Evil Exists

Post Reply New Topic

I'm curious how many people think evil is just an invention of the mind, versus real.

I believe it is real. I think that examples of the greatest recorded evils in history, like the Holocaust, are not merely illogical, focused, group negativities, but actual evil. Who's with me on this?

To put it another way: Are there such things as extremely negative acts which are not "mistakes" or "accidents" -- things which, rather, are purposed and intentional wrongs that people voluntarily decide on while knowing that those things are wrong?

I say: Yes, absolutely. Just look around, in any period of history you care to, and you'll see cruelty manifested fully beyond all honest deniability.

Last edited by Ragtime on 27 Mar 2008, 4:50 pm, edited 4 times in total.

It's real, at least to me.

Evil is a human concept and does therefore not exist, people are jsut as capable of doing good as they are at doing bad. They have a choice.

How does evil (or good) not exist? Does morality exist? One would think that good and evil are both "side effects" of morality.

People can act in evil ways, or act in good ways. People are social insects, so behavior patterns can be picked up and amplified in the hive. But evil does not exist in and of itself.

But if the insect finds more nectar and keeps it for himself, it doesn't matter how social he is.

I believe evil people exist and that they commit evil acts.

There is good and bad, but no one is actually evil they have a choice. Instead of evil I would think more in terms of ethics.

The Assyrians and Romans existed.

Is that meant to imply the Assyrians or Romans are evil? By many standards, the Romans brought about much "good" for citizens living in their empire/republic. Sure, they engaged in some less than favorable acts by today's standard, but you can't necessarily judge them by today's standards either (for example, slavery was allowed, but everyone else had slavery back then, and even parts of the Bible say slavery is ok, which we don't complain about too much today).

As for evil existing, it depends I suppose. One person's perception of an evil act might be perceived as grey or even good by someone else. The Communists massacred millions of innocent people in the Soviet Union, yet the Soviets themselves thought it was necessary for the greater good (this occurred before and after Stalin). It also depends on if you are more of a deontologicalist or a consequentialist. The deontologicalist would say murder is an evil act (and therefore reasons do not matter, murder is wrong period), so if a situation would arise where one murder would save 100 people, it would still be considered evil. The consequentialist would say results matter, and killing one to save a hundred is probably not evil. I tend to lean more on the consequentialist side, so would argue results matter, and also most people do not believe the act they are committing is evil (even if we say it is), or if they do they view it as a "necessarily evil" (the kill 1 to save 100 example).

Honestly, I must say no to that claim, and agree with Sartre's assertion: "we can never choose evil" based upon the reasoning "To choose this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose". Thus, by making a decision, we say that we are making the right decision. Honestly, I consider the real measure of our beliefs and ideas to be our actions rather than the other way around.


Ok? How is cruelty proof of evil? The practitioners sanctioned it and even would deify it, it seems to me that they thought it was good.

Reading tip: Nietzsche's book "Jenseits von Gut und Boese." Translated into English as "Beyond Good and Evil," although I must add that I have only read the original German version, that I am distrustful of translations on general principal, and that I would be all the more distrustful in Neitzsche's case, because he's pretty deep, and translators aren't necessarily always so deep.

And also: don't think that because I recommend Nietzsche, I agree with everything he says. He says a lot of macho, anti-women things which I think are stupid, for example. AND -- Nietzsche's sister edited and published his work after he had a complete breakdown in 1889 and was unable to take care of himself any more, let alone write. And Nietzsche's sister was very different from Nietzsche in many ways. For example, she was antisemitic and a German nationalist, while Nietzsche described antisemites as "the lowest form of human life" and had no patience for any kind of nationalism, least of all the German kind. (Nazis including Hitler CLAIMED to have read Nietzsche, and claimed that they were fulfilling his prophecy of the Uebermensch, the Superman. But Hitler lied about lots and lots of things and was probably lying about having read Nietzsche. And there's no way that Nietzsche would have considered the Nazis to be Supermen.) The book which is published as "The Will to Power" by Friedrich Nietzsche was actually re-written in part by his sister, Elisabeth Foerster-Nietzsche. So reader beware and try to sort out the Friedrich from the Elisabeth.

