Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pmurray · 08-02-2003, 07:13 PM

IMO (as if that wasn't a given on these forums):

We use the word evil to describe acts, behaviours etc that cause, would cause, are intended to cause a reasonable person to experience fear - with the caveat that the agency causing this fear must be one that we are in a social relationship with (ie: a person or something like it).

Of course, not all people are frightened by the same things, so we get disagreement on what acts are evil.

Some people also use it to describe acts etc that cause revulsion or disgust - eg, homosexual intercourse between men (for most hetro guys). Some people disagree about this usage, and not a few moral arguments start at that point.

Vandrare · 08-02-2003, 10:00 PM

in my own opinion, evil can only really be used in the context of religion - as in the antithesis of what is good in whatever "good book" is referred to. other than that, i dont see how it really has relevance in general society. just because something is bad doesn't mean its evil!

Odemus · 08-03-2003, 08:11 AM

If god exists and is the creator of all, then anything which is contrary to his/her/it's will is evil.

If there is no creator, then good and evil are simply human constructs designed to quantify the value or desireability of any given action. In other words, there isn't anything truly evil or good.

xorbie · 08-03-2003, 09:02 AM

I personally think it is evil to do harm intentionally and derive pleasure from doing this harm. However, I like Nietzsche's definition which is that anything that people are afraid of is pretty much evil.

Odemus · 08-03-2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xorbie
I personally think it is evil to do harm intentionally and derive pleasure from doing this harm.

Why?

meritocrat · 08-03-2003, 09:40 AM

Evil is simply what is morally wrong.

A person can be scared by spiders. Are spiders morally wrong?

Odemus · 08-03-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat
Evil is simply what is morally wrong.

What makes something morally wrong?

sophie · 08-03-2003, 11:03 AM

Odemus :

Quote:

If there is no creator, then good and evil are simply human constructs designed to quantify the value or desireability of any given action. In other words, there isn't anything truly evil or good.

What about events designed to destroy life and/or humanity.

Dr Rick · 08-03-2003, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Odemus
If there is no creator, then good and evil are simply human constructs designed to quantify the value or desireability of any given action.

It's not clear from your post how that paradigm is changed by the existence of a creator. One could just as easily assert:

"If there is a creator, then good and evil are simply His constructs designed to quantify the value or desireability of any given action."

Quote:

In other words, [if there is no creator,] there isn't anything truly evil or good.

The same could be said if there is a creator, too. What difference does it make if good and evil are "simple human constructs" instead of "simple creator constructs" and how does the former make any abstract more "truly"?

Odemus · 08-03-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sophie
Odemus :

What about events designed to destroy life and/or humanity.

What is the difference between design and random chance? How does an event such as the earth plunging into the heart of the sun after colliding with an asteroid differ morally from "events designed to destroy life and/or humanity'?

08-02-2003, 07:13 PM	#1
pmurray Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia Posts: 288	The meaning of Evil IMO (as if that wasn't a given on these forums): We use the word evil to describe acts, behaviours etc that cause, would cause, are intended to cause a reasonable person to experience fear - with the caveat that the agency causing this fear must be one that we are in a social relationship with (ie: a person or something like it). Of course, not all people are frightened by the same things, so we get disagreement on what acts are evil. Some people also use it to describe acts etc that cause revulsion or disgust - eg, homosexual intercourse between men (for most hetro guys). Some people disagree about this usage, and not a few moral arguments start at that point.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-02-2003, 10:00 PM	#2
Vandrare Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Brisneyland Posts: 854	in my own opinion, evil can only really be used in the context of religion - as in the antithesis of what is good in whatever "good book" is referred to. other than that, i dont see how it really has relevance in general society. just because something is bad doesn't mean its evil!

08-03-2003, 08:11 AM	#3
Odemus Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Easy Street Posts: 736	If god exists and is the creator of all, then anything which is contrary to his/her/it's will is evil. If there is no creator, then good and evil are simply human constructs designed to quantify the value or desireability of any given action. In other words, there isn't anything truly evil or good.

08-03-2003, 09:02 AM	#4
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	I personally think it is evil to do harm intentionally and derive pleasure from doing this harm. However, I like Nietzsche's definition which is that anything that people are afraid of is pretty much evil.

08-03-2003, 09:40 AM	#6
meritocrat Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: England Posts: 2,608	Evil is simply what is morally wrong. A person can be scared by spiders. Are spiders morally wrong?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.