Good. The descriptive nature of either of these words relegates them to an arbitrary existence as they are used to define a myriad of acts and offenses which are nothing more than the opinion of the collective. Social standards give these words vague boundaries however ultimately they belong to the eye of the beholder. If this is the case, the concept of Good and Evil is nothing more than a matter of perception and one that is as varied as there are opinions. These are great questions, and you're correct, there are quite a lot of different opinions/perceptions of it out there. There are even those who don't believe that "evil" or "good" exist at all, but are merely social constructs which some cultures don't have or need whatsoever. I don't have my mind made up on this issue. If I need to think about concepts of "evil" I try to consider whatever particular example I'm dealing with from at least a few different perspectives. One thing I have rejected (since as far as I can tell, it's completely unsupported) is the concept of some kind of active agent or force of embodied evil. So yes, it really does tend to be a subjective adjective, and it might be a completely empty one at that. I think the idea that they are merely social constructs more eloquently places the idea. Thank you. I truly believe that the concept of Sin fits into this category even more succinctly. I've always thought of sin as the act of doing anything someone religious doesn't like or agree with. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Let's talk about Evil for a moment. Can Evil exist without an act to associate it with? If not, what is Evil? If it can't be described as a tangible, physical thing then it must simply become an adjective. The same applies to Good. The descriptive nature of either of these words relegates them to an arbitrary existence as they are used to define a myriad of acts and offenses which are nothing more than the opinion of the collective. Social standards give these words vague boundaries however ultimately they belong to the eye of the beholder. If this is the case, the concept of Good and Evil is nothing more than a matter of perception and one that is as varied as there are opinions. These are great questions, and you're correct, there are quite a lot of different opinions/perceptions of it out there. There are even those who don't believe that "evil" or "good" exist at all, but are merely social constructs which some cultures don't have or need whatsoever. I don't have my mind made up on this issue. If I need to think about concepts of "evil" I try to consider whatever particular example I'm dealing with from at least a few different perspectives. One thing I have rejected (since as far as I can tell, it's completely unsupported) is the concept of some kind of active agent or force of embodied evil. So yes, it really does tend to be a subjective adjective, and it might be a completely empty one at that. I think the idea that they are merely social constructs more eloquently places the idea. Thank you. I truly believe that the concept of Sin fits into this category even more succinctly. I've always thought of sin as the act of doing anything someone religious doesn't like or agree with. Simple as that. Religion infringes life (Crusades, Jihad, etc.) Religion infringes liberty (thou shalt not, give gawd your money, and all that) Religion infringes the pursuit of happiness (more thou shalt nots--especially if it is fun. threats of hell, Tophet, etc.) Ergo, I reiterate--evil: anything contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Only the highest orders of primates (including ourselves) on this planet even consider the consequences of good vs bad. The rest of the universe gives less than two shakes of a rats petunia whether or not there is good or evil. It just rolls along in the order it rolls along in with no regard for concepts such as fair, good, evil, compassion, empathy or any of the other things we'd like to think separate us from it. In this respect, we are alone with our differences and this is what truly makes us as a species unique. Hi Mudflappus! I dislike the word "evil" and prefer "bad" or "morally wrong". But that's because of its' attachment to religion. Anyway, morality in animals extends further than what you have stated above. Here is one example. I'm too lazy to point out more. Other intelligent animals besides primates understand fairness and empathy, the basis of morality. They decide what is good or bad in their own ways. After all, we are related to other social animals. So it makes sense that the concept of "good and evil" extends from our evolutionary ancestors to us. IOW, we didn't come up with "good/evil" all by ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I prefer the term "harmful" to the term "evil". Many things the religious classify as evil are simply violations of a sterile worldview. Girls kissing each other; nipples; not going to church; voting democrat; inhaling the smoke from smoldering cannabis instead of smoldering tobacco; and so on. Even the term "negative" doesn't always mean bad. Sometimes negative (annoying, gross, disturbing, etc) things kick our ass as a motivation to do something good and bring about change that helps other humans. But like the concept of yin and yang, each sharing some of the other, what helps one may come at the cost of another. So rather than striving to classify something as good or bad, simply recognizing the balance and trying to do what is helpful to myself and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Evil, like pornography, is difficult to define, but I know it when I see it. Some acts, like genocide, are so horrible that no other word quite fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudflappus Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Only the highest orders of primates (including ourselves) on this planet even consider the consequences of good vs bad. The rest of the universe gives less than two shakes of a rats petunia whether or not there is good or evil. It just rolls along in the order it rolls along in with no regard for concepts such as fair, good, evil, compassion, empathy or any of the other things we'd like to think separate us from it. In this respect, we are alone with our differences and this is what truly makes us as a species unique. Hi Mudflappus! I dislike the word "evil" and prefer "bad" or "morally wrong". But that's because of its' attachment to religion. Anyway, morality in animals extends further than what you have stated above. Here is one example. I'm too lazy to point out more. Other intelligent animals besides primates understand fairness and empathy, the basis of morality. They decide what is good or bad in their own ways. After all, we are related to other social animals. So it makes sense that the concept of "good and evil" extends from our evolutionary ancestors to us. IOW, we didn't come up with "good/evil" all by ourselves. Thank you, I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 evil: anything contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Closer to the mark than perhaps many would agree with IMO. There is no collective, there is only the individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 What is evil? This is evil: http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/11/28/43532/567 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REBOOT Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Evil: lack of conscience (no empathy for others) combined with destructive agenda having self-satisfying goals. Extreme narcism and supremacist attitudes could qualify. Destructive conscious behavior beyond natural animal instincts. Horrifying list could include: - Hiltlerian solutions to Judaism - Islamic extremism - Christian cruisades ... etc... Basically, anything linked to intolerant religions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Evil is a personal opinion about the actions of another and/or natural event. It has no objective existence and is completely a subjective assessment on the part of the labeler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 "Evil is as Evil does." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Evil is the point where you do something that means that you're no longer the hero of your story. At least not for this chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts