Is Evil Relative?

[Sunstone]

Is evil relative?

It is impossible to define evil in such a way that it is not ultimately subjective because everything is ultimately subjective. But whether or not evil can be defined in such a way that it refers to something which is not relative but is instead absolute is yet another matter.

Certainly, if one defines evil as 'bad', then it is relative. But defining evil as bad is only one possible definition of the term.

So, is there some definition of evil such that the word does not refer to something that is relative? If so, what is that definition?



Please Note, as used in this OP, the term subjective refers to an epistemology, while the term relative refers to a contextual difference in truth, value, or fact. For instance, Johnny can see reality only from a subjective point of view. But what he sees might or might not be relative. If he sees that 2 + 2 = 4, he is seeing a non-relative truth (albeit from a subjective point of view). However the truth of the statement, "You just gave me a headache", that Johnny says every time his friend Sunstone opens his mouth is not only subjective, but also relative. Sunstone himself does not experience Johnny's headache.




_____________________________

 

[SalixIncendium]

I cannot think of a single man-made concept, such as evil, that is not ultimately subjective, thereby rendering whatever concept relative. There can be a societal definition that can appear to be axiomatic, but ultimately, how evil is delineated will ultimately vary from group to group or individual to individual.

I don't see how evil cannot be relative.

That's how I see it. But of course, I'm probably wrong, because I can be just plain evil.

 

[Sunstone]

I cannot think of a single man-made concept, such as evil, that is not ultimately subjective, thereby rendering whatever concept relative.

How are you defining "subjective"? If and when subjective is defined strictly in terms of a point of view (as is often done in formal philosophy), it does not logically follow that anything subjective is also relative. For instance, 2+3=5 would be subjective in such a case, but not relative. That is to say, you can -- if you wish -- define subjective in such a way that it means the same thing as relative, but please be aware that is not how the terms are being used in the OP.

There can be a societal definition that can appear to be axiomatic, but ultimately, how evil is delineated will ultimately vary from group to group or individual to individual.

Variation does not require us to conclude that something is relative. There is considerable variation in the responses toddlers give to the question "What is seven times seven". That does not mean the answer to the question is relative.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can it be relatively evil

 

[crossfire]

I see evil without a surrounding context as nebulous and pretty much meaningless, therefore, evil is both situational and relativistic.

I have no qualms calling something evil within its proper context, however.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How are you defining "subjective"?

I'm defining subjective as of or relating to a characterization that is subject to feelings, emotions, or sense-experience. Essentially, an individualized point of view, as you allude to below...

If and when subjective is defined strictly in terms of a point of view (as is often done in formal philosophy), it does not logically follow that anything subjective is also relative. For instance, 2+3=5 would be subjective in such a case, but not relative. That is to say, you can -- if you wish -- define subjective in such a way that it means the same thing as relative, but please be aware that is not how the terms are being used in the OP.

I'm struggling to see how in using the integers 2, 3, and 5, how 2+3=5 can be anything other than objective. 2+3 is always 5, no matter what feelings or emotions come into play.

Variation does not require us to conclude that something is relative. There is considerable variation in the responses toddlers give to the question "What is seven times seven". That does not mean the answer to the question is relative.

I suppose I was using the term relative as relating from one subjective experience to the next.

 

[BSM1]

Is evil relative?

It is impossible to define evil in such a way that it is not ultimately subjective because everything is ultimately subjective. But whether or not evil can be defined in such a way that it refers to something which is not relative but is instead absolute is yet another matter.

Certainly, if one defines evil as 'bad', then it is relative. But defining evil as bad is only one possible definition of the term.

So, is there some definition of evil such that the word does not refer to something that is relative? If so, what is that definition?



Please Note, as used in this OP, the term subjective refers to an epistemology, while the term relative refers to a contextual difference in truth, value, or fact. For instance, Johnny can see reality only from a subjective point of view. But what he sees might or might not be relative. If he sees that 2 + 2 = 4, he is seeing a non-relative truth (albeit from a subjective point of view). However the statement, "You just gave me a headache", that Johnny says every time his friend Sunstone opens his mouth is not only subjective, but also relative. Sunstone himself does not experience Johnny's headache.




_____________________________

I agree with you on this one, but my head's starting to hurt...just kidding. If you'll allow a personal insight: When I looked closely at the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, I reread the definition of the 'Tree of Knowledge' until I realized the text was saying "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". When you think about it, the "...Knowledge of Good and Evil.." is that there is no difference between the two until you decide which is good and which is evil. This means that it is left up to us to decide what is the difference. This was the true loss of innocence, not the taboo act of simply acquiring this knowledge.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm struggling to see how in using the integers 2, 3, and 5, how 2+3=5 can be anything other than objective. 2+3 is always 5, no matter what feelings or emotions come into play.

Ask yourself whether you are omniscient or instead approach reality from a personal (subjective) point of view. Then ask yourself what the term "objective" can possibly mean given your answer to the first question.

 

[Laika]

Is evil relative?

It is impossible to define evil in such a way that it is not ultimately subjective because everything is ultimately subjective. But whether or not evil can be defined in such a way that it refers to something which is not relative but is instead absolute is yet another matter.

Certainly, if one defines evil as 'bad', then it is relative. But defining evil as bad is only one possible definition of the term.

So, is there some definition of evil such that the word does not refer to something that is relative? If so, what is that definition?



