Definition of Evil

[bogeyman]

Does this depend on social conditioning? Education? Indoctrination? Actions? Laws? Or is there something beyond all these beliefs? Morals?

[Milneman]

(do you mean the innate idea that there is something that exists which is parasitic of that which is good?)

bogeyman, this is one of the very deep and thoughtful questions I had to contend with in dealing with Dr. Stephen Law's "Evil God Challenge".

And I need more coffee and a few more posts in this thread to reflect further, but I will go deeper.

You gotta love these kinds of threads. :)

[donk]

I think it is relative:

Evil = consciously (knowingly) imposing your will on another (against their will).

This, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder

[Milneman]

So donk would it then be evil for parents to impose their will on young children in a case of keeping them safe?

[dsldog]

God's teachings or man's law, and of course, which God?

There are some things in the union of all law and morality. For example I cant think of a single culture that permits cannibalism of the tribes' offspring. Kind of easy to figure out why.

The definition, however, remains elusive. Like the judge said about pornography, I know it when I see it.

[Milneman]

God's teachings or man's law, and of course, which God?

There are some things in the union of all law and morality. For example I cant think of a single culture that permits cannibalism of the tribes' offspring. Kind of easy to figure out why.

The definition, however, remains elusive. Like the judge said about pornography, I know it when I see it.

Elusive because it's relative?

[risveglio]

Does this depend on social conditioning? Education? Indoctrination? Actions? Laws? Or is there something beyond all these beliefs? Morals?

I think so. I know some, if not most, of us here believe what our governments are doing in the name of spreading Democracy is evil, but not to most of our fellow citizens. It has to be social conditioning that lets so many accept the contradictions between what they claim to believe spiritually to what they allow to happen. I know I have started struggling with this recently. So much pain is done with the value provided by my labor that I wonder if it makes me evil by association.

[Valle]

To me
Evil = ego,
If you do something to benefit yourself on others behalf you do an evil act.
The more you gain or the more others suffers, the more evil..

Good = making someone glad or doing an non ego act

"Lebensraum" = evil
"we are the chosen people" = evil
"The end justifies the means" = evil
etc

[Shezbeth]

From the Encyclopedia of FA

Evil - A classification of observable behaviors and phenomenon and/or perceived/theoretical dispositions that the subject(s) making the classification find to be dogmatically abhorrent, unsupportable, non-conducive, and condemnable largely through a combination of nescience, ignorance, and a lack of consideration as pertains to the etymology of the behavior/disposition in question. Specifically, an individual/group violation of a subject's moral beliefs/perceptions.

I'll be happy to expound if it seems necessary. ^_^

[donk]

So donk would it then be evil for parents to impose their will on young children in a case of keeping them safe?

It is their responsibility to teach it (that something is harmful) to them. It is possible (but not easy) to do this without imposing your will on them.

Most of the more popular methods of western culture seem to be pretty evil. It's deeply interwoven into our societal norms (abusive relationships)

I do not accept "because I said so"...and require a reason for everything I do (else I'm committing evil). So when I catch myself projecting my feelings (frustration/impatience) on to my kids, I always apologize.

If a child doesn't listen, and continues to engage in self destructive behavior despite your best efforts of teaching/sharing information, tricks necessarily need to be employed, as we are not always afforded the time to properly raise our children (that's the nature of the evil beast that is the way we choose to arrange ourself as a "civilization").

Evil is knowingly allowing self destructive behavior. Unfortunately, we've been mindf*cked I to accepting a way of life that makes it nearly impossible to do it completely honestly and openly.

Whether it be urban myth or not, I like the stories of Richard Branson's childhood, many people consider his mother's ways "evil", I find them to be the opposite, a way to teach kids to be responsible. It's tough nowadays

[loungelizard]

The trouble with the word "evil" is that it generates an immediate reaction. There is an implication that evil is somehow an absolute force in the world, and that if it could only be removed, everything would be hunky dory. If we only had someone to blame...:rolleyes:

There are evil actions that cause harm, but trying to rid the world of evil is in itself the root of evil action. The idea that we can make the world good by destroying the evil, by exorcising it, by exterminating it, by removing all the impurities of the world. Us against them. History is littered with the repercussions of people who have believed there is a battle between the goodies and the baddies.

