My definition of Evil is “That Which Increases Suffering (in magnitude or in numbers). — Trey
sometimes I do feel a quick death is better than life here on earth with these talking monkeys. — Trey
So, morality would be RELATIVE to each person’s culture. BUT... can we (as open philosophers) come with a “Universal/Non-Biblical/independent”definition of Evil?! — Trey
My definition of Evil is “That Which Increases Suffering (in magnitude or in numbers). — Trey
On stupid people voting - wouldn’t it be better to take away these dumb peoples rights if it meant less suffering overall?! I mean that would be the higher moral. — Trey
Definitions are over-rated. — unenlightened
So, if my dog (who I love and is not very intelligent) FEELS like running the neighborhood free is moral, then I should allow that even though he may get hit by a car or kill my neighbor s cat, etc.?? — Trey
I think he is as much asking for a theory of evil as a definition. Although exploring what people mean by the word is interesting in this case. Definition and theory blend I think with this concept. — bert1
I didn't say we should comply with other people's (and animal's) moral standards. We should fight for ours.
Just that we can't have an objective moral standard, because each persons morals are dependent on their feelings. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Is it totally relative to religion/culture you were brought up in? Or is there a totally SECULAR way to define it? Well, that’s the biggest question in philosophy! Ex: is killing Evil? What if you kill a person who has hurt many people? My definition of Evil is “That Which Increases Suffering (in magnitude or in numbers). In my definition for instance, the Catholic Church is evil because it’s No Birth Control policy has caused overpopulation and poverty to MILLIONS! Joe Rogan agrees and he was born Catholic. I deny the Abrahamic god and in my definition that god is Evil. — Trey
Do you not notice that folks tell each other and themselves what they ought to do, and they generally contrast it with 'what one feels like doing. A dog ought to do what it is told, and an obedient dog is a good dog. People are a bit more complicated... — unenlightened
In a nonreligious / secular context, or discourse, evil amounts to ... indifference to, or inflicting, gratuitous harm that culminates in destroying moral agency. — 180 Proof
Well ... if personal conduct (e.g. murder, torture/rape, betrayal) or systemic practices (e.g. peonage/slavery, capital punishment, tyranny/terrorism) or natural events (e.g. psychosis, plague, famine) which, at least in effect, gratuitously destroy moral agency are not "evils", then I don't understand what is meant by "evil". — 180 Proof
Yes, like the "ought" just came out of thin air. — Down The Rabbit Hole
in the end "GOOD" or "EVIL" is nothing but just a standpoint , or how we perceive it. — Gellert Marvollo Potter
The trouble this runs into is it equates two things. We know not all suffering can be the result of evil. It's a good starting point because it casts a wide net and captures the bulk of what we associate with evil. But, it applies to things that aren't evil and simply result in suffering.My definition of Evil is “That Which Increases Suffering (in magnitude or in numbers) — Trey
The trouble this runs into is it equates two things. We know not all suffering can be the result of evil. It's a good starting point because it casts a wide net and captures the bulk of what we associate with evil. But, it applies to things that aren't evil and simply result in suffering. — Cheshire
Well, my complaint was casting too wide of a net by equating suffering and evil. The solution you are offering is broadening it and adding a specific implication. Then, supposing the emotional reaction to the implication; then explaining it.Perhaps then, since life as we know it entails evil it is evil to make more of it. Then the widecast net might be correct, but it just encompasses the continuation of life, something people don't want to think about due to their preferences and such. — schopenhauer1
If I'm thinking all suffering isn't the result of evil, then thinking all life which includes all suffering is somehow evil would require a contradictory logic I can't produce. I'd offer a narrowing down of the term which may still show creating more life is evil, but I don't know how. — Cheshire
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.