Is there even such a thing as "Evil?"

[Kismet]

Not suffering, evil.

Is there such a thing? I am willing to say at this point that "evil" if it is, exists only in the "moment" and that as soon as one backs out of this particular vantage point, evil ceases to have any viable existence. In fact, it can't ever be said to have existed.

Evil has not only to do with our judgments, but also the bent and shape of our attitudes which go in tandem with such judgments. We, after having been convicted in the "moment", illegitimately bring along with us these attitudes after the fact and give them an absolute status, that status then undergirds all our "moral" judgments which then seemingly allow us to hold "responsible" those people at large or generally who do such and such act.

I have a concrete example of what I mean. I remember not too long ago watching the movie "Reservoir Dogs" by Quentin Tarantino. I recall the scene in which the gangster starts spraying the mutilated (cop?) with gasoline while he begs for his life. Something struck me about this scene as so heinous, as so diabolically loathsome that I felt completely justified in my hatred of the guy doing the ill deed at that moment. More importantly, I felt complete and utter conviction that what he was doing was pure unadulterated evil. Now, after watching this scene and taking some time out, I reflected back on it and an interesting thing happened. I felt absolutely nothing for it. It was simply another scene out of life. I was no longer at a dead interface with it, but had "stepped back" and gotten a "meta" point of view. In this new p.o.v I had no judgments one way or the other. I simply saw the way people behaved as the way people behave. There is nothing right or wrong about it, it simply "is." I could not justifiably condemn all such instances of horrendous activity, or even the same instance, without some degree of hypocrisy in this, my newfound attitude.

Now, I know what you might think. "Haha, but that's a movie, if you witnessed something like that in real life you would still be convicted of evil!" Okay, but is that an argument? Appealing to "real life"? It is true I might have a different attitude. But that would only be because my experience of it in real life would be more intense. I could still, if I were not so much "trapped" in the moment, reflect again and see these things from a "meta" or absolute point of view, though I might not want to.

My point is: what does this say about our own ability to throw moral claims at others? Are they only justified some of the time or when in accordance with our own feelings? And if so, are we mere hypocrites when we legislate merely on the basis of "common sense" assuming that universal laws have universal applicability? How exactly is it we know, after all.

[Mr. LongView]

IMO evil is too dependant on commentary to have much value as a concept.
No absolutes.

Hiroshima was not evil?

I guess.
What ever history claims.

Good, bad, evil...
Spin.

[Kismet]

IMO evil is too dependant on commentary to have much value as a concept.
No absolutes.

Hiroshima was not evil?

I guess.
What ever history claims.

Good, bad, evil...
Spin.

Yes, evil is often laden with all kinds of background assumptions about what is right.

But still, aren't some things just intrinsically and uncontroversially evil? The Holocaust, say... Or is that just being politically correct?

Anyway, what I am saying is, what is evil can't be that easily known, because it abstracts from what our attitude is surrounding specific instances of evil, not on a universal basis.

[connermt]

IMO evil is too dependant on commentary to have much value as a concept.
No absolutes.

Hiroshima was not evil?

I guess.
What ever history claims.

Good, bad, evil...
Spin.

Yes, evil is often laden with all kinds of background assumptions about what is right.

But still, aren't some things just intrinsically and uncontroversially evil? The Holocaust, say... Or is that just being politically correct?

Anyway, what I am saying is, what is evil can't be that easily known, because it abstracts from what our attitude is surrounding specific instances of evil, not on a universal basis.

Perception.
I don't for a minute believe Hitler thought what he was doing was "evil". He thought he was doing the right thing, most likely.

Why is being PC evil?

To answer your question, evil is whatever one designates as evil. I'd go further and say only humanity and what it does can be considered evil.
Meaning a tornado can't be "evil" because of what it did to a town. It can be considered evil by people whom it had a direct impact on. But a tornado is a tornado - not "evil".
I once heard someone say that the dogs used but the Germans in WWII were "evil" simply because they worked for the Germans.
Or that alligators are evil because they (some of them, not all of them) kill people.
How ridulous?!?
I hope the people who claim this don't ever vote.

[Mr. LongView]

IMO evil is too dependant on commentary to have much value as a concept.
No absolutes.

Hiroshima was not evil?

I guess.
What ever history claims.

Good, bad, evil...
Spin.

Yes, evil is often laden with all kinds of background assumptions about what is right.

But still, aren't some things just intrinsically and uncontroversially evil? The Holocaust, say... Or is that just being politically correct?

Anyway, what I am saying is, what is evil can't be that easily known, because it abstracts from what our attitude is surrounding specific instances of evil, not on a universal basis.

It is what it is.

Action.

Perhaps commentary is meaningful but in my experiance it is not binding.

A rape can be a transformational moment for the victim. One that would never be wished away?
Out of great evil can come greater good?

One coin, two sides.
Thats all I got.

[Logomachist]

My point is: what does this say about our own ability to throw moral claims at others? Are they only justified some of the time or when in accordance with our own feelings? And if so, are we mere hypocrites when we legislate merely on the basis of "common sense" assuming that universal laws have universal applicability? How exactly is it we know, after all.

Seeing a display of gross evil can lead to a visceral response and in time this response usually fades. I don't think that seriously undermines our moral reasoning. We can recognize evil intellectually without ever seeing it. We can ground our reasoning in abstract moral concepts based on suffering, harm done, justice and fairness. If I asked you whether setting a maimed police officer alight is evil you would probably agree even though you don't feel now the way you did watching the movie. Am I right?

