What difference does it make? Will I treat evil differently if it has an independent physical referent or if it appears as a property of a physical entity? — Hanover

Well, yes it will make a difference. Calling people evil, rather than their behavior, condemns the whole person - whereas "evil behavior" may be separated from who the person is. "Separating the behavior from the person" - is actually a mainstay of both parenting and psychology. It allows you to engage from a more compassionate place. Evil behavior may be rehabilitated, an evil person not so much.

Well, yes it will make a difference. Calling people evil, rather than their behavior, condemns the whole person - whereas "evil behavior" may be separated from who the person is. "Separating the behavior from the person" - is actually a mainstay of both parenting and psychology. It allows you to engage from a more compassionate place. Evil behavior may be rehabilitated, an evil person not so much. — Questioner

This doesn't follow. You're distinguishing accidental properties from essences, ultimately both arbitrary categories vague at the edges, neither distinct ontologically. A red shirt can be bleached white (changing its attribute) as much as it can be made a pair of pants (changing its essence).

This is just syntax masquerading as semantics being used to justify a particular ideology that all persons are morally salvagable. It seems you want to say evil is correctable. We can say that regardless of how English grammar treats the word "evil."

I would say that people have differences of opinions and experiences. — Questioner

Absolutely. So what, pray tell, distinguishes your bluster of words or storm of thoughts from that of another's? Why should we listen to you and not someone who speaks the opposite simply because you appeal to words and concepts that most would consider defensible despite not knowing any true depth as far as what posturing or beliefs truly entail, not only for those immediately affected but those might be negatively impacted whose fate doesn't seem to concern you?

I would call behavior evil if it is intentionally and seriously harms others, without a speck of remorse. — Questioner

But this is not accurate since a mentally ill person or someone under the influence of drugs of alcohol can do so without realizing the act they're performing, let alone such complicated after-thoughts such as remorse. This, while technically "unintentional" describes a frame of mind where such dynamics simply aren't part of the equation. It still crosses into the territory where a man who is otherwise legally sane (albeit barely) can perform intentional actions without truly understanding the long-term consequences of such.

If I break into a man's house and stay there for some time, my idea of what is right and wrong shifts based on whatever it was I've happened to have performed. So if a house owner or his army attempts to evict you, this is what we call "a battle of good and evil." You have your argument (I used strength to obtain what I have) and the person has theirs (I didn't ask for conflict simply a useless vagabond with nothing left to lose threatened my life so I fled for the moment).

You might be surprised how the things we take for granted might be used significance more efficiently than ourselves. Does this mean it belongs to them? Even if without their commandeering humanity might be worse off? It's a good question. A fair question. Yet one that is seldom answered by polite words and pleasantries.

This is just syntax masquerading as semantics being used to justify a particular ideology that all persons are morally salvageable. It seems you want to say evil is correctable. We can say that regardless of how English grammar treats the word "evil." — Hanover

And this is absolutely correct. And further ushers in my larger point. Simply put, there's 8 billion people with 8 billion ideas of what is the best path moving forward, and yes, what is "right" as opposed to what is "wrong." So how do we go about elevating true virtue or value from billions of equally valid opinions, beliefs, and samples? Sure, we attempt to at first freeze or otherwise hold off on impulse by establishing basic laws, right and wrong. As you say, if we find someone who says "murder and rape is not wrong but right" we can, ideally, isolate and neutralize those who will live and die believing this falsehood. Not just for, obviously our own sake, but for their own and those unfortunately under their temporary transient power or control. But then what? Where do we go from there? Unless we believe they were just born crazy or evil or whatever, and not warped or turned into their sad state by an even sadder set of circumstances, that in all fairness, could one day befall ourselves, turning us into said person or even worse, what are we really doing but putting more band-aids on a wound that needs something else altogether?

