As defined, Evil is the nature of human acts that are a net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom humanity.
I have given examples of the range of evil acts.
Are you saying the genocides by Hitler, of the Yazidis by extreme Islamists, the mass rapes, and the various evils are meaningless?? so we do not bother these evil acts?
The wisdom is there is no need for a definition of ‘supreme good’ in this case to understand the above listed acts are evil and thus the need for actions.
I am not sure of your ‘supreme good.’ If you are referring to God as the ‘supreme Good’ then that is baseless and illusory.
Nevertheless I do agree an idea of ‘supreme Good’ can be relevant depending on how one use the term.
The concept of evil is a two-edged sword. As defined, “evil” is an arbitrary metaphysical concept. True, it does pose a problem for theism, but it also poses a problem for secularists or “world citizens.” Who in your world determines what constitutes a “net-negative”? You? What makes you qualified to to meet the highest interests and welfare of the universe and the children of time? How do you propose to coordinate and harmonize the world’s rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms without a universally accepted ideal? Are the “progressives” on college campuses doing you any favors by shutting down free speech?
The examples of evil you give reflect a much deeper problem than you are willing to admit. The world is filled with lost souls, not lost in the theologic sense but lost in the directional meaning, wandering about in confusion among the isms and cults of a frustrated philosophic era. Too few have learned how to install a philosophy of living in the place of empirical authority.
Note I have already stated there are two concepts of ‘evil’ i.e.
empirical based evil acts and
the Metaphysical/ontological evil
I have already the OP is not about the Metaphysical/ontological evil which is proposed by theology-God and such evil do not exists.
Empirical based acts of evil are those acts that can be observed and identified as ‘evil’.
If you want to insist on evil in the Metaphysical and Ontological sense, you will have to open up a separate thread. Btw, ensure you prove such evil exists before anything else.
It is not “me” to determine what is net-negative. This project will be done by the collective of all humans as far as possible.
We can start this exercise by assigning rating to a list all known evil acts.
Then we produce a list of agreed evil acts starting with the acts with the highest degree of evilness.
Now if I proposed ‘genocide’ mass rapes, serial murders are net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and to humanity, I am confident all normal human beings will agree to that. Do you disagree?
We then work down the list to obtain 100% consensus for as man as possible and somewhere down the list there will be contentions and disagreements.
The point is we will be able to have a reasonable list of acts that are agreed by all normal [not psychopaths and the mentally ill] human beings as net-negative evil.
Where are are disputes of various degrees we can work at it to establish greater consensus, where we cannot then we will leave it as “agree to disagree” in the meantime.
Another critical point is you cannot assess what I am proposing based on our existing [2017] collective state of morality which on average is very low and bad.
What I am proposing is for the future, say 75-100-200 years’ time when we have an established Framework and System of Morality & Ethics with a very high average Moral Intelligence within humanity. What is critical is we must start now to establish the foundation.
Yes, at the present we are in a bad state relative to normal expectations and ideals. What is critical is you cannot give up hope that there is a possibility of continual improvement and progress.
I have given evidence [babies, mirror neurons], all humans has the potential drive for higher morality.
This is proven by the obvious trend of improving moral standards and practices over the last 100, 200 and > 1000 years, e.g. emergence of the Golden Rule, banning of slavery, etc.
While I am optimistic with potential positive systems, Why are you so pessimistic and defensive on there is a potential for all humans to improve and progress in Morality and all other fields of knowledge and technology?
With your defensiveness, you are not a net-positive citizen of humanity.
Human beings like scapegoating their own actions on ridiculous extrapolations of gods and devils concerning so called evil because it helps themselves not looking at themselves in a mirror. It helps saying something else is the cause of all of our problems rather then ourselves and the success of religion throughout the ages reaffirms this.
The concept of evil is an elaborate conception or ruse of historical collective irresponsibility. It is an irrational reaction.
You did not read my link?
The concept of evil [empirical based, not ontological] is getting very popular within the philosophical community. Note this from SEP;
As I stated the OP has nothing to do with metaphysical or ontological “evil” as represented by the existence of Satan the Devil in the Abrahamic religions.
What I am referring as ‘evil’ is related to evil acts, e.g.
Yeah, I view it all as the same thing. It’s all purely manufactured useless conjecture as a way of keeping human beings from looking inward into themselves.
The moment you describe anybody as being evil all debate, criticism, questioning, or analyzing becomes silenced.
Sez who? Hitler and Pol Pot thought they were doing the world a favor. Aside from human perceptions and experiences, good and evil do not have objective existence.
