|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2001 : 07:18:39
|
NubiWan posed a question in the thread on "Does God Exist?" that was ignored by the debaters in that thread. Namely: "Does Evil Exist?". I felt this subject might be worth some thought so I decided to create a new thread for it (it's a separate issue from the God thing anyway  )
Here's my take on it. Yes. Evil exists. The vast amount of pain and suffering that men (and women - wouldn't want to be accused of sexism) have inflicted on each other over the centuries pretty much makes this a given.
The more relevant question is what evil actually is. Some have argued that it is a result of lack of empathy. Others think it is a result of mental disease. Still others argue it is a result of our inability to overcome our baser animal instincts or is simply a product of ignorance (e.g. we fear that which we do not understand).
All of these explanations imply a lack of choice on the part of the one committing the evil act. I believe in the concept of free will and therefore hold that the choice to commit an evil act is also a free choice.
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 08:19:49 [Permalink]
|
Relatively, you can call them anything you want and there will still be actions that are socially scorned. If you want to call these actions 'evil,' then they are evil in that they are less 'good' than other actions.
Absolutely, I think it is an awfully tough case to make that there are some behaviors that can be labelled 'evil' without being so judged. Pure free will seems like a fairy tale, given the sheer complexity of the human brain. Jeffrey Dahmer's actions are easily labeled societal evils, but I think to suggest that he did anything with absolute free will ignores everything we know about behavioral genetics and environment.
This signature does not exist. |
 |
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 09:02:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Relatively, you can call them anything you want and there will still be actions that are socially scorned. If you want to call these actions 'evil,' then they are evil in that they are less 'good' than other actions.
I don't consider social scorn to be a very good yardstick of what is good or evil. Roman society revered gladiatorial events. Many societies have condoned witch hunts, slavery, and genocide. No doubt future societies will condemn things our society now condones. Nevertheless, I would hold that it is accurate to define witch hunts, slavery, and genocide as evil (and not merely as "less good").
quote:
Pure free will seems like a fairy tale, given the sheer complexity of the human brain. Jeffrey Dahmer's actions are easily labeled societal evils, but I think to suggest that he did anything with absolute free will ignores everything we know about behavioral genetics and environment.
Admittedly, I have no empirical evidence to support the contention that free will exists. But if it doesn't, then neither do good and evil since both concepts require it.
If we are just a complex of stimulus and response then any action we take is equally valid and equally irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 10:21:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Relatively, you can call them anything you want and there will still be actions that are socially scorned. If you want to call these actions 'evil,' then they are evil in that they are less 'good' than other actions.
I don't consider social scorn to be a very good yardstick of what is good or evil. Roman society revered gladiatorial events. Many societies have condoned witch hunts, slavery, and genocide. No doubt future societies will condemn things our society now condones. Nevertheless, I would hold that it is accurate to define witch hunts, slavery, and genocide as evil (and not merely as "less good").
I agree. I was merely trying to cover all my philosophical bases.
quote:
quote:
Pure free will seems like a fairy tale, given the sheer complexity of the human brain. Jeffrey Dahmer's actions are easily labeled societal evils, but I think to suggest that he did anything with absolute free will ignores everything we know about behavioral genetics and environment.
Admittedly, I have no empirical evidence to support the contention that free will exists. But if it doesn't, then neither do good and evil since both concepts require it.
If we are just a complex of stimulus and response then any action we take is equally valid and equally irrelevant.
I don't think it's quite the dichotomy you make it here. I think the very concept of absolute free will is absurd. I certainly cannot imagine making a conscious decision in the total absence of other cortical activity. Maybe 'free will' was never intended to be defined this way and I am beating a nonexistent horse. Whatever, I like this definition, "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will." This definition is accurately neutral, IMO, about the role of genetics and environment in determining the degree of personal behavioral responsibility.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 10:29:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Relatively, you can call them anything you want and there will still be actions that are socially scorned. If you want to call these actions 'evil,' then they are evil in that they are less 'good' than other actions.
I don't consider social scorn to be a very good yardstick of what is good or evil. Roman society revered gladiatorial events. Many societies have condoned witch hunts, slavery, and genocide. No doubt future societies will condemn things our society now condones. Nevertheless, I would hold that it is accurate to define witch hunts, slavery, and genocide as evil (and not merely as "less good").
Sorry, I didn't read very carefully (it's late  ) and I have another question. Is your use of 'evil' in the last sentence above in an absolute sense or is there a societal frame of reference?
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 13:22:34 [Permalink]
|
Most of those that do evil don't consider themselves to be evil.
They think they are serving a rightous cause (this happens all the time, e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc).
