Philosophy discussion

what is evil?

Alright, I'll bite.

Allow me to broach the subject from a specific angle, both because I believe it'll be somewhat more efficient (than my usual all-or-nothing style of going nowhere, I s'pose) & because it's something I have often thought about.

Evil is intrinsic to the world & entirely necessary for it to be worth its weight in donkey †skor, as your philosophic friends the Ancient Greeks might've said. An instance of what I mean is acquired from the good old animal kingdom, where the rules are simpler to follow. Consider this: a hungry (and let us say morally virtuous or even heroic, just for texture), hungry crocodile lurks in the water of a river and waits to gobble up a zebra. He succeeds in doing so, and in the process the zebra struggles against him in throes of agony for many minutes, his face quite literally ripped off & sagging apart from
his body like a paring of a mozzarella stick. There's a video of this on youtube; it's what I'm thinking of while I write this.

At any rate, we take for granted that the croc (who I remind you is a hero of his croc-people) is simply doing what comes naturally. The crocodile of course does no evil, for he knows not what it is. And yet my contention is that the evil is still there, whether the croc did it or not. We know that it's the zebra's body that feeds the croc, not his suffering, which is just something of an "added bonus" for the demons that run this miserable world.

In our own human lives, evil is allowing oneself to be part of that same mechanism. We are different from the zebra (and the croc) really in only one way, but that one way means everything. The croc did the evil more or less by accident; with us, there are seldom accidents. On the contrary, we excel at evil; we're experts in it, because unlike the croc we do know what it is.

†That is, the Greek σκῶρ 'dung'.

The question was "what is evil?"

My answer to your banal question is in the last paragraph, which it seems you didn’t read.

Heh heh. Even the most thoughtful 'conversation-between-strangers' online, ever seems to escape this kind of shortness and testiness. We all need to learn how to be more forgiving. Check back in 500 years for that.

Anyway, I myself enjoyed the zoological analogy.

When I mull over "evil" there's a few incidents which I can't banish from my mind. Sickos like John Wayne Gacy. Or a few things that happened in WWII.

Its always entirely human, and theoretically reversible. But any redress always come too late for victims. Maybe 1,000 years from now, we'll find some way to stop sadistic cruelty before it happens.

Of course too, there's a lot of sheer backwoods-human-stupidity which resembles evil ...but I sure wouldn't wanna gamble on the difference.

Naturally, I agree with what Feliks has said, which is to say that I'd have to be entirely evil myself to feel any other way about, e.g., Gacy.

But the difficulty is judging to what extent a person is "evil", as opposed to just "stupid" or "sick".

But lest we further frustrate the great metaphysician's original question, let us return to it. He has asked "what is evil", and my bungling attempt to answer, in summation, is this:

Evil, while not dependent entirely for its existence on mankind, is most "at home" in him. Evil is the result of humans behaving as if they were animals (and I hope we can forgo any pedantry here because I think any reasonable person will know what I mean). That is, it is (or rather "would be") evil for a man to kill a living creature simply for his own amusement, and this is because he both cognizes the victim's needless suffering & because he considers its life to be intrinsically worthy.

Is there anyone to improve on this rudimentary definition?

The dictionary does a pretty good job at improving on your definition. Evil derives from many languages, including Old English and Sanskrit, and it is primarily defined as a) morally bad or wrong; wicked; depraved, and b) resulting from or based on conduct regarded as immoral (Webster's New World). I might add that evil is the absence of or rejection of love. By the way, I fundamentally disagree with the premise that humans are unique wrt this subject. Other animals are perfectly capable of and sometimes exhibit evil. It is not outside the realm of possibility that plants do as well.

Astonishing.

Goodreads is essentially dormant. This site needs to be defended by artists, thinkers, and other creatives. It has too much potential to be taken over by book marketers.

Miles wrote: "Goodreads is essentially dormant. This site needs to be defended by artists, thinkers, and other creatives. It has too much potential to be taken over by book marketers."

Goodreads is owned by Amazon.

I work with Amazon and have no issue with them. But creatives should dominate the narrative on this site.

Miles, I disagree that animals and plants are capable of evil.

