• AlienFromEarth
    43
    I will attempt to prove the existence of pure evil. That is, pure evil in terms of intention.

    The definition of good: That which strives to promote the health, safety, thus happiness of innocent people.

    The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.

    THese definitions do not have contradictory examples. War cannot be used, as people fighting for war are fighting for survival. They are left with no choice but to fight if they want to live. A good person would have regrets about having to kill others in combat, therefore, we can really say killing in war is not truly the intention of war, rather, it is survival. Please understand the difference.

    There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are. Liquistically or definitionally, we do not need to understand, it is merely ingrained in the most base level of our consciousness, called instinct.

    In order to learn things, we must have a base level of knowledge to begin with. Since we cannot expect a rock to learn anything, as it is inanimate and not conscious, we therefore cannot expect OURSELVES to learn anything if we do not have at least something to UNDERSTAND the lesson in question... to begin with.

    Therefore, what possible lower level of knowledge can there be than the instinctual tendency to choose good over evil? And another question, why do some "people" commit evil? Is it because they are simply not conscious (IE Philosophical Zombies)? Well, there doesn't seem to be any other explanation, does there? We can also break it down better in the following:

    1)Good cannot be evil. Evil cannot be good. This would contradict both of their definitions. Therefore, it cannot be done.

    2)Knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts. It is impossible to consider someone a "good person" if they commit murder or rape. They committed those acts because they did NOT know what good and evil were.

    3)If evil were a choice just anyone could make, the ability to commit evil would require a good person to somehow "unknow" what evil is, and why you don't do it. If this knowledge is at the base level, and we are somehow able to remove it from the person, we in turn remove the person themselves, and make them just as capable of learning as a rock.

    4)Committing evil cannot be considered a "mistake", as it is deliberate as the definition of evil above states. Deliberate is the opposite of mistake.

    5)Survival cannot be a reason to commit evil, as evil directly threatens the survival and well being of the offending evil-doer.

    6)Mental Illness cannot be used as a reason to commit evil either, because no matter what the mental illness is, the person in question obviously does not want to cause anymore suffering to themselves than what they are already going through. If they manage to cause more suffering, it was not intentional. Of course mentally ill people may commit suicide, but that's because they want their suffering to end, not the other way around. And so if they commit an evil act, it's not because they INTENDED to cause more suffering for themselves, and since evil is NOT a mistake, we there cannot use the excuse of mental illness. Again, mentally ill people do not want to cause anymore suffering for themselves, so if someone commit an evil act, it was simply because they intended to, and was not a mistake.

    Conclusion: Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. They cannot be good, as they do not posess consciousness, therefore cannot ever learn what good and evil are, which is necessary in order to be considered a good person. Therefore, people who do horrible, evil, unspeakable acts, are philosophical zombies.

    There you go. Have fun.
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    I have never understood what the word 'pure' adds to the word evil. Would we talk of pure good versus good? I think the word is added to underline it in some way and to add some dubious precision. The word evil is so infected with religious connotations that it is hard to get past all the noise and history.

    Your argument about philosophical zombies doesn't resonate with me. Humans behave and some of that behavior is fucked up. It might be easier for us, instead of understanding the causes of fucked up behavior, to use othering or zombie style categories.

    What do you think you've added to our understanding of evil?

    Maybe it would assist if you presented examples of a pure evil act so we could move past theory and explore your ideas in action.
  • AlienFromEarth
    43
    I don't think it really begs the question of what acts can be considered evil. It's kinda self-explanatory, but I did mention murder and rape in my OP.

    Now, if you would like to debate me point by point, I will oblige. But that has not happened yet.
  • James Riley
    2.9k


    I tried to understand your post but I admit, I did not try very hard. I started to bog down and my eyes started to cross at the feeling that you said too much. That's why I can't debate you point by point. I will say this, though: Whenever I hear the term "good" I immediately ask "for who" or "for what'? Likewise, evil. I don't believe in evil. I think there is always something underlying a "bad" act or thought. And even then, I'm brought to "bad for who" and "bad for what"?

    Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect. There are also unrelated third parties that benefit from the misfortune of others, intentionally or incidentally. Even if that is a microbe that chows down on a rotting carcass, or a shrink getting paid to listen to a victim work out their shit.
  • BC
    13.5k
    Is there such a thing as "impure evil" in contrast to "pure evil"? What is "pure" about "evil"?

    Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil.AlienFromEarth

    What makes a person "good" and what makes a person "evil"? If merely committing an evil act makes someone "pure evil" then I suppose we are all evil, given that most of us either have committed evil acts (graded from trivial to very substantial) or will in the future. Can someone be sort of good and commit a sort of evil act? Visa versa?

    Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to.
  • AlienFromEarth
    43
    @bittercrank yeah i answered those questions already in the post. If you're going to debate me, that's great, but it doesn't help if you are not willing to read everything in total and try to take it apart. If you think it's TLDR;, then I'd just be wasting more site data to redudantly respond to you with what I already posted in the OP.
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.AlienFromEarth
    It's worse than that I think. I posted this on an old thread "What Is Evil" ... (what evil is) with links to further discussions.

    :up:

    Your absolutely worst case scenario could always be attributed to bad wiring. Nature, nurture, or a biological defect.James Riley
    :up:
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.AlienFromEarth
    Mens rea, intention, and degree. These to be accounted for.
    Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil.AlienFromEarth
    This irrational, without proportion, thus inhumane. Do you know better?
  • AlienFromEarth
    43
    And what are you reasons for saying this?

    Certainly a rock can't be evil, because it cannot intend to do anything. Intention only exists in the realm of organisms.

    Even robots do not have intentions, but their programmers do. Robots are tools, and no robot can ever be sentient or fundamentally interconnected to their own "bodies" like humans can. Therefore, robots cannot intend to harm anyone. They can be programmed to do so, but an organism created that intention. Even if a robot creates another robot, the same problem persists. Who created the first robot? Exactly. In our world, you'd think that would be a human being.

    What this means, is that the definition of evil, that is: "That which INTENDS to unjustifiably harm innocent people (or innocent living things if you want)" still stands.

    As I said in my original post, war does not count (by itself), as people are killing for their own survival, they do not WANT (therefore don't INTEND) to kill anyone, and would rather go home without having to see any blood whatsoever. So war is about survival, whereas evil certainly can be committed during wartime, but those are called war CRIMES. If everyone that fought war was a war criminal, then we'd have to kill everyone. .People in war generally fight for survival. Those that commit evil acts during wartime are not fighting for survival whilst committing said evil acts.

    Honestly, I can't see how you'd have a problem with this definition. It has nothing to do with religion, it is purely and simply logical.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people.AlienFromEarth

    My wife has a bad temper. Sometimes, with very little provocation, she will say things to me and others that are very hurtful. There is not doubt that she does this intentionally. That cruelty is not reflected in other aspects of her life.

    By your definition, I guess she's evil.
  • AlienFromEarth
    43
    She might be evil, if that's the case, get away from her. However, if she was only expressing anger due to frustration with something, and only meaning to take control of the situation, then what we would say about her behavior is that it was a MISTAKE.

    I covered this already in the OP, but that was fine to respond to. It was a new example, after all.
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    It's kinda self-explanatory,AlienFromEarth

    There's your problem. It isn't. :smile:
  • AlienFromEarth
    43
    so you live in a cave? How is life in the cave. How do you deal with mold in your lungs?
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    so you live in a cave? How is life in the cave. How do you deal with mold in your lungs?AlienFromEarth

    Well Plato will tell you we all live in a cave. It's a key narrative in philosophy.

    That aside is being hostile really a way to engage with a topic? Could it be you are missing something? I think the other responses are nailing this. For instance:

    Life is vastly more complicated than your conclusion will admit to.Bitter Crank
  • AlienFromEarth
    43
    i don't know about being hostile, I'm having fun. You seem to just want to waste my time and pretend that you can't think of a single thing that is evil. I don't know if that is because you are that brainwashed, or you're a scripted chat bot that trolls forums, but I don't have time to waste on someone who is completely unwilling to accept a very standard and widely accepted example of evil such as murder or rape, which I have already mentioned in the OP.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    Its strange for you to drop an OP and then act like a smug prick to everyone who responds. Get humble, your OP is not the rock solid argument you seem to think it is. At best your logic requires explaining, its not that clear to the reader where the strength of your argument lies.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    She might be evil, if that's the case, get away from her. However, if she was only expressing anger due to frustration with something, and only meaning to take control of the situation, then what we would say about her behavior is that it was a MISTAKE.AlienFromEarth