Well, yes it will make a difference. Calling people evil, rather than their behavior, condemns the whole person - whereas "evil behavior" may be separated from who the person is. "Separating the behavior from the person" - is actually a mainstay of both parenting and psychology. It allows you to engage from a more compassionate place. Evil behavior may be rehabilitated, an evil person not so much. — Questioner

Nietzsche: "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad."

Behavior can be good or bad -- but it is not "evil". This is the basic Christian position, but makes sense even for us non-Christians. Evil is the quality of a person, not an action. Let's posit two pedophiles, both locked in solitary confinement. One has repented, and if he were released would never commit another crime. The other is unrepentant, and if he were released would return to his evil ways, Can we really say both are equally "good" or "evil"? Neither is behaving in an evil manner (they can't -- they're locked up).

Behavior is never "evil" without intent. The person who reasonably believes he was defending himself is not guilty of violence -- even when he was not in danger. It's the intent, not the reality, that makes an action both evil and legally culpable. Behaviors can be (per Nietzsche) good or bad -- people can be good or evil (or, like most of us, a bit of both).

You're distinguishing accidental properties from essences, ultimately both arbitrary categories vague at the edges, neither distinct ontologically. — Hanover

I'm distinguishing who the person is from what they do. Not arbitrary at all. It is the difference between the self and the reactions to stimuli effected by that self. I believe that the self cannot contain some strain of what we would call evil - which suggests a dark force that inhabits the self - but rather that evil acts result from dysfunctional manifestations of the survival instinct.

A red shirt can be bleached white (changing its attribute) as much as it can be made a pair of pants (changing its essence). — Hanover

This is a poor analogy, since you are describing what is done to the shirt, rather than what the shirt does.

Also, we are much more than a piece of cloth.

This is just syntax masquerading as semantics being used to justify a particular ideology that all persons are morally salvagable. — Hanover

Actually, my observation came before the belief.

Absolutely. So what, pray tell, distinguishes your bluster of words or storm of thoughts from that of another's? Why should we listen to you and not someone who speaks the opposite simply because you appeal to words and concepts that most would consider defensible despite not knowing any true depth as far as what posturing or beliefs truly entail, not only for those immediately affected but those might be negatively impacted whose fate doesn't seem to concern you? — Outlander

This presents as needlessly confrontational.

You are free to criticize the content of my posts, but not me.

But this is not accurate since a mentally ill person or someone under the influence of drugs of alcohol can do so without realizing the act they're performing, let alone such complicated after-thoughts such as remorse. This, while technically "unintentional" describes a frame of mind where such dynamics simply aren't part of the equation. It still crosses into the territory where a man who is otherwise legally sane (albeit barely) can perform intentional actions without truly understanding the long-term consequences of such. — Outlander

This is a good argument for separating the behavior from the person.

If I break into a man's house and stay there for some time, my idea of what is right and wrong shifts based on whatever it was I've happened to have performed. So if a house owner or his army attempts to evict you, this is what we call "a battle of good and evil." You have your argument (I used strength to obtain what I have) and the person has theirs (I didn't ask for conflict simply a useless vagabond with nothing left to lose threatened my life so I fled for the moment). — Outlander

I think it is important not to conflate "right and wrong" with "good and evil" - At least not in the way that we take "good and evil" to be some supernatural force acting on humans

I'm distinguishing who the person is from what they do. Not arbitrary at all. It is the difference between the self and the reactions to stimuli effected by that self. I believe that the self cannot contain some strain of what we would call evil - which suggests a dark force that inhabits the self - but rather that evil acts result from dysfunctional manifestations of the survival instinct. — Questioner

You're suggesting the statement "Bob is evil" asserted anything ontological in the first place. Whether "evil" has a referent (i.e. some tangible dark force you can put in a jar) unaffects its meaning if you use the term the same regardless. To the extent you're suggesting I've used evil as a thing, that's a strawman.

Classification upon Aristotlian attribute versus essence is arbitrary because determining which is which is arbitrary. I can just as much say a person's essence is rooted in their moral demeanor as in their height.

