"To learn what is good, a thousand days are not enough; but to learn what is evil, an hour is too long."

What is evil?

I don't like the term "evil" just because of all the religious baggage. Drawing a picture of Mohammed is evil because of one of the Ten Commandments against graven images. Gay couples being married and having children was evil in LDS Inc for a couple of years, then God rescinded that declaration of evil.

Better question: what is a crime? After all, people are not charged with war evils. They are charged with war crimes. Even the concept of crime can have some arbitrary religious garbage, but less so. The Utah legislature will meet today to override the governor's veto, and reinstate the law banning trans kids from sports. BTW, the letters issued to accompany vetoes are usually pro forma. In this case, the governor issued an unusually personal 5 pager explaining why he thought this law was a bad idea and why he was vetoing it.

Incidentally, there were enough Republican in the Utah Legislature that agreed it was a bad law and also passed in bad faith (long story) that the veto would not have been overridden. However, the extreme right wing of the Utah Republican Party (otherwise known as the Utah Republican Party) let it be known that any R who did not vote for the override would have the full force of the party turned against them in the primary election. Turns out in Utah, there are a lot of centrist Republicans who would have no problem at all winning a general election, but are terrified of losing the primary election. Senator Bob Bennet lost his office that way, as did Governor Olene Walker. Both would have won in a walk in the general election. They were primaried out.

This is all over basically 4 kids, only one of whom is involved in sports, so it's not like this is some major problem. It's a "message" bill, just exactly like the bill banning gay-straight alliances in high schools back in the 1990s. You may remember, that was the case where high school junior Kelli Petersen faced down the entire Utah legislature in court, and won.

So I guess that is kind of evil, though it is not technically criminal. It will prove to be on the wrong side of history, yet again, and it is using state power to hurt a small and vulnerable group of, in this particular case, literal children.


I know two aphorisms related to the one in the OP:
"Good intentions randomize behavior", which is to say that people have weird ideas of what is good for others. Prime example - Mormons think they are doing you a big favor by baptizing you after you are dead and can no longer object.

If someone is out to do you ill, their behavior is fairly predictable. If they are doing something for you that is "for your own good", God only knows what they are likely to come up with.

The other aphorism with the same basic message, I believe attributed to Henry David Thoreau - "If you see someone walking toward you with the obvious intention of doing you good, run for your life."

I don't like the term "evil" just because of all the religious baggage. Drawing a picture of Mohammed is evil because of one of the Ten Commandments against graven images. Gay couples being married and having children was evil in LDS Inc for a couple of years, then God rescinded that declaration of evil.

COMMENT: You play a dangerous game when you allow religion to define evil or allow religion to dictate its extension or use. Even if "evil" is difficult to define--as lacking defining necessary and sufficient conditions--it remains a meaningful term, and socially applicable and appropriate in a number of contexts that have nothing to do with religion, or religious dogma. Moreover, don't we need to preserve the term, in part, to apply it to religious excesses?
__________________________________________________

Better question: what is a crime? After all, people are not charged with war evils. They are charged with war crimes.

COMMENT: How shortsighted and absurd. "Crime" is a legal term that varies in accordance with the codified laws of various legislatures and government entities. Do you really want Putin, for example, to define "evil" by instantiating whatever laws serve his own interests? Do you even want the U.S. politicians to have that power? By your suggestion, slavery was not evil until laws were passed against it, and genocide is not evil if in conformity with the "cleansing" laws of the perpetrating party.

Moreover, "crime" by common definition fails to capture the meaning of evil. "Evil" by common use and definition transcends what is or is not criminal, because in some social and personal contexts engaging in criminal activity is necessary in order to prevent evil. Was it 'evil' to comply with the demands of Nazi Germany, or 'evil' to resist such demands?
_________________________________________________

"So I guess that is kind of evil, though it is not technically criminal. It will prove to be on the wrong side of history, yet again, and it is using state power to hurt a small and vulnerable group of, in this particular case, literal children."

COMMENT: Great. Now we have "not technically evil." What does that mean; not technically a crime? Or is there something else that 'really' defines evil. It sounds like your saying that 'evil' somehow relates to being "on the wrong side of history." Again, absurd. Had Hitler won WWII the Holocaust would still be evil, regardless of how the new society might characterize it.