Beyond those reservations, though, I believe that in this book, "Jenseits von Gut und Boese," Nietzsche explains very clearly and thoroughly how SUBJECTIVE notions of good and evil are. It really does depend so very often on your point of view. That which helps this person or group will so very often hurt that person or group. That which strengthens this part of you can weaken this other part of you. Notions of absolute morality do not recognise the great complexity of life.

This is very accurate. It's also very disturbing. But then again, as he himself did not tire of pointing out, Nietzsche is most definitely not for everyone.

Perhaps, but they are extremely rare. Hitler truly did think he was doing the right thing, so, while his actions are undeniably "evil," it is difficult to consider the person himself to be truly evil rather than just extremely sick, or, in terms of Christian theology, fallen.

good point, bollinger.

although i am a big fan of nietzsche (in german, of course), i wouldnt have argued the point by his example, though, as its not entirely unproblematic. by "merely" (read quotations very aloud) pointing out that our concepts of good and evil can genealogically traced back to scholastic christian roots, he doesnt refute the point of good and evil itself (its a long time since i read it last, and on my current run through his work, it will be a few days before i reach it again) in particular. thats just like saying (fictional idiotic argument following) because you can trace the christian god via the jewish god to the egypt concept of pharao, who was a man, the existence of god is refuted.

id rather argue with john leslie mackie, and following through his most striking argument, actually with a very phenomenological base:
mackie points out that there coexist many notions of good and evil in different cultures, and that good and evil is not a perceivable quality. we dont have a sense to perceive this quality (avicenna thought of a similar sense, by which one perceives "intention", and hence, the lamb flees the wolf by perception of his intention of eating the lamb). hence, if this quality existed as intrinsic part of the world, theres no way it could be an intrinsic part of our world. so much for objective values...
continuiing on to a rather phenomenological point of view, one could say that there absolutely is such a quality to things, because just look, it is there. you see your hated neighbor and you dont only see the person, but by seeing this person, you also see your judgement of him. however, this quality is part of a world, it is not part of an objective world - the world in phenomenology is inseparable in effect from the subject. there is no subject without world and vice versa. once subject stops, world stops. period.
so, even this way, we dont get rid of good and evil as subject-independent qualities. and that is quite logical, actually. world is there as something a subject has - we dont have access to a world that is independent of the perceiving subject, although we think of the world we have as being the effect of such an objective world. see the kantian point of the imperceivable thing-for-itself and the critique that even the talk of thing-for-itself is hollow talk, not rooted in "the things themselves" but rather a rational principle: causality.
by our very way of being subjects, everything there is is a dependent quality of the subject - there is no possibility for us to have anything else, or anyway else.

Evil is nothing more than the mere perversion of unadulterated, unrevocable thought. Refuge for the noxious-conventional and the guardians of status-quo, the demi-gods of disobedience who are willingly adament to confine you to their teeter-totterly, schistic code; therefore reducing proclaimation of their love and their self-expression, perpetualizing the mythos beyond disabling that of individualism and liberation. Or whatever...

Yes I believe there is evil in the world. But evil also comes from believing in evil.

Thinking in just plain good and evil is a bit simplistic and dangerous way to think. It is best to look at reasons for why evil things happen. On the Holocaust, maybe Hitler and the german people at the time thought the Jews were evil??
Some theories, who knows???
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Hitle ... _kill_them

Muslim terrorists probably think that they are justified to kill, because they may think who they kill are evil.

I remember George Bush describing some countries as the axis of evil. A lot of people tend to think George Bush for the war on iraq is evil...

When witches were burnt centuries ago, people thought the witches were evil...