There is a category of harmful actions that we commit out of ignorance, which is seperate from evil.
Then there is a category of harmful actions we knowingly and purposefully commit. That is evil. Such actions are always accompanied by some form of justification, which I regard as self-deceit. — Tzeentch

I think this is fundamentally correct but ignorance is not the only reason and ignorance is sometimes not an excuse if you could have easily become aware by just making a little effort.
Mental illness is also not evil imo.

We are fragile, and so we are fearful. And of those whose fragility is exploited and abused, there are some who are destroyed psychologically. One can see it sometimes in the eyes, a deadness, — unenlightened

Very good words which are bitterly true.

Their strength is to project their own weakness onto the world and punish the world for it. This is hell, because it can never end, and there is no one left to save. Pity the pitiless! — unenlightened

I think this can end if we can make people less fragile and less afraid.

If 15000 children's deaths can be prevented. And we see all children on the planet as deserving protection. Then it's imperative to try and do so. Otherwise we are just spectators observing bad and good things being done but not actively contributing to it ourselves or worse... Being manipulated by bad people and liars to do their bidding for them unbeknownst to ourselves. — Benj96

:clap: Your words are honest and true imo.

No. The evil act is done to the child — 180 Proof

If we don't do all we can, when we can, to stop 15000 innocent, preventable deaths, then we have to live with the statistic. This is what I mean by 'evil that humans can perform on themselves.'
This is happening EVERY DAY and the weight of such evils are intolerably pressing on the conscience of most people, as most people imo, are good.
I personally don't do enough imo. I have been involved with such as 'sponsor a child' since it began many years ago but that's just throwing some money at the issue. I do some other stuff as well but not enough. I think some people can become anti-life/anti-natalist because their conscience cannot deal with some of these horrific, true statistics. We must all do better or else literary words such as:
those that are poor or ill are surplus to the needs of society and if they would rather die, they’d better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
will forever gnaw at all good people and increase the number of antinatalists among us.

If you remove 'evil' from religion and you don't see evil as a religious thing, then what do you leave the Christians (for example) as their main tool of judgement. — universeness

Why would it be my job to determine what Christians' "main tool of judgement" is. Why would I care.

Why do you jump so quickly to their defence, if you think one of their most important tools is being used by them, falsely? — universeness

Unlike many here on the forum, I respect people's religious beliefs. It doesn't have anything to do with their specific beliefs. I don't think the idea of "evil" is false as such, just not useful. It's not a word I use very often.

It's not a word I use very often. — T Clark

We need to look Beyond Good And Evil (Nietzsche)? :chin: I wonder ...

We need to look Beyond Good And Evil (Nietzsche)? — Agent Smith

I haven't read what Nietzsche wrote.

Don't worry: Agent Smith hasn't either.

Why would it be my job to determine what Christians' "main tool of judgement" is. Why would I care. — T Clark

Perhaps not your 'job' but you seem to feel protective towards Christians, perhaps because, according to your earlier typings, you married one. I intend no offence by this, I am merely suggesting a reason which drives your demand for 'respecting people's beliefs.' I respect people, not their beliefs, especially when they try to preach them to me, not as merely their belief but as truth revealed by a supernatural deity than I must accept or be damned by.

I don't think the idea of "evil" is false as such, just not useful. It's not a word I use very often. — T Clark

Fair enough. But you have stated that it's origin and source is human and not supernatural. I am merely trying to follow your logic as you apply it every day, and I am interested in what actions you follow based on a conditional such as. If I don't accept that 'evil' has a supernatural source (as you seem not to) then what is your response to a Christian theist who states with personal certainty, (the kind of personal certainty you object to me displaying) that the devil is the source of evil and you are one of the damned if you don't accept the Abrahamic god as your saviour.
A fully cooked Christian will consider you one of the damned, will they not?

That being said, the worst thing a person can do is hurt a child. — T Clark

What about repeatedly jabbing a nice old lady in the ear with a pencil? Slapping a child seems like child's play compared to that.

I can arrive at some additional counter examples to your comment if you'd like.

you seem to feel protective towards Christians, perhaps because, according to your earlier typings, you married one. — universeness

I'd rather you focused on my arguments rather than my motives.

If I don't accept that 'evil' has a supernatural source (as you seem not to) then what is your response to a Christian theist who states with personal certainty, (the kind of personal certainty you object to me displaying) that the devil is the source of evil and you are one of the damned if you don't accept the Abrahamic god as your saviour. — universeness

I generally don't feel any need to respond.

I can arrive at some additional counter examples to your comment if you'd like. — Hanover

Please don't go to any trouble for my sake.

