Bluesman Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Hey folks, Now that we don't believe in a devil or demons anymore, what are some of your views on the subject of Evil. Is it revelent? Does it even exist at all or is it just revelent to different people in different ways. For example, A Wiccan chick that I was seeing for a while defined "evil" as unnecessary harm to any living creature. huh...makes sense. Anyway, What are some of your views on the subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Man - you're opening a big can of worms there, my friend. First, you need a solid definition of evil. That's almost impossible right there, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero of Hyrule Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I'm not an Ex-C but here's my view anyway. I agree with the wiccan, note that mental harm is just as harmfull as physical harm. But this is just a base definition. Things can change acording to the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesman Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 Man - you're opening a big can of worms there, my friend. First, you need a solid definition of evil. That's almost impossible right there, IMO. 100027[/snapback] Thats exactly what I'm trying to do- get a defination or different definations from our diverse group of posters here. Because I myself am not sure anymore. I think we'd all argee that molesting a child is wrong, but who has the right to call it evil? (if there is evil, that is definatly it). So I just hear what the others here have to say about it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. From the American Heritage Dictionary online..this one seems to sum it up for me. Someone or something that needlessly causes pain, whether physical or emotional is evil. Of course, there are caveats to that. Locking up said molester in prison will cause suffering for him/her, however I wouldn't call that "needless". Many xtians have needlessly caused suffering both physically and emotionally. Many of them are evil. I suppose that when we are so selfcentered that no one else matters..we don't care if we walk on them to get where we want to be..that would be evil. There seems to be an implicit assumption that not believing in the god of the bible, along with his cohort, satan, that one CANNOT have morals? I think that just because one does not believe in an outside source for evil does not mean that evil does not exist. In fact, it makes it that much more personal and puts the responsibility for such evil acts just where they belong..on the person inflicting such. No out for "the devil made me do it." or even better "They must be possessed by a demon, therefore its not their fault." Seems to me this crutch that many use actually makes them weaker, rather than stronger. Someone else to blame their failures on. To me, this is less noble than simply saying "I made a mistake." as opposed to "My flesh is weak and I let the devil manipulate me into doing a dirty deed." (and done dirt cheap! sorry..couldn't resist ) My son often falls into this habit. He sets out to do a "thing." It doesn't work out, we've told him before hand this is a bad idea, but he won't hear that. When it doesn't work out, its because so and so sabotaged it, or "we" jinxed him..its always someone else's fault. More in another post.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I don't think people are born inherantly evil or good. More likely, neutral, clean slate. Circumstances in life and perhaps personality oddities that are also magnified by said experiences mold each person. Much like the poem they used to give when you had a baby "Children learn what they live". If one always has to struggle for the basic needs..they learn to take what they need. Not because of the struggle. Not everyone born poor turns into an evil thief. But, if there is indifferance to their struggle..most often they will then assume that its "dog eat dog" and become the epitomy of that evil that we all shun. Beat a dog often enough..and he'll bite you! So, to sum up..(not sure why I'm so philosophical this morning.. ) WE create the evil around us. We as in "collective we" not necessarily "we" who are "here". One last thought.. The bible's definition, reasoning, call it what you will, for "satan, the devil, evil, sin" is all an attempt to justify man's cruelty to other man ..or woman. If we can determine that someone different is therefore evil, we can justify harming/killing/enslaving that which is different, because they must be "of the devil", right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Thats exactly what I'm trying to do- get a defination or different definations from our diverse group of posters here. Because I myself am not sure anymore. I think we'd all argee that molesting a child is wrong, but who has the right to call it evil? (if there is evil, that is definatly it). So I just hear what the others here have to say about it. Thanks 100033[/snapback] The member Joseph had some really excellent observations about the function of morality on this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=3632&st=60 Read through his replies, which got fairly heated BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Here's some interesting info on Lawrence Kohlberg from Wikipedia: his stages of moral reasoning. The stages of Kohlberg's model refer to reasoning, not to actions or to people themselves. Kohlberg insists that the form of moral arguments is independent of the content of the arguments. According to Kohlberg, moral reasoning is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for moral action. Additionally, Piaget's