I have a very difficult time trying to figure out exactly what evil is, though. Seems to me that it is very subjective -- a product of perception. Thus evil probably exists more in the mind of the observer than the mind of the actor. How exactly would you define evil?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Words are used to reference aspects of reality. Evil is a wrong-action that causes harm to others. It's not some literal thing in itself, but a description of actions/behavior. Don't steal life, sexual choice, liberty, body safety, property.
But aren't those the result of a perceptual framework?
For example, taking life is wrong, but then becomes right in certain circumstances -- why is it ok in a righteous war, or self defense?
But righteous war according to whom? If "god" tells you that you are supposed to kill infidels, does that make it ok? Perhaps not, but wouldn't that excuse the act on the part of the believer if he believes he is actually following the commands of his god, whom he believes to be holy? Or at least remove the act from the domain of "evil"?
If your nation tells you that your war is justified, like Vietnam, but it actually wasn't because the event that launched it (Gulf of Tonkin) never really happened, where does that put you if you are a soldier killing young vietnamese men? How about if, as a leader, you were looking for an excuse to go to war there because you wanted to kill communists "over there" so that you didn't end up having to kill them "over here" (domino theory) -- does that make you evil if you pushed an "attack" narrative that didn't really happen?
The more you look hard for evil, the more elusive it becomes. Would cats that play with their prey be evil? Would animals that kill and don't eat their kill be evil? Would animals that eat the offspring of their rivals be evil?
The way I see it -- there is not really any such thing as evil. It is an idea that easily exists in the world of ideas, but falters and becomes wispy and very difficult to pin down in the real world of complex interactions and motivations. An action that causes harm to others is only "wrong" because we don't like the outcome -- we don't like the effect it has on society. But isn't that kind of working backwards? We start with our desired outcome, and then work backwards to the things that damage that desired outcome. Things like stealing break down society, and so does telling others what to do, and lying and forcing others to do things they don't want to do. So we are in complete agreement that those things destroy society and if we want society to survive we don't do them:
But is that the same thing as evil? Or isn't that more like "don't put sugar in your gas tank if you want your car to run well"?
That's why each specific instance of possibility, based on specific circumstances and situational contexts, is in a spectrum. So while murder is wrong, that is killing of an innocent which is unlawful. Killing for self-defense against aggression is not murder. This is how things differ on the scale, because they are different in reality. It's not simply applying an absolute generalization that "any killing is wrong, point blank" as if it's an absolute evil in any circumstance.