I haven't read what Nietzsche wrote. — T Clark

Don't worry: Agent Smith hasn't either. — Jamal

:grin:

Book titles, I hear, are crafted to grab your attention; as they say, don't judge a book by its cover, oui mes amies?

oui mes amies? — Agent Smith

Votre essayer a Francais parler sont tres annoying. Je voudrais si vous les arrete.

Pardon my very bad French.

There is no way to compel you to respond to that which you do not want to respond to.
Suffice to say however that this suggests you have 'boxes,' you will not open and fully examine.
Perhaps I have some to, I don't know for sure, but If I do, I am not sure where they are in my head.
I WANT TO open all the boxes and look inside. I have always preferred that the solution to Schrodinger's cat, at any instant of time, is to open the freaking box and describe what you see. I think we need to always open all the boxes. I don't mean we should just ignore the warnings about opening pandoras box, I just mean that the contents of pandoras box were never avoidable in the first place, so we must learn to combat them better. Pandoras box/jar was never ever closed!

What evils did Pandora release?
The Evils of the World! Curiosity got the better of Pandora and she lifted the lid of the storage jar which released all the evils of the world. These terrible things included disease, war, vice, toil, and the necessity to work for sustenance.

Addition: Pandora is just Eve, an apple or the contents of a jar/box, not much difference in the imagery. Pandora is just another BS fable where Women get the blame for releasing all the evils in the world, yet again. We need to stop any such story being peddled as potentially based on true events or else the word EVIL will retain its fake supernatural power over humans based on their primal fears.

Btw, @Jamal, does it mean anything to you that Levi is an anagram of evil. I hope not, but I bet some nefarious people have used such meaningless observations to abuse the Jewish people and Jewish culture.

I have always preferred that the solution to Schrodinger's cat, at any instant of time, is to open the freaking box and describe what you see. — universeness

Schrodinger intended his cat analogy as a joke.

Schrodinger intended his cat analogy as a joke. — T Clark

If he did then perhaps his science was much more successful than his comedy.

Votre essayer a Francais parler sont tres annoying. Je voudrais si vous les arrete.

Pardon my very bad French. — T Clark

:lol: A million times better than my smattering of French.

I personally do define evil as a purely human measure/judgement of behaviour. — universeness

And so rape would be good if humans so defined it as good? This sounds like subjectivism and subject to the many problems associated with it.

think the most heinous evil is to truly believe that YOU are the most important object in the universe and to act 100% in accordance with that belief. — universeness

Except to the extent they might have an enlightend sense of selfishness, where they feed their narcissistic ego through apparent acts of kindness. That is to say, your focus on the psychological motivation seems less significant than focusing on the intent generally as well as the behavior.

For example, if Hitler's motivation was truly that he thought Aryan supremecy would result in a greater good for the world, he still would have been evil, even though his motivation would include advancement of his community generally, would not be narcissistic under this description, and would be just as evil.

think the idea of evil is generally not a useful one. It often leads to responses that are not effective in addressing the behavior in question. E.g. revenge rather than prevention and deterrence. "Evildoers" are human. If you want to stop them, you have to understand that. — T Clark

This is a Christian notion of evil within humanity, which relies upon an ever present love of one's enemy, turning the other cheek and viewing all as capable of salvation.

I know you didn't suggest all that with your simple comment above, but it is part of that tradition.

The counter tradition is that there is true evil for which no sympathy should be afforded.

The latter may be thought of as unnuanced, judgmental, and merciless The former naive and refusing to call a spade a spade. That is, to the extent we must understand our enemy, let us understand they are evil. It could be that simple.

Evil is to act without regard for the well being of the other. — hypericin

I include as evil self harm, not just that harm to others, including subjecting yourself to degradation or humiliation. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not create a subjective morality where it becomes acceptable for the masochist to injure others because he would enjoy receiving such pain.

If you see all of humanity, including yourself, as the ultimate end, the highest being within our world, imposing a metaphorical divine essence upon it, it becomes as evil to damage others as yourself, resulting in a duty to develop yourself to your highest potential

This is a Christian notion of evil within humanity, which relies upon an ever present love of one's enemy, turning the other cheek and viewing all as capable of salvation.

I know you didn't suggest all that with your simple comment above, but it is part of that tradition. — Hanover

You're the second person today I've had to ask to respond to my argument, not to my motivation. You and Universeness are peas in a pod.

That is, to the extent we must understand our enemy, let us understand they are evil. It could be that simple. — Hanover

And yet it's not.

