Evil

[SD_Film Artists]

Evil isn't a concept I believe in.

This. ^ "Evil" is just a label, failing to describe the motives.

[Ovisterra]

I don't believe anyone is truly "evil". Love the sinner, hate the sin!

Basically, I think everyone is a sorta ok person who sometimes does good or bad or stupid stuff.

[Lackadaisical2]

Evil isn't a concept I believe in.

This. ^ "Evil" is just a label, failing to describe the motives.

huh, my definition of evil definitely includes the reasons. Actually it completely defines evil as opposed to misguided.

[Lord Tothe]

There are a lot of things that are generally bad, but relatively few I would label as truly evil. Murder, theft, rape, fraud, and assault and battery are truly evil, since they are an intentional act of inflicting harm upon another human being.

[Vellosia]

'Evil' is a meaningless idea as it is an entirely relative term; it cannot exist without 'good', and yet 'good' is also relative; what might be 'good' for one may be 'evil' for another.

Thus, I do not believe in 'good' and 'evil'.

[Quelesh]

I'm not amoral; I believe in the existence of right and wrong. What is wrong, however, is not "evil." I don't believe in the existence of evil.

Most of the things on OP's list, by the way, are not necessarily wrong, in my view.

The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.

From my non-religious point of view, a corpse is simply a sack of dead flesh; what happens to it is meaningless. Even from a religious point of view, the soul has abandoned the body and therefore the body is simply an empty container.

The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.

Murder is wrong, but there's nothing special about children here. The murder of anyone is wrong. The wrongness of "willfully harming" someone, child or not, is situational. For example, is the child/non-child shooting at me?

The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.

In general, damaging a building or other place that other people derive use from without the consent of those people is wrong, but there's nothing special about structures used for religious purposes.

The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.

Humans are animals, and sex is a good thing, so I disagree with this.

The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.

If this were true, then the willful destruction of anything would be wrong, as anything would be considered beautiful by someone.

The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.

The main problem with this statement is the assumption that a mere desire can, in itself, be wrong. A desire is a thought, and thoughts are never wrong.

However, disregarding that point, the desire to abolish a particular State, or the State in general, is not wrong. Whether the State in general is necessary or good is a different conversation, as is whether a particular State is good or bad. There are good reasons, though, why one would want to overthrow a government or why one would want there to be no government.

The desire for there to not be any civilization is also not wrong; there is something to be said for the primitivist position. If you said that killing members of civilization is in general wrong, or that forcing the dissolution of a voluntary civilization is wrong, then I would agree.

The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.

Killing someone is in general wrong, though there are necessary exceptions for self-defense or consensual killing. Whether the killing has the sanction of a government is irrelevant.

The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.

Like killing, the infliction of pain is in general wrong, though again there are exceptions, such as for self-defense or with consent.

The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

As, from my point of view, corpses are simply sacks of dead flesh and what happens to them is meaningless, their consumption is not wrong.

[Dyakovo]

Evil isn't a concept I believe in.

You don't believe in yourself?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Evil isn't a concept I believe in.

You don't believe in yourself?

I have frequently been criticised for underachieving for this very reason.

[Chumblywumbly]

What is it?

Personally, I could be said to adhere to the school of Moral Absolutism; in the sense that there is a set of key principles that should not be violated; and while violating merely a single one of these principles does not make one automatically evil, violating two or more does.

So 'evil' is doing a particularly bad thing twice?

I find the word 'evil' to be almost unnecessary and often misused. The notion of ultimate bad-ness, an evil mastermind destroying the world simply for the sake of doing bad, say, seems confined to the realms of fiction. Those real humans who repeatedly commit immoral acts purely for the sake of being immoral are on the whole very imbalanced individuals, and I would be reluctant to call such persons 'evil'.

If, however, 'evil' is just taken to mean 'very, very bad', then I'm content.

[Firstoneonly]

Evil isn't a concept I believe in.

This. ^ "Evil" is just a label, failing to describe the motives.

Aye, yeah, these ^

[Lackadaisical2]

I hope I get ignored.

[Ifreann]

You don't believe in yourself?

I have frequently been criticised for underachieving for this very reason.

I told you that taking all the reflective surfaces out of your house would lead to some kind of identity crisis.

[Novariea]

Evil isn't something that exists as any kind of objective moral absolute. It's purely a subjective label.

There are certainly things that I consider morally reprehensible, but I'm not sure I'd use the word evil to describe them. It seems so melodramatic.

[Chumblywumbly]

Evil isn't something that exists as any kind of objective moral absolute. It's purely a subjective label.