I can't prove it, but I believe there is a natural objectivity in "good" and "evil" which is most clearly manifested at the extreme limits of human moral behavior. (i.e. that these terms identify a reality that transcends what anyone might think about their application.)

>COMMENT: How shortsighted and absurd.

You silver-tongued devil, you.

Posting before your morning coffee again?
:)

Yes, indeed. I feel better now. Thank you for your good humor! I am now going to try to make it through the day without displaying any further evil. Of course, I can't make any promises. :)

The anti-trans veto override in the Utah legislature was a side issue to this thread, but just reporting the results - the veto was overridden. All Ds and two Rs in both House and Senate voted to sustain the veto, but that was not enough in Supermajority Utah.

And so it goes.

I'm with BOJ that the word evil carries too much religious baggage and don't use it much.

The worst you can be is someone who intentionally inflicts great harm on others. Actually enjoying inflicting harm is where the word evil isn't even enough of a label.

I read a psychology report a long time ago that said that when someone tortures someone that showing enjoyment of the act of torture makes the torture exponentially more unbearable. That sneering smile is salt in the wound times a million.

Kicking someone who is down is one thing but laughing at them will sear to the core.

Surely that's the basis for a definition of evil that makes sense. It has two advantages:

1) it goes beyond any religious codes and hence is not intermediated, actually or potentially, by interested actors, and

2) it also differentiates between crime, which is culturally specific and sometimes absurd, and that which is universally bad.

I propose a rephrasing something like "evil is causing the suffering, present or future, of any being capable of suffering."

It’s basically being unkind.

Treating your spouse like shit.

Taking advantage of someone.

Not thanking someone.

Ignoring a needy person.

Not listening.

Humiliating a child.



There’s nothing mysterious about evil —-It’s that kind of thing.

Bombing hospitals. For one.

Evil is any action/activity which increases suffering.


HH =)

Evil is any action/activity which increases suffering.

COMMNENT: In the short term, or the long term? How does one's motivations fit into this picture? Is it all about outcomes, or do intentions matter? When a parent submits a child to the suffering entailed by chemotherapy in the off chance it will extend the child's life, is that evil?

In short, this simplistic utilitarian calculus may be a helpful as 'rule of thumb' for personal actions in some contexts, but as a theory of morality, or as the defining explanation of evil, it is woefully lacking.

You beat me to it, HH.

the fact of this 'question' is being asked is an indication/reminder of how far we've left behind basic Right & Wrong in our society.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2022 01:07PM by GNPE.

While I've read some great comments on this thread on what evil is, let me add one that goes to motivation and hence can probably never be 100% proven.

Evil is the belief that you are the only person that matters in this world and that the only purpose of other people you meet is for them to do your bidding. And if they don't do your bidding, you can destroy them as they are against you and your rule of the world.

As I've said, motivation cannot be proven, yet I'm convinced that there are people in this world who really believe what I have written above to be true, and some of them have commandeered powerful positions in our world of today.

The germ of this idea came to me a long time ago in undergraduate college when a philosophy professor challenged the class to see the real world in which we live as only a dream. That sparked a lot of concern from some of my classmates and myself about the role of other people, but it also sent me wandering into the sphere of what evil really means.

Evil can also be unintentional such as negligence;

A drunk driver hits a car with your relatives / friends inside and kills them all; not 'murder' in the classic (legal) sense, but still wrong & therefore Evil.

While a consistent definition of evil hasn't been agreed upon, I do think that unintentional evil is a lesser evil than intentional evil. Why? Because the person who performs unintentional evil is more likely to regret the consequences of his/her actions and is therefore more likely to make restitution for the harm he/she has done than the person who intentionally commits evil. Put another way, the person who intentionally commits evil has made the choice to perform evil, regardless of the possible consequences to him/her. The reason that wealthy and powerful people face fewer consequences for the intentional evil they do are 1) their ability to pay off or otherwise influence those who would enforce those consequences; and 2) society's tendency, encouraged by the wealthy and powerful and their supporters, to view wealthy and powerful people as being above the law and being required to live under different and less stringent moral standards than their poorer counterparts.