You're the second person today I've had to ask to respond to my argument, not to my motivation. You and Universeness are peas in a pod. — T Clark

I made no mention of your motivation. I indicated your position's similarity to Christianity and then pointed out the well known difficulties with that position, namely its inability to adequately condemn unresolvable evil.

How you arrived at your position isn't a concern of mine.

As with most (all?) philosophical positions one may advance here, they have been advanced and criticized elsewhere probably for the past 1000 years. I've done nothing but identify your position and respond in what was actually a predictable way.

I made no mention of your motivation. I indicated your position's similarity to Christianity and then pointed out the well known difficulties with that position, namely its inability to adequately condemn unresolvable evil. — Hanover

I thought about that when I was writing my response, but I wanted a way to show you and Universeness are similar. I figured that would annoy you.

What I should have responded was "I remain skeptical of your sincerity."

And so rape would be good if humans so defined it as good? This sounds like subjectivism and subject to the many problems associated with it. — Hanover

I can't conceive of a human civilisation that would define rape as good and still be able to retain the label civilised. I would engage in armed revolt against such a civilisation, wouldn't you? The bizarre projection you are attempting is sensationalist and is based on a quick jump to extremity approach. Such a jump is a bit irrational. Democracy is based on subjectivism, which is fine as long as you have an educated populous, which is the socialist/humanist goal.

Except to the extent they might have an enlightend sense of selfishness, where they feed their narcissistic ego through apparent acts of kindness. That is to say, your focus on the psychological motivation seems less significant than focusing on the intent generally as well as the behavior.

For example, if Hitler's motivation was truly that he thought Aryan supremecy would result in a greater good for the world, he still would have been evil, even though his motivation would include advancement of his community generally, would not be narcissistic under this description, and would be just as evil. — Hanover

You simply exemplify that benevolence must be demonstrated not claimed or promised, based on never never claims of future equality. The terms enlightened and selfishness are combatants, they never belong together. Hitler demonstrated evil towards the majority, and benevolence, only towards his chosen few. I find little of significance or value in your rather obtuse angle of logical argument here.

What I should have responded was "I remain skeptical of your sincerity." — T Clark

You don't annoy me. I ignore those who annoy me.

I'm sincere in my posts. Even the absurd ones are not insincere.

I assume we are all sincere in our posts.
I only ignore those who I think are completely cooked and there is no wiggle room.
So far, I have mostly only included certain fully cooked antinatalists in that category.

[

I can't conceive of a human civilisation that would define rape as good and still be able to retain the label civilised. I would engage in armed revolt against such a civilisation, wouldn't you? The bizarre projection you are attempting is sensationalist and is based on a quick jump to extremity approach. Such a jump is a bit irrational. Democracy is based on subjectivism, which is fine as long as you have an educated populous, which is the socialist/humanist goal — universeness

Unfortunately egalitarianism is s fairly modern invention, meaning there was a time in our not so distant past that women were considered men's property. The same holds true for certain races. Caste systems allow subjugation as do religious systems to this day.

You are attempting to defend your subjectivist position by arguing that your moral positions are subjective but that they are universal, meaning that they so happen to be moral because of a universal consistency in human preference and thought.

The problem with your position is that it is an empirical statement and it is wrong. From nation to nation, culture to culture, time period to time period, there are fundamental distinctions in what is considered right and wrong, including the issue of rape.

What we need to say is rape is wrong, regardless of where it happens, when it happens, or which dictator says it is. That is moral realism and it demands objectivity.

Democracy can legalize slavery. It cannot make it moral. That is the point.

Hitler demonstrated evil towards the majority, and benevolence, only towards his chosen few. — universeness

The Jews were a minority. In any event, why are we counting numbers here? Are you suggesting if we scapegoated a sufficiently few for the common good, then the scapegoating was moral?

Intentionality which is anti-existence

Unfortunately egalitarianism is s fairly modern invention, meaning there was a time in our not so distant past that women were considered men's property. The same holds true for certain races. Caste systems allow subjugation as do religious systems to this day. — Hanover

This is more related to our lack of authentic documentation from earlier than about 6000 years ago.
You and I have no idea who first suggested that we are equal and thrive better when we work together rather than in conflict. Perhaps many members of many early hominid species regularly suggested that they should work together, as equals. I agree that hierarchy does seem to dominate within most animal and insectoid groups and there is plenty of evidence of it in humans, but humans rose to the top perhaps because many of us decided to work together as equals and have always rejected the idea that hierarchy is the only way and the best way. Socialism/humanism rejects the notion of a ruling hierarchy and would only every employ it, if it is demonstrably, (and is constantly so,) in service to the majority. Of, for and by the people.

