- TV series currently showing on NetFlix
Cast:
Katja Herbers as Dr. Kristen Bouchard
Mike Colter as David Acosta
Michael Emerson as Dr. Leland Townsend
Christine Lahti as Sheryl Luria
Aasif Mandvi as Ben Shakir
Peter Scolari as Bishop Thomas
Andrea Martin as Sister Andrea
Nicole Shalhoub as Vanessa Dudley
Maddy Crocco as Lexis Bouchard
Patrick Brammall as Andy Bouchard
Kurt Fuller as Dr. Kurt Boggs

Evil is often people thinking they're doing good. Almost no one thinks they're evil.

It depends on who you ask.

For me, evil is 1) the wanton taking of another human being's life and supports for almost any reason; 2) tribalism, which justifies 1) by stating (usually implicitly) that those not in the tribe or group are lesser beings who don't deserve what it means to be human; and 3) greed, because it it allows humans to hoard finite resources that all of us need to live.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like your definition, Blindguy


It’s at least workable.

Just don’t go providing the most glaringly obvious real life example of the stated criteria.

Human, retroactively guilty of my dear leader’s criteria for “unacceptable thoughts”

For me, evil is:

1) the wanton taking of another human being's life and supports for almost any reason;

COMMENT: Notice that the words "wanton" and "almost" leave subjective 'loopholes' that make your definition functionally problematic (non-objective). "Wanton" implies without reason or purpose. However, 'evil' usually encompass both. The exception offered by "almost" allows any proposed evil doer to place himself within the exception by seemingly any justification whatever.
________________________________

2) tribalism, which justifies 1) by stating (usually implicitly) that those not in the tribe or group are lesser beings who don't deserve what it means to be human;

COMMENT: I think this criterion is rare -- even implicitly. IN any event, it certainly does not cover even a fraction of the actions and/or events that we intuitively deem as evil.
________________________________

and 3) greed, because it allows humans to hoard finite resources that all of us need to live.

COMMENT: Again, "greed" is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for the attribution of 'evil' as intuitively understood.

Notice also that you used the conjunctive "and" as opposed to the disjunctive "or" in your analysis. Clearly 'evil' as applied to any singular event does not require ALL of these criteria. On the other hand, if "or" was intended, none of these criteria, of itself, is either necessary or sufficient for our intuitive scope of what is evil.

So, the problem here is that you have not objectively grounded 'evil' through any of your objective criteria, taken either individually or collectively -- even intuitively. This makes it easy for people (like Human) to assign evil to their favorite outrage by simply associating an event and its effects with one or more of your criteria, while avoiding the multiple variables that are relevant, or potentially relevant, to the 'evil' calculation.
__________________________________

Instead of explicit criteria, it might be helpful (IMHO) to think of evil (and moral judgment generally) as a function of multiple factual variables. Such variables might include the following:

!. Effects: Including death, suffering (mental and physical), etc.)

2. Motivations: What motivated the perpetrator to do what he did?

3. Intent: What effects did the perpetrator intend to cause, as opposed to effects that were not intended.

4. Casual (local) facts: What prior events occurred that contributed to the evil deed or event.

5. Historical context: What is the underlying history that might be relevant to the act or event.

Admittedly, the above is of little practical help in *objectively* identifying what is or is not evil in any given circumstance. To do that you would need to (1) identify all the relevant variables; (2) assign some sort of quantification scheme as applied to the variables; and (3) define a function(s) that calculates mathematically and/or logically what is or is not 'evil' beyond just intuitive opinions.

Notwithstanding the above difficulties, if 'evil' *is* objective, then we have to assume that such a function exists; perhaps in some transcendent platonic world, and that our moral intuitions somehow reach toward the ideal of such a function. That relationship (between our intuitions and some transcendent reality) is what gives moral intuitions their ontology (their reality), their power, and their moral authority -- even if they are not certain. Minimally, it provides at least a framework in which to discuss morality and evil.

