On the nature of evil

Both are vague concepts. All is relative.

 

like

evil, opposite of good
and good is the opposite of evil

It really is subjective.

 

Great question!

Evil, real evil such as the holocaust, defies understanding. Here's a quote from Primo Levi, who survived Auschwitz:

Arthur Machen, a writer on this very subject of the incomprehensibility of evil, compared it to walking up to your front door and suddenly noticing that your flowers are talking to you. An immediate mind-bending horror, right on your doorstep...

 

Evil: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Kim Jong Un, Clarence Thomas, Ted Nugent, SUVs, and Barney, the big purple dinosaur.

Good: Tangerines, wilderness, snow, sexual pleasure, waterfalls.

Wow, another Arthur Machen reader! I love his fiction. To me, it's almost better than Lovecraft.

 

So what is it that sets us humans apart from nature? Why wouldn't AIDS, Ebola, plague, tornadoes, death and other natural calamities be called evil? Or is it evil that we don't do what is needed to mitigate these?

 

:lol:





...

Okay, I might be back with a better response.

Would everything technically be both good and evil, if it's subjective?

To one person, something may seem good, but to another, it may seem evil. I don't believe that one opinion should be valued more than another, even if it may contradict what you believe yourself.

 

Evil = bad shit.
Good = not bad shit.
I'm not in a serious mood, can you tell?

 

trying to define good in terms of "pleasurable" or "pleasant" commits the naturalistic fallacy as proposed by G.E Moore.

as for evil, well, I would appeal to immoral acts committed.

 

Ah, good questions! I think religion separated us from nature, especially Christianity.

As for calamities. Interesting question. While my humanitarian side says let's help all we can, there's another side that thinks these are also just part of nature. Even the Ebola virus does have a kinda pretty shape to it, despite all the suffering it's caused. And I do think tornadoes and other storms are amazing to see; like a reminder we're not all powerful.

Tough questions, those.

 

Completely agree, the entire foundation of ethics is based on free will. So we're back to the incomprehensibility of evil (and indeed the incomprehensibility of free will).

Setting aside the obvious and far too facile definition of evil as whatever hurts someone, what is it? The main problem, as I see it, is that when we ask "what" it is, we are really asking "what is it like"? And if evil is unlike anything else, we do have a problem of definition.

 

it doesn't though, humans are forever entangled with nature and natural conditions. some fact about how humans group together to form cohesion and community doesn't remove you from being part of nature.

The non-humanitarian argument about ebola that you bring as an example runs into the is-ought problem. We ought to do nothing, because ebola is part of nature. or at least that is one problem, the other being you are appealing to nature.

 

Of course, we reject that notion, as we are endowed by nature with sufficient intelligence to find a cure or devise a method of preventing natural calamities such as Ebola. We may however find ourselves choosing to do other things (which would be an evil? of omission).

Should evil be reduced to simple error? An erroneous perception? I reject that too, it would be, as Levi would say, too easily contained within normal human experience...Pol Pot and what he did to Cambodia defies that definition.

 

Well, I think we should do all we can to help, while accepting it is part of nature.

And I do feel we're still part of nature; Christianity and so many other religions, though, seem to try to de-emphasize this in exchange for the 'spiritual' by elevating the heavenly above the world, and making something unclean of sex. (original sin, 'virgin' Mary, not spilling seed, &c, &c...)

 

it really depends on what meta-ethical theory you want to evaluate the morality of non-action with prevention or easement of ebola. as a deontologist, I am of the opinion that we have an ethical duty to help the victims of ebola. inaction could be viewed as immoral (if one had the resources or capability to help) or non-moral (if one did not have the resources or capability to help)

I'm not quite sure what you mean with the Pol Pot example.



---------- Post added 30th Oct 2014 at 08:51 PM ----------

I agree, we can accept ebola is part of nature while still fulfilling duty to help other humans.

 

Here's an interesting article on Arthur Machen:

Machen is the forgotten father of weird fiction | Books | The Guardian

 

I think evil things cause suffering to others and good things are neutral or help others.