This is a poor analogy, since you are describing what is done to the shirt, rather than what the shirt does. — Questioner

This is a missed abstraction, focusing on the insignificant details. If you want to say the essence of the shirt is to be worn on the torso, its essence changes when made into pants. That is, your every objection can be met by modifying the details of the analogy if you focus on the abstract principle being shown. Specifically, regardless of attribute (which can be physical, functional or whatever), it can be modified. That means a person can be evil and can be changed regardless of whether you arbitrarily describe it as essential or accidental property.

And that's my point. It doesn't matter how you describe it.

Also, we are much more than a piece of cloth. — Questioner

Explain why you said this. Did someone think people were cloth? Does the analogy only hold to cloth things?

If you're just offering a social way of thinking about things, as in it's best to think of people as fully malleable in terms of moral behavior so that we always work to see that they do better (as opposed up declaring them broken and evil), I can see that as a strategy. If that's the goal, just say it, as opposed to dredging up ancient problematic philosophical debates to present your position.

Nietzsche: "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad." — Ecurb

I think what he was doing was rejecting the idea of a supernatural source of evil. That evil acts don't happen because of some demonic influence. Rather, actions should be judged in the circumstances in which they happen - and yes, they can be "bad."

When I say an action is "evil" - I mean it only in the common, not supernatural, usage of the word.

So how do we go about elevating true virtue or value from billions of equally valid opinions, beliefs, and samples? — Outlander

Explain this sentence. "True virtue" as used here describes an objective morality, but "billions of equally valid opinions" describes complete subjectivity.

If murder is truly wrong, then the billions of opinions otherwise would not be valid.

To the extent you're suggesting I've used evil as a thing, that's a strawman. — Hanover

I didn't mention you at all. I was only trying to explain my position.

attribute versus essence is arbitrary because determining which is which is arbitrary. — Hanover

When the essence is self, and the attribute is behavior, the distinction is not arbitrary. The self includes all of the traits who make you who you are. Your behavior is the outward, external expression - observable actions, based on the choices you make.

I can see that as a strategy. If that's the goal, just say it, as opposed to dredging up ancient problematic philosophical debates to present your position. — Hanover

Oh my, more accusations. The only thing I am trying to do is contribute to the conversation, based on my thoughts. You are free to participate, or not.

When the essence is self, and the attribute is behavior, the distinction is not arbitrary. — Questioner

Sure it is. Why can't the essence be behavior, as in only humans do X? And what is the self but the behavior, considering you went to great lengths to point out "evil" had no physical constitution? Does the self have independent constitution or is it just a placeholder for attributes.

Oh my, more accusations. The only thing I am trying to do is contribute to the conversation, based on my thoughts. — Questioner

There was no accusation. I pointed out your position had pragmatic application without the need for confused philosophical scaffolding.

I think what he was doing was rejecting the idea of a supernatural source of evil. That evil acts don't happen because of some demonic influence. Rather, actions should be judged in the circumstances in which they happen - and yes, they can be "bad."

When I say an action is "evil" - I mean it only in the common, not supernatural, usage of the word. — Questioner

Actions are never evil. They can be bad. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison. This is clearly a "bad" thing. It is evil only if the judge had wicked motives for convicting the person incorrectly. If the conviction was merely an honest mistake, the action is bad but there was no evil involved.

But what of hate? We see so much of it, in the current political turmoil darkening the world. What is the evolutionary advantage of hate? — Questioner

Hate is the reaction of our narratively constructed world view having an immune system, rejection towards that which threaten it. Some of it is logical, much of it isn't.

You hate a person who killed someone you love because the act of doing so needs to be stopped in order to preserve the being of your group. Naturally, it becomes a way to defend against what could destroy you and your loved ones.