The idea that if we can label people who cause us pain as "evil", it makes us feel better. It's a comfort. We're not evil - they are.

Evil is not an external force. Neither is it an inherent characteristic of being human. It is created by causes and conditions: pain gives rise to evil. And we all carry the seeds of evil within us. It's down to us to watch our own actions, rather than hold an idea that it's possible to eliminate this elusive power called evil.

Evil something we create. It's not something we are, and neither is it an outside force that somehow takes us over.

The world is a difficult and painful place: because of this, there are many opportunities for us to show kindness

[Milneman]

So....Hitler was evil right?

*runs for the hills* :O)

[Shezbeth]

No, Hitler engaged in tyranny, predation, and a host of other things. That is, according to the available information which is BY NO MEANS complete. I'm not saying his behavior is excusable, but neither is it inexcusable, unless one has already made the internal agreement that some actions are not-permissible.

The universe, like it or not, 'decided' his actions were permissible.

[Milneman]

lol Shezbeth I should apologize. That comment was kind of an inside joke between me n' lizzy. :D

[Shezbeth]

Your actions do not warrant apology. I didn't think you were specifically addressing me, but I saw your statement as an opportunity to illustrate, so I took it. The term 'evil' is often bandied about as an emotional appeal - usually in condemnation - geared toward creating consensus and ending any potential discussion about a topic and/or understanding of that being condemned. Individuals involved are often intent on not using reason or understanding, though there are cases in which it is used at the conclusion of discussion/inquiry as a simplification.

[Finefeather]

Evil = consciously (knowingly) imposing your will on another (against their will).

I would agree on this...however...I would include the unconscious (unknowing) condition as well...somewhere there has to be a will driving this state of repulsive behaviour...whether we are conscious of it or not...where does it come from?

I think an interesting exercise is to consider what each of us has determined to be 'evil'...and what we have determined to be 'good'...because this is usually our baseline for our judgments...and might determine also the boundaries of our knowledge and wisdom.

Since...IMO... 'evil' is just a word we have invented to position ourselves on some side of a great divide...which we have ourselves created...as individuals and as collectives...it might then be reasonable to consider the meaning, or goal, of life, and what actions might deter us from our quest towards this goal...and call that 'evil'.

We all have different ideas for our reason for life and this makes it almost impossible to say 'one size fits all'...so for some evil is a profound hindrance and danger to our 'mission'...and for some it is just a choice wether it will...or even can...be of any serious consequence to our ‘mission’.

So it seems to me that it becomes quite difficult to equate one man’s ‘evil’ with another man’s ‘evil’ when we are not always quite sure wether they are even conscious of it or not.

Esoterically, ‘evil’ is actions and thoughts which work against the laws of nature and the laws of life...and freedom is obedience to the laws of nature and the laws of live.

So what might be the laws of nature and the laws of life?

Take care
Ray

[Shezbeth]

I agree that donk's definition describes something reprehensible but that definition is more equatable to that of "Tyranny" than "Evil". The dichotomy presented by Finefeather does a good job of illustrating a point, but is false and biased (the 'great divide part' is spot on though). The opposite of freedom is not evil, though individuals may be want to categorize it so, it is control.

[Eram]

I agree that donk's definition describes something reprehensible but that definition is more equatable to that of "Tyranny" than "Evil". The dichotomy presented by Finefeather does a good job of illustrating a point, but is false and biased (the 'great divide part' is spot on though). The opposite of freedom is not evil, though individuals may be want to categorize it so, it is control.

In finefeathers dichotomy, isn't the violation of laws of nature and life coming forth out of a desire (conscious or unconscious) to control?

[dsldog]

relative and manifold

[donk]

I think the opposite of freedom is evil, I think I described that, and I feel tyranny is evil on a grand scale, my definition can be applied on that level as well as the interpersonal. Even the most interpersonal: lying to yourself.

Self destructive behavior is inflicting on evil on yourself, it is a form of control and not exclusive of your definition. That's the least populous level (pop = 1). Abusive relationships (pop = 2) is small scale tyranny, really no different, except that population equals the entire population.