This might not be as outrageous as it might first sound. After all, mathematical objects (e.g. numbers) and functions are deemed by most mathematicians to be objectively real (however abstract) existents in the universe. These mathematical objects are said to exist in some abstract, transcendent platonic world. As such, mathematical functions are 'embedded' in the laws of nature and discovered (not invented) by mathematicians and physicists. In other words, mathematicians and theoretical physicists 'reach' toward this platonic mathematical ideal through *discovery* of pre-existing mathematical concepts and functions. In this sense, mathematical intuition (more or less) correlates with an objective, platonic reality in the same sense as we might view moral intuition as correlating (more or less) with a platonic moral reality, which would include our intuitive assessments of 'evil.'

This response, though made to blindguy, is dedicated to Human, who it seems to me by his example is lacking in moral perspective.

I like to think good and evil are objective. My 5-year-old nephew asked me why small animals are so cute. Also, why are sunsets so beautiful?

Where's the evolutionary advantage in the intrinsic beauty of nature? It's fun to kid, but good and evil are analogs of pretty and ugly. If nature favors beauty, it probably also favors goodness.

Yet toads reproduce...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2024 10:02AM by bradley.

First, I haven't been on site for a couple of days so I didn't see your response until now. Two things about that response (see below) jump out at me: 1) the unwillingness to recognize group evils; and 2) the idea that evil can be objectively defined, something that in most cases I highly doubt.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, evil is:
>
> 1) the wanton taking of another human being's life
> and supports for almost any reason;
>
> COMMENT: Notice that the words "wanton" and
> "almost" leave subjective 'loopholes' that make
> your definition functionally problematic
> (non-objective). "Wanton" implies without reason
> or purpose. However, 'evil' usually encompass
> both. The exception offered by "almost" allows
> any proposed evil doer to place himself within the
> exception by seemingly any justification whatever.

To me, the greatest criminal is not the person who murders another in the heat of an argument; nor is it the person who knows his victim and plans his act down to the smallest detail; rather, it is the person who kills others without knowing anything about them or their lives. Terrorists, both domestic and foreign, who commit murder for their group for religious or racial purity, would fall under my worst definition as well as serial killers who really have no idea at all as to why they kill other human beings. As to the exception, I think those who spout the ideas that lead others to do those henous acts should be tried and executed for incitement of stochastic terrorism.
>
> ________________________________
>
> 2) tribalism, which justifies 1) by stating
> (usually implicitly) that those not in the tribe
> or group are lesser beings who don't deserve what
> it means to be human;
>
> COMMENT: I think this criterion is rare -- even
> implicitly. IN any event, it certainly does not
> cover even a fraction of the actions and/or events
> that we intuitively deem as evil.

As I noted at the top, this is where you and I would most definitely part ways. Anthropologists tell us that human beings are social creatures and that therefore loyalty to the tribe is an all-to-real motivator for the killing of others. Adolf Hitler used tribal loyalty to great effect between 1933 when he took power in Germany until the end of World War II, but he wasn't alone; in fact, the only real anomaly about the German Nazis was the means they used to kill millions of Jews and others who didn't fit into their German tribe--it was the first time that gas was used for such purposes against innocent civilians. In more recent times, we've had the Hoothis and Tutus in Africa; and the seemingly endless Arab-Jewish conflict. And, of course, lest we not forget, there were the killings of civil rights workers in the U.S. South by those who wished to protect their white privileges from African-americans and others.

Oh no. Tribalism isn't rare, and it is a very strong force that motivates us humans even today. And that tribalism, and the failure to see others not in our tribe as deserving the same rights and privileges as we have, is one *very* strong source of evil.
> ________________________________
>
> and 3) greed, because it allows humans to hoard
> finite resources that all of us need to live.
>
> COMMENT: Again, "greed" is neither a necessary or
> sufficient condition for the attribution of 'evil'
> as intuitively understood.