But the irrational hate we see is that reaction system going haywire because of the constructed narratives we live by. Someone hates the other football team, because it threatens the success of their own group, based on the fictional narrative constructed about this sport and this tournament.

The same fictional narratives exists everywhere; we construct narratives that define our entire sense of being and world view.

Why we see an increase of hate in the world is because social media's research found out that conflict gains more attention and interactions, so the algorithms pits two opposing views together to produce that drama, increasing hate. Two fictional narratives which collides into hateful behavior.

While shutting off these algorithms would generate a good neutralization of much of today's hate, the solution to hate in general is to find out which narratives are fictional and which are based in actual facts. The narrative based on facts should be strived towards as the way of life, being and world view to dominate and we should abolish narratives based on nothing else by constructions through arbitrary experiences.

It is mostly through these arbitrary narratives clashing with truth that we get irrational hate. But I see no problem with those fighting for narratives which are based on facts to hate those who operate on arbitrary ones or outright lies for the purpose of power. That form of hate is the "immune system" fighting against a destructive social construct.

Why can't the essence be behavior, as in only humans do X? — Hanover

Because we were talking about individuals, not humanity. My behaviors do not make me “me.” I exist in the absence of my behaviors. When I am doing nothing, I am still me. We can talk of a cause-and-effect relationship – with my self/identity as the narrative in my head, and my behavior as the performance resulting from that script.

But you do raise an interesting point – the “essence of humanity” – which brings to mind the idea of a “shared self” – like in the Hindu view of the Atman, or the claim made by Schopenhauer, that we are manifestations of the same underlying phenomenon – even though we are all living different experiences.

We’d have to look for something we all share. I understand consciousness to be an emergent property of neurological processes. The structure is the brain, and the function of that structure is to produce the mind/consciousness. But what factors distinguish my consciousness from everyone else’s? How are they all the same? Something interesting to think about.

And what is the self but the behavior, considering you went to great lengths to point out "evil" had no physical constitution? Does the self have independent constitution or is it just a placeholder for attributes. — Hanover

Behavior is an effect of the decision-making of the self. To call behavior the self, is to equate cause and effect.

Behavior is not driven by a physical constitution called evil – but by a combination of the instincts and memories guiding it.

I’m not sure about the word “placeholder” as it suggests a static condition, whereas self/consciousness is dynamic.

Actions are never evil. They can be bad. — Ecurb

yes, this is a better use of the terminology. I was using the word evil as a substitute for bad, but without any supernatural connotations to it, just as it might be commonly used.

If the conviction was merely an honest mistake, the action is bad but there was no evil involved. — Ecurb

But we all do have some notion of what we mean, when we say, that was an evil thing to do. If it is morally reprehensible, we might say it is "evil behavior." No cosmic force involved, though.

Evil can refer to acts or to a state of being. Of course we humans are not privy to the states of being of other humans. Acc. Christians, God can judge.

I cannot judge, of course, except by examining actions. But I agree with the Christain view. Evil is a state of immorality which may or may not lead to wicked acts. Evil is a personal quality; a defect. When we say behaviors are "evil" we mean they result from this quality. "Bad" simply means harmful.

Hate and love are not opposites; their opposite is indifference. Indifference is a lack of emotional / mental arousal. "I don't care" quite literally; I have no feelings about it one way or the other. I'm not motivated to engage.

Love and hate are different states of emotional arousal, each with different consequences. Neither are rational. Both have social consequences, but of the two, hateful arousal tends to have much stronger consequences, because hate can be harnessed to focus on individuals or groups with whom we have no personal connection.

As one wag said, love doesn't make the world go round, but it keeps it populated. That's eros. The Greeks have a taxonomy of love (eros, philia, agape, etc.), but not one for hate, as far as I know.

We like to be among our own kind (whatever that might be); it isn't so much "love" of our own kind as comfort. We tend to delineate "our own kind" by exclusion of others. It isn't that we hate everyone who isn't "our kind", it's that we don't find much comfort among outsiders. Discomfort with outsiders can slide into hate, or be pushed into that unfriendly state, by excessive social friction or deliberate manipulation.

