Evil's like a box 'o chocolates...

[Boerseun]

As a spinoff from another thread:

 

What, exactly, is Evil?

 

People bandy the word around as if everyone knows exactly what they're talking about. Even non-religious people use the word. Is "Evil" anything that opposes your own personal set of moral laws? If you're a criminal, the cops are "Evil". If you're a cop, the criminals are "Evil".

 

I hold that "Evil" is the common name for the set of moral laws that you as an individual don't subscribe to. "Good" is the name for the set of moral laws that you do subscribe to. This says nothing of another person's interpretation of your sets of laws - you might be a serial killer for the sake of the argument. But in your own personal experience, that's the extent of "Evil" and "Good".

 

Am I oversimplifying?

[hallenrm]

Am I oversimplifying?

 

Yes perhaps! :circle:

 

There is a statistical value to these concepts, which as you very rightly say are subjective to say the least.

 

Good is invariably advantageous for the survival of a society, the altruist values and the concept of love is most often termed as good, because it has greater potential for holding the society togather.

 

Evil on the other hand does not have such value; words like revenge, deceit, dishonesty, hate come to my mind, when I think of evil. Think of it, how long and how happy(?) do you think people would live in a society, if a majority of them take on these traits in everyday social conduct? :circle:

[Boerseun]

By that line of reasoning, there can be no Good or Evil for a castaway stranded on a desert island?

 

What you're saying is that Good and Evil is that which is advantageous/disadvantageous to society at large, and doesn't exist at a personal level? :circle:

[hallenrm]

Precisely! Evil and good are generally relevant within a society. For a castaway stranded on a desert island these words have hardly any meaning! :cocktail:

[CraigD]

Good is invariably advantageous for the survival of a society, the altruist values and the concept of love is most often termed as good, because it has greater potential for holding the society togather.

 

Evil on the other hand does not have such value; words like revenge, deceit, dishonesty, hate come to my mind, when I think of evil. Think of it, how long and how happy(?) do you think people would live in a society, if a majority of them take on these traits in everyday social conduct? :eek:

… Evil and good are generally relevant within a society. For a castaway stranded on a desert island these words have hardly any meaning! :)

I’m impressed with what a good, concise, scientific definition of good & evil this is, but have some doubts.

 

Consider a hypothetical, very stable and enduring society that “holds together” because of a well and rationally constructed scheme of policies oppressive to individuals and groups. History suggests examples: classical Sparta, where the majority of the nation’s population were slaves; Imperial Rome, which applied military force in an openly amoral fashion, and entertained the masses with bloodsports; 1930s Germany, where the emerging Nazi political party seized power and “cleaned the streets and got the trains running on time”, while attempting to cement national unity by vilifying and exterminating various racial and social minority groups. Fiction offers examples: “Brave New World”, “Nineteen Eighty-four”, and “Logan’s Run” depict societies that preserve the collective by sacrificing the individual.

 

There are some compelling arguments that, in the long term, society will altogether eclipse the individual, so greatly that individual identity may effectively vanish, as it appears to have in some present-day insect species. I’m skeptical of them. In my opinion, Good and Evil must have meaning in terms of the individual – they must remain meaningful to a castaway stranded on a desert island.

 

Nearly all biological organisms experience stress due to external influences. This stress can be objectively, biochemical measured. I believe Good and Evil can be defined by its correlation to stress – Good is that which minimizes it, Evil that which maximizes it. Such a definition is complicated by arguments that, under it, the ultimate good would be to maintain people in artificial states of stress-less anesthesia, and other absurdities.

[hallenrm]

Consider a hypothetical, very stable and enduring society that “holds together” because of a well and rationally constructed scheme of policies oppressive to individuals and groups. History suggests examples: classical Sparta, where the majority of the nation’s population were slaves; Imperial Rome, which applied military force in an openly amoral fashion, and entertained the masses with bloodsports; 1930s Germany, where the emerging Nazi political party seized power and “cleaned the streets and got the trains running on time”, while attempting to cement national unity by vilifying and exterminating various racial and social minority groups. Fiction offers examples: “Brave New World”, “Nineteen Eighty-four”, and “Logan’s Run” depict societies that preserve the collective by sacrificing the individual.

 

There are some compelling arguments that, in the long term, society will altogether eclipse the individual, so greatly that individual identity may effectively vanish, as it appears to have in some present-day insect species. I’m skeptical of them. In my opinion, Good and Evil must have meaning in terms of the individual – they must remain meaningful to a castaway stranded on a desert island.

 

Very intelligent point CraigD, the only problem I can sense is with the definition of Society. Is society limited to people living in a locality, town, city or for that matter a nation. With the advent of various modes of communication, I think such boundaries are irrelevant! :eek:

[GAHD]

...deceit, dishonesty...how long and how happy(?) do you think people would live in a society, if a majority of them take on these traits in everyday social conduct? B)

Deceit and dishonesty are the cornerstones of some of the most effective interpersonal relationships I have witnessed. People in general don't like the truth if 'it hurts'.

[Jay-qu]

put simply: Evil is relative B)

[Boerseun]

Very intelligent point CraigD, the only problem I can sense is with the definition of Society. Is society limited to people living in a locality, town, city or for that matter a nation. With the advent of various modes of communication, I think such boundaries are irrelevant! :confused:

I suppose defining 'society' is akin to differentiating between a 'pile' of sand and a 'heap' of sand, as per another thread here somewhere.

 

Are a lot of people 'society'?

 

If yes, what do you call it if you remove one person?

 

Society minus one person = Society, still.

 

...but you can repeat the exercise until you have only one person left. And that one person is clearly not society. So, we can probably say that society is any collection of people more than one.

 

So where does Good and Evil begin and end?

 

If we go back to the castaway on the desert island, is the crab that pinched his toe 'Evil"? How can a single individual exist without "Good" and "Evil" determining his daily routine, what to eat and what to avoid?

 

If we magnify this simplified example to a society of millions of people, isn't our perception of "Good" and "Evil" simply a manifestation at a bigger scale of "what to eat" and "what foods give you bellyache"? What other purpose might our interpretation of "Good" and "Evil" serve?

[hallenrm]

Well, if you extend the concepts of Good and Evil to the food items. I have no comments.

 

You win the arguement :confused:

[zee]

I do think a box of chocks ia evil:evil: It sticks to your butt and makes it fat and ugly:eek_big:

[zee]

Well if we put good n evil like your survival or the bringing out the best in you then it is not difficult.

For the one stranded on a desert island, he has to find shade because the sun is going to do some evil on his skin and burn it. Then he has to find water to drink because it is in his make-up to have water to make any improvements. Then he has to find food so the story does not end.So you see somthing that helps you improve(i dont mean like findind satisfaction in sadist activities) is good and somthing that does not help you is evil.So the man on the island is doing evil to himself if he stays in the sun.

[hallenrm]

Here's an iteresting link, it expresses what the 'Hindu' philosophy has to say about the Good and the Evil :eek_big:

 

http://www.hinduism.co.za/goodand1.htm