I'm not sure how you "intuitively" understand evil. The only resources that humans have access to is the resources available on this planet. And since we can measure the size of Earth, we know that there is a finite limit to all resources available to humans. Now, some resources do regenarate themselves over time--but we are using those resources faster than they can regenerate themselves.

But, you say, what about the resources available from other planets and solar systems. And my answer is, we don't yet have access to those. Keep in mind that the astronauts in the space station have to get replenishments of almost everything from spacecraft, both manned and unmanned, that bring supplies to them from Earth. So when you look at available resources, you must look only at what you have on hand now and *not *what you may, or may not, have in the future--because *that* is never assured.

And that brings me back to greed. Greed is the hoarding of nearly all resources by those with the means and methodology to do it over others. It is very much the product of unregulated capitalism (as writer and researcher Naomi Klein has pointed out in the last decade). It is also very much in sync with our emotions and has spread out evil, especially to minorities and the dispossessed.

Obviously, my education in social justice issues in Jesuit high school and undergraduate college has played a large role in my thinking on this issue, even though I am an atheist now. But religion is on both sides of this fence--many white evangelical Protestants resoundly reject these ideas as have the Mormons.
>
> Notice also that you used the conjunctive "and" as
> opposed to the disjunctive "or" in your analysis.
> Clearly 'evil' as applied to any singular event
> does not require ALL of these criteria. On the
> other hand, if "or" was intended, none of these
> criteria, of itself, is either necessary or
> sufficient for our intuitive scope of what is
> evil.
>
> So, the problem here is that you have not
> objectively grounded 'evil' through any of your
> objective criteria, taken either individually or
> collectively -- even intuitively. This makes it
> easy for people (like Human) to assign evil to
> their favorite outrage by simply associating an
> event and its effects with one or more of your
> criteria, while avoiding the multiple variables
> that are relevant, or potentially relevant, to the
> 'evil' calculation.
> __________________________________
>
> Instead of explicit criteria, it might be helpful
> (IMHO) to think of evil (and moral judgment
> generally) as a function of multiple factual
> variables. Such variables might include the
> following:
>
> !. Effects: Including death, suffering (mental
> and physical), etc.)
>
> 2. Motivations: What motivated the perpetrator to
> do what he did?
>
> 3. Intent: What effects did the perpetrator
> intend to cause, as opposed to effects that were
> not intended.
>
> 4. Casual (local) facts: What prior events
> occurred that contributed to the evil deed or
> event.
>
> 5. Historical context: What is the underlying
> history that might be relevant to the act or
> event.
>
> Admittedly, the above is of little practical help
> in *objectively* identifying what is or is not
> evil in any given circumstance. To do that you
> would need to (1) identify all the relevant
> variables; (2) assign some sort of quantification
> scheme as applied to the variables; and (3) define
> a function(s) that calculates mathematically
> and/or logically what is or is not 'evil' beyond
> just intuitive opinions.
>
> Notwithstanding the above difficulties, if 'evil'
> *is* objective, then we have to assume that such a
> function exists; perhaps in some transcendent
> platonic world, and that our moral intuitions
> somehow reach toward the ideal of such a function.
> That relationship (between our intuitions and some
> transcendent reality) is what gives moral
> intuitions their ontology (their reality), their
> power, and their moral authority -- even if they
> are not certain. Minimally, it provides at least
> a framework in which to discuss morality and
> evil.
>
> This might not be as outrageous as it might first
> sound. After all, mathematical objects (e.g.
> numbers) and functions are deemed by most
> mathematicians to be objectively real (however
> abstract) existents in the universe. These
> mathematical objects are said to exist in some
> abstract, transcendent platonic world. As such,
> mathematical functions are 'embedded' in the laws
> of nature and discovered (not invented) by
> mathematicians and physicists. In other words,
> mathematicians and theoretical physicists 'reach'
> toward this platonic mathematical ideal through
> *discovery* of pre-existing mathematical concepts
> and functions. In this sense, mathematical
> intuition (more or less) correlates with an
> objective, platonic reality in the same sense as
> we might view moral intuition as correlating (more
> or less) with a platonic moral reality, which
> would include our intuitive assessments of 'evil.'
>
>
> This response, though made to blindguy, is
> dedicated to Human, who it seems to me by his
> example is lacking in moral perspective.