As Max said, "We are different from the zebra (and the croc) really in only one way, but that one way means everything. The croc did the evil more or less by accident; with us, there are seldom accidents. On the contrary, we excel at evil; we're experts in it, because unlike the croc we do know what it is."

Only man can commit evil acts because only man has a soul and a conscience, the knowledge of good and evil, and the awareness of the consequences of his actions.

Scout,
Thank you for your comments. What is our basis for saying "only man has a soul and a conscience?" I once discussed this topic with my father (who agrees with your stance). I made the point that animals communicate with one another. His response was that, although they do communicate, they are unable to take any sort of meta-step to consider the implications of their languages. Additionally, in his words, they are incapable of understanding humans' meta-linguistic steps. If the latter sentence is true, it follows that we are incapable of understanding other species' meta-linguistic steps. And there is no equivalence between our lack of understanding and their lack of doing.

Can we seriously not cite a single example of an animal killing another creature out of aggression (rather than defense) without the intention to eat it? That defines evil. Dogs are fully capable of evil. Why would we assume hemlock trees lack that capability?

Also, how is it that dogs can exhibit shame if not for having a conscience?

Miles,

You request an example of an animal killing another creature without the intention of killing it, which I am interpreting as where your leading with their capability of evil? And I do agree, and while Maybe not as well versed and thoroughly educated as some commenter here, I do feel valuable to poke my 5 cents in on what you've been trying to explain!

So examples I conjur up are the fox - yes the fox kills for its existence and requirement for nourishment - but that does not explain why the fox, who will have his fill and satiate himself and his family, proceeds to then cull en mass further chickens, returning night after night until they're all gone, and lay in wait for the clever ones who escape him, before finally meeting their demise. The fox does not continue to eat these additional kills, just rips their heads off and trundle off, never to return to devour its culls at any other point.

Now is that evil? As you say we don't and can't fully comprehend or understand another species communications or behaviours truly fully, but in our eyes what justification is there for this killing - it could be likened to a human who kills for sport - not the human who hunts to actually use and consume his kill.

Dolphins similarly, I do believe I've read in the past that they indeed present as highly intelligent and playful fun things, but they are more deeply sinister than this and torment other animals for fun.

Is that evil?

I guess for me the definition of evil is what one makes of it.

One may perceive my animal examples as a"course of nature", but could we then not apply that to humans, are we not providing an excuse for a bejaviour because we do not fully understand it?

One may perceive the examples as indeed the animals are evil and therefor anything that goes against our morals amd principles as evil.

But thats where I feel evil is an interpersonal meaning, based on our own standards, ethics and feelings and how we perceive and view things, so there isn't a definition of what is evil, because if comparing it across the human species to animal and plant, why would we then discredit our belief purely because its an animal and accept that, thats what they do?

For me, I think everyone's definition of evil will agree similarly that it is something unpleasant that occurs to another, but debating whether it is deliberate/intentional or not leads to different speculations everywhere based on our thoughts and beliefs, so I dont truly think evil can ever be defined as a whole - we can define and answer what evil is to us - but completely disagree what evil is to someone else.

Miles, a dog may exhibit something like shame, but that's in response to their human's disapproval. My dog killed a baby bird and left it lying in the yard last summer. When I went outside and found it, she wasn't sitting there sorry that she'd killed it. It was just something she did because of her prey instinct. The bird tried to get away, and she chased it to death. Now, if I had reprimanded her and shown my displeasure, she probably would have looked remorseful - but only because she had displeased me, not because she had a conscience and regretted killing the bird. I don't see how her killing the bird defines evil.

As I said, I believe only humans are capable of being evil. As far as I know, we're the only species that is aware that our lives are finite; therefore, the only species that understands the value of life and what it means to take a life.

Crazy cow wrote: "Miles,

You request an example of an animal killing another creature without the intention of killing it, which I am interpreting as where your leading with their capability of evil? And I do agre..."

Crazy Cow: Great post--I got a lot out of this. I particularly enjoyed your comments on dolphins.

No response to my post?

@Scout, I started thread in the hope of examining the concept of evil. It got snarky real quick, however, so I left. I contend that "evil" exists only in the human imagination. Or at least, I've never encountered a valid reason to think otherwise. "Evil," I believe, is our way of metaphysicalizing our disapproval of harmful acts, like murder or torture.

