To me, morals are really a creation of governments and religions to manipulate behavior. There can be no real morals because morals are based on opinion which are subjective to every person.
So therefore what is evil? What does it mean? I know one might say to be evil is to do “bad” things. But bad depends on ones perspective. I dont believe it is wrong to steal. Is it evil if I rob my neighbor?
What IS evil?
Can evil actions not be rationalized if it is for the greater good? If an evil action is done with reason then is it still evil?
Evil is incomplete-ness.
Evil is careless-ness.
Evil is Sin-ing.
Evil is lost values.
Evil is inferior mental state.
Evil is an individual negative result.
Evil is a pretty lake of fire .
Evil is defined by political, educational, and religious authority. They shape your view of reality to what they want, through their opinion, and THAT, is what defines good and evil. Nothing is any more good than evil until labels are put on it by authority.
Given that ethics were a natural science - evil would be the whole of deliberately nonethical practice. (Evil and revolutionary are not synonymous). IE: If there is “good,” evil is its decline thereof.
Given that ethics were a social construct - evil would be the cultural adversary. (Evil and revolutionary are synonymous). IE: If we made up “good,” evil is whatever doesn’t fit with our “good.”
Because I feel that “what is evil” directly leads to “what is ethics” I’m compelled to steer this into ethical debate. So I’m putting up a few ethical models up for review- slanted on their means of defining evil . . .
Note that each model I introduce should continue on with “as I understand it, limitedly.”
The Utilitarian model: Evil is the individual falling below a clear moral standard. Although we may still have more fleshing out to do, certain actions are simply unacceptable. Thus each person requires a line of “right and wrong.” For example, “killing is wrong” is too simple a proposition. However: “Killing is wrong, against an individual that poses little threat” may be a sound assumption.
The Agnostic model: Evil, if any, is elusive. Defining evil may be a work in progress. There can be all sorts of explainations for what people do, and the only apparent evil would be the tragedy that we would no longer be able to help one another.
The Divine model: A greater being has already set ethics in place. It is for us to simply decipher and obey the messages of that greater being.
I’m curious- although you may not agree with any of these entirely, which one would you more likely follow?
those evils that are due to forces of nature beyond human control: tsunami/floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruption, for they cause suffering and destruction.
and then there are evil things that man has the power to control: murder, robbery, etc.
I think both good and evil are inherent in all things. For example water: we use it to cook, or wash. But it is water also that causes flooding or drowning. A tree gives shades, it can also kill a person during thunderstorms. Food is good, when you get choked on food that’s what makes it evil.
Evil is just a word - if anything were to be classed as evil, it should be our intellect; for it is through it, that we have created this and many other highly varying idea’s.
I’m actually joking in that one phrase, so it’s not quite relevant.
In my post just before yours, I was saying in one portion that I believe there’s one model of ethics I consider the “divine model.” Meaning that according to that model, ethics is based on divinity -or- that a God has put ethics in place. If evil is the lack of ethics and God made ethics, then no God means no ethics and thus no God means evil.
It’s really a long shot, but I thought it was funny to bag you into a category right away. People don’t usually share my sense of humour, though.
“no such thing as evil” responses amuse me. I’m sure you have all been done wrong, feel violated, etc. and could classify something as evil. How realistic are the lot of you?
Another being which has been quantized as valuable:
Killing a fly is not “evil”, killing a “man” is “evil”, because the opinion is:
The attributes of one being – are the gage of its moral value.
However pleasing one being is to the general public, that’s the gage of its value. If you’re sexy, funny, kind, etc., then they value you more.
Subtle, hidden hands cause you to fear their enemies. Emotions are contagious, no matter how misguided. Eventually we see the idea of “evil” in our cultures, based on first-impressions by the common people, and propaganda campeigns of the leaders.
If people didn’t feel sorry for themselves and have a complaining attitude, they wouldn’t view “evils” in their lives as “injustice” in the way most slave-moralists do. Instead, that person could say:
“You got me. I need to figure out how to beat you, or avoid you, now.”
^
But, most people, out of frustration with their inability to recieve what they expect/want, become angery with the source of their problem. This is a “bitch and complain” attitude which only works as a propaganda tool, as the human attempts to spread judgment and curses between the common people, in order to attack their enemy indirectly [through propagation of moral judgments].
How could government and religion be the creators of morality if government and religion both presuppose society? No society can exist for long unless some rules of behavior (i.e. some moral code) obtain among its members. So society presupposes morality, and since society is a precondition of both government and religion, government and religion cannot be the creators of morality (though they can of course influence it and change it).
.