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2001 : 13:52:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
NubiWan posed a question in the thread on "Does God Exist?" that was ignored by the debaters in that thread. Namely: "Does Evil Exist?". I felt this subject might be worth some thought so I decided to create a new thread for it (it's a separate issue from the God thing anyway )
Hi Guys
Hate to disagree on me first visit, butt, "(it's a separate issue from the God thing anyway)," no, it isn't.  A dictionary is always a good place to start,
evil
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious
short version from mine, anyway. The primary meaning of the term deals with moral value.
No god :: no morality.
Appreciate the note, however, but truly think the debate belongs in the forum, where it was raised. If the issue is ignored, it will speak more to the intellectual honesty of the forum, than to the issue itself IMHO. 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2001 : 18:22:29 [Permalink]
|
OK, this might be stretching my meager gray matter farther than safety permits, but I'll try to answer all three of you.
PhDreamer
quote:
Is your use of 'evil' in the last sentence above in an absolute sense or is there a societal frame of reference?
I was using it in an absolute sense. The whole point I was trying to make is that if you use societal norms as a guide to morality, then you can almost always find some society where even the most atrocious of behaviors could be regarded as moral.
Bestonnet
quote:
Most of those that do evil don't consider themselves to be evil.
They think they are serving a rightous cause (this happens all the time, e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc).
Absolutely. They did not consider themselves evil because they based their definition of evil and morality on the accepted societal norms of their particular societies. But those societal norms were immoral (in my opinion anyway). I believe that there are some underlying fundamental principals to morality that are independent of any particular society. A society can only be considered moral if it's norms conform with those underlying (absolute) principals.
NubiWan
quote:
No god :: no morality.
Why? I once heard someone making a similar argument. He said that morality doesn't make sense without God because there is nothing to be gained from it. I found this argument lacking. What he was actually saying was that the only reason to behave in a moral manner is either to gain a reward (Heaven) or to avoid punishment (Hell). But if you only behave in a moral fashion to get something in return (or to avoid something bad), are you really moral? If the priest promises to grant you absolution in advance, would you go out and murder someone? Morality should not require punishment or reward as it's justification.
quote:
Appreciate the note, however, but truly think the debate belongs in the forum, where it was raised. If the issue is ignored, it will speak more to the intellectual honesty of the forum, than to the issue itself IMHO.
I've already noted that I don't agree with the assumption that morality and God are necessarily inseparable concepts. In the other tread, I mentioned the issue of Christians practicing slavery. My intention was not to claim that Christianity approves of slavery, but rather to suggest that moral behavior and religious beliefs are not necessarily all that closely related. No one took me up on it there and it was probably a little off topic for that discussion. It is very pertinent to this one (another good reason for a separate thread).
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2001 : 19:25:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
NubiWan
quote:
No god :: no morality.
Why? I once heard someone making a similar argument. He said that morality doesn't make sense without God because there is nothing to be gained from it. I found this argument lacking. What he was actually saying was that the only reason to behave in a moral manner is either to gain a reward (Heaven) or to avoid punishment (Hell).
"Why?" Without an authority to demand and judge obedience, you are left with, as you say "fashion," albeit hardly moral IMO. "Morals" are/were akin to laws. Would ask you to differentiate morality with ethicality.
quote:
I've already noted that I don't agree with the assumption that morality and God are necessarily inseparable concepts...
Well, that is of course your privilege, as well as it is mine to disagree.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 00:41:16 [Permalink]
|
How do we determine absolute morals?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 04:46:10 [Permalink]
|
I have come to the conclusion that there are no absolutes when it comes to what is acceptable or not. Evil is a word (adjective) that we attach to actions that are outside of our ideas of acceptable behavior or attach to people that perform these actions. What is acceptable behavior is obviously changeable, any cursory look at history shows this well. One thing is for certain though. There is no entity called 'evil' that exists outside of our behaviors.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 06:23:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have come to the conclusion that there are no absolutes when it comes to what is acceptable or not. Evil is a word (adjective) that we attach to actions that are outside of our ideas of acceptable behavior or attach to people that perform these actions. What is acceptable behavior is obviously changeable, any cursory look at history shows this well. One thing is for certain though. There is no entity called 'evil' that exists outside of our behaviors.
Just want to second this, it matches my stance perfectly.
Espritch, you said: quote:
Morality should not require punishment or reward as it's justification.
I would argue that the only reason one is moral at the fundamental and most basic level, is the (selfish, but not a bad thing!) desire for the reward of good conscience, or the avoidance of the punishment of societal reprimand or ostricization, and/or the punishment of a guilty conscience.
Take, for example, the act of giving to charity anonymously. People usually equate this to a "selfless" act, when in fact, the pleasure one gets from giving is the main driving force behind the action, and is a completely selfish desire (but by no means is this a bad thing).