Ultimately, this seemingly harmful to others act is harmful to the tyrant itself

[Shezbeth]

isn't the violation of laws of nature and life coming forth out of a desire (conscious or unconscious) to control?

I would suggest that the desire to control comes from a violation of the natural laws of nature and life, but the end result is the same. The problem with the term 'evil' is the overwhelming amount of interpretive bias that surrounds it (likewise with 'good'), which is often interpreted as carte blanche to make it mean whatever the subject wants which includes - but is not limited to - a person's moral judgements. Various dictionaries have relatively similar definitions of what 'evil' means, but they are all a result of centuries of religious propaganda, and the propaganda continues and increases to this day.

Take George W's classic speech about terrorists being 'evil'; His inference is all fine and good if one doesn't investigate the fine details of 9/11, but to an inquiring mind there is far more to it. The devil is always in the details, which is why I suggest that the use of the term evil is largely a rhetorical effort to cease further inquiry, though that is not always the case.

[Shezbeth]

I think the opposite of freedom is evil, I think I described that, and I feel tyranny is evil on a grand scale, my definition can be applied on that level as well as the interpersonal. Even the most interpersonal: lying to yourself.

Self destructive behavior is inflicting on evil on yourself, it is a form of control and not exclusive of your definition. That's the least populous level (pop = 1). Abusive relationships (pop = 2) is small scale tyranny, really no different, except that population equals the entire population.

Ultimately, this seemingly harmful to others act is harmful to the tyrant itself

I don't claim that online dictionaries/thesauruses are in any way unbiased, but it serves as an example.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/freedom?__utma=1.495862827.1383363450.1390962674.1391115316.101&__utmb=1.20.8.1391119568833&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1390787182.89.3.utmcsr=r.duckduckgo.com|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/l/&__utmv=-&__utmk=234981633

And you are welcome to your interpretation and opinion, but there are a number of assumptions and agreements (bias) involved in that classification. Self-destructive behavior is the result of the freedom to engage in, as the individual is at liberty to act in accords with their disposition. Self-destruction is agreeably non-conducive to the perpetuation of the body and/or the development of the mind and spirit, but 'non-conducive' is not synonymous with 'evil'.

I challenge anyone (perhaps I should open another thread?) to describe an example of evil that cannot be logically broken down and contested.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

"entropy is the natural tendency for things to break down over time. Evil is the addition of intention to that process" - Whitley Strieber

[Eram]

isn't the violation of laws of nature and life coming forth out of a desire (conscious or unconscious) to control?

I would suggest that the desire to control comes from a violation of the natural laws of nature and life, [...snip]

I think this desire to control comes from fear and ignorance, but I must admit that I'm at the end of my ability to penetrate the matter, so I might be wrong :P.

Are fear and ignorance violations of those laws, or properties of the evolutionary journey the we take from darkness to light?

[donk]

relative and manifold


NICE! I had to look it up though :o

man·i·fold
/ˈmanəˌfōld/
adjective
adjective: 1. many and various.
"the implications of this decision were manifold"
synonyms: many, numerous, multiple, multifarious, legion, diverse, various, several, varied, different, miscellaneous, assorted, sundry; More

Thought this was interesting

[Shezbeth]

"entropy is the natural tendency for things to break down over time. Evil is the addition of intention to that process" - Whitley Strieber

Is nihilism evil then? Is critical analysis? Is EMERGENCE?

[Shezbeth]

Sorry if I seem overly stimulated/participatory in this discussion, it is a subject I have always found fascinating. I can quit if it is deemed conducive by consensus. ^_~


I think this desire to control comes from fear and ignorance, but I must admit that I'm at the end of my ability to penetrate the matter, so I might be wrong :P.

Are fear and ignorance violations of those laws, or properties of the evolutionary journey the we take from darkness to light?

I agree, as harmony with natural law seems to stem predominantly from the expression of love (in opposition to fear) and science (in opposition to nescience). I find that in the last statement, both are true. The individual who expresses fear and ignorance has the potential to evolve to differing (harmonious) dispositions, or their failure to do so can serve as an example to others who are engaged in such evolutionary activity.