There are certainly things that I consider morally reprehensible...

Surely 'morally reprehensible' and 'evil' could be seen as synonyms?

Isn't this what most folks mean when they talk of evil?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I have frequently been criticised for underachieving for this very reason.

I told you that taking all the reflective surfaces out of your house would lead to some kind of identity crisis.

At least I have not been sucked into the mirror universe. When are you going to let the real Ifreann back out?

[Utopia FTW]

only women are evil. who's with me?

[Novariea]

Evil isn't something that exists as any kind of objective moral absolute. It's purely a subjective label.

There are certainly things that I consider morally reprehensible...

Surely 'morally reprehensible' and 'evil' could be seen as synonyms?

Isn't this what most folks mean when they talk of evil?

I said there are things that I consider morally reprehensible/evil. Thus, I'm applying the label to them, but it's only my subjective opinion. I wouldn't try to pretend that they're objectively evil, just because I think they are.

[Ifreann]

I told you that taking all the reflective surfaces out of your house would lead to some kind of identity crisis.

At least I have not been sucked into the mirror universe. When are you going to let the real Ifreann back out?

NO DI, YOU ARE THE MIRROR UNIVERSE. AND THEN DI WAS A ZOMBIE.

[Dyakovo]

Surely 'morally reprehensible' and 'evil' could be seen as synonyms?

Isn't this what most folks mean when they talk of evil?

I said there are things that I consider morally reprehensible/evil. Thus, I'm applying the label to them, but it's only my subjective opinion. I wouldn't try to pretend that they're objectively evil, just because I think they are.

Why is "morally reprehensible" automatically a subjective claim while "evil" is automatically an objective one?

[Volnotova]

Personally, I could be said to adhere to the school of Moral Absolutism; in the sense that there is a set of key principles that should not be violated; and while violating merely a single one of these principles does not make one automatically evil, violating two or more does. However I also recognize that besides these principles there are other specifics that vary from culture to culture in regard to what exactly evil is; so I also have a flair of Moral Universalism. The principles I mentioned are as follows:

• The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.

Why?

The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.

Why?

The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.

Why?

The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.

Why?

The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.

Why?

The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.

Why?

The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.

Why?

The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.

Why?

The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

Now, these are the core precepts which humanity and society abide by almost universally. Any one by itself is disgusting and perverted, but two are evil. There are of course other definitions but I feel that I have covered the basics. The only reason Amoralism could be adopted is the defense of these precepts. While I believe the precepts are generally universal, they are at heart my own personal definition of evil and I would like to hear the views of others on the matter.

The only thing I see here are baseless assumptions which most probably are founded on fallacies and gut feelings.

Do you have any proof to back up these claims?

[Novariea]

I said there are things that I consider morally reprehensible/evil. Thus, I'm applying the label to them, but it's only my subjective opinion. I wouldn't try to pretend that they're objectively evil, just because I think they are.

Why is "morally reprehensible" automatically a subjective claim while "evil" is automatically an objective one?

What? When did I say that? "Morally Reprehensible" and "Evil" are the same thing (both subjective labels). I just don't personally like using the term "evil" because I just think it sounds rather melodramatic.

[Chumblywumbly]

What? When did I say that? "Morally Reprehensible" and "Evil" are the same thing (both subjective labels). I just don't personally like using the term "evil" because I just think it sounds rather melodramatic.

I disagree on the point about subjectivity, but I agree that 'evil' is a melodramatic term.

cf. the Daily Mail.

[Dyakovo]

Why is "morally reprehensible" automatically a subjective claim while "evil" is automatically an objective one?

What? When did I say that? "Morally Reprehensible" and "Evil" are the same thing (both subjective labels). I just don't personally like using the term "evil" because I just think it sounds rather melodramatic.

You didn't actually say it... It was, however, implied in the post I responded to.

[Crabulonia]

I believe in subjectivism. Evil is entirely by viewpoint, not all your points are considered immoral by everyone. Absolutism is inherently a silly thing to believe in, think of Kant a second. According to him, all rational beings (the entirety of humanity as far as he cared) would come to the same moral conclusions. In what world does that make any sense and does it not reek of cultural imperialism?

[Dyakovo]

What? When did I say that? "Morally Reprehensible" and "Evil" are the same thing (both subjective labels). I just don't personally like using the term "evil" because I just think it sounds rather melodramatic.

I disagree on the point about subjectivity, but I agree that 'evil' is a melodramatic term.

cf. the Daily Mail.

Everything about morality is subjective...