IS EVIL REAL? OR, LIKE GOD, A HUMAN INVENTION?

[Davis]

Simon Paynton wrote:

But sometimes people do evil things for fun, and in the present moment, it’s a successful (social) strategy for thriving, given that we are competitive as well as cooperative. But a negative payback usually comes later in some form or other. Crime doesn’t pay; it pays to be nice.

There are a few misconceptions here. The 21st century in democratic humanist countries…wealth can be gathered in some cases at the cost of cruelty to others…but that hardly means people thrive. It is slowly becoming more and more difficult to inflict mass cruelty and harder and harder to get away with it. It was a lot more common in the days of Moses and in the days of Jesus and the days of Rome and the days of Christian run midaevil Europe. It is a WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE lot less now.

People who continuously do cruel things for fun are likely psychopaths/sociopaths or suffer from some other mental problem. They may have fun…but it is pretty difficult to clam that they thrive. Satisfaction rarely comes, stress and fear of being caught (and if you do it enough…you will get caught), inability to trust others, remembering lies and spinning new ones, forming meaningful relationships…etc. And for those who are not psychopaths/sociopaths…its only a matter of time before they suffer severe mental problems that hit them back after hurting and alienating others for so long.

That doesn’t mean that crime doesn’t pay. As Reg pointed out, the good ones can amass money and get away with it (for some time). Chronic crime however, is not friendly with thriving.

The other kinds of inflicting deliberate harm for its own sake that you mention are mainly institutional, and presumably there are/were leaders at the top who enjoy(ed) the carnage, and a group-think of mass hysteria.

No. No it is not. We did cruel things as children for no reason at all. And in groups we might suddenly turn on one individual (or someone might do it and we go along with it) and inflict brutal psychological and physical harm…either because of fitting in, not being the one attacked, having a new experience, paying back others, feeling better about yourself. This is not institutional. That is human nature. Bosses often have to make decisions that have very cruel repercussions on their staff and customers…and often they do it in the name of keeping their own job or their own working conditions/benefits. Some of these decisions can lead to very traumatic repercussions for others. Group cruelty does not require mass hysteria nor institutionalized suffering. And the whole reason I brought this up, is because you claimed that there is an inherent link between pleasure and inflicting cruelty. That is not the case.

What you call evil (very different forms of inflicting cruelty) is insanely complex. These acts are one off or chronic, performed by individuals, small groups, entire cultures. It happens for self-serving reasons, self-preservation, satisfaction, revenge, out of pain, no reason at all, in the name of something good, to protect others, for a larger idiology…it happens by those with mental problems, those who don’t know better, those ignorant of the real consequences, those who fully well know better, those who suffer while doing it AND what is suffered as CRUEL and what is considered inflicting cruelty varies wildly by country/culture/locality and changes over time.

Quite simply Simon…we cannot make broad conclusions about evil. Ever broad claim made…is one easily taken down by counter examples and trying to understand evil…comes at the loss of understanding specific patterns in inflicting cruelty on others.

 

 

• This reply was modified 7 years, 12 months ago by Davis.

[Simon Paynton]

“we cannot make broad conclusions about evil”

– I’m just picking one kind and exploring it.  As you point out, hurting people for fun is not a sustainable strategy for thriving.

“That is human nature.”

– it seems to be in the nature of animals who live in social groups: a social phenomenon.  At the same time, to answer @unseen’s question, it can’t exist separately from the animal kingdom except in an abstract sense, as a description of certain kinds of behaviour.

[Simon Paynton]

“hurting people for fun is not a sustainable strategy for thriving.”

– unfortunately, it seems that some people never run out of victims, and so, they can sustain their hobby.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

…to answer @unseen‘s question, it can’t exist separately from the animal kingdom except in an abstract sense, as a description of certain kinds of behaviour.

Yeah, but what you describe as Evil today might not have been Evil 5o0 years back and might not be 500 years in the future. Evil is not some timeless descriptor, you’re a victim of temporally local forces telling you what’s Evil.

They used to burn people at the stake and were certain they were doing the right thing.

[jakelafort]

Unseen, you are asserting that the appreciation of “evil” is temporal and cultural.

I differ.  When humans jettison superstition and ideology as a foundation for ethics/morality we will have some consistency in identifying it.  Any form of wanton, abject and shocking harm inflicted deliberately and with the intention of causing suffering and dehumanization such as genocide, mass rape, lynching, reality tv….falls into the bin labeled EVIL.

This state of affairs is a result of our natural state of self-preservation and interest having been distorted by culture.  When reason and compassion  is the guide we will always think about how it would be for our self and those we care for to be situated as the victim of “evil”.  Further, we wont fall into the trap in which other humans are somehow tainted or lesser or have racial characteristics which make them subhuman.  Also we will be aware of the power of tribalism and the tendency of group-think to dominate and overtake our innate sense of right and wrong.

[Simon Paynton]

“Evil is not some timeless descriptor, you’re a victim of temporally local forces telling you what’s Evil.”

Evil has a number of different “timeless” definitions.

The main ones have to be deliberately causing harm either for pleasure, or through a corruption like greed or other self-serving reason.