I think that Human was taking the concepts I laid out and applying them to what he/she sees going on today. I don't know that he/she sees things the same way that I do (we all think differently from each other) but it is nice to see him/her try.

And yet in the end, evil is a judgment call made by individuals. And, using that definition, what most people consider to be evil will ultimately rule, regardless of what you or I may actually think.

"who commit murder for their group for religious or racial purity, would fall under my worst definition as well as serial killers who really have no idea at all as to why they kill other human beings"

Yet we thank drone operators for their service.

They’re one of the highest groups of pilots with PTSD.

First, I haven't been on site for a couple of days so I didn't see your response until now. Two things about that response (see below) jump out at me: 1) the unwillingness to recognize group evils; and 2) the idea that evil can be objectively defined, something that in most cases I highly doubt.

COMMENT: In my opinion "evil" is instantiated through *individual* thoughts and conduct that occurs as through free choices. Groups can perpetrate evil (on this view) only to the extent of 'group think' and associated group conduct that reflects the individual attitudes of the group. As to objectivity, it seems to me that there must be some sense of objectivity -- even if not perfect -- in order to even rationally discuss what is or is not evil. If there is literally *no* foundation of agreement, how can evil be identified and judged for purposes of discussion?
_____________________________________________

To me, the greatest criminal is not the person who murders another in the heat of an argument; nor is it the person who knows his victim and plans his act down to the smallest detail; rather, it is the person who kills others without knowing anything about them or their lives.

COMMENT: Well, total context is important, including the criteria I proposed in my original post. After all, there are *just* wars, or responses to brutal, unprovoked invasions, where some civilian deaths are inevitable. Such people who are merely reacting to another's evil conduct towards them, meet your description of the "greatest criminal," which to my mind shows that you cannot be strictly right here. Who, what, where, why, and how, become extremely relevant.
____________________________________________

Terrorists, both domestic and foreign, who commit murder for their group for religious or racial purity, would fall under my worst definition as well as serial killers who really have no idea at all as to why they kill other human beings. As to the exception, I think those who spout the ideas that lead others to do those henous acts should be tried and executed for incitement of stochastic terrorism.

COMMENT: Again, context is everything in moral judgments. That said, I generally agree with you that ideological terrorist are high on the list of 'evildoers.' As for serial killers, often there is an underlying history and associated mental issues to consider, which brings us back to broad context.
_____________________________________

As I noted at the top, this is where you and I would most definitely part ways. Anthropologists tell us that human beings are social creatures and that therefore loyalty to the tribe is an all-to-real motivator for the killing of others. Adolf Hitler used tribal loyalty to great effect between 1933 when he took power in Germany until the end of World War II, but he wasn't alone; in fact, the only real anomaly about the German Nazis was the means they used to kill millions of Jews and others who didn't fit into their German tribe--it was the first time that gas was used for such purposes against innocent civilians. In more recent times, we've had the Hoothis and Tutus in Africa; and the seemingly endless Arab-Jewish conflict. And, of course, lest we not forget, there were the killings of civil rights workers in the U.S. South by those who wished to protect their white privileges from African-americans and others.

Oh no. Tribalism isn't rare, and it is a very strong force that motivates us humans even today. And that tribalism, and the failure to see others not in our tribe as deserving the same rights and privileges as we have, is one *very* strong source of evil.