Skallagrimsen wrote: "@Scout, I started thread in the hope of examining the concept of evil. It got snarky real quick, however, so I left. I contend that "evil" exists only in the human imagination. Or at least, I've ne..."

That's easy to say when we only have other humans to compare ourselves with at our level of moral thinking.

Can a self-aware AI be evil? How about an alien? Both could conceivably exist and function at our level.

Perhaps Kant got it correct with the Categorical Imperative?

"Evil" is a value judgment. I see no reason to suppose that values exist outside of subjective evaluators. "Evil" what we call acts that we disapprove of strongly enough. Certainly a self-aware AI or an alien might conceivably perform acts that humans would call evil.

Skallagrimsen wrote: ""Evil" is a value judgment. I see no reason to suppose that values exist outside of subjective evaluators. "Evil" what we call acts that we disapprove of strongly enough. Certainly a self-aware AI ..."

And vice versa. Of course, that means the only true measure of an action's morality is the opinion of the survivors. Therefore, if nobody left feels bad about it, then it is entirely permissible for us to genocide any and all other intelligent specie. Logically, this would also apply to them with regard to exterminating us.

Do you still want to ignore Universality?

I have moral preferences, like most people. My moral preferences are probably not very different from yours. For example, I disapprove of genocide. I am not in favor of inflicting it or of suffering it myself. I just don't see any reason to suppose that my moral preferences, or anyone else's, reflect some objectively true standard. That is, that they intrinsically exist, beyond or outside of me or others who share them. They are idols of the mind. Maybe the cause of realizing my moral preferences would be better served by pretending to believe they were intrinsically real, and promoting this belief. But that isn't the question I'm addressing here.

Is evil a fundamental part of the Universe?
No.

Is the concept of evil a necessity for interaction between intelligent beings?
Yes.

Hence, the Categorical Imperative.

I'm not sure the concept of evil is necessary for interaction between intelligent beings. For all I know, there may exist beings as intelligent as humans, or more, to whom such a concept would never occur.

Still, I grant that morality--right and wrong, or "good and evil"--is probably an inexorable part of the human experience. The idea emanates from the structure of our minds. It is an organic byproduct of our social nature. I believe it derives from (1) our natural empathy for each other and other feeling beings, and (2) the practical need to regulate behavior in the inevtitable event of conflicting desires between members of the group.

I'm not an expert on Kant, but scholarly opinion seems to be divided about whether he was a moral realist. Did he think his categorical imperative illuminated a transcendent moral principle? Or did he merely propose it as a means to validate the ethical structure that society requires to practically function? I don't know.

Well, we can only practically discuss good vs. evil as humans on this planet. And we each have a perspective based on our value of human life. It seems pretty basic to me. Each of us wants to live; therefore, whoever would take our life is anathema to us. And we can extend this to encompass all humans: We all want to live. So taking a human life, our most precious gift, is evil.

I believe most people who believe evil is an intrinsic reality, rather than a human idea, would argue that taking a human life is not evil in all circumstances. For example, in the event of defending an innocent from death or harm. Nor does everyone wish to live. Suicide happens.

Evil: Profoundly immoral or wicked.

Wicked: Evil or morally wrong.
Immoral: Not conforming to the accepted standards of morality.

As defined by Oxford Languages.

I can’t deny there are events, characteristics and acts that fit the textbook definition of evil, but does evil exist as an entity? I think not.

I do not believe there is an evil of supernatural scale embedded within the bad and wrong doing in our world. An innocent man is shot. The Holocaust. Are these acts enforced by some magical possessive spirit? I don’t think so. A man is skinned alive by the Cartel. Is this evil? I think it’s merely a reminder that we’re not all that far from our Ape ancestors. Any sense of moral justice we hold is the result of our evolution. I believe that’s what separates us from the rest of earth's inhabitants. Our “goodness” exemplifies the space we’ve created from animals that act on uncomplex emotions, all the way to sentientism. I think Evil is simply a term we’ve created to slap a label on uncommendable acts, beliefs or behavior. The seven deadly sins are a good example. “Don’t be this way or else you're evil”, this can be used for control or manipulation. While at other times can serve as an effective moral guide if applied with the right lens of view.

Just my take on the matter and I’m open to considering anyone else's interpretation.