Another is the group madness that makes one set of people attack another, former friends and neighbours fighting to the death over group membership.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, you are asserting that the appreciation of “evil” is temporal and cultural. I differ. When humans jettison superstition and ideology as a foundation for ethics/morality we will have some consistency in identifying it. Any form of wanton, abject and shocking harm inflicted deliberately and with the intention of causing suffering and dehumanization such as genocide, mass rape, lynching, reality tv….falls into the bin labeled EVIL. This state of affairs is a result of our natural state of self-preservation and interest having been distorted by culture. When reason and compassion is the guide we will always think about how it would be for our self and those we care for to be situated as the victim of “evil”. Further, we wont fall into the trap in which other humans are somehow tainted or lesser or have racial characteristics which make them subhuman. Also we will be aware of the power of tribalism and the tendency of group-think to dominate and overtake our innate sense of right and wrong.

LOL

All of the evils you listed are things we would call evil, yet they were all done in the past and were largely, if not universally, thought of as the right thing to do. Can’t you see that if tribalism can drive our perception of evil, that supports my argument that Evil is no more “real” than God and that there is no evil-which-is-evil-for-all-people-and-for-all-time. After all, many folks’ belief in God simply reflects the beliefs of their “tribe.”

The argument that Evil exists is a platonic (Plato-like) argument, that some concepts simply exist apart from man, who can discover them or not. If not, the idea still exists…for eternity and apart from man.

If you really think that there is a reality to the concept of evil, then tell us this: is abortion Evil? capital punishment?

[jakelafort]

Unseen, you say the laundry list of evil monkey activities were thought of as the right thing to do. Sure, by the perpetrators…not by the victims! And as i say the perpetrators are acting on the evil monkey juice of indoctrination.  And there have always been contemporaries without a pony in the race who react with horror at acts of evil…

I can see that if one defines evil as eternal and with a metaphysical or supernatural provenance that it is as phony as a used car salesman pitching a lemon.  And if that is your definition there is nuthin to discuss.  That is not how i have defined it.

It is not a platonic ideal. It does exist whether one subscribes to it or not…it is like gravity…it is there.  It is observable and has been documented until the observer is lacrimose beyond the power of a dozen onions and a french chef.  Were quantum mechanics platonic before they were known? How about schizophrenia or tourette? The earlier observers of schizophrenia may have conceived of the devil as the cause of the aberrant behavior.  But so what? The thing is whether we appreciate it at all or understand it.

As to capital punishment and abortion i say not evil.  Our state of knowledge may evolve so that capital punishment is evil based upon our greater understanding of “criminals”. Same with abortion but i can envision circumstances in which my opinion is to the contrary.  For instance an unwilling daddy who has taken out fetus with a rapier as his gf  tries to escape.

[Strega]

So basically, ‘evil’ is a concept of what the worst of the worst would be, if it were a ‘thing’.  Got it.

[jakelafort]

Yeah, basically it is a thing…just like weak ‘sarcasm’ is a thing.  It was a thing a thousand years ago and it continues to be a thing.

Read a newspaper or a history book and you will see it is so.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, you say the laundry list of evil monkey activities were thought of as the right thing to do. Sure, by the perpetrators…not by the victims! And as i say the perpetrators are acting on the evil monkey juice of indoctrination.  And there have always been contemporaries without a pony in the race who react with horror at acts of evil…

You are either consciously missing my point or not paying close attention.

Maybe Davis can explain it to you.

 

[jakelafort]

I think i understand you Unseen.  As i have indicated it is your position that evil can not be real since its designation changes through time and culture.

I was only carping a wee bit in the way you have characterized the unanimity or near unanimity of the righteousness of behavior that is now considered evil or wrong.  I am suggesting that not only the victims but others appreciated how wrong it was.

 

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

I think i understand you Unseen.  As i have indicated it is your position that evil can not be real since its designation changes through time and culture.

Not that “evil” is unreal, but that “Evil” (a timeless concept) is unreal. Whatever “evil” exists is a temporally and physically (tribally/socially) local concept, not a universal one. If you take a moral/ethical issue, is there a position that is a fact and not an opinion?

So, I ask again: taking abortion is it right or wrong, and is your answer a fact or an opinion?

• This reply was modified 7 years, 12 months ago by Unseen.

[jakelafort]

If by capitalizing and adding timeless you mean to convey something supernatural then i agree it cant exist.  I am referring to demonstrable behavior with malice.

If you consider humans with a modicum of intelligence and absence of superstition then i think you will have near unanimity in condemning as evil the most egregious acts.  Those who are controlled by tribe and or ideology are lacking and not included in aforementioned.

Is there a position on a moral/ethical issue that is fact?

That is a non sequitur.  How can an ethical opinion be a fact? Do you mean to say incontrovertible?

I approve of Roe v Wade.  I have an opinion.

[Simon Paynton]

@strega – I think it’s more a description of types of behaviours, rather than just “the most bad”.

“Dawkins claims that “faith is an evil.””

If we are to claim that something is evil, we have to have solid reasons other than just “it’s really really bad”.

[Author]

Posts