stages of cognitive development are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the development of moral reasoning. It is important to remember that he posits justice as the a priori summum bonum (justice is assumed to be equal with moral virtue). According to Kohlberg, a person who progresses to a higher stage of moral reasoning cannot skip stages. For example, a person cannot jump from being concerned mostly with peer opinions (stage three) to being a proponent of social contracts (stage five). However, when persons encounter a moral dilemma and find their current level of moral reasoning unsatisfactory, they will look to the next level. Discovery of the limitations of the current stage of thinking promotes moral development. Interesting stuff. Are violations of Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning a good definition of evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Personally, I don't believe "evil" or "good" exist in reality. Both are social constructs pertaining to ideas or activities deemed harmful or beneficial to a given society. Example - in ancient South America, people believed human sacrifice was a good thing. It appeased the gods and assure the continuation of their society. Indeed, in some circumstances, it was considered and honor to be the sacrifice. On the other hand, for us, the idea of human sacrifice for religious reason is apalling and even "evil", to some degree. In my experience, any action may be considered good or evil depending on the culture it is viewed from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 In my experience, any action may be considered good or evil depending on the culture it is viewed from. 100170[/snapback] But that's just moral relativism - it's saying there is no right/wrong, ultimately. Most cultures condemn the same transgressions like lying, murder, stealing, etc. I think that argues for some form of 'natural morality'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGiant Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 But that's just moral relativism - it's saying there is no right/wrong, ultimately. Most cultures condemn the same transgressions like lying, murder, stealing, etc. I think that argues for some form of 'natural morality'. It sounds more like a convenience to me. It is hard to keep a group functioning for long if they are all planning to screw eachother over in the end one way or another. Cultures tend to work better if they have prohibitions against violence, murder, setaling, fraud, etc, so would it be that big of a surprise that most of the ones that we see today tend to agree on that sort of thing? Hardly a natural morality in the traditional sense, it is, like most other things, merely a matter of convenience. Also have you noticed that the prohibitons against lying, stealing and murder tend to only exist with the caveats of "without a good reason", and "unless it is someone different"? Most cultures, it seems have a set of circumstances when even the most vile human behavior is not only acceptable, but required (eg. war). Also moral relativism does not assert that there is no right or wrong, but that right and wrong change in ways dependent upon their context. I am also not sure if it indeed asserts that there is no universal right or wrong, one would think that if there was sometihng right or wrong for all contexts (which I do not believe relativistic systems prohibit) then it would be a universal. Many other rights and wrongs are largely context dependent (such as not going to church on sunday). As for me, I don't know if there is a universal evil or not. I agree that a better definition of what is evil is needed, and for that matter what is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 But that's just moral relativism - it's saying there is no right/wrong, ultimately. Most cultures condemn the same transgressions like lying, murder, stealing, etc. I think that argues for some form of 'natural morality'. 100172[/snapback] What's wrong with moral relativism? Who/ sets the standard for "natural morality?" Read Joseph's response to this very issue. I posted it above (you have to read through the last two pages of the thread to get the whole argument). He said it far better than I could, but I do agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Yeah, evil is so ambiguous, that it can be twisted to be defined by any institution to be anything that is a potential threat to such institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 I agree with the wiccan, note that mental harm is just as harmfull as physical harm. Ditto, but it depends on the end. For instance, if someone was going to blow up everyone on the planet with the ultimate nuke, and only you could stop him and you had to shoot him, I wouldn't consider shooting him an evil act. Some people would, though. I think for something to be evil, there also has to be selfishness involved. For example, most people would agree that stealing is wrong, right? Well, there's a big difference between stealing a bunch of money for yourself, or a loaf of bread to feed your family if there was a natural disaster and stealing was the only way you could get food. IMHO, it's all relative to the situation. Nothing is entirely black or white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 But that's just moral relativism - it's saying there is no right/wrong, ultimately. Most cultures condemn the same transgressions like lying, murder, stealing, etc. I think that argues for some form of 'natural morality'. Yes, precisely. It's all relative since there is no objective reality to the concepts of "good" and "evil". If there is a "natural moraity" I