Evil Exists

Post Reply New Topic

That is all what evil is to me there is no right evil or wrong evil, and no I don't like evil. I think aspies tend too over analyze. Being an aspie myself, I do the same thing. I think this topic about "evil" is speaking in circles with different words.

I don't think it is actually doing so. There is one side that denies the existence of or knowledge of evil, and another side that accepts or promotes the view that evil exists. If it is going in circles then the same arguments must be being reused, and if that is so then one or more sides are not arguing well.

I as I said before I agree that evil exists. I think the sides are doing a pretty dandy job at arguing from both theological sides, it's all philosophical to me as well.

Last edited by MissConstrue on 02 Apr 2008, 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

As I stated earlier, it is funny that morality is denied as something substantial and meaninful because it is not a natural material that can be proved in a lab. It is a social construct that comes from a guide and has validity because that is the way it has worked with people to make them understand what behaviour is acceptable and what is not, especially when it comes to children.

If human beings wouldn't exist in this world, would "evil" and the concept of good and bad exist?
Answer: No
Just pain and pleasure, sadness, happiness, anger.

I agree that it has changed over time, what was considered evil thousands of years ago, it is not now. ADHD kids would have been labed as just evil, and still does by some now, so I guess I can see why some people argue the lack of validity of the word.


There are reasons why people choose to believe or disbelieve some things.

Last edited by greenblue on 02 Apr 2008, 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is exactly why there are different opinions and views about this subject, because as aspies, some have had different experiences growing up, as I remember reading some things in the thread "Did AS influenced you in your philosophy" or something like that, I saw that experience make people think some way. Some have been labeled as problematic, rude, cold and bad people, because of not understading some of the aspects of their AS and because of it, people who have had that experience start questioning about morality and its value, I believe this has happened around here with some people, and must be why some have choosen a philosophy that questions and/or denies to value of morality and stuff like that.

Amen, brother.

Define "evil"?

But my friends, perhaps the Evil Platonist might respond:

Define exists.

ragtime: you indeed have a point about the comparison - but then, i still dont see the notion of evil existing "objectively" - id say that evil is an occuring phenomenon, necessarily in a subjective way but via that way, its existing in an absolute/immediate way, rather than mediate knowledge like e.g. theories. its existence in an objective way cant be verified, though - as no objective existence can be verified (and the whole notion of such is quite empty)

very good point on faith bridging the problem of induction!

This I agree with. And the very reason why people don't grasp it, is often because they choose not to. Especially when people are routinely brought up thinking that their own perspective is the only one that matters. Labels divide people, and if having compassion and doing good means questioning their label or their clique, they simply stop caring about having compassion, and they stop caring about right and wrong.
As I've said, the answer is for people to grow some balls and think logically, for themselves, and actually care about the transcedental truth of matters.

I have a definition of evil... perhaps some could debate it?

the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

I see there being two different kinds of morality: a general morality, and internal moralities. General morality is roughly the same as what many people see "morality" as being--be kind to others, don't kill, steal, lie, cheat, etc. This morality, to me, is born from self-awareness. We are conscious and aware of our being, and as a consequence or extension of that, we realize that others are also conscious like we are. We can make the leap from knowing what we feel to understanding that others are capable of this as well. We know what is most important for ourselves and how we wish to be treated. We know that we do not want to be hurt or killed, lied to or cheated. Morality, or what I have called "general morality," is the extension of that understanding to the treatment of others, possibly through nothing less than interpersonal negotiation. One might call this the expression of the "golden rule": treat others as you would have them treat you.

However, internal morality is simply created because people act like robots. If we lived in a society of individuals, humans as opposed to intellectual cattle, we could merely apply general morality on all social levels. But, it would require compromise, communication, and selfless compassion.

Debate a definition? Now there's an idea...

Although I intuit evil as something else, but in this I suppose there is very little to debate about. Evil is not dialectically intelligible.

Well, if you're not referring to a lab setting, than what exactly do you mean by "science"?

If you experience something 100 times in a row, and therefore expect the same thing to happen again, is that "science" to you? Because that would be why I believe in God and evil -- both God and evil, respectively, continually evidence themselves in my life, to the point that they are simply unignorable, to say the least.

What's your standard for something to be "science"? This is an important question here, because you're essentially saying you don't believe anything that's not science. So it's VERY important to define, exactly, what science is. Science is your standard of truth, but what is your standard of science?

Yep. Dilbert creator Scott Adams is a trained hypnotist, and wrote in his blog:

http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/

And he's an agnostic, so he's not trying to promote the concept of God, but I think he inadvertently evidenced that concept.

Well, it's good that you also believe non-lab-proven things. And in addition to that, you need to also make sure you don't believe ALL lab-proven things -- since many so-called "proofs" become disproven later on, due to faults in the experimentation process or in the interpretation of the data. I read about failed scientific studies literally every single day. So ya, the application of the scientific method is frequently flawed, and therefore unworthy of our absolute trust. People make mistakes, and scientists are people too.

Hmmm, the lab is appearing even less of a reliable source for truth, isn't it?

The real issue is not that humans believe the The Lab {insert soft thunder} is an all-knowing oracle. Rather, they wilfully, pridefully believe the smartest of mankind to be nearly godlike beings, able to eventually conquer the entire universe through the use of their minds. That belief is pleasant, addictive, and ultimately untrue. Due to its negative qualities and general incompetence (at least on a scale of trying to eventually rule the galaxy), mankind will destroy itself before it so much as colonizes another planet.

"War is hell."

If all people in the world agreed never to kill anyone ever again for any reason, then we wouldn't have war.

The problem is that such a universal promise would never even be made, let alone kept.

So, that there will always be wrongful killing in the world is a permanent fact.

Therefore, are only option is to shape the killing in the best way possible.

"That sucks", you say?

True. Nonetheless, it remains the fact of the matter: Killing will not stop. So, we must procede from that premise. Ergo, war.

So, priorities need to be created. A list of people who should least be spared, in descending order.

1. Genecidal maniacs with great power
2. Serial killers
3. One time 1st-degree murderers
4. Habitual rapists/violent criminals
5. One-time rapists/violent criminals
...

I surely skipped some, but the point was to show what kind of list I'm talking about.

Premise: Killings will continue to occur in the world. That cannot be stopped by the good will of a few.
Plan of Action: Put the most evil people on the front lines of those being killed.
Results:
1. Less evil people because some of them are dead
2. Less evil people because most of the rest fear death

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything, including war.

Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Apr 2008, 4:02 pm, edited 7 times in total.