The 'doing' is not 'good' and the 'not-doing' is not 'evil'. There are volumes of empirical and specific terms that do not involve biased agreements and interpretations.

[donk]

I think the opposite of freedom is evil, I think I described that, and I feel tyranny is evil on a grand scale, my definition can be applied on that level as well as the interpersonal. Even the most interpersonal: lying to yourself.

Self destructive behavior is inflicting on evil on yourself, it is a form of control and not exclusive of your definition. That's the least populous level (pop = 1). Abusive relationships (pop = 2) is small scale tyranny, really no different, except that population equals the entire population.

Ultimately, this seemingly harmful to others act is harmful to the tyrant itself

I don't claim that online dictionaries/thesauruses are in any way unbiased, but it serves as an example.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/freedom?__utma=1.495862827.1383363450.1390962674.1391115316.101&__utmb=1.20.8.1391119568833&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1390787182.89.3.utmcsr=r.duckduckgo.com|utmccn=%28referral%29|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/l/&__utmv=-&__utmk=234981633

And you are welcome to your interpretation and opinion, but there are a number of assumptions and agreements (bias) involved in that classification. Self-destructive behavior is the result of the freedom to engage in, as the individual is at liberty to act in accords with their disposition. Self-destruction is agreeably non-conducive to the perpetuation of the body and/or the development of the mind and spirit, but 'non-conducive' is not synonymous with 'evil'.

I challenge anyone (perhaps I should open another thread?) to describe an example of evil that cannot be logically broken down and contested.

You can't Shezbeth, that's why it is RELATIVE. A being (we will call it T) tortures another being (we will call it V). That is an EVIL act to the V. To T, it is not evil. You are playing semantic games. And I totally don't get your nihilism/critical analysis/emergence thing...nihilism is irrelevant and the other two are the antithesis...

[Shezbeth]

You can't Shezbeth, that's why it is RELATIVE. A being (we will call it T) tortures another being (we will call it V). That is an EVIL act to the V. To T, it is not evil. You are playing semantic games. And I totally don't get your nihilism/critical analysis/emergence thing...nihilism is irrelevant and the other two are the antithesis...

That is perceived as evil to V, yes. However, what actions were taken by person V that either warranted or potentiated the torture? This is precisely what I meant by theoretical examples of what is evil, there is always more than just the cut and dry interpretation. Again, I am not contesting the reprehsibility of what you describe, but what more is there to the equation?

And, you are correct that I am observing semantic phenomena, but that neither means it is a game nor does it discount/disprove my assertions. I could suggest that you are refusing to analyze semantics in your dissemination of opinion, which alludes to the nescience/ignorance I referred to earlier. ^_~

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantic?s=t

Tell me, is the following accurate? (Sorry SW, it was synchronistic)
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?67909-Record-number-of-guests-causing-severe-server-difficulties-today--29-Jan-&p=791240&viewfull=1#post791240

[778 neighbour of some guy]

I think it is relative:

Evil = consciously (knowingly) imposing your will on another (against their will).

This, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder

You just ruined the most interesting part of sneaking up to early morning spooning.

:man_in_love::lazy2:

Dammit

[donk]

Ah....but I think I am careful in my choice of words. Saying evil is relative means that I do believe it is a perception.

(I had "just" in there, as in: it is just a perception. But I chose to leave out that word purposely. It is the most important perception)

As such, loving detachment (another perception) enables the neutralization of evil, no matter how you "define" it.

Just because they are perceptions doesn't mean they aren't "real". They are real, to the individual perceiving them.

[Shezbeth]

Is a definition subjective or objective? I understand that what you are elucidating is your perception of the definition of evil. What I am trying to express is the all-encompassing definition of evil, allowing for all different subjective perceptions of it in an inclusive whole.

Which is more accurate, given the meaning of the word 'definition'?

Ex: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define?s=t

[spiritguide]

Evil is a component of Watiko a mind parasite /virus. The following six videos gives one a window on the subject.

FIIKuowr0Zo

0PiGvGuxmNQ

5mSu3G25s9k

i4lh9Z1M7JQ

XXTolSabzJM

_4y4iucW9AQ

Hope this perception helps some. Paul Levy has a few books on the subject also.

