Does evil exist?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

More to the point, on what do you base your belief or lack thereof in “evil”?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The moral cowardice of the forum does not go unnoticed.

[136or142]

Trump exists, so 'yes.'

[Antonio the Sixth]

Evil is an absence of or deviation from good. So it "exists" in the same sense that darkness exists - it is the default state of things whenever and wherever good is not present.

[muon2]

Evil exists, but rather than defining it in terms of good, I prefer to define it as suffering, so an evil act is one that creates or enhances suffering. Then I define good in terms of evil: good is the reduction of evil, hence it is the reduction of suffering.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem with using suffering as a measure of evil is that it means that even a benevolent God cannot keep from inflicting some evil, since it is impossible that even with perfect knowledge, suffering could be eliminated.

I prefer to equate evil with self-centeredness. That indeed is the original sin in my opinion.  We're all born selfish greedy little bastards who have no comprehension of anything beyond our own immediate needs. It takes time and training to learn compassion and cooperation and the fact that life is not a zero-sum game. Under my standard of what is evil, while it takes an omniscient being to pull off perfect goodness, wherein happiness is maximized for society as a whole,at least it is an envisageable goal, albeit unattainable just like any standard of perfection.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The other problem with using suffering as a measure of evil is that it leads down some repugnant moral conclusions, such as the idea that some people can be killed against their will (dead people don't suffer) or that the innocent can be made to suffer if it makes a great number of people better off.

[afleitch]

Evil is an absence of or deviation from good. So it "exists" in the same sense that darkness exists - it is the default state of things whenever and wherever good is not present.

What is 'good'? Why ascribe moral statements to a generally amoral universe. Given that everything we describe as 'good' or 'bad' in general have caveats then you can't really say that 'evil' exists independent of the person ascribing it to an action.

The splaying open of an artery is an amoral thing happening. It is 'evil' only because it is acted upon someone by a knife in a confrontation. So the act is evil but for the fact it was in say self defence then it may not be. Who is the act 'evil' to? Who determines it? Are different determinations allowed to exist? And if so does that amoralise the act and therefore all acts?

Get the planet together to determine one act that is evil with no caveats or conditions or exemptions and you could not get agreement on one. When it comes to things that are good we may say 'to breathe' or 'to eat' but they are out of necessity rather than being 'good as opposed to evil.'

Perhaps necessary v unnecessary are better assumptions.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To sum up Afleitch:

It’s not that simple.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Perhaps necessary v unnecessary are better assumptions.

I'm more than willing to hear an argument for why you think these concepts are commensurable with good vs. evil (especially since the rest of your post was very well-put, even though I disagree with it), but my instinct is to really not think that they are. If we're starting from a position of using all these terms the way they're used in everyday language--which I think is good practice in philosophy in general, although obviously a starting position is only a starting position--"necessary evil" is a set phrase, and it's pretty easy to imagine "unnecessary goods" too. For example, is it really necessary for me to give a few cents to a panhandler if it's all the cash I have on me? I'd say that it's not--it's not necessary to make the world go 'round, it's not necessary to meet my needs, and it's not even really necessary to meet the panhandler's needs, since it's not like you can really buy anything with a few cents. But surely it's (in a vacuum, and assuming I'm giving the panhandler's motivations the benefit of the doubt) "better" to give the change to the panhandler than not to?

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting what you're arguing by bringing this dichotomy up.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Now, these are the fireworks I was paying for.

[afleitch]

Perhaps necessary v unnecessary are better assumptions.

I'm more than willing to hear an argument for why you think these concepts are commensurable with good vs. evil (especially since the rest of your post was very well-put, even though I disagree with it), but my instinct is to really not think that they are. If we're starting from a position of using all these terms the way they're used in everyday language--which I think is good practice in philosophy in general, although obviously a starting position is only a starting position--"necessary evil" is a set phrase, and it's pretty easy to imagine "unnecessary goods" too. For example, is it really necessary for me to give a few cents to a panhandler if it's all the cash I have on me? I'd say that it's not--it's not necessary to make the world go 'round, it's not necessary to meet my needs, and it's not even really necessary to meet the panhandler's needs, since it's not like you can really buy anything with a few cents. But surely it's (in a vacuum, and assuming I'm giving the panhandler's motivations the benefit of the doubt) "better" to give the change to the panhandler than not to?