Evil people don't know they are evil. They "know" they are fully justified. Did the perpetrators of the MMM feel evil or righteous?

Sociopaths are exactly as you say. By their standards, nothing they do is evil.

With regard to MMM, the organizers of the massacre may have been sociopaths but a number of the people who enacted the murders were not; they were the faithful, following the Lord's instructions. Juanita Brooks writes of her interactions with some of them, particularly a man who late in life was still experiencing terrible nightmares over those events.

One of the horrible things about religious and political cults is that the leaders persuade the followers to do horrible things and it is the latter who bear the consequences.

I wonder if some of us here consider being bamboozled into squandering decades of our lives for the church a moral injury.

I surely do.

"The germ of this idea came to me a long time ago in undergraduate college when a philosophy professor challenged the class to see the real world in which we live as only a dream. That sparked a lot of concern from some of my classmates and myself about the role of other people, but it also sent me wandering into the sphere of what evil really means."

COMMENT: Whose dream? If you are a conscious (dreaming) agent, with thoughts, motivations and 'actions' within a dream state, such thoughts, motivations and 'actions' within such a dream state can still carry moral content, even though there are no real-life ill effects. This is because morality lies within the conscious agent, and not in consequences. This is similar to the idea that one can have evil thoughts even if one does not act upon such thoughts.

Evil (and morality generally) is centered around the motivations and free actions of human beings. Physical events, including the *consequences* of human actions are never in themselves inherently morally good or evil, regardless of the amount of suffering that may be involved. The evil is not in the death or suffering of people, because death and suffering are natural human events that occur both within and outside of moral contexts.

Thus, an earthquake that kills 10,000 people is not evil, but human actions that kill 10,000 people (arguably) are. Thus, the human causal and motivational element is where moral relevance resides. That is why free will is a necessary part of morality! This is also why utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number) as a moral philosophy is false, and the Kantian dictate (act as if your maxium of action were to become a universal law) is closer to our moral intuitions.

Notice a certain ambiguity with respect to the term 'good.' On the one hand it can refer to pragmatic good (promoting prosperity, life, etc.) but on the other hand good is often (mistakenly) used to refer to the utilitarian essence of moral conduct. Again, the essence of moral conduct is not its utilitarian result, but in the motivations and actions of human agents. An extremely moral act can sometimes result in bad consequences, just as an immoral act can sometimes result in good consequences.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The germ of this idea came to me a long time ago
> in undergraduate college when a philosophy
> professor challenged the class to see the real
> world in which we live as only a dream. That
> sparked a lot of concern from some of my
> classmates and myself about the role of other
> people, but it also sent me wandering into the
> sphere of what evil really means."
>
> COMMENT: Whose dream? If you are a conscious
> (dreaming) agent, with thoughts, motivations and
> 'actions' within a dream state, such thoughts,
> motivations and 'actions' within such a dream
> state can still carry moral content, even though
> there are no real-life ill effects. This is
> because morality lies within the conscious agent,
> and not in consequences. This is similar to the
> idea that one can have evil thoughts even if one
> does not act upon such thoughts.

The last sentence of the above paragraph is part of Roman Catholic theology to this day and is associated with a lot of guilt that many Catholics feel about what they've done during their lives.

That said, to accurately answer your question, I believe that the philosophy professor was suggesting to me and my classmates that the world we live in and our lives in it are just a part of our imaginations and that each and every one of us as individuals could do what we wanted no matter what the consequences were to others because those others only existed in our minds. I probably should note here that my memory says that this professor wasn't advocating for such a philosophy; rather, he was trying to let us know that this philosophy already existed (this was a basic philosophy class after all) and that there were people who sincerely believed and advocated it.
>
> Evil (and morality generally) is centered around
> the motivations and free actions of human beings.
> Physical events, including the *consequences* of
> human actions are never in themselves inherently
> morally good or evil, regardless of the amount of
> suffering that may be involved. The evil is not in
> the death or suffering of people, because death
> and suffering are natural human events that occur
> both within and outside of moral contexts.
>
> Thus, an earthquake that kills 10,000 people is
> not evil, but human actions that kill 10,000
> people (arguably) are. Thus, the human causal
> and motivational element is where moral relevance
> resides. That is why free will is a necessary
> part of morality! This is also why utilitarianism
> (greatest good for the greatest number) as a moral
> philosophy is false, and the Kantian dictate (act
> as if your maxium of action were to become a
> universal law) is closer to our moral intuitions.