Peace!

[Milneman]

Ok so there have been some interesting posts here in regards to Evil, and one commonality is this idea of relative truth. Would that be a fair assumption to make?

[Shezbeth]

So long as one is unwilling to look outside the box of one's own perception, that seems accurate.

While Avalon is a diverse group from many different walks, there is a relative consistency of bias that is overrepresented in this (and other) aggregated consensus(es); A true definition is beyond bias.

[enfoldedblue]

This is something from my website that I thought would be interesting to throw in....basically that evil is the absence of love....


Ying and Yang (A Story....kinda)


Once upon a time we existed like a yin and yang symbol that pulsed with love. The white aspect was light and clear and bright, while the black was dark, dense and mysterious; and both were joined by love and were integral parts of the beautiful whole.

One day we decided to try an experiment. We decided to separate the light and dark aspects of the divine. We kept love on the side of the light and sent the dark away. Because love was on the side of the light we decided that the light was good, and the dark, which had become void of love, was bad. Thus we created duality.

Suddenly we could experience something that was impossible when we were united as one, we could experience ‘other’. We could now compare ourselves to ‘others’, judge ‘others’, take advantage of ‘others’, hurt ‘others etc...things that made no sense when we understood ourselves to be part of a whole.

The darkness which suddenly found itself cut off from love felt terrible pain, rejection and anger and began to hate the light. It seeped away into all the hidden corners and began to seethe. The absence of love caused the dark to distort and its true beautiful nature was twisted into evil. The dark became the lord of all things horrid, vile and repulsive. The fact that it had no morals or values to guide it meant it could do anything and so it grew more and more powerful.

Because we forgot our true state of unity we saw our opposite as the enemy. The aspects of the whole that aligned themselves with the light believed that they were righteous and that the darkness needed to be punished and eradicated. The aspects that aligned themselves with the darkness saw the light as weak and sanctimonious and felt it must be made to know suffering.

Thus a war between the light and dark was started and suffering spread throughout the whole.

In truth those who stand in the light and judge and condemn the darkness are as much a cause of the suffering as the dark. The answer is not to try to beat the dark, negative polarity into submission, the answer is to recognize it as part of the whole, and use the unifying force of love to heal those aspects that have been distorted into evil by being cut off from love.

The darkness gets its power from creating fear. When we act from fear we want to fight that which we feel opposes us. Some try to shine light onto the darkness thinking this is the solution..but the dark does not need to become light. In the same way that a plant needs both the rich dark soil, and the vibrant light to grow healthy...so do we need both the light and the dark to be healthy and strong.

The solution is not to repel, to squash, to fight, or to rage against, as these actions ultimately only act to amplify and perpetuate the problem...the answer is to love. When we choose love instead of fear we begin to neutralize and heal the dualistic system. When we remember that darkness is as much a part of us as the light, and that it has become evil because it has been separated from love, the only logical solution is love love love love and more love.


We are at the point in our story where we are ready to transcend the game of duality and start a new game based on unity and wholeness, and they key to our reunification is love.

[Shezbeth]

So am I correct in assessing that I am a lone voice stating in no uncertain terms that one's perception of "Evil" is based on their own individual biases, and is therefore a representation of one's combined nescience and ignorance? That the term can be outgrown upon recognition of the inadequacy of one's resolved understanding, assuming one is willing to make the effort? ^_^

[Milneman]

I'd put it this way Shezbeth:

Taking that view puts one in a difficult position because it implies that personal truth is relative, and distinct from actual truth; unless one understands it to mean that one connects with a deeper innate view of truth as one outgrows one's resolved understandings.

The problem that relativism gives me besides gas is that it's self refuting.

Or to put a finer point, if relativism holds true there's no difference between drinking merlot and drinking arsenic.

It seems to me there are universals that we all seem to understand to varying degrees, and some universals that don't require agreement. Singularity for example will always be singularity. To perceive singularity as anything else is to deny what the number 1 represents. Likewise, evil can't be evil if it's good. So what differentiates something good from something evil in the context of those universals we all understand?