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting what you're arguing by bringing this dichotomy up.

To bastardise Laozi, the only reason we have categories for anything is by contrast. If you call one thing beautiful, then by necessity something else must be ugly. If one thing is good, then something else must be evil. Good v Evil is by it's definition a 'closed' system.

The reason why I postulated a different assumption is because for me 'good' and 'evil' are wrapped up with concepts of exercising 'justice', either in an earthly or non-earthly manner (and indeed only if 'justice' is not exercised as vengeance) and often with the inference of agency. This is of course what we already do. Murder is punishable in law in principle as an 'evil', but considering it as 'evil' does not deliver justice. We have to see it as something else.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Perhaps necessary v unnecessary are better assumptions.

I'm more than willing to hear an argument for why you think these concepts are commensurable with good vs. evil (especially since the rest of your post was very well-put, even though I disagree with it), but my instinct is to really not think that they are. If we're starting from a position of using all these terms the way they're used in everyday language--which I think is good practice in philosophy in general, although obviously a starting position is only a starting position--"necessary evil" is a set phrase, and it's pretty easy to imagine "unnecessary goods" too. For example, is it really necessary for me to give a few cents to a panhandler if it's all the cash I have on me? I'd say that it's not--it's not necessary to make the world go 'round, it's not necessary to meet my needs, and it's not even really necessary to meet the panhandler's needs, since it's not like you can really buy anything with a few cents. But surely it's (in a vacuum, and assuming I'm giving the panhandler's motivations the benefit of the doubt) "better" to give the change to the panhandler than not to?

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting what you're arguing by bringing this dichotomy up.

To bastardise Laozi, the only reason we have categories for anything is by contrast. If you call one thing beautiful, then by necessity something else must be ugly. If one thing is good, then something else must be evil. Good v Evil is by it's definition a 'closed' system.

The reason why I postulated a different assumption is because for me 'good' and 'evil' are wrapped up with concepts of exercising 'justice', either in an earthly or non-earthly manner (and indeed only if 'justice' is not exercised as vengeance) and often with the inference of agency. This is of course what we already do. Murder is punishable in law in principle as an 'evil', but considering it as 'evil' does not deliver justice. We have to see it as something else.

I know you and I have sharply differed on the value of Elizabeth Anscombe's ethical thought in the past (and, I assume, still do), but this line of thinking does sort of remind me of her contention that in a modern secular ethical system with underlying consequentialist assumptions it doesn't really make sense to say that somebody "ought" to do something because "ought" (to her) implies the existence of a moral legislator. This isn't to say that you're contending the same thing that she was, only that you appear to be likewise inferring the unusability of an assumption of traditional ethical thought in a universe that doesn't assume an externally-imposed moral structure.

I'm not trying to imply anything or argue for or against what you're saying by saying this; as we used to say on this forum, it's just a jao.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Perhaps necessary v unnecessary are better assumptions.

I'm more than willing to hear an argument for why you think these concepts are commensurable with good vs. evil (especially since the rest of your post was very well-put, even though I disagree with it), but my instinct is to really not think that they are. If we're starting from a position of using all these terms the way they're used in everyday language--which I think is good practice in philosophy in general, although obviously a starting position is only a starting position--"necessary evil" is a set phrase, and it's pretty easy to imagine "unnecessary goods" too. For example, is it really necessary for me to give a few cents to a panhandler if it's all the cash I have on me? I'd say that it's not--it's not necessary to make the world go 'round, it's not necessary to meet my needs, and it's not even really necessary to meet the panhandler's needs, since it's not like you can really buy anything with a few cents. But surely it's (in a vacuum, and assuming I'm giving the panhandler's motivations the benefit of the doubt) "better" to give the change to the panhandler than not to?

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting what you're arguing by bringing this dichotomy up.

I argue that evil does exist... but

You are coming at this from a very individualist perspective.  Your decision not to give the panhandler the "few cents" or whatever small amount of cash you have left in your pocket compounds as you add more and more individuals.  At some point, it becomes normal *not* to give the panhandler your money because nobody else is giving them their own money and the idea might be that the panhandler's motivations are not what you'd like them to be.  This kind of "groupthink" is preventing the panhandler from having enough money to meet their basic needs (food, clothing, and shelter being the barest of necessities here).