The visceral empathetic response shapes out conscience but isn't the conscience itself.

[Haven]

I'm an expressivist as to morality, so in my view "evil" is simply a term of disapproval used by some people in response to events / actions that they strongly dislike. There is no transcendent "evil" or "good," and acts themselves cannot be intrinsically "evil" or "good."

[ttruscott]

God is love. Anything that goes against or is outside of HIS will is therefore not love, ie evil.

Whether HE expresses that will as a command, a request or a offers a choice to follow or to go you own way, to not sync with HIS will is evil.

Peace, Ted

[Choir Loft]

I'm an expressivist as to morality, so in my view "evil" is simply a term of disapproval used by some people in response to events / actions that they strongly dislike. There is no transcendent "evil" or "good," and acts themselves cannot be intrinsically "evil" or "good."

I was looking for a good post to bounce my own remark off of and this one seemed as good as any. My particular reason for selecting this one is because it doesn't really say anything one way or the other; like beauty it seems to say, good and evil is in the eye of the beholder. So it goes. This is about as evasive an answer as any I've seen.

Considering this frame of reference, we are then led to believe that there are few (or excusable) consequences of behavior. Where society once held to the absolute of right vs. wrong, we are now asked to base our judgments on right vs. not-right. All of this is a fine exercise in philosophy, but it just doesn't wash when it comes to real human motivations, human reactions and of course divine revelation.

For example, if someone steals from you, a pickpocket a burglar or even the Federal government, one's natural reaction is a need for justice. Something about having something stolen from you isn't right. The thing should be restored and some sort of punishment is due to the perpetrator. If a woman uses a car to hit and run or if a man uses a gun to kill, the whole community is affected and justice is demanded. If a small nation (such as Iraq) is unjustly invaded by a large powerful one (like the USA), then those who've lost their homes, businesses and relatives cry out for justice. Suddenly revenge and justice clasp hands and the notion of good and evil becomes quite clear. Suddenly things aren't quite so - academic.

The Bible is quite clear on the issue. In the Genesis account of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God allowed the couple the freedom to do pretty much anything they wanted to do; except one thing. God forbade them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In effect, they were not to decide for themselves what was right and what was wrong.

You know the story. Temptation came from the mouth of the serpent, Eve and Adam did the forbidden thing and the first thing they lost was their freedom. Mankind has been yearning to return to paradise ever since. As it was in the days of Adam and Eve, so it is today. Relativist morality is a good thing only in the mind of the beholder. Our prisons are full of men and women who saw nothing wrong with theft, murder and so on. The first thing that is lost when relativist morality is adopted is one's freedom. We see it in the Bible story, we see it in human society and we see it in the rise of the American police state.

Nature abhors a vacuum and when relativist morality creates one, the police soon come knocking on the door.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Haven]

Hi Richard .

I was looking for a good post to bounce my own remark off of and this one seemed as good as any. My particular reason for selecting this one is because it doesn't really say anything one way or the other; like beauty it seems to say, good and evil is in the eye of the beholder. So it goes. This is about as evasive an answer as any I've seen.

Considering this frame of reference, we are then led to believe that there are few (or excusable) consequences of behavior. Where society once held to the absolute of right vs. wrong, we are now asked to base our judgments on right vs. not-right. All of this is a fine exercise in philosophy, but it just doesn't wash when it comes to real human motivations, human reactions and of course divine revelation.

For example, if someone steals from you, a pickpocket a burglar or even the Federal government, one's natural reaction is a need for justice. Something about having something stolen from you isn't right. The thing should be restored and some sort of punishment is due to the perpetrator. If a woman uses a car to hit and run or if a man uses a gun to kill, the whole community is affected and justice is demanded. If a small nation (such as Iraq) is unjustly invaded by a large powerful one (like the USA), then those who've lost their homes, businesses and relatives cry out for justice. Suddenly revenge and justice clasp hands and the notion of good and evil becomes quite clear. Suddenly things aren't quite so - academic.

This is a fallacious appeal to emotion. The fact that humans are, due to evolutionary processes, wired for an emotional sense of fairness and retribution often termed "justice" is irrelevant to the existence or nonexistence of objective "good" and "evil." All you have shown is that human beings react in a certain way in response to certain stimuli; you haven't shown that evil objectively exists.

Also, many people -- including Jesus -- would disagree with you on revenge being "good."

The Bible is quite clear on the issue. In the Genesis account of the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God allowed the couple the freedom to do pretty much anything they wanted to do; except one thing. God forbade them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In effect, they were not to decide for themselves what was right and what was wrong.

You know the story. Temptation came from the mouth of the serpent, Eve and Adam did the forbidden thing and the first thing they lost was their freedom. Mankind has been yearning to return to paradise ever since.

The Adam and Eve myth does tell us much about the human condition, but once again, it is the product of human minds and doesn't demonstrate the existence of objective moral values.

As it was in the days of Adam and Eve, so it is today. Relativist morality is a good thing only in the mind of the beholder. Our prisons are full of men and women who saw nothing wrong with theft, murder and so on. The first thing that is lost when relativist morality is adopted is one's freedom. We see it in the Bible story, we see it in human society and we see it in the rise of the American police state.

Irrelevant -- none of this demonstrates the existence of objective morality.