-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Evil?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That's a good answer Jensa; out of interest I did look up evil, and came up with the following
1. evil, immorality, wickedness, iniquity -- (morally objectionable behavior)
2. evil -- (that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare)
3. evil, evilness -- (the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")
I don't really see #3 being 'evil' and I think it still too strong a term for # 1; I think your answer still stands as the best definition yet.
1. evil, immorality, wickedness, iniquity -- (morally objectionable behavior)
2. evil -- (that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare)
3. evil, evilness -- (the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world")
I don't really see #3 being 'evil' and I think it still too strong a term for # 1; I think your answer still stands as the best definition yet.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
I see that as a rather "hollow" definition..... to affirm life is good, I believe.... but a person who affirms life can still be very evil and do evil acts.... murderers and theives need other life around to commit their crimes... seems a little weak as a definition, I think.Sunstone said:
What I said was my definition of the only thing that is truly evil. Almost everything else with me is a shade of grey.
A person who murders harms life, and so by that definition would be doing evil. Likewise a theif could be seen as harming life (albeit to a lesser extent than a murderer) and so, by the same definition, could be seen as doing evil. I'm not sure what you mean by "seems a little weak as a defintion"?SOGFPP said:
iaminterface
Member
"Evil" is going against your set morals and values. Its mainly a term used to show the opposite of what you consider good. Like everything else, its all a matter of veiwpoints.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
I don't believe that a person defending his/her life who kills in self-defense is evil.... yes, they are preserving thier own life, but it voids the moral principle of the definition.Sunstone said:
A theif who steals food from a rich man to feed his starving family.... evil?
What I mean is... (like in the example above) there are too many "outs"... at least for me to qualify this as a usefull definition.
Are they "outs" or just nuances? The theif who steals food from the rich man to feed his starving family is affirming life, isn't he? The man who kills in self defense is also affirming life (his own, or that of whosoever he is defending). These don't seem to me to be "outs" so much as nuances. Would you agree?Scott said:
Scott1
Well-Known Member
No.Sunstone said:
The question you proposed was:
- Good as "the affirmation of life"
- Evil as "the denial of life."
- What do you think of those definitions?
Yes, that's my point.... you stated in an earlier post: Likewise a theif could be seen as harming life (albeit to a lesser extent than a murderer) and so, by the same definition, could be seen as doing evil.
That statement seems to be in direct contradiction with what you now are using to "define" good/evil.
A contradiction is not a "nuance".
I don't see the contradiction. My earlier use of "theif" was more generalized than my latter use, which addressed a more specific instance of theiving. That is, the theif I had in mind in the first place was a theif who steals without the mitigating circumstances of stealing from a rich person to feed his starving family. While the theif I had in mind in the second place was a theif who steals (as per your example) from a rich man in order to feed his starving family. You can think of these as two different theives, rather than as the same thief. As two different theives, there is no necessity of there being a contradiction.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Ok, Sunstone... I'm not trying to "convince" you that you're wrong.... you just asked what I think of the definition, and I don't care for it.
If you don't see a contradiction, fine.... but I do.
"Nuances" and "mitigating circumstances" don't work (in my opinion) when trying to establish a DEFINITION.
The definition proposed by your old professor is (again, in my opinion) valuable for a discussion of morality/ethics, but not as the basis for defining good and evil.
If you don't see a contradiction, fine.... but I do.
"Nuances" and "mitigating circumstances" don't work (in my opinion) when trying to establish a DEFINITION.
The definition proposed by your old professor is (again, in my opinion) valuable for a discussion of morality/ethics, but not as the basis for defining good and evil.
Fair enough, Scott, and I won't try to convince you that you haven't thought the definition through completely enough at this point. I do see some merit in your point though, and I think that at best the definition can be called is "provisional" because, as you point out, it's a very generalized definition. Your comments have been much appreciated by me.SOGFPP said:
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
It's hard, because although I believe there is good in every person, there are a few people in history (and today) whose very nature I cannot fathom. They raise the hair on the back of my neck, and I can feel my inner self rearing back in terror and rage. I honestly don't know if they are inherently evil or if they are simply so far from what I feel is my own nature that trying to understand them is like a Hobbit attempting to understand Ghenghis Khan.
It's odd that I have the same visceral reaction to... say, bullies, as I do someone like Hitler. I won't try to pretend that it's the only aspect that characterizes evil, but those who have power using it against someone who doesn't is (for me) a major aspect of the thing I rage against.
It's odd that I have the same visceral reaction to... say, bullies, as I do someone like Hitler. I won't try to pretend that it's the only aspect that characterizes evil, but those who have power using it against someone who doesn't is (for me) a major aspect of the thing I rage against.