Please Note, as used in this OP, the term subjective refers to an epistemology, while the term relative refers to a contextual difference in truth, value, or fact. For instance, Johnny can see reality only from a subjective point of view. But what he sees might or might not be relative. If he sees that 2 + 2 = 4, he is seeing a non-relative truth (albeit from a subjective point of view). However the statement, "You just gave me a headache", that Johnny says every time his friend Sunstone opens his mouth is not only subjective, but also relative. Sunstone himself does not experience Johnny's headache.




_____________________________

Outside of the private diaries of angst ridden teens who are exploring the world and its capacity for darkness, believing "evil is relative" is a nice way of saying "exploiting and oppressing people is lovely because I benifited from it". Generally success, power and winning determines what is right in that subjectivist context. The only evil becomes weakness and the failure to achieve your goals.

I don't know how you demonstrate that evil is objectively true but the implications of a purely subjective conception of evil are dangerous to any kind of free society. Any form of abuse, servtitude and tyranny can be justified if it is "useful" for someone.

In small doses, that's kind of fun to be a rule breaker. But there is an illusive "something" that means we don't all rob banks and murder people as a hobby. I'm not sure what it is yet.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ask yourself whether you are omniscient or instead approach reality from a personal (subjective) point of view. Then ask yourself what the term "objective" can possibly mean given your answer to the first question.

Whether or not mathematics is a man-made concept or a man-made tool to understand the nature of the universe (invention vs discovery) is a hard problem; one with no definitive answer.

How Math Works

However, yes, it can be argued that the application of the tool (integers and mathematical symbols) 2+3=5 may be subjective, but within the nature of reality, xx added to xxx is always xxxxx, regardless of my personal point of view.

 

[PureX]

Is evil relative?

No. Evil is what it is. It is the human choice to act contrary to the gift of being (existence), in favor of a self-centered desire. But our assessment of when and within whom this is occurring is very subjective, as we humans do not possess the capabilities required to assess the occurrence of evil in others, and sometimes even within ourselves, objectively.

 

[Tambourine]

If evil isn't relative, then on whose authority do we decide whether an act is evil or not?

 

[Sunstone]

If evil isn't relative, then on whose authority do we decide whether an act is evil or not?

On whose authority do you decide whether a glass holds water?

 

[PureX]

I agree with you on this one, but my head's starting to hurt...just kidding. If you'll allow a personal insight: When I looked closely at the Biblical story of Adam and Eve, I reread the definition of the 'Tree of Knowledge' until I realized the text was saying "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". When you think about it, the "...Knowledge of Good and Evil.." is that there is no difference between the two until you decide which is good and which is evil. This means that it is left up to us to decide what is the difference. This was the true loss of innocence, not the taboo act of simply acquiring this knowledge.

Adam and Eve could not steal what God had forbidden them. They did not gain the knowledge of good and evil. That's not what the story implies. What it implies is that they took the idea into themselves that they, being God's equals (according to the serpent), could and would possess the knowledge of good and evil by defying God's mandate, when in truth they could and did not. The serpent was a deceiver. And as a result of their taking on this arrogant and untrue presumption, they began to stand in judgment of all they encountered (hence the fig leaves), wrongly thinking that everything that exists (all Creation) should serve them (as they believed they were God's equals). The result was that they had doomed themselves (and all mankind) to a life of endlessly trying to 'correct Creation", to make it serve us. This presumption that humanity is God's equal is humanity's "original sin", from which all other sins spring.

 

[pearl]

Is evil relative?

Good and evil are real only 'in relation' to but not relative. Relational - good and evil are not absolutes but are objective spin-offs of life, relative - good and evil are merely matters of taste or personal preference with no objective reality.

 

[Tambourine]

On whose authority do you decide whether a glass holds water?

You are asking for confirmation on an empirical statement of fact that can be proven right or wrong by observation.

How can you empirically prove a moral statement right or wrong?
What are the "facts" that could be proven right or wrong in a moral statement such as "you should not lie"?
How do we even observe morality to begin with?

 

[Sunstone]

You are asking for confirmation on an empirical statement of fact that can be proven right or wrong by observation.

How can you empirically prove a moral statement right or wrong?
What are the "facts" that could be proven right or wrong in a moral statement such as "you should not lie"?

Think beyond Hume.

 

[Tambourine]

Good and evil are real only 'in relation' to but not relative. Relational - good and evil are not absolutes but are objective spin-offs of life, relative - good and evil are merely matters of taste or personal preference with no objective reality.

That is not how the term "relative" is being used in ethical/philosophical discourse, typically.
Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Tambourine]

Think beyond Hume.

Could you expand on that, please?

 

[Koldo]

Is evil relative?

It is impossible to define evil in such a way that it is not ultimately subjective because everything is ultimately subjective. But whether or not evil can be defined in such a way that it refers to something which is not relative but is instead absolute is yet another matter.

Certainly, if one defines evil as 'bad', then it is relative. But defining evil as bad is only one possible definition of the term.

So, is there some definition of evil such that the word does not refer to something that is relative? If so, what is that definition?



Please Note, as used in this OP, the term subjective refers to an epistemology, while the term relative refers to a contextual difference in truth, value, or fact. For instance, Johnny can see reality only from a subjective point of view. But what he sees might or might not be relative. If he sees that 2 + 2 = 4, he is seeing a non-relative truth (albeit from a subjective point of view). However the truth of the statement, "You just gave me a headache", that Johnny says every time his friend Sunstone opens his mouth is not only subjective, but also relative. Sunstone himself does not experience Johnny's headache.




_____________________________

To an extent, yes. There is a variety of things that people regard as evil, but I would say there is an essence to the term that is objective: to intentfully, and without justification, cause suffering upon someone else.