COMMENT: Look, there are a lot of groups in the world that could be considered as "tribes." As long as "tribe" is poorly, or loosely defined, we can assume that "tribe" refers to any group having some common connection (familial, political, social, religious, professional, etc. etc,) Once you adopt such a broad view, tribal evil is relatively very rare--even in the context of religion. On the other hand, if you limit "tribalism" to traditional genetic "tribes," it still seems relatively rare. Note: I didn't say tribal evil was nonexistent, or even that it was not important.
__________________________________

I'm not sure how you "intuitively" understand evil. The only resources that humans have access to is the resources available on this planet. And since we can measure the size of Earth, we know that there is a finite limit to all resources available to humans. Now, some resources do regenarate themselves over time--but we are using those resources faster than they can regenerate themselves.

COMMENT: Again, some people perpetrate evil motivated by greed. But greed is NOT the defining point of evil. (not a necessary although perhaps a sufficient condition of evil) There is just way too much evil perpetrated where greed had nothing to do with it.
___________________________________

And that brings me back to greed. Greed is the hoarding of nearly all resources by those with the means and methodology to do it over others. It is very much the product of unregulated capitalism (as writer and researcher Naomi Klein has pointed out in the last decade). It is also very much in sync with our emotions and has spread out evil, especially to minorities and the dispossessed.

COMMENT: Is the capitalist evil per se? Is capitalism per se "greedy?" Maybe, but that strikes me as very overly simplistic. (And I view myself as a democratic socialist!) It would seem to me that any determination of evil would depend upon his or her social attitudes; what she did with her money; whether she cheated, etc. I doubt any capitalist who otherwise played by the rules, was sensitive to human needs in the distribution of his or her wealth; and whose wealth itself was not based upon harming others, would be considered "evil" simply because he or she was a capitalist--even if capitalism generally produced disparate and unfair economic hardship.
_________________________________

I think that Human was taking the concepts I laid out and applying them to what he/she sees going on today. I don't know that he/she sees things the same way that I do (we all think differently from each other) but it is nice to see him/her try.

And yet in the end, evil is a judgment call made by individuals. And, using that definition, what most people consider to be evil will ultimately rule, regardless of what you or I may actually think.

COMMENT: As I have noted many times, morality requires free will. Moreover, moral judgments (including judgments of evil) require some standard of moral objectivity. It cannot just be what anyone happens to think about the matter. A weak objectivity may be found in common intuitions, like the golden rule. However, if moral objectivity can be more firmly established by postulating (even if just in principle, as a matter of faith) some underlying metaphysical reality, then all the better (at least from a logical point of view, if not a scientific one).

Just as mathematics is on a much firmer objective ground when considered as based upon some underlying metaphysical (platonic) mathematical reality (also a matter of faith); morality is on much firmer objective ground when considered as based upon some underlying metaphysical, platonic moral reality. In both cases there is a huge problem in identifying and coming in contact with such a reality, but in principle it allows us to believe that morality (and mathematics) are really part of the universe, and not something human beings just made up.

Thank you for your insightful comments, blindguy. It is always appreciated.

I think of evil as putting personal benefit before community benefit.

What are the seven deadly sins but basic survival instincts carried out to the extent that they benefit the individual at the expense of the community?

And the 10 commandments & similar instructions are respecting the welfare of the community.

Richard Dawkins talks about this in his book "The Selfish Gene". He argues (correctly I believe) that apparently altruistic behavior is actually in our self interest.

The problem is if most people respect the welfare of the group the minority that doesn't enjoys a competitive advantage and will prosper at the expense of the group. Dawkins examines various iterations of The Prisoner's Dilemma.

Looking at it through this lens evil is quite common.

What about the Mormon lens? The only real evil is the wrong kind of sex.

How about ANYTHING that harms another?

gossip, theft, fraud, denigrating another reputation, lies.
Abusing another, physically, sexually, and financially.

But what if you and your friends all agree it's for their own good?

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It depends on who you ask.
>
> For me, evil is 1) the wanton taking of another
> human being's life and supports for almost any
> reason; 2) tribalism, which justifies 1) by
> stating (usually implicitly) that those not in the
> tribe or group are lesser beings who don't deserve
> what it means to be human; and 3) greed, because
> it it allows humans to hoard finite resources that
> all of us need to live.