Basically what I'm trying to say is that without rewards/punishments, in whatever form, there would be no 'morality'.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 08:25:11 [Permalink]
|
No one has yet defined 'evil' unambiguously. The answer to the topic question depends on the definiton one uses.
Are there circumstances which "cause ruin, injury, or pain?" Of course.
Are some people "bad or blameworthy by report" and/or "malicious, characterized by anger or spite?" I've met a few.
Do there exist actions which are "morally bad or wrong?" Depends on how you define morals.
This is perhaps the most interesting and controvesial question at hand, what is the true nature of morality? I would claim that it is a concept that we humans have created in order to guide the behavior of members in a society, and that there is no aspect of moral judgments which exists external to the thoughts of conscious beings such as ourselves, and hence no "objective" right and wrong.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 10:26:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"Why?" Without an authority to demand and judge obedience, you are left with, as you say "fashion," albeit hardly moral IMO. "Morals" are/were akin to laws.
NubiWan, if you think that the morality that advocates (falsely) attribute to god (I'm assuming you mean Yahweh as the "classical" gods never concerned themselves with morality- they left that stuff to human philosophers) is not the fashion of the moment then you need to go back to the OT.
Take as just one example, Father Abraham. He was the most moral, the holiest, man of his day. Islam, Judaism and by extension Christianity all trace their roots back to this one "Holy Man."
But today, in any country that practices these religions, Abraham, the most moral man of his day, would be arrested and doing hard time.
He kept slaves.
When he couldn't get his postmenopausal wife pregnant he rapped one of them. Since a woman slave has no rights of her own, and therefore could not grant consent, any sex with her by her master would be rape.
The shoddy treatment of the bastard Ishmael (when he is 13 Abe hacked off part of his penis with a stone knife) would be considered child abuse.
A voice, that only he can hear, orders Abe to mutilate his own genitalia.
Voices in his head then tell him to murder Isaac. But before he can cut Ike's throat he is distracted by a goat that someone else has left tied to a tree while they went home for lunch. He rustles the livestock and slaughters it.
Isaac, who has seen and heard neither angels nor gods, runs for his life while Abe is busy with the gore and gets out of the country.
So, we've got Slavery, Rape, Attempted Murder, one Illegitimate child, two counts of Child Abuse, and one count of Cruelty to Animals and Theft with destruction of private property and, of course, Sadomasochism. All in one short story that is supposed to demonstrate the approved morality that comes from god.
I trust, if you draw your morality from this god, that you have a more fashionable version than that which the bible advocates.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 10:46:48 [Permalink]
|
LOL, I wish people that parrot "The Bible is a good moral compass" actually read it. Let's face it, many skeptics in here have said the same thing. It's just one of those things that you hear so much that it becomes ingrained on the psyche.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2001 : 15:01:23 [Permalink]
|
Whew! {What has me done gone and stepped into here?}
As a statement of position, if not already clear, me views "moratity" as having some divine authority as its basis. Deciding merely if a given behavior is bad, or good, is a judgement of ethics IMO.
If you find error with that distinction, please expand. This is the reason me felt this debate belongs in the "Does God Exist" forum, and still do, as a consequence of not accepting the existance of a god, or gods. It is considered moral to follow the directions of god.
Still, here is where the issue has been engaged, and as James Russell Lowell said,
"There is no good arguing with the inevitable. The only argument available with an east wind is to put on your overcoat."
Confess, that in me own cursory search of a few years for salvation, limited it to those religions and a few other areas, still active in my lifetime.  Know nothing of "Yahweh." Am not dismayed by the fact, that the holy scriptures shared or borrowed, from each other. The "Golden Rule" is found in some form within every one, that me explored, for example. And am certain in my own mind, that the belief in god, predates even the "written word."
The term "Evil," has been and is, personified by Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, which has dozens, by Satan as an example. Taken collectively, a fair chunk of humanity believes this to be the case. Am too lazy to research *shrug* every point raised, but tink this is the root source for the term "evil." Without god, there is no evil, we just have; bad, really bad, really really bad, and "Oh.., that's just plain sick."
The point of the exercise, was to examine a godless existance. Can the existance of god be proven with science? Of course not, is god the holy scritures? Of course not, they are merely words written by man in an attempt to bring god to those, who haven't exerienced him. If god can exist independent of the holy scriptures, can he then exist independent from science?
Without anyone telling you, no matter what shaped hat they wear, don't you know some things, just aren't the right things to do, and some things are the right things to do? Exempting the too large minority, that such distinctions seem beyond their grasp. Where do you suppose this knowledge comes from?
Me grows weary , but please note, me has not resorted to one "quote," as yet, from the bible or otherwise...
Oh..,"then you need to go back to the OT," perhaps, what is it?
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Edited by - NubiWan on 08/16/2001 16:03:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
