I am saying that if you retain that all suffering is evil, and life entails suffering — schopenhauer1

Right, so I'm saying we shouldn't retain that bit. So, what follows in a sense doesn't from my position. Is the purpose of the first bit just to make the second part sound necessary? If so, it does sound like a point one could make, but it isn't a given.

Right, so I'm saying we shouldn't retain that bit. — Cheshire

I don’t see why not. Let’s put it this way, is it right to perform an action knowing that that action will lead to suffering for another person, and it wasn’t ameliorating an even greater suffering- you just preferred the outcome of suffering cause maybe you thought a) it’s worth the good or b) suffering itself is somehow good for that person?

Remember this decision is not for you but for someone else.

I don’t see why not. Let’s put it this way, is it right to perform an action knowing that that action will lead to suffering for another person, and it wasn’t ameliorating an even greater suffering- you just preferred the outcome of suffering cause maybe you thought a) it’s worth the good or b) suffering itself is somehow good for that person? — schopenhauer1

Somehow I think intent and agency have to be central to any definition of evil. Evil and suffering are not synonyms. Nature inflicts plenty of suffering and yet we don't attribute intention to nature. Doctors inflict plenty of suffering to patients but mostly with the intention of curing them or restoring them to a state of health. Most of us would think it was evil to intentionally inflict suffering upon another sentient being unless there was some greater good which was the ultimate goal. Somehow I think all definitions will be deficient and although we might all agree certain acts are evil and other acts are not, there will be a large categories of actions carried out with agency and intention on which not everyone will agree.

To Buddhists "Life is Suffering" in various degrees, but Life is not Evil.

I don’t see why not. — schopenhauer1

Right, that's why the auto-discussion that follows doesn't really get started. If life doesn't entail evil or suffering doesn't entail then the following discussion about what to or not do changes.

Right, that's why the auto-discussion that follows doesn't really get started. If life doesn't entail evil or suffering doesn't entail then the following discussion about what to or not do changes. — Cheshire

Does life on planet Earth entail some amount of suffering?

Does life on planet Earth entail some amount of suffering? — schopenhauer1

Yes, now you've got the proper focus as far as building a basis for the remove people from the planet argument. Life on earth must entail suffering because that is the origin of the word suffering, but you need to show that suffering is always evil in order to get where you are going. Unfortunately, though evil may cause suffering; not all suffering is caused by evil. Which was noted by another poster here.

...Nature inflicts plenty of suffering and yet we don't attribute intention to nature. Doctors inflict plenty of suffering to patients but mostly with the intention of curing them or restoring them to a state of health. Most of us would think it was evil to intentionally inflict suffering upon another sentient being unless there was some greater good which was the ultimate goal. — prothero

Evil is incomprehensible! — TheMadFool

Labelling something as evil allows one to place it outside of our considerations... it's just evil, so we needn't give it further consideration.

But the unconsidered life is not worth living.

Calling something evil can be a rhetorical strategy. Homosexuality is evil. Atheism is evil. Fundamentalism is evil. So you can stop trying to make sense of it now.

See how uses it in this way.

So you can stop trying to make sense of it now. — Banno

The Oracle has spoken.

At least let him 'have a go'. I want to see how he bridges suffering and evil in the face of insurmountable evidence.

Was the irony lost?

Apparently so. Suffering is not evil. @schopenhauer1 can do much more to differentiate these concepts.

There's historical precedent, don't you think, for suspecting that any alternative to acknowledging evil as "Evil" is the greater risk? Kumbaya with a hungry tiger is only good for the tiger.

Was the irony lost? — Banno

Possibly, I think I'm missing subtext. Does he have some obvious nefarious purpose for this strange argument?

...the greater risk... — 180 Proof

Is it? What is done in calling something evil?

The Evil Savage Other as Enemy in Modern U.S. Presidential Discourse

SO we can question the extent to which @Trey seeks an identity for himself by setting Catholicism as evil; @schopenhauer1 constructs his identity by denying life. The other is evil.

Labelling something as evil allows one to place it outside of our considerations... it's just evil, so we needn't give it further consideration.

But the unconsidered life is not worth living.

Calling something evil can be a rhetorical strategy. Homosexuality is evil. Atheism is evil. Fundamentalism is evil. So you can stop trying to make sense of it now.

See how ↪schopenhauer1 uses it in this way. — Banno

I don't think that's correct.

Doctors inflict plenty of suffering to patients but mostly with the intention of curing them or restoring them to a state of health. Most of us would think it was evil to intentionally inflict suffering upon another sentient being unless there was some greater good which was the ultimate goal. Somehow I think all definitions will be deficient and although we might all agree certain acts are evil and other acts are not, there will be a large categories of actions carried out with agency and intention on which not everyone will agree. — prothero

We can make a distinction between "Suffering is evil" and "Making someone suffer unnecessarily is evil". Even as an ardent antinatalist, I don't think parents are being "evil" by having children, even if they know that the result of their action will be some form(s) of suffering for the future child. I am purely using the term as "Suffering is an evil", as it is a negative state which we must endure.

I want to see how he bridges suffering and evil in the face of insurmountable evidence. — Cheshire

This sums up the two uses in Western usage:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zhmhgk7/revision/1

Calling something evil can be a rhetorical strategy. Homosexuality is evil. Atheism is evil. Fundamentalism is evil. So you can stop trying to make sense of it now.