I know evil people who don't fulfil any of these three criteria. One of them is a stalker and a bully. There is no tribe for him.

> There is no tribe for him.

That sounds like high praise to me.

But then again, I don't think much of those whose personalities are so fragile that they depend on the "tribe" for their identities.

People who view other people as their prey.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2024 10:21AM by summer.

There's a very interesting rabbit hole. Who gets to define evil, predator or prey? As someone else noted, evil people don't know they are evil. Most have an inflated view of themselves, knowing that they do no wrong as they go through people's lives like a Tasmanian Devil.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People who view other people as their prey.

Definitely.

Cilantro is evil !

And Hawaiian pizza. Hawaiian pizza with cilantro is the double secret evil. Something like that.

Also pickled pigs feet.

And double orders of chicken gizzards.

My favorite pizza. Extra pineapple and onions please :) I love cilantro too but not on pizza.

Only when it bolts.

Do U remember the woman got got exd for bringing Kale to church?,

Evil = unnecessary suffering.


HH =)

That's the closest I can get to describing evil too, HH.

Nature causes a lot of evil. Deliberately causing suffering is evil to me.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the closest I can get to describing evil
> too, HH.
>
> Nature causes a lot of evil. Deliberately causing
> suffering is evil to me.

I strongly agree with your definition of Evil. Thanks.

"Nature causes a lot of evil. Deliberately causing suffering is evil to me."

COMMENT: Ah, yes. I remember my old high school "Physical Science" textbook, where the last chapter was titled: *Mother Nature: That Evil Bitch*

I really wish she would stop doing all of this "deliberate" evil, like tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc. Not to mention continuing to create human beings. She sounds a lot like Descartes' Evil Demon, with a healthy dose of "Spinoza's God" thrown in.

I sure am glad we all finally got over religion! :-)

Bemis is boring. Boring causes me to Unnecessarily suffer. Unnecessary suffering is evil. Therefore Bemis causes evil.
Bemis is the source of Evil.


Valid premises leading to a sound conclusion. Rock solid logic.


HH =)

I would say one definition of evil is doing to others what you wouldn't want done unto yourself. Mormon doctrine in "treat others as you would have others treat you-except when God commands otherwise. Joseph Smith taught that Gods commands us not to kill or covet thy neighbors wife etc.. but at other times when circumstances and Gods purposes require he commands us to utterly kill (gov.Bogs, Mt. Meadows, blood atonement,etc.)and I guess take other men's wives sometimes too.

With how often she changes Her mind, God must be a woman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2024 11:18AM by bradley.

I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.

Same thing has been running through my mind.

Genocide
Murder
Rape
Child abuse
Cruelty

All things God did in the Bible.

You say that like global floods are a bad thing.

God cuckolding his Step Dad by raping his own virgin Mom to create himself in the flesh, seems evil.

It's okay when God does it.

I think evil is a human trait defined by what it is absent of. Things like compassion, empathy, sensitivity, charity, concern.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think evil is a human trait defined by what it
> is absent of. Things like compassion, empathy,
> sensitivity, charity, concern.

Oh, some of the most evil things are done with those in mind. People will even put their friend and neighbors into camps to protect others.

But I know what’s unforgivable: intentional cruelty. That’s good enough for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/08/2024 09:27PM by Beth.

It’s a common word in the English language meaning extremely bad, as in, genocide, murder, rape or just about any other felony.

It is non-existent outside of humans.

If a coyote eats a wild rabbit, is it evil? How about if it eats your dog?

Human predators do what they were born to do. Sometimes it's nurture, but sometimes it's all nature. We call those kinds evil. Evil may be a human constuct, but so is civilization. Civilization is incompatible with the law of the jungle.

Which is squarely on-topic because Mormonism sees evil as a choice. Goodness is the triumph of nurture, the right choice. So, Mormons just cannot imagine the evil that lurks among them. They can't imagine evil being the "right choice". They can imagine large lawsuit settlements, so at least there's some incentive to police predators.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2024 12:54AM by bradley.

