Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Andrew Mylko on September 1, 2009 at 12:20am

Evil implies an absolute notion of right and wrong. People who claim to know what's right and wrong, with aboslutely certainty, are walking down a theist road.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Mylko on September 1, 2009 at 7:54pm

"Destiny" is another theist word/thought trap.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nightfall on September 2, 2009 at 12:41am

There is no absolute certainty. Doubt is the appropriate response to the big questions..no one really knows.

But, as a moral agent in the world, I am capable of making my own judgements on the morality of one action or another. I am capable of taking responsibility for my own consequences. I would say we all judge, somewhat unconsciously.

Evil implies an absolute no more than justice, reason, intelligence, or beauty. By saying an argument is more reasonable than another, you are not postulating that there is some absolute, perfect reasoning out there. By judging one person more beautiful than another, are you then postulating that there is a perfection of human beauty, objectively? Of course not.

We can make judgements about the world around us without constantly stepping into some ontological paradox.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Mylko on September 2, 2009 at 1:48am

Sounds good to me. But "evil" has special connotations. I agree wholeheartedly that moral judgments are an essential human activity, but it's best to call someone a tyrant, savage, or monster - what have you. But the moment you call them evil, well, might as well start watching the horoscopes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nightfall on September 2, 2009 at 8:44pm

I must respectfully disagree.

If Evil is the word that best describes what I wish to describe, then I see no..heh...well, evil in using the word in that fashion.

When I say the Sun is bright, evil and hot, I am not applying any mystical overtones to the Sun, I simply do not like it. It is evil, ie a 'bad', a wrongness in my estimation. I would prefer a world of perpetual night, if the world could survive as such. Dunno if it could, now that I think on it. But you get my drift.

Language is a tool, not a master. I do not speak, or write; I operate a machine called language.

But we can agree to disagree, as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg LaCava on September 2, 2009 at 9:13pm

Yes, but when you use "evil" to mean "a bad" you're really not using that particular tool in its common fashion. Especially since the sun doesn't consciously take any action and is completely amoral.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nightfall on September 2, 2009 at 10:24pm

True enough.

But I feel justified describing Hitler as evil, and in the moral sense.

It conveys what I intend, and I think it does so without implying some moral absolute. I do not think that just because I use the term evil to describe Hitler, the Sun or Ryan Seacrest means I am invoking some spiritual absolute any more than when I describe Megan Fox as beautiful. Even if I describe Megan Fox as more beautiful than Gary Busey, I am not implying that Aphrodite exists as an absolute beauty.

Just because a theist uses a term in a certain way does not mean I must adhere to their standards. In fact, I refuse.





nonbeliever: Of course.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nonbeliever on September 2, 2009 at 9:40pm

Good question. Is evil just another name for bad actions that hurt oneself and others?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FreeThinker on September 4, 2009 at 5:58am

Dictionary.com defines evil as an adjective that means "morally wrong or bad". In that context, evil is just a label. However, as a noun, it is defined as "the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin." In that context, I don't believe evil exists (nor sin for that matter).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter LeSavage on September 4, 2009 at 7:29am

NO! Evil is the same as any other opinion. It dependes on how one looks at the issue. Hitler was first praised by poop pios while he was winning the war and invading everything, but once he started loosing the war pope pios changed his tune. Vlad the Impailer felt justified in his cruelty being a tiny country constantly under threat of invasion. Had to put up a strong immage. Animal abusers and serial killers are found to have mental problems that has gone untreated.
There are THREE sides to every issue, one side is pure bad, the other side is pure good, but people forget the THIRD and most important side, the middle ground. the ability to see past the hysteria and find the common motive for the action in the first place.
In the absence of religion, evil means NOTHING. As well as RIGHTEOUSNESS, PURE, AMORAL, ect. None bares any relevance what so ever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nightfall on September 5, 2009 at 1:43am

So there are no morals without religion?

I'm afraid I don't follow you. If 'AMORAL', and, by implication, 'MORAL' is meaningless without religion, why aren't all athiests serial killers?

Because we have empathy for our fellow man. Because we know that, by respecting another's rights, we imply our own. These are the basis of morality. Religion has had, and has always had, jack to do with the whole thing.

I assume you are talking about Pope Pious. The man was, in short, a hypocrite. When Hitler was winning, then all was good, and when Hitler starts losing, then he is bad, then you know you're talking about a person with no morals whatsoever. All you do by bringing his name into this is prove my point. Religion has jack to do with morals. A person can be pure and be non-religious. A person can be righteous and not be religious. Regardless of what you may have been taught, right and wrong do exist.

Religion was never about defining evil or good, it was always about the fictions that evil is always punished and good is always rewarded.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on September 6, 2009 at 10:16pm

No. Evil cannot be quantified and never is. No reason is given for why one thing or person is more evil than another in most cases where one of them is said to be more evil than the other. Hitler isn't "three times as evil as Mussolini" or whatever; no constant of proportionality can or will ever be honestly and meaningfully drawn up comparing the evil of two evil things.

In addition to the inconsistencies within systems that use the "evil(noun)" function, the inconsistencies between systems that use the "evil" function points beyond reasonable doubt to inconsistencies within the "evil" function itself. The inconsistencies that are found from empirical observations between sufficiently different standards of evil indicate that the "evil" function is exactly as consistent as Mr. Yahweh. Looking at this with a mind open to the possibility of having been wrong, the image of evil wiggles, shimmers, and collapses out of existence, a pure a illusion.

Furthermore, going beyond killing it, burying it, the paradigm of good-and-evil is explained entirely well through evolutionary psychology as a useful social approximation meaning "Do this." and "Don't do this." respectively. Being as useful as it was to group cohesion, groups containing it were more fruitful and stable, leading to its eventual proliferation to everywhere in the developing human race. Perception of evil is a useful trait; whether it's there is questionable.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page