I don't have confidence that love can be marshaled on behalf of the outsider, especially groups of outsiders. We are, according to religious preaching, supposed to welcome the stranger in our midst. That such action requires a command suggests that it doesn't just happen spontaneously.

Perhaps this is a pessimistic assessment. Humans have been manifesting love and hate for a long timed I don't expect any change. We are what we are.

Hate is the reaction of our narratively constructed world view having an immune system, rejection towards that which threaten it. Some of it is logical, much of it isn't. — Christoffer

Good analogy, and I think it is fear that cranks up the psychological “immune system” – fear of the stranger, fear of the unknown, fear of loss – sometimes to the point of an "autoimmune disease” harming the psyche – whether in an individual or in an entire group of people.

Autocrats know this and fearmonger, often with lies - propaganda

You hate a person who killed someone you love because the act of doing so needs to be stopped in order to preserve the being of your group. Naturally, it becomes a way to defend against what could destroy you and your loved ones. — Christoffer

The instinct to belong to the group, and protect the group, cannot be underestimated as a motivator of human behavior. Goes way back. But in this day and age, we hope we are more enlightened and able to go beyond the “He hates me, so I hate him” reaction. For example, posted earlier in this thread was the story of a mother who forgave the person who murdered her son, and it led to healing for all involved. The more we are able to rise above our base instincts, the more just the outcome will be.

The same fictional narratives exists everywhere; we construct narratives that define our entire sense of being and world view.

Why we see an increase of hate in the world is because social media's research found out that conflict gains more attention and interactions, so the algorithms pits two opposing views together to produce that drama, increasing hate. Two fictional narratives which collides into hateful behavior. — Christoffer

Yes, those “constructed narratives” are often fictional. This observation in fact played a part in my posting this thread. I am highly disturbed by the way hate is winning in the USA. It’s caused me to question my previously held (naïve?) belief that love always wins out. With my own eyes, I see every malignant behavior of the autocrat excused, so long as he “gets” the people his supporters hate – like the “left” and immigrants. In many instances, it seems like cruelty is the point. The power of hate has somewhat shocked me.

While shutting off these algorithms would generate a good neutralization of much of today's hate, the solution to hate in general is to find out which narratives are fictional and which are based in actual facts. — Christoffer

But in many people, fear of the stranger/unknown has taken control of their consciousness. Hate rules them and it would take massive redirection of their neural connections for them to admit they have been lied to. Hate can completely occupy a brain.

I think the hope lies in the future, but this will entirely depend on what kind of leadership the USA has in the next decade.

The narrative based on facts should be strived towards as the way of life, being and world view to dominate and we should abolish narratives based on nothing else by constructions through arbitrary experiences. — Christoffer

But what if there is a market for comforting and/or hateful lies?

And - who should abolish the offending narratives?

It is mostly through these arbitrary narratives clashing with truth that we get irrational hate. — Christoffer

Exactly.

But I see no problem with those fighting for narratives which are based on facts to hate those who operate on arbitrary ones or outright lies for the purpose of power. That form of hate is the "immune system" fighting against a destructive social construct. — Christoffer

I can’t agree with this. I don’t think hate is ever a factor in the solution to a problem.

I think the better idea is to take the infectious agent away.

Evil can refer to acts or to a state of being. — Ecurb

How is a state of being made evil? What is the mechanism?

God can judge. — Ecurb

But if you say someone is inherently evil, you are judging them.

Evil is a state of immorality which may or may not lead to wicked acts. Evil is a personal quality; a defect. When we say behaviors are "evil" we mean they result from this quality. — Ecurb

How does the evil enter a person born as a newborn baby?

I always like to say the only perfect thing in this existence is a newborn baby :)

Hate and love are not opposites — BC

How about if we think of them in terms of the action/reaction they might cause?