> Civilization is incompatible with the law of the
> jungle.

I wonder. . .

Are there not civilizations that are structured forms of the law of the jungle? The Mongols, the antebellum (and Jim Crow) South, the Nazis, the Communists. . .

All of these historical examples have their proponents. There are blacks who see MLK's triumph over Jim Crow as a major social setback. My point being that history is propaganda whose function is to serve masters you did not vote for and who you would probably despise personally.

The history of WWII as told by Japan or Germany will be different from what you were taught in school. To them, the allies were the evil ones.

Maybe you're getting at evil as a pathological expression of state power. But when there are competing states, good and evil depends on whose side you're on. We say we would not repeat the atrocities of the past while genociding Gaza.

> The history of WWII as told by Japan or Germany
> will be different from what you were taught in
> school. To them, the allies were the evil ones.

That is incorrect.

After WWII the Germans taught and believed that the Nazis were profoundly evil. Where the delusion arose was in the denial that Germans supported the Nazis. Thus there were no collaborators, just German victims as well as allied victims. The German youth unrest and even terrorism of the late 1960s and early 1970s stemmed form the discovery by the next generations that their parents were lying when they disavowed all responsibility for the bout of totalitarianism.

The Japanese were less defensive. They accepted responsibility for the atrocities of the 1930s and 1940s and renounced war as an instrument of state policy. They may have felt the dropping of the atom bomb was unforgivable, but they did not view the Americans and other allied peoples as aggressors.


--------------
> Maybe you're getting at evil as a pathological
> expression of state power. But when there are
> competing states, good and evil depends on whose
> side you're on. We say we would not repeat the
> atrocities of the past while genociding Gaza.

This is more the point I was trying to suggest.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If a coyote eats a wild rabbit, is it evil?
No. It’s survival.

> How
> about if it eats your dog?

No. Evil is non-existent outside of humans.

> Human predators do what they were born to do.
> Sometimes it's nurture, but sometimes it's all
> nature. We call those kinds evil. Evil may be a
> human constuct, but so is civilization.
> Civilization is incompatible with the law of the
> jungle.

Time and money are a human construct too, that doesn’t make them meaningless.

> Which is squarely on-topic because Mormonism sees
> evil as a choice. Goodness is the triumph of
> nurture, the right choice. So, Mormons just cannot
> imagine the evil that lurks among them. They can't
> imagine evil being the "right choice". They can
> imagine large lawsuit settlements, so at least
> there's some incentive to police predators.

There is that.

Belief in evil has its utility. It may even be necessary. What about belief in God or other transcendence?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Belief in evil has its utility. It may even be
> necessary. What about belief in God or other
> transcendence?
Belief in God has its utility too.
Originally it was used as a way to get Romans to pay taxes to the Emperor as faithfully as they paid their tithes to the Pope. Just make them one and the same and problem solved!
Now that we have separation of church and state, belief in God is still useful in getting people to obey the ‘authorities’. Without a God concept to keep people’s lusts in check, most people would go around raping, killing and stealing w/o remorse.

> sc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> Now that we have separation of church and state,
> belief in God is still useful in getting people to
> obey the ‘authorities’. Without a God concept
> to keep people’s lusts in check, most people
> would go around raping, killing and stealing w/o
> remorse.

That's a pretty dark view of humanity.

I don't believe that "most people" are so lust-filled they would rape, kill and steal even in the absence of checks and balances.

The milk of human kindness is still a thing.

"Tucker and Dale are on the case!"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hpq_T-xLEaw

Repeat / Reprise-

Why are some allowing this to be complicated???

Anything that harms another, physically, emotionally, or financially is evil.

so.simple.

I was about to post the same thought but I fell asleep reading the Bemis posts. Currently trying to rub off a backwards QWERT on my forehead.

"Anything that harms another, physically, emotionally, or financially is evil."

So life is basically evil.