what is evil?

[last angel served]

I am reading about moral values and there understanding and also am studying ethics and wish to know what evil is to u?  

[last angel served]

I believe evil is intentional harm or destruction while knowing what u did is wrong... any harm done by accident or in faith is for everyones good is not considered pure evil if evil at all  

[Mwahahahaha]

..I personally think that neither good nor evil exist, at least in the objective sense, as what is considered to be evil by some people might be considered to be good by others, and there is no way to determine which is more right in a completely objective way, as we will also interpret things in our own way rather than pointing out to an absolute truth. So basically, I think that good and evil are attatched to an infinite amount of different angles..

For instance, you think that evil is an intentional destruction that is done when one knows it's wrong.. However, even if that person's actions were malignant, do the results not have any meaning? If, for instance, something many people consider to be good occured as a result of this destruction, would you still be able to call this action completely evil? (I'm not saying that the results liked by some mean that the action is good; I'm just trying to say that I think it depends on the point of view..)  

[last angel served]

I see your point! and yes evil and good may not in fact exist... but every human has good or bad intentions sooner later.... it is the opinion of the people it effects that call it good or evil... there may be no divine balance... the only way to know would be to have created a universal set of morals... but sadly no one will ever accomplish this so evil and good may not in fact exist after all...  

[Mwahahahaha]

..Yes, that's pretty much how I think as well. ^^ But on the other hand, if we knew for certain that a kind of God that is very similar in almost all means to the one described in the New and Old Testaments and the Qur'an existed, that would signify the existence of a solid objectivity, and thus the probability of the existance of a universal code of ethics would increase compared to the scenario where it is not (or it cannot be) known for certain.. In a scenario where it is known for certain that the type of God I have described above (or any other sort of God) does not exist..well..in such a case, in my opinion, it would be evident that there is objective reality outside the human mind, yet as there is nothing omnicient and omnipotent out there that labels things, and as it is (at least as far as we know right now..) only the human mind that can label things in abstract terms, it would be certain that ethics is relative rather than objective..

..I'm sorry if I've used run-on sentences and at times used broken grammar.. ^^; I hope what I'm trying to say is comprehensive despite the mistakes..  

[last angel served]

lol I understood it! ^^ yeah god is just a allusion in our minds that guides us as far as we know... but I doubt we'll ever know until we die  

[xXherukoXx]

I think that evil is just evil!!!
...ok, ditch that idea.
I have no idea what I think what evil is, but I guess that uh...ok, ditch that idea too.  

[Mwahahahaha]

RSD hollow

but I doubt we'll ever know until we die

And even if we do ever truly know during our lifetime, there's always the possibility of having somehow become schizophrenic..

On the other hand, it's possible that we don't ever find out even after we die.. If God did not exist, and if there was no place to go after death, then one wouldn't get to know due to the ending of that person's consciousness.. On the other hand, if God did not exist and if there were something in the afterlife, and if one did retain one's own personality and memories, then one still wouldn't know, as there wouldn't be any way to answer that problem.. And if God did exist, there's still a lot of possibility about what could happen in the afterlife, as..there's the possibility of the existance of a single God or multiple Gods that are in no means close to what those three major religions I've mentioned in my previous post describe as God..and in that case, one still might not know.. For instance, in the afterlife, whatever that person believes in might occur.. (So if you believe in no afterlife, you don't have any, but if you believe in reincarnation, you get reincarnated, and so on.)

<.< Yes, this is out of topic. Yes, my rant was quite pointless..but I kind of wish someone would come and say something contrary to my ideas so that we could debate.. (Yes, I'm dying of boredom..x.x..)  

[azrael the reaper_95210]

a complete lack of good.....

(man i love being too obvious....and so very unhelpful! LOL)  

[Mwahahahaha]

azrael the reaper

a complete lack of good.....

But then, wouldn't that raise the question of what good is?  

[last angel served]

Mwahahahaha

RSD hollow

but I doubt we'll ever know until we die

And even if we do ever truly know during our lifetime, there's always the possibility of having somehow become schizophrenic..

On the other hand, it's possible that we don't ever find out even after we die.. If God did not exist, and if there was no place to go after death, then one wouldn't get to know due to the ending of that person's consciousness.. On the other hand, if God did not exist and if there were something in the afterlife, and if one did retain one's own personality and memories, then one still wouldn't know, as there wouldn't be any way to answer that problem.. And if God did exist, there's still a lot of possibility about what could happen in the afterlife, as..there's the possibility of the existance of a single God or multiple Gods that are in no means close to what those three major religions I've mentioned in my previous post describe as God..and in that case, one still might not know.. For instance, in the afterlife, whatever that person believes in might occur.. (So if you believe in no afterlife, you don't have any, but if you believe in reincarnation, you get reincarnated, and so on.)

<.< Yes, this is out of topic. Yes, my rant was quite pointless..but I kind of wish someone would come and say something contrary to my ideas so that we could debate.. (Yes, I'm dying of boredom..x.x..)

true no after life no god  

[Khalida Nyoka]

The biggest hang up people have here, apparently, is the question "do the ends justify the means?"

I used to have the idea that "good and evil are relative," until I came to the conclusion that it is impossible to hold in any practical sense.

The way I came to this conclusion was by following two ideas/concepts:

The Harm principle, which in efect states that your actions are acceptable so long as you do no harm (in a general sense that ranges from infringing on the freedom of others, to actually hurting them).

Then the idea that we treat our means as ends unto themselves. For a better description of this concept you'd have to read some of the works of Kant or other deontologists (ven a few objectivists, despite how much they hate Kant).

I'd say that these two notions are complimentary, and a basis for a good set of ethics or "moral rules."



To be more directly on topic:
I think an action is good so long as it causes minimal harm to other sentient/rational beings. An action is evil if it causes excess harm to sentient/rational beings.

If something "evil" was done, with a "good" result? The original action, and the one who took the action, have done wrong. It is by chance that it ended up working well for other people.  

[Verderbnis]

Good and evil are just two words to put either something wonderful/beautiful or something horrible into words. In both cases it's not exactly describable. Good people do not really exist, we consider other people as good, as long as they fit in our concept of good, such as bad people.

We would never categorize a thief as good, because he commited something considered "evil" by the majority, stealing something is considered to be done by greedy people. Someone who gives the bum a dime is considered "good" because it appears to be a man feeling for others and someone warm hearted.

I could come up with a question: Is the thief still "evil", if he was the one spending the dime?  

[Khalida Nyoka]

Verderbnis

Good and evil are just two words to put either something wonderful/beautiful or something horrible into words. In both cases it's not exactly describable. Good people do not really exist, we consider other people as good, as long as they fit in our concept of good, such as bad people.

We would never categorize a thief as good, because he commited something considered "evil" by the majority, stealing something is considered to be done by greedy people. Someone who gives the bum a dime is considered "good" because it appears to be a man feeling for others and someone warm hearted.

I could come up with a question: Is the thief still "evil", if he was the one spending the dime?

I'd still say the Harm Principle applies. If a person has stolen, then they've harmed the livelihood of their victim. That makes what they've done wrong, despite their situation.
There are legal avenues that can be pursued for a person to get what they need, thievery is not necessary. Those who feel compelled to do so either have a pathological disorder (kleptomania), or have convinced themselves they need some luxury item to be happy.  

[azrael the reaper_95210]

Mwahahahaha

azrael the reaper

a complete lack of good.....

But then, wouldn't that raise the question of what good is?

um.... complete lack of evil? LOL