Neither are rational. — BC

mentioned earlier in the thread - hate and love reactions are produced in the same regions of the brain, but only the hate circuit is connected to the the cerebral cortex – associated with judgement and reasoning – which become de-activated during love, whereas only a small area is deactivated in hate. So, hate retains rationality.

because hate can be harnessed to focus on individuals or groups with whom we have no personal connection. — BC

What would it take to harness love in the same way? Is it even possible?

Discomfort with outsiders can slide into hate, or be pushed into that unfriendly state, by excessive social friction or deliberate manipulation. — BC

Agreed.

according to religious preaching, supposed to welcome the stranger in our midst. That such action requires a command suggests that it doesn't just happen spontaneously. — BC

Good observation.

I think political leadership has a role to play in how a society reacts to the strangers.

Perhaps this is a pessimistic assessment. Humans have been manifesting love and hate for a long timed I don't expect any change. We are what we are. — BC

No, I thought it realistic more than pessimistic.

Why can't we be more like Finland, ranked the happiest country in the world in 2025?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world

But if you say someone is inherently evil, you are judging them. — Questioner

I'm not judging them. I'm saying that a perfect judge could judge them. I'm also saying that evil is a human quality. We all must fear and avoid it. It's not inherent to the few, but to all of us. We don't banish the evil in our own hearts only by avoiding bad acts, but by seeing ourselves as loving, decent and honorable; by yearning for the good instead of the evil.

Also, what's wrong with judging people? I do it all the time. Of course I can judge only by their words and actions -- I can't see their motives or secret desires. Still, the idea that we shouldn't "judge" seems silly. How are we to decide whom to befriend? Whom to avoid? Whom to love?

Of course we shouldn't condemn people without evidence, but we can contemn them based on less certain evidence than we would need for condemnation.

I'm saying that a perfect judge could judge them. — Ecurb

Where do we find this perfect judge in this existence, here and now?

I'm also saying that evil is a human quality. We all must fear and avoid it. — Ecurb

I am reminded of a quote from Marie Curie:

"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less."

We don't banish the evil in our own hearts only by avoiding bad acts, but by seeing ourselves as loving, decent and honorable; by yearning for the good instead of the evil. — Ecurb

This gets to the heart of why people do bad things. It always leads me to wonder what went wrong in their lives. What kind of childhood did they have? How were they shown love?

Also, what's wrong with judging people? — Ecurb

There are always reasons for people doing what they do. I want to make it plain that I am in no way condoning or excusing hateful behavior. I just think the answer lies in something more complicated than there is evil inside of them. Maybe we can help them, but that really requires that we don't judge them.

Still, the idea that we shouldn't "judge" seems silly. How are we to decide whom to befriend? Whom to avoid? Whom to love? — Ecurb

I meant judge as evil.

I am reminded of a quote from Marie Curie:

"Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less." — Questioner

Knowledge doesn't banish fear; it increases it. When we know the possibilities of the future we reasonably fear them. When Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, she would "surely die". Doesn't this refer to knowledge of our own mortality? Irrational fear is cowardice. Fearing real danger is honesty which may protect us.

Evil doesn't "lie inside (people)". It is nourished and festers. But "hateful behavior" (which you claim to find inexcusable) is often its result. Of course all human behaviors are "complicated". I am certainly not claiming there is one explanation for "hateful behavior". Instead, I'm suggesting we look at the "hate" as closely as we look at the "behavior".

Knowledge doesn't banish fear; it increases it. — Ecurb

Not in all cases. Sometimes we are afraid of things we don't need to be afraid of. For example - fear of the stranger often subsides once we get to know the stranger

Evil doesn't "lie inside (people)". It is nourished and festers. — Ecurb

Unless it is replaced by love?

Unless it is replaced by love? — Questioner

Well, that's the Christian answer. We have moved away from religious belief, but we needn't throw out the baby with the bath water.