think it's something like "what's good for the for the group is 'good' and what isn't, is 'evil'". Which falls in with the evolutionary need for our species to operate as a social unit. Societies have permitted or even encouraged stealing, killing, raping, etc in certain circumstances and against certain peoples. Is killing evil? We kill convicts. Our society has decided (for the most part) that killing these people isn't evil, indeed, many consider it a social good. I've used this exercise several times in the past and have yet to get an answer that contradicts it: Name one activity that has been considered "evil" or "taboo" in every society throughout history (obviously, we can't comment on cultures for which we have no record). I'm willing to bet a shiny new quarter nobody can name one... IMOHO, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Name one activity that has been considered "evil" or "taboo" in every society throughout history (obviously, we can't comment on cultures for which we have no record). I'm willing to bet a shiny new quarter nobody can name one... *Raises hand* Mass murder of babies. All of them, not just a particular race or religion. And already born. Try and debunk that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Mass murder of babies. All of them, not just a particular race or religion. And already born. LOL... China during the fuedal period. Unwanted infants (esp girls) were left in orchards to die of exposure en masse. Though I don't have the numbers here, I'm sure thousands of younglings went to their deaths as a result of this pratice. So no, not all of them, but certianly the idea of allowing hundreds, even thousands of infants to die was considered a social good at one point. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixoverme Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 *Raises hand* Mass murder of babies. All of them, not just a particular race or religion. And already born. Try and debunk that one. 100351[/snapback] god told the jews to kill babies...lots of them...several different times...god even tried his hand with it at times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 China during the fuedal period. Unwanted infants (esp girls) were left in orchards to die of exposure en masse. Though I don't have the numbers here, I'm sure thousands of younglings went to their deaths as a result of this pratice. So no, not all of them, but certianly the idea of allowing hundreds, even thousands of infants to die was considered a social good at one point. But not ALL of them were killed, especially not boys. Gotta have a few left to carry on the culture, you know. god told the jews to kill babies...lots of them...several different times...god even tried his hand with it at times... Not the Jews' babies, though, I'm sure. Just "infidels." See, the reason I think it's taboo is this...killing every single baby in your society is considered taboo not just because it would be horrific, but because the human race wouldn't survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesman Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 I want to thank you all for the great answers and links. I started this thread as a sort of Philosophy 101 for myself (selfish bastard, ain't I). I've been brainwashed with God=good / Devil=Bad my entire life, I wanted to get some other points of view. You have answered my question and given me some things to think about. Thanks again. BTW Don't stop, please!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 See, the reason I think it's taboo is this...killing every single baby in your society is considered taboo not just because it would be horrific, but because the human race wouldn't survive. That is a good point. I would be hard pressed to think of a society that could condone killing ALL the youth of a generation. Of course, if any had, we probably wouldn't have heard of them... I think that this illustrates part of what I'm trying to convey as well. Any aspect of morality that could be considered truly universal to all humans would be those aspects we already share with every other life form on the planet. I can't imagine any species that kills ALL of their young. But at the same time, you have to admit that beyond these, what might be considered insticts rather than morality, there is no objective reality to "good" or "evil". No doubt though, you are the closest so far. How about a nice shiny dime as a comprimise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 How about a nice shiny dime as a comprimise? Hey, inflation's gotten high. How about one of those nice gold dollar coins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Hey, inflation's gotten high. How about one of those nice gold dollar coins? I'm not even sure I could have afforded the quarter, let alone a dollar! But tell you what I'll do. I hearby present Amethyst the first official Skankboy's Creative Thinking Award for Excellence in the Field of Thinking Creatively! (A small buffet and reception will be held in the bingo hall later tonight...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 But tell you what I'll do. I hearby present Amethyst the first official Skankboy's Creative Thinking Award for Excellence in the Field of Thinking Creatively! Sounds fine to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 *Raises hand* Mass murder of babies. All of them, not just a particular race or religion. And already born. Try and debunk that one. 100351[/snapback] Didn't the Jim Jones bunch kill all their babies? Along with pretty much everybody else? I reckon THEY thought it was the moral thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts