trust Posted June 30, 2012 Author Share Posted June 30, 2012 Obviously it would be terrible to divide the world into saints and sinners. I don't even like applying personal blame. But ignoring acts of evil will not stop it. It is just going to let it flourish. When Christ says that when we lust after others we have already committed adultery in our hearts, should we ignore this teaching because it teaches us to think in terms of good and evil? Whether we like it or not, knowledge of good and evil is here to stay on earth. Two hundred years ago, we claimed that whites are obviously meant to be free and blacks are meant to be slaves. Blacks are, after all, just three-fifths of a person. Racism like this was eventually recognized as an evil and this type of evil is being eradicated. Today we claim that cats and dogs are obviously meant to be loved on as pets and other animals are meant to go through factory farms and be killed. Farm animals are, after all, just not quite animals. Specism like this is being recognized as an evil and will be eradicated. Ignoring these types of acts, whether they are Jews suffering in the Holocaust, blacks being forced to be slaves, or animals screaming behind factory farm doors, we must recognize them for what they are: Evil. All of these can be traced back to natural evil. Christ taught us that there is no slave and there is no master when he kneeled down and washed the feet of the disciples. This was unheard of for someone in power to do this. Christ tells us that he longs to gather us together, as a mother hen gathers her chicks under wings, but we were not willing. Christ is relating himself to a chicken. A freakin chicken. This was at a time when people barely even considered that animals feel pain. This was unheard of. In all instances, Christ actually takes on the role of the abused. God is supposed to conquer his enemies, not take on the role of the oppressed and suffer with them. Racism, specism, and sexism are all created in our hearts. Without natural evil though, none of these moral evils would exist. I see no logical reason why we should only try to eradicate moral evil without eradicating natural evil. Should we just stand around while a tornado kills our neighbors? Why not stop all natural evil? One thing is clear, ignoring evil will not just make it go away. I am not looking to place blame or judgment. I am looking for understanding. For the same measure I use to judge God, God will also use to judge me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 All of these can be traced back to natural evil. How so? George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I am not looking to place blame or judgment. I am looking for understanding. For the same measure I use to judge God, God will also use to judge me. trust Personally I think it will be difficult for us to find understanding while we continue to commit the original sin of parsing the world into evil (natural or otherwise) and not. Evil is essentially what we want not to happen and good is what we want to happen. The terms natural, unnatural and supernatural are an aberration (in my opinion). Thinking in these 'opposites' is another extension of our original sin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) While I would not neatly divide every action we take as 'good' or 'evil,' I think the word evil is a useful term to describe particularly egregious acts intentionally committed by a human for the purpose of harming another living being. I would also suggest that 'good' and 'evil' are scalar, not polar with 'evil' on the far end of the scale. George Edited June 30, 2012 by GeorgeW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 While I would not neatly divide every action we take as 'good' or 'evil,' I think the word evil is a useful term to describe particularly egregious acts intentionally committed by a human for the purpose of harming another living being. George George While I agree words in of themselves are not good or evil, the underlying thought and emotions involved can be a hindrance to gaining understanding. trust mentioned the holocaust - while I agree it can be viewed as "evil", this view in no ways helps our understanding of the causes and remedies so we can avoid this so called evil in the future. Regarding scalar - I don't think so. We still hang on to a dualistic view of the universe but with shades of grey. This is OK, in some senses. We could also look at good and evil from a post modern relativistic vantage point: good and evil are purely in the eye of the beholder. I don't think so; again a dualistic view. I suppose I am advocating for a monistic interpretation of the universe (and the Bible). John 10:30 applies to all of us, not just the mythical Christ. This is the antithesis of the more traditional Christian traditions and heresy for the fundamental traditions. In the GoE metaphorical story, do you agree that Adam and Eve got kicked out for gaining a knowledge of good and evil? While we might never be able to get the genie back in the bottle or the evils in Pandora's box - at least we can be aware of the thought process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Romanish, I don't think identifying something as evil precludes, or even interferes with, ascertaining "causes and remedies." I also don't agree that we see everything in black or whites (polar opposites). Most of us recognize gradations (scalar). A verbal insult, while not considered a good thing to do, is not on the same as a brutal slaying. (The former can draw a warning from Joseph, the later permanently banned from this forum. ) For what it is worth, Islam divides acts into five categories. If I recall correctly, there are things a Muslim must do, things they should do, things that are neutral, things that are ill advised and things that are prohibited. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don't think identifying something as evil precludes, or even interferes with, ascertaining "causes and remedies." I'm not sure I am being understood here George. If we believe that a thing, an act or people are intrinsically evil, then I really do think we have a problem for understanding. If some evil is caused by outside causes then how can it considered evil. The sun shining on the Atlantic causes a hurricane off Florida: how can this be considered a "natural evil"? I also don't agree that we see everything in black or whites (polar opposites). Most of us recognize gradations (scalar). A verbal insult, while not considered a good thing to do, is not on the same as a brutal slaying. (The former can draw a warning from Joseph, the later permanently banned from this forum. ) I am not saying everything is black or white. Quite the opposite, but to have shades of grey we conceptually have black and white. What I am saying that black and white are an illusion, or in this case good and evil. For what it is worth, Islam divides acts into five categories. If I recall correctly, there are things a Muslim must do, things they should do, things that are neutral, things that are ill advised and things that are prohibited. Yes we can parse the universe. Any boundary we draw is totally artificial. Sure some boundaries are useful models, but that is all they are. rom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I'm not sure I am being understood here George. If we believe that a thing, an act or people are intrinsically evil, then I really do think we have a problem for understanding. If some evil is caused by outside causes then how can it considered evil. The sun shining on the Atlantic causes a hurricane off Florida: how can this be considered a "natural evil"? As I've already said several times in this thread which seems to keep getting ignored, it's not the natural act itself which is evil but the concept of a god that chooses to intervene for some people but chooses not to intervene to others. Why is it that whenever something good happens, like getting sunshine when you need it, people will give God the credit for it yet when they get so much sunshine that it causes a drought, suddenly God is excused from having anything to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 As I've already said several times in this thread which seems to keep getting ignored, it's not the natural act itself which is evil but the concept of a god that chooses to intervene for some people but chooses not to intervene to others. Neon Part of me agrees with you, but even here we are putting a judgement label on to a concept. I would advise against this. For me, the concept you describe is a product a particular societal view. The societal view is analogous to the sun falling on the Earth. And indeed, without the sun we would not have this peculiar societal view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I'm not sure I am being understood here George. If we believe that a thing, an act or people are intrinsically evil, then I really do think we have a problem for understanding. Rom, I don't think I am being understood as well. I have neither said, nor intended to imply, that anyone is "intrinsically evil." However, there are, IMO, certain acts of extreme cruelty that I would describe as 'evil.' I think, as a classic example, the Holocaust was evil. Actually, I think that any form of ethnic cleansing is evil. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I am not saying everything is black or white. Quite the opposite, but to have shades of grey we conceptually have black and white. What I am saying that black and white are an illusion, or in this case good and evil. rom We perceive extremes of color, of behavior, of whatever. It is within our perception that we see blacks, whites and greys. The only way we understand the world is through our perceptions. If we were to exclude everything that is perceptual from description, we would be unable to communicate. We could argue all day about whether my black shoes are really truly black. But, for purposes of communication, it is useful just to operate on the basis that they are black. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Rom, I don't think I am being understood as well. I have neither said, nor intended to imply, that anyone is "intrinsically evil." My apologies George, I did try and make it a general statement by using 'if" and "we". Also my comment was not solely restricted to people. It also included things and acts. However, there are, IMO, certain acts of extreme cruelty that I would describe as 'evil.' I think, as a classic example, the Holocaust was evil. Actually, I think that any form of ethnic cleansing is evil. My point remains George, it is not the label that is the problem, but the thought and emotion behind the word. For example, is a tsunami that kills ten of thousands people from a certain region evil? Is a debilitating disease that targets a certain gender evil? I think you would answer "No". And yet when man does the same thing we are tempted to call it evil? I suspect when we do these things we are separating man from nature, philosophically speaking. We perceive extremes of color, of behavior, of whatever. It is within our perception that we see blacks, whites and greys. The only way we understand the world is through our perceptions. If we were to exclude everything that is perceptual from description, we would be unable to communicate. Yes and our perceptions are all based on chemical reactions, which in turn are based on inputs from our nerve-endings. Everything we perceive is a chemical reaction or a physical (in the sense of physics) response to our nerve endings being stimulated. I'm not saying we should not label our perceptions, we should just be careful not to concretize these perceptions into a reality like evil. We could argue all day about whether my black shoes are really truly black. But, for purposes of communication, it is useful just to operate on the basis that they are black. When we say "I think genocide is evil" are we not really saying "I don't like genocide" or that "I think genocide will have some negative consequences". Some might argue we should have compassion for its own sake. Regardless of this beautiful thought, I think evolutionary psychology and physics will have a different point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 For example, is a tsunami that kills ten of thousands people from a certain region evil? Is a debilitating disease that targets a certain gender evil? I think you would answer "No". And yet when man does the same thing we are tempted to call it evil? I suspect when we do these things we are separating man from nature, philosophically speaking. Are these things "evil?" Not in my opinion stated in #6 above, "I don't think there can be evil without agency and malevolent intent. Natural disasters, IMO, lack agency. Therefore, 'natural evil' cannot exist. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) "I don't think there can be evil without agency and malevolent intent. Natural disasters, IMO, lack agency. Therefore, 'natural evil' cannot exist. George Who is the the arbiter of what has and does not have agency, and who decides what is malovent? Is malovent something fixed, does our concept evolve with time or is it as simple as do no harm? This brings to mind a quote from Campbell. “You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.” Edited July 1, 2012 by romansh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 With the introduction of consciousness, we have the possibility of error (Whitehead, 1929). Without consciousness, evil is not intrinsic to nature. Instead of talking in terms of "good" or "evil", we migh talk about self-responsibilty (Campbell). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Who is the the arbiter of what has and does not have agency, and who decides what is malovent? Malevolent would be the intention to do harm to another living being. Who determines? It depends. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 With the introduction of consciousness, we have the possibility of error (Whitehead, 1929). Without consciousness, evil is not intrinsic to nature. Instead of talking in terms of "good" or "evil", we migh talk about self-responsibilty (Campbell). Myron, I don't disagree with this except for many instances of 'natural evil' (which, again, I don't consider to be evil). Human responsibility for tornadoes is highly indirect (if there is any at all) and difficult to ascertain. I do consider ethnic cleansing to be evil and responsibility can be determined. In discussing evil, I think we should define what we consider to be evil (which I have done earlier). Otherwise the conversation keeps going in circles. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) Myron, I don't disagree with this except for many instances of 'natural evil' (which, again, I don't consider to be evil). Human responsibility for tornadoes is highly indirect (if there is any at all) and difficult to ascertain. I do consider ethnic cleansing to be evil and responsibility can be determined. In discussing evil, I think we should define what we consider to be evil (which I have done earlier). Otherwise the conversation keeps going in circles. George George, It is possible that a tornadoe is the result of collective human neglect. Humans struggle with the concepts of self and collective responsibilty. In my opinion, this is where we need to focus attention. Myron Edited July 1, 2012 by minsocal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 It is possible that a tornadoe is the result of collective human neglect. Humans struggle with the concepts of self and collective responsibilty. In my opinion, this is where we need to focus attention. To the extent we may be responsible (say through global warming), we should focus attention on that. But, even then, I would not consider these to be evil because there is no intent to do harm. There may be ignorance and there may be knowledge but with other priorities. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 To the extent we may be responsible (say through global warming), we should focus attention on that. But, even then, I would not consider these to be evil because there is no intent to do harm. There may be ignorance and there may be knowledge but with other priorities. George George, We have the cognitive capacities to evaluate processes. Avoidance or neglect is important to the teachings of Jesus, or not? Myron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 We have the cognitive capacities to evaluate processes. Avoidance or neglect is important to the teachings of Jesus, or not? Myron, I personally would make a distinction between negligence or irresponsibility and 'evil.' George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Myron, I personally would make a distinction between negligence or irresponsibility and 'evil.' George George, That seems to be where we divide. Myron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 The idea of a "fall" is avoidance of responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Myron, Do you mean to argue that when one avoids responsibility, even if it is out of ignorance or misunderstanding, that 'evil' is being committed or that such can lead to evil being committed? Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Malevolent would be the intention to do harm to another living being. Who determines? It depends. George This George I do find an unsatisfactory definition of evil. Take a sociopath who has no concept of malevolence in the sense that he (usually he) no conscience. And then the answer to who is the arbiter of intent, agency, malevolence as "it depends". Is this a satisfactory definition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.