So broad you can define it to suit your purpose. Right for yours will be of course wrong for other's, but that's sometimes where you have to go, if you're going to parse meanings for the purpose of establishing other meanings. .Curious what others thoughts on evil are, and how it can be defined. — IvoryBlackBishop
(My undestanding is that "evil" today usually refers to malevolent or cruel human behavior, however in other contexts, it refers to "adversity" or "hardship" in general, such as disease, famine, poverty, natural disasters, not necessarily evil acts or intentions by people). — IvoryBlackBishop
Curious what others thoughts on evil are, and how it can be defined.
(My undestanding is that "evil" today usually refers to malevolent or cruel human behavior, however in other contexts, it refers to "adversity" or "hardship" in general, such as disease, famine, poverty, natural disasters, not necessarily evil acts or intentions by people). — IvoryBlackBishop
my argument is that a person choosing to "do" such and such a thing doesn't make it "right" for them. — IvoryBlackBishop
Doesn't "evil" denote failure to obey, serve or worship some g/G? And, therefore, is a religious, not ethical, value? (Nietzsche) So that "natural evil" is actually an apologetic oxymoron? — 180 Proof
... isn't, as I recall, any less "absolute". Some immanent fat to chew on though. :chin:Evil' is too absolute a term, but 'sin' ... — csalisbury
Quiet the opposite.Doesn't "evil" denote failure to obey — 180 Proof
Not addressed to me, I know, but ... Assuming, for discussion's sake, a non-supernaturalistic / non-theological (i.e. wholly secular) agency-centered, negative utilitarian/consequentialist ethics, consider this way of distinguishingIt would probably be helpful to distinguish between ‘bad’ and ‘evil’. — I like sushi
Then you're arguing that it's evil to "not partake in one's humanity" or "recognize the diverging, organic nature of people.Evil is the outpouring of a failure to partake in one's humanity, of not recognise the diverging, organic nature of people
of not seeing oneself as having a choice; the thoughtlessness of Eichmann the mere uncritical functionary.Banno;402329"]
Then you're arguing that it's evil for people to not be given a choice.
Likewise, I'm not aware of any arguments that a person "doesn't" have a choice in regards to good and evil; presumably the Nazis "had a choice" as whether or not exterminate Jews, but rather the arguments are in favor of steering people in the direction of good choices, as opposed to evil ones.
So again, you're arguing that "denying one's own agency" is evil.So you deny your own agency in order to follow what you take to be the natural law.
So it's evil to be dishonest to oneself as well? One doesn't have a choice as to whether to be honest with themselves as well.In doing so you are dishonest to yourself, denying that you have a choice while in the very act of choosing.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.