See how ↪schopenhauer1 uses it in this way. — Banno

Talking about the very common historical usage of Natural Evil:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zhmhgk7/revision/1

But no, I don't consider it non-sensical. I consider it an inevitability, and due to psychological and physiological features of being an animal in this world, it is almost assuredly entailed (whether the Buddhist sense or the Western sense of unwanted harms).

In my profile I parse the two kinds of suffering thus:

Life has necessary and contingent suffering. Necessary suffering is often considered "Eastern", similar to how Buddhism defines it. That is to say it is a general dissatisfaction stemming from a general lack in what is present. Relief is temporary and unstable. If life was fully positive without this lack, it would be satisfactory without any needs or wants.

Contingent harms are the classic ones people think of. It is the physical harms, the emotional anguish, the annoyances great and small. It is the pandemics, the disasters, the daily grind of a tedious work day. It is the hunger we feel, and the pain of a stubbed toe. It is any negative harm. It is contingent as it is contextual in time/place, and situation. It is based on historical trajectories and situatedness. It is based on the "throwness" (in Existentialism terminology). It varies in individuals in varying amounts and intensity, but happens to everyone nonetheless.

Perhaps there is a possibility of some post-human/transhumanist world, but that would be something different than the nature of the setup we currently have, and I consider that as something oddly outside of consideration other than description from a far away place.

schopenhauer1 constructs his identity by denying life. The other is evil. — Banno

Evil in the sense of moral evil is more to do with intent I would agree. But in terms of people suffering, I wouldn't call it "evil" for people to want progeny despite knowing generally, there is harmfulness in living. I would call it misguided and following preference over consequences. The intent is not to harm (usually), but the intent encompasses knowing of the harmfulness. I don't know how to characterize that (perhaps morally misguided), but I wouldn't call it evil.

In the usage of "natural evil", I do believe there to be a certain entailment of suffering in the regular animal "way of being" in the world. And in that sense I am using it. So a person who is not evil, can understand that there is a "natural evil" in the world, and bypass this understanding for their own preference and thus be morally misguided.

The article says what I said. Evil is a cause of suffering, but not all suffering is evil. You have to be pretending not to understand how this reduces your argument to an awkward bit of static. So, enjoy it I guess.

Evil is a cause of suffering, but not all suffering is evil — Cheshire

No not really:
Evil is a cause of human suffering. There are two types of evil:

moral evil - the acts of humans which are considered to be morally wrong
natural evil - natural disasters, such as earthquakes or tsunamis
These two types of evil can work together, eg human evil can make natural evil worse. If natural evil, eg a drought brought on by lack of rainfall, causes crops to fail, the policies of a government can make the food shortages for the poorest people worse (moral evil).

Natural evil would define suffering as evil.

It is evil to suffer, even if undergone for a better outcome. In this case evil is simply defined as suffering.

Even if all suffering isn't "evil", it doesn't seem to cohere that, "We should experience suffering because it is necessary for X". That is a value statement of one's preferences.. I think of a coach or drill sergeant wanting to spread their way of life to everyone.

EVEN if I was to grant you that you need a bit of suffering to "survive better" that doesn't mean that undergoing this process itself is a good thing (maybe not evil though). It's simply a hypothetical imperative that is a kind of informal "law" for how humans in this universe must achieve certain goals.

Even if all suffering isn't "evil", it doesn't seem to cohere that, "We should experience suffering because it is necessary for X". That is a value statement of one's preferences.. I think of a coach or drill sergeant wanting to spread their way of life to everyone. — schopenhauer1

I still disagree, but it's good you have addressed the issue. It is much easier to make a tangential case that suffering is a reason to question the intrinsic value of future life. You don't need to even bring evil into the matter; and as other posters noted, it is such a loaded term that it hurts creditability from the onset of discussion.

We can make a distinction between "Suffering is evil" and "Making someone suffer unnecessarily is evil". Even as an ardent antinatalist, I don't think parents are being "evil" by having children, even if they know that the result of their action will be some form(s) of suffering for the future child. I am purely using the term as "Suffering is an evil", as it is a negative state which we must endure. — schopenhauer1

This becomes about language. When you say something is evil it (for many anyway) imparts a sense of intention and agency on the part of the cause. We can say floods, hurricanes and disease are evil but it seems to anthropomorphize an agent that is without agency.

I still disagree, but it's good you have addressed the issue. It is much easier to make a tangential case that suffering is a reason to question the intrinsic value of future life. You don't need to even bring evil into the matter; and as other posters noted, it is such a loaded term that it hurts creditability from the onset of discussion. — Cheshire

True enough.

This becomes about language. When you say something is evil it (for many anyway) imparts a sense of intention and agency on the part of the cause. We can say floods, hurricanes and disease are evil but it seems to anthropomorphize an agent that is without agency. — prothero

Yeah, but both versions seem to be used historically. So, if evil as defined by "natural evil" is still on the table (and generally this is defined as enduring suffering from things like diseases, disasters and such), then this does become relevant in defining the concept. Perhaps it informs the other form of evil (human motivated). So if you wish harm on another (aka malice) and you have no other sense of wrongness in obsessing on these thoughts or acting on them, then that can be in the realm of evil. It would be similar to sociopathic, if that's the case. It could be simply having the power to do destruction without any care about the consequences to others. Certainly, suffering seems central to both parts of the equation... But I agree, in the human sense, other elements are involved.. Otherwise accidents, etc. would be considered "evil". But perhaps accidents ARE evil, but simply a natural evil. So thus, both options are covered with suffering as central concept.

My definition of Evil — Trey

Evil is basically just narcissistic behavior.

Good is basically just fair and cooperative behavior.

Wrong = unfair

Right = fair