I give money to panhandlers because it is very likely they cannot get enough food through charitable means.  It is also likely that they have a substance abuse problem... most commonly alcohol.  Is the money I gave them enabling their addiction?  Yes.  With no home, very limited possessions, little accountability to others, and an intense addiction to alcohol or drugs... they will get their alcohol or drugs either way.  This could result in the panhandler committing a crime to steal the substance or to steal money to get the substance.  Then they end up in the "justice" system and we're punishing them for their actions that were strongly influenced by some very unfortunate circumstances that they were not completely responsible for.  OR... perhaps they don't  and they don't get their substance and they go through withdrawls... on the street... in a busy place.  That's a recipe for nothing good... for the panhandler, for passersby, etc etc.

I cannot fix the panhandler's substance abuse issue.  That takes voluntary action and adequate treatment resources that include a stable re-entry into society once treatment has been completed and recovery programs to be accountable to long term.  There is not the political will to do this.  So I give the panhandler the money.  I imagine hungry, homeless alcoholics know how to budget.

I don't think any of these examples speak to good or evil.  Good and evil are completely intertwined and I do not think there is even one action in this world that could possibly be 100% one or the other.  So it kinda becomes subjective because we're all going to assign different amounts of good or evil to every possible intent, motive, or action based on a bevy of potential consequences or counteractions.

I believe that good and evil are intertwined... that we cannot truly quantify how good or evil an action is because there are always exceptions and unintended consequences.  At the end of the day it comes down to subjectivity, perception, cultural norms, groupthink, societal expectations, your value in the eyes of your community and society... those all impact just how good or evil your actions are.  And once you get to the point where you realize just how complicated and nuanced good and evil really are... both concepts just kinda go up in a puff of smoke and blow away in a wind of "screw it... I'll just trust my instincts."  (or God or the LAW or whatever)

[Mopsus]

Evil shouldn’t be directly tied to suffering, because suffering is often necessary, and when it leads to growth, suffering is even good. But suffering can also cause people to turn inward, become egotistical, and relieve their suffering by inflicting pain on others (who perpetuate this cycle in their own lives). When people allow this to happen, they’ve been tempted into evil.

Note that because God always uses suffering to a beneficial end, it is impossible for God to commit evil.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You are coming at this from a very individualist perspective.  Your decision not to give the panhandler the "few cents" or whatever small amount of cash you have left in your pocket compounds as you add more and more individuals.  At some point, it becomes normal *not* to give the panhandler your money because nobody else is giving them their own money and the idea might be that the panhandler's motivations are not what you'd like them to be.  This kind of "groupthink" is preventing the panhandler from having enough money to meet their basic needs (food, clothing, and shelter being the barest of necessities here).

I give money to panhandlers because it is very likely they cannot get enough food through charitable means.  It is also likely that they have a substance abuse problem... most commonly alcohol.  Is the money I gave them enabling their addiction?  Yes.  With no home, very limited possessions, little accountability to others, and an intense addiction to alcohol or drugs... they will get their alcohol or drugs either way.  This could result in the panhandler committing a crime to steal the substance or to steal money to get the substance.  Then they end up in the "justice" system and we're punishing them for their actions that were strongly influenced by some very unfortunate circumstances that they were not completely responsible for.  OR... perhaps they don't  and they don't get their substance and they go through withdrawls... on the street... in a busy place.  That's a recipe for nothing good... for the panhandler, for passersby, etc etc.

I cannot fix the panhandler's substance abuse issue.  That takes voluntary action and adequate treatment resources that include a stable re-entry into society once treatment has been completed and recovery programs to be accountable to long term.  There is not the political will to do this.  So I give the panhandler the money.  I imagine hungry, homeless alcoholics know how to budget.

This is actually exactly my thought process when I'm confronted with this situation in real life, which is why I parenthetically specified "in a vacuum"; obviously this act (like all acts) is never actually in a vacuum.

I acknowledge that this fact partially (I hope only partially) vitiates the point I was making. For context, two homeless people in my town froze to death on one of the bitterly cold days we had here at the beginning of last week, and malign actors in the local press tried to use this to gin up anti-homeless sentiment because one of the people who died was a sex offender. I've had this incident very much on my mind lately, so (along with something I was reading lately about the lesson of the widow's mite in Mark and Luke) that's why my mind went to this example.