If we need the concept of evil, then we need the concept of good – and that’s where you run into trouble. Who or what is the final arbiter of the good? (Genuine goodness is a positive act, not merely refraining from doing harm.)
You have yet to prove there is such a thing as “empirical evil.”
What’s “normal”? If history is any indication, normal is people killing people and their host planet.
I think I see my problem, now. I lack the blind faith you have in human beings.
I certainly hope not! Why would I want to be citizen of a collectively insane species?
I have posted somewhere in detail [see earlier post and below] on how we can establish what is objective evil based on consensus as a guide to manage and control evil.
‘Rape’ is recognized as an act of evil [as defined] which can be supported by empirical evidences.
For this purpose the concept of good can be sufficiently be represented the concept of ‘absence of evil acts’. If one do not commit any evil acts, one is doing good.
AS for goodness in terms of positive human values, e.g. compassion, empathy, love, co-operation, etc. I have done extensive research on this to establish how to ground what is ‘good’. I won’t go into the details on this.
I am with Thinkdr who is into quantifying good human values so that we can manage it more effectively and as a basis to promote continual improvements.
It is so obvious that genocide, mass rapes, murder, etc. [empirical evil acts] can be proven empirically with evidence where corrective actions can be take to prevent, deter or if possible eliminate such evil acts.
What is ‘normal’ is those who people who are not officially recognized [as in psychiatry] as mentally sick in relation to this issue of evil, e.g. psychopaths, etc.
What blind faith?
What I have presented is based on evidence and rational projections.
You do not consider yourself an human being?
No wonder you are so anti-human and anti-progress for humanity.
It is your discretion to be indifferent, I prefer to contribute something positive [hopefully] to humanity.
Consensus is not a reliable metric for determining the objectivity of any thing because that particular methodology is flawed
Objective existence of something has to be demonstrated for it to be shown to be true regardless of how popular it might be
But because evil pertains to morality and morality is itself not objective then evil cannot be objectively demonstrated either
Yes, you make some important questions and statements here.
Evil is a serial killer and rapist going on a spree.
Good is cluster bombing a bunch of Iraqi villages killing women, men, and children later calling it collateral damage of the greater good. One form of violence is outlawed while the other is deemed permissible. Why? One is authorized and the other is not. Nobody ever likes talking about the inconsistencies of morality and ethics for which there are many.
Nobody wants to really understand where human malice comes from because it brings up too many uncomfortable questions where instead it is just easier putting it under the category of evil.
Whenever we speak of morality or ethics we cannot escape from talking about their inconsistencies and scapegoating. Both systems are elaborate organized forms of thinking in terms of social interaction or living that revolves around both. It’s all about organized plausible deniability and irresponsibility. Notice if you decreased social inequality a lot of human malice for the most part would lessen everywhere but because society thrives on social inequality is why human malice persists from generation to generation. Moreover as social inequality increases and expands over every generation it is inevitable that human malice will increase with it.
More interesting than that is how morality and ethics are used to justify the most horrendous or corrupt forms of human practices. This is why I cannot take any moral or ethical system with any kind of seriousness. Nobody tries to go into any serious introspection or analyzing of why various forms of human malice exists because it is too uncomfortable to speak of and more importantly challenges the social status quo of which all authoritarians silence discussion on. No, it’s more easier to call individuals evil and sweep them under the rug where it is business as usual under the status quo which is why human malice continues unabated because nobody tries to seek any deeper understanding of the issue that plagues human society across the planet. In the end all of this is about power and control by complicity in maintaining it.
No, I am not talking about egalitarianism. I agree that isn’t workable either.
I am talking about lessening social inequality in the best possible way (best possible world) where at this point isn’t happening because it isn’t profitable for those in power to do so. On the flip side if social inequality is carried out in the extreme society steadily becomes unable to exist or function at all. That’s where we’re at currently.
I agree ‘consensus’ alone cannot be the sole determinant of objectivity, I have made this point in detail elsewhere.
I have argued objectivity is fundamentally intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity comes in degrees, the higher degrees [scientific knowledge] must be based on a framework and system that provide justifications based on verification, testability, repeatability, falsification.
I will call this the “Objectification Process”.
Note my justification above on what is ‘objective’ and its degree of objectivity.
Anything can be presented as ‘objective’ as long as it fulfill the requirements [see above] to be objective subject to degrees of objectivity.
The results of Miss Universe 2017 is objective even it is based on a rating of ‘beauty’ because it fulfil the requirements of what it takes to be objective. In this case, the degree of objectivity is low because it is relative to a specific condition and not likely to be repeatable.
I have listed examples of evil acts, e.g. genocide, murder, rapes, theft, serial killing, torture, etc. All these acts can be objectively demonstrated based on the related empirical evidences.
There are no Absolute moral laws, i.e. absolute morality like those claimed to be handed down from a God [illusory and impossible].
However morality and moral laws can be made ‘objective’ through the ‘Objectification Process’ as above which must be grounded with relevant justifications.
I have always declared the following; ALL evils must be recognized and addressed to seek its resolution and elimination.
I have NEVER agreed ‘cluster bombing’ and the likes are ‘good’.
War per se is evil regardless of what claims of ‘good’ therefrom.
Given the current circumstances, war [fundamentally evil] is tolerated but the potential trend of morality will prevail to reduce and eliminate war in time. This is why I made the provision ‘evil is ‘net-negative’ acts.’
Therefore humanity must prevent and get rid of all forms of war. It is a matter of highlighting the inherent progressive trend of morality within and expediting the activation of the moral drive in the majority of humans.
The concept of evil [empirical] must be ultimately grounded objectively otherwise it will be too subjective. This is a long story, but empirical evil like genocides, murder, rapes can be easily objectified as ‘evil’ which warrant preventive and correction actions.
Your philosophical views above are too shallow and narrow.
At present there an no efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics because the inherent potential for morality within the human psyche is still in its infancy. [researched] But there is no doubt there are SOME humans who are trying and struggling to propose more efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Another point is the average Moral Intelligence [MI] is very low within humanity at present, thus there should be a global project to increase the average MI. I believe this is possible in the future in activating greater activities within the inherent faculty of moral intelligence within the human brain. I am optimistic given the trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge in new and advance fields of knowledge and technology, e.g. genetics, neurosciences, etc.
I [& many] have done this and trace them via the evolutionary psychology grounds.
In addition, there are a few existing and proposed models of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that can be improved upon to enable greater activation of the inherent morality potential within and greater efficiency to produce expected results.
The theological model for morality has a fundamental framework but the problems are its immutability and the doctrines [e.g. Abrahamic] are corrupted with tons evil elements [e.g. Islam]. Getting rid of these problems and hindrances will reveal a reasonable framework to improve upon.
The non-theistic Eastern religions has a reasonably efficient model of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which can be further polished with more rigor.
From the field of specialized philosophy, Kant proposed a very efficient model of Framework and System of Morality and Ethics [not the misinterpreted deontic system] with sound justifications and grounds.
There are other models re consequentialism, utilitarianism, various deontic systems, and most of them are too loose to be efficient.
Point is you give up easily with reference to this topic and do not venture more deeply plus condemning the views of others from a very narrow and shallow base [re this issue].
This evil as you call it is the result of all the social inequality of the world throughout the ages that gets worse and worse as each generation passes. This same kind of social inequality that society thrives on and can’t seem to exist without not to mention also that everybody that lives in society partake in benefiting from. Therein lies the rub and inconsistencies of this morality or ethics you speak of which is why I don’t share your views. Nobody wants to have a serious analysis of human malice because it brings up too many inconvenient conversations of society and indeed the world that most ignorantly take advantage of as a mere given. Then there is your God which is just another inconsistency.
I have problems with objectivity or the assertion we can discover hidden caveats of objective knowledge. For me all knowledge is subjective or self inferred where some arrogantly conclude that they have all the answers next calling them objective. It seems there is a sort of narcissism historically of philosophy or even science also that people declare themselves having all the answers(the right answers) by then inferring them objective for everybody else.
In the beginning of humanity’s infancy we were blind, deaf, and mute with no sign of anything being objective but we’re lead to believe that over the course of thousands of years learned men have discovered various things to give us all a wide objective picture of reality, the world, and the universe. Has humanity historically discovered objectivity or was it created out of thin air through imagination? I’ll go with the later.
Morality and ethics is an elaborate camouflage of appearance that supposedly concerns itself with the greater good in appearance but in all reality is all about maintaining the flow of power or control. You cannot for instance control a great number of individuals or huge swathes of people without either. The very social act of controlling others from power is impossible without a fictitious facade of morality and ethics. It is no small wonder why tyrants make good use of morality and ethics often enough calling themselves moral theoreticians, holy men, or persons of virtue. It’s all rather great cloak and dagger of mental disguises.
Shallow and narrow? I very much disagree of course but you already know that.
You beat me to pointing out the obvious.