    You wrote:

    Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil.AlienFromEarth

    I covered this already in the OP,AlienFromEarth

    No, you did not.

    so you live in a cave?AlienFromEarth

    You're new here, and you're kind of being an asshole. We already have at least one member who thinks philosophy is mostly insults and condescending remarks. We don't need another one. Play nice.
  • AlienFromEarth
    43
    except it is pretty rock solid. And no one is being smug about it, except you, and obviously all the scripted chat bots trying to get me banned from this forum right now. And of course that's obvious, since the entire internet is flooded with them, and often are even crappy moderators that ban people for bullshit reasons, as is the case on reddit, and well you know so many others.

    Now, if you don't mind, to the humans on here, I await your response.
  • AlienFromEarth
    43


    It isn't evil if it's not intentional. If she made a mistake, then that's OPPOSITE of intentional.

    Evil = INTENTIONAL ujustified harm against the innocent

    Mistake = NOT. INTENTIONAL. but potentially poses harm to the innocent.

    Get it now?
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    i don't know about being hostile, I'm having fun.AlienFromEarth

    The moderators here are a bit trigger happy about getting rid of those who send out what are known as "low quality posts". I think yours meet their standards. I predict you won't be here long. We'll open a pool. I'm down for midnight. Any takers?
  • T Clark
    13.7k


    I think that's going to do it. We'll see you later.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k
    :lol:
    :lol:

    ….

    :lol:

    Hysterical :rofl:

    Like perfectly hysterical, from your delivery to my out loud laughter.

    Look out everyone we’re all going to jail :rofl:
    What are you? 10? 12?

    :rofl:
  • 180 Proof
    15.3k
    ↪180 Proof And what are you reasons for saying this?AlienFromEarth
    Apparently my link wasn't worth you making an effort. Nevermind. :shade:

    :smirk:

    :up:
  • Hanover
    12.8k
    And of course that's obvious, since the entire internet is flooded with them, and often are even crappy moderators that ban people for bullshit reasons, as is the case on reddit, and well you know so many others.AlienFromEarth

    I was just sittimg here innocently minding my own business and you hurl an insult at me. Evil.
  • Ennui Elucidator
    494
    The OP could use work, but is there really anything he is saying that is so foreign to older ideas about happiness/the good? You just sort of naively take it for granted that someone pursues what they want, that what they want is the good, and that all actions of necessity aim towards good absent illness/error. So outside of lots of hand waving about how examples of intentional harm are either justified or the result of mistake (special pleading at its finest), what more is to be said? Man, the rational beast that pursues the good.

    Totalizing theory, all counter-examples explained away, and conclusion affirmed because it is definitional.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    It seems our problems have doubled over the past 2000 years - first, it was evil, whatever that is, we had to deal with and now, pure evil! This task we're asked to perform is, manifestly, evil, pure evil. :lol:
  • BC
    13.5k
    It's a minute before midnight here, 59 minutes past midnight where you are. And he's still not banned!
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    @Wayfarer

    I can't seem to get my hands on the quote but allow me to paraphrase it, the best I can.

    I sinned, not towards an end, but because I loved the sin — Some saint (forgot his name)

    If you can tell me the name of the saint and the actual quote, I'd be much obliged.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    A short analysis of your handle: AlienFromEarth.

    Fermi Paradox

    1. Are we alone? Don't know! Uncertain!

    2. Are they alone? No, 100% No! Certain!
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    @Bitter Crank@180 Proof@Wayfarer

    I found the quote I was looking for.

    Doing evil for nothing = Pure Evil?!

    I loved not the thing for which I committed the sin but the sin itself — Saint Augustine (Pear Tree, The Fall Of Man)

    A more accurate quote:

    The evil in me was foul, but I loved it. I loved my own perdition and my own faults, not the things for which I committed wrong, but the wrong itself. — St. Augustine (Confessions Book II, section 4)
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.