You are attempting to defend your subjectivist position by arguing that your moral positions are subjective but that they are universal, meaning that they so happen to be moral because of a universal consistency in human preference and thought. — Hanover

They are my subjectivist position, yes, and are opinions held by many others, subjectively.
I democratically debate for them to be accepted by you and as many others as possible so that they do become universally applied. I am defending and I am trying to convince others to become believers, yes.
I know that when people have trusted others to hold authority, they have suffered for it BUT I believe that we can get it right. That which sounds good can become universal quite quickly.

If true socialism/humanism cannot demonstrate its tenets are the best and fairest system humans have ever lived under then it must fail and be thrown on the scrap heap with all the other failed attempts in history. We will then try again under other labels. BUT, the point is that as long as humans exist, many will try to make things better for all. For me, that is what it means TO BE human.

The problem with your position is that it is an empirical statement and it is wrong. From nation to nation, culture to culture, time period to time period, there are fundamental distinctions in what is considered right and wrong, including the issue of rape.
What we need to say is rape is wrong, regardless of where it happens, when it happens, or which dictator says it is. That is moral realism and it demands objectivity.
Democracy can legalize slavery. It cannot make it moral. That is the point. — Hanover

My political and socioeconomic position requires consistent empirical demonstration, yes. Open, honest government must have this ability. Any culture, or time period or different moral arguments regarding right and wrong do not in my opinion include issues such as rape or the ability to take the basic needs of survival for granted. Mutual consent to sex and economic/resource-based parity are fundamental in demonstrating the difference between humans and animals. Such parity is essential if we are to show that we no longer play by jungle rules. I don't care about culturally driven traditions which differ from these fundamentals. Nothing good can be built unless and until these fundamentals are accepted by a global majority. From what you say in your quote above, we fully agree. That which builds from subjective democratic debate/opinion can indeed become Universally accepted and objectively applied.
But the hard work has to be done first. Universal application of a fair, benevolent, just, system based on equal human rights is what I advocate for.

Democracy can legalize slavery. It cannot make it moral. That is the point. — Hanover

No democratic system can legalise slavery unless the people involved are stupid morons and I do not consider a group of stupid and moronic humans, capable of creating a good civilisation. SO, the imperative is to make sure that the planet Earth is not populated by a majority of humans who are stupid and moronic. I don't therefore think the point you make above has any importance other than as a statement of the obvious.

The Jews were a minority. In any event, why are we counting numbers here? Are you suggesting if we scapegoated a sufficiently few for the common good, then the scapegoating was moral? — Hanover

I don't employ scapegoating in any shape or form, except to cite it as a common use that theists use gods for. I do state that the nefarious behaviour of a small number of humans throughout history have resulted in the bad social, political, economic and environmental systems we now globally employ.
The colour, creed or culture of the nefarious is completely irrelevant to me. I do not scapegoat the nefarious rich and powerful, I justly and directly accuse them, in the same way as the French did during their revolution. A pity, morons such as Robespierre messed it all up again!

How would one ever prove who they are? — Benj96

All I've got is this old bit of scripture:

Ye shall know them by their fruits. — Matthew 7:16

Freddy is talking about the religious, or priestly, valuation of "good and evil" – to move "beyond" the other-worldly back to this-worldly, naturalistic good and bad (i.e. virtuous and vicious cycles/habits).

This is more related to our lack of authentic documentation from earlier than about 6000 years ago. — universeness

Slavery existed in the US only 150 years ago, it still exists in parts of the world today, and woman are considered chattel in parts of the world today. I'm not referencing unknown, ancient civilizations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

No democratic system can legalise slavery unless the people involved are stupid morons and I do not consider a group of stupid and moronic humans, capable of creating a good civilisation. SO — universeness

The American South did not create slavery because they were stupid.

In any event, you miss the point terribly. The point was that the role of the majority is irrelevant in determining morality.

I don't employ scapegoating in any shape or form, — universeness

Again, you miss the point terribly. You argued that Hitler was an example of a minority will over-ruling majority will, resulting in an evil that wouldn't have existed had he more concerned himself with Germany's will and not his own. My response was twofold: (1) you're factually incorrect to assert that Hitler was subjugating the majority because the subjugated (Jews among many others) were a minority, not a majority, and (2) a democracy can be tyrannical. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#:~:text=The%20tyranny%20of%20the%20majority,those%20of%20the%20minority%20factions.

That is, the will of the majority of the people can be advanced by the enslavement and even murder of a minority. That is not a hypothetical construct. It is the very history of the US.