But evil is not measured by the act itself but by the consequences of performing that act upon other people. If, in fact, you were the only person on earth and there was no other living person on the planet, you could literally do whatever you wanted with almost no consequences to yourself. There certainly would be no consequences from other human beings as they would not exist, and the only consequences you would face would come from other animals or from the earth itself. It is only with the presence of other human beings that the questions of good, evil, and even morality, come in to play. What this means in practice is that how evil an intentional action is is directly proportional to the number of lives destroyed or lost because of the evil action(s) that was/were taken.
>
> Notice a certain ambiguity with respect to the
> term 'good.' On the one hand it can refer to
> pragmatic good (promoting prosperity, life, etc.)
> but on the other hand good is often (mistakenly)
> used to refer to the utilitarian essence of moral
> conduct. Again, the essence of moral conduct is
> not its utilitarian result, but in the motivations
> and actions of human agents. An extremely moral
> act can sometimes result in bad consequences, just
> as an immoral act can sometimes result in good
> consequences.

The concepts of good, evil, and morality cannot exist with just one living person on the planet--it is only through relationships with other human beings and the consequences when those relationships are destroyed that any definition of morality, good, and evil can have any valid meaning. And one of the problems, getting back to the original topic, is defining any of these concepts in a way that the majority of people on Earth would agree with. Therefore, it must be the consequences of our actions upon other human beings that must define the concepts of good, evil, and morality.

> This is similar to the
> idea that one can have evil thoughts even if one
> does not act upon such thoughts.

The last sentence of the above paragraph is part of Roman Catholic theology to this day and is associated with a lot of guilt that many Catholics feel about what they've done during their lives.

COMMENT: I don't care about what the Catholic Church teaches, or any other religion. I said nothing about punishment or moral accountability for 'evil' thoughts. However, I think it is fair to say that most would agree that we have had thoughts on occasion that were immoral to some extent, even if perhaps not rising to the level of evil.
_________________________________________

But evil is not measured by the act itself but by the consequences of performing that act upon other people.

COMMENT: I did not say that the consequences were irrelevant to our psychological response to the evil act. I only said that the essence of morality is not in the consequences but in the act of will of the moral agent. Obviously, if the perpetrator of some evil is aware of the consequences that the act will entail, and acts anyway, that is part of the moral equation. But even that gets back to the mentality of the actor, not the consequences themselves.
______________________________________________

If, in fact, you were the only person on earth and there was no other living person on the planet, you could literally do whatever you wanted with almost no consequences to yourself. There certainly would be no consequences from other human beings as they would not exist, and the only consequences you would face would come from other animals or from the earth itself. It is only with the presence of other human beings that the questions of good, evil, and even morality, come in to play.

COMMENT: Well, I disagree with that. I believe that evil thoughts, motivations and actions have consequences to the person engaging in such thoughts, motivations and actions. But, again, I acknowledge that the metaphysics of morality are extremely complex and hard to pin down. Suppose, for example, I could choose to engage in some personal dream or virtual reality fantasy, and I chose to engage in a fantasy where I slaughtered children in order to enjoy their virtual suffering. Are there no moral implications *for me* in such a fantasy even though no one was actually killed or suffered? I would say yes. (You can imagine how I feel about some gratuitously violent video games!) But, I certainly don't equate the moral implications in participating in such fantasies to the moral implications of actually carrying out the same in real time.
___________________________________________

What this means in practice is that how evil an intentional action is is directly proportional to the number of lives destroyed or lost because of the evil action(s) that was/were taken.

COMMENT: No. Because the actor's motivations and knowledge of potential consequences are what triggers the moral judgment. Suppose the actor's motives were pure and benevolent, but the consequences were unimaginably remote and severe. Is he or she still morally blameworthy?
___________________________________________

The concepts of good, evil, and morality cannot exist with just one living person on the planet--it is only through relationships with other human beings and the consequences when those relationships are destroyed that any definition of morality, good, and evil can have any valid meaning.