Regardless, I'm sure we can all think of plenty of other examples of situations in which an action is good but not strictly necessary; having said that, I do anticipate that arguments could be made against most of these situations involving moral "good" rather than other uses of the word.

[afleitch]

It's worth noting that Antonio's comments dovetail with the Islamic view that evil doesn't exist as something dualistic with 'good' with evil being an absence of good. Which I think is probably the most succinct response if we have to retain 'good and evil' as concepts but non-dualistic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's worth noting that Antonio's comments dovetail with the Islamic view that evil doesn't exist as something dualistic with 'good' with evil being an absence of good. Which I think is probably the most succinct response if we have to retain 'good and evil' as concepts but non-dualistic.

That's very interesting. I really do need to study Islamic thought in some depth - I'm woefully ignorant about it. Interestingly, Nathan was telling me yesterday that it was also the view put forward by St. Augustine, so it has also had a significant impact on Christian thought.

Anyway, a lot of the points of contention that you make are premised on the idea of good as an attribute to specific actions. Yes, we're all in agreement that not mainly actions are "purely good" or "purely evil", and that all sorts of contextual factors have to be taken into consideration when assessing the moral value of a specific action. But that's precisely why the premise is flawed. Moral analysis cannot, and should not, start from actions.

A much better place to start is to say that specific outcomes are intrinsically good (I won't get into the heuristic for how we determine whether an outcome is good or evil - there are many of them, some better than others, but we can nonetheless recognize that they are all coherent and provide with a workable definition of good and evil). Now, the difficulty is that a great deal of actions entail both good and evil actions for specific individuals (killing in self-defense is a perfect example: it carries a good outcome for the defender and an evil one for the aggressor).

Further complications arise if we consider actions that produce good outcomes in the short run, but evil ones in the long run (or vice versa), or that carries a given probability for a good or an evil outcome. These complications are, in my opinion, cannot be resolved directly. To do so, we have to take a detour and consider the actors who carry out these actions. Obviously this only applies to beings capable of will, so yes, obviously the earth itself is not evil even if, when people die from an earthquake, that outcome is evil. But anyway, beings capable of will are motivated by desires. These desires can be more or less good, depending on whether they are oriented toward good outcomes. Someone whose constant prevailing desire is for good outcomes to all other beings is, by definition, a good person. Such a person will only ever act with good intent and do as much good as the circumstances allow them to. People deviate from good (and thus become more evil) to the extent that they are led by other desires.

[Blue3]

It's worth noting that Antonio's comments dovetail with the Islamic view that evil doesn't exist as something dualistic with 'good' with evil being an absence of good. Which I think is probably the most succinct response if we have to retain 'good and evil' as concepts but non-dualistic.

It’s generally the Christian Orthodox/Catholic/mainstream-Protestant View as well.

[Yellowhammer]

Yes, evil is real, and it takes the form of very human being who lives and who has ever lived.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would say that the events of the Twentieth Century gave us a pretty clear answer on this point, entirely lacking in any possible ambiguity.

[°Leprechaun]

Unless one believes in moral relativism, evil does exist, of course.

Here is a book that I own, which calls evil a "puzzle" rather than a "problem".
The problem goes away if you don't believe in an all loving all powerful god.

https://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Evil-Peter-Vardy/dp/0765601672#reader_0765601672

He's written some other interesting books as well.

Evil is like pornography, I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

[RFayette]

I would say that the events of the Twentieth Century gave us a pretty clear answer on this point, entirely lacking in any possible ambiguity.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I would say that the events of the Twentieth Century gave us a pretty clear answer on this point, entirely lacking in any possible ambiguity.

When searching for a secular answer to this question (as it occasionally crops up in my head), this--or a variant of this, the existence of totalitarianism* and its effects--is my answer as well.

^{* For these purposes, somewhat more loosely defined.}

[°Leprechaun]

Evil exists, but rather than defining it in terms of good, I prefer to define it as suffering, so an evil act is one that creates or enhances suffering. Then I define good in terms of evil: good is the reduction of evil, hence it is the reduction of suffering.

Life is suffering. The Road Less Traveled begins with the words "Life is difficult":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#Theories