What is good? Is good pleasure? Well...there are some pleasures which we would categorically deny as being good. For example, poedophilia gives pleasure to the poedophile, but the vast majority of people recognize that it involves acts which are evil, namely the sexualization of a non-adult. Likewise, drinking wine is good. Drinking excessive amounts of wine can at the time seem good, but the hangover the next day proves that there are problems. ;)

So I would suggest that it seems to me that evil is a condition that occurs when an individual conducts herself in such a manor as going contrary to what one would consider as the innate moral standard to obtain some product of pleasure, or benefit to that individual. So a parent who spanks a child that has done something wrong in some eyes may be conducting an evil act, but in fact is doing a "wrong" action for a "right result".

Relativism is dangerous in these types of discussion because if one transfers the idea of relativism to it's ultimate end, one can justify child soldiers, the abuse of minors, genocide, and numerous other sundry deliciousness. There are those who like to take a casual approach to discussing the values of good and evil, but I think one needs to approach the subject with serious discernment and an open mind. There are, I would argue, actual goods and actual evils that exist in the world that are fundamentally innate and easily defined. The other goods and evils are merely emanations of these things: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, humility, lust, gluttony, greed, pride, sloth, wrath, envy are all examples of primary qualities that goods and evils exist as emanations of.

This I think can be backed up by your statement: A true definition is beyond bias. Of that, we most definitely agree.

Alas, I am biased. ;)

Your milage will vary.

[Shezbeth]

It seems to me there are universals that we all seem to understand to varying degrees

If we are to continue, there are a few things you ought be aware of.

http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-cognitive-biases-that-prevent-you-from-being-rational


Singularity for example will always be singularity. To perceive singularity as anything else is to deny what the number 1 represents. Likewise, evil can't be evil if it's good. So what differentiates something good from something evil in the context of those universals we all understand?

The appearance of something is not equatable to fact. Your perception of universal understanding is not synonymous with the presence of universal understanding. Moreover, you are operating from a position that everyone would agree to your subjective interpretation of what evil means; I recognize that not everyone would, which is WHY it is subjective. Singularity is a very clearly and rigidly defined term, from which there can be no scientific deviation. Your comparison is what is called a logical fallacy.


What is good? Is good pleasure? Well...

Good is likewise a vacuous term used ignorantly/nesciently to describe what is favorable to the individual making the categorization; Oft bandied about and touted as though it has a rigid meaning, it does not and you have illustrated my point on that. If one were to use the term 'conducive', 'beneficial', 'enjoyable', or a host of others I could agree.


So I would suggest that it seems to me that evil is a condition that occurs when an individual conducts herself in such a manor as going contrary to what one would consider as the innate moral standard to obtain some product of pleasure, or benefit to that individual.

Herself? :spit:

Innate moral standard. :doh:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innate?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard?s=t

You are welcome to the subjective impression that there is such a thing as an innate moral standard, but the words contradict themselves quite readily.


Relativism is dangerous in these types of discussion because if one transfers the idea of relativism to it's ultimate end, one can justify child soldiers, the abuse of minors, genocide, and numerous other sundry deliciousness. There are those who like to take a casual approach to discussing the values of good and evil, but I think one needs to approach the subject with serious discernment and an open mind. There are, I would argue, actual goods and actual evils that exist in the world that are fundamentally innate and easily defined. The other goods and evils are merely emanations of these things: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, humility, lust, gluttony, greed, pride, sloth, wrath, envy are all examples of primary qualities that goods and evils exist as emanations of.

I am not in any way supporting nor advocating for the multitudinous behaviors and actions which people are want to describe as 'evil'. I'm saying that when people use the term 'evil' they really mean 'reprehensible' (or some such synonym), but haven't taken the time to learn sufficient understanding and/or vocabulary to know the difference, as the things that they would describe as 'evil' are actually a host of different phenomenon. Predation can be described as evil, but objectively it is where an organism of sufficient means feeds on another. It is, in a word, natural.

A true definition is beyond bias.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias?s=t


You can generate any theory you want based on dots that you select. But you're not allowed - according to real science - to find data that fit your theory, you have to look at all the data and find a theory that fits all the data, you can't select out your data - Courtney Brown