COMMENT: Again, I don't agree for reasons stated above.
___________________________________________

And one of the problems, getting back to the original topic, is defining any of these concepts in a way that the majority of people on Earth would agree with. Therefore, it must be the consequences of our actions upon other human beings that must define the concepts of good, evil, and morality.

COMMENT: I admit that morality is metaphysically difficult to pin down and therefore that human intuitions of morality are what guides moral behavior. But that does not mean we intuitively *define* the concepts of good, evil and morality solely in consequentialist terms. Intuitively, the motivations of the actor are paramount to our moral judgments. That is why we do not morally judge the person committing an honest mistake in the same way we judge intentional behavior when the same horrendous consequences are the result.

The upshot of all of this (for me) is that we need not morally beat ourselves up when adverse consequences occur from honest misjudgments or mistakes--however severe. However, when we willfully engage in thoughts, motivations and actions that are known to be wrong, immoral or evil, we should perhaps look inward at our personal character, even if the consequences are minimal or only personal.

I appreciate your comments BG.

First, I must say that I very much appreciate your comments on this and a number of other issues you've posted on, HB.

Second, while I am willing to consider actions as well as the consequences of those actions to be judgeworthy as to whether they are good or evil, I'm not quite ready to give the same judgment to thoughts or fantasies. The reason for this reluctance on my part is not because of rebellion against Catholic guilt (even if it is unconscious); and it isn't that thoughts and fantasies can't or don't anticipate actions in the real world (which they certainly do); rather it is a recognition that we humans have absolutely no way to read the thoughts of other human beings and therefore we have no absolute way of knowing the mindset of a person who intends to commit evil, certainly not before the fact. What we do know is that most people's behaviors are predictable and we should be watching people who perform small acts of evil to try to stop them from committing bigger ones.

First, I must say that I very much appreciate your comments on this and a number of other issues you've posted on, HB.

COMMENT: Thank you. Back at you!
_______________________________________________

Second, while I am willing to consider actions as well as the consequences of those actions to be judgeworthy as to whether they are good or evil, I'm not quite ready to give the same judgment to thoughts or fantasies. The reason for this reluctance on my part is not because of rebellion against Catholic guilt (even if it is unconscious); and it isn't that thoughts and fantasies can't or don't anticipate actions in the real world (which they certainly do); rather it is a recognition that we humans have absolutely no way to read the thoughts of other human beings and therefore we have no absolute way of knowing the mindset of a person who intends to commit evil, certainly not before the fact. What we do know is that most people's behaviors are predictable and we should be watching people who perform small acts of evil to try to stop them from committing bigger ones.

COMMENT: I am not suggesting a "thought police" (as in the movie "Minority Report"). Thoughts (moral or immoral) are private matters and should (for the most part) remain so.

Society's interest is in formulating laws based upon *actions* and their *consequences*. The fact that such laws mirror to some extent our moral intuitions is a contingent and not a necessary matter. Notwithstanding, as noted previously, I believe that our thoughts can have "moral content" such that they can be morally 'right' or morally 'wrong.' But that too is a private matter subject only to personal reflection. (Of course, one's actions often betray one's thoughts.)

(Also, in the legal context, evidence (usually statements in the form of testimony) of a witness's thoughts and/or motivations are often relevant in assessing their actions, including innocence or guilt as related to some event. As such, a witness might be compelled to testify as to such matters.) (e.g. the question, "You hated the victim, didn't you; you wanted him dead?") Aside from such a question as related to legal evidence in a criminal case, we might ask whether such thoughts are inherently immoral--victim or no victim. The answer to that question is a personal matter, and depends (I would think) on a broad range of facts and circumstances.

methinks that nuancing Right & Wrong, Good & Evil are a path to justifying and/or rationalizing the harming of another or in the case of ChurchCo, being complicit with evil/wrongdoing.

The extreme opposite of profoundly good, profoundly bad.
The Holocaust is the perfect example, also, Genocide, crimes against humanity, murder, child abuse, rape, all typically fall into this category.

BYU cutting mens gymnastics and wrestling teams.