Evil is an intrinsic part of humanity, and it seems almost impossible to erradicate it from society without simultaneously removing a significant part of our human character. There will always be individuals whom seek to gain advantage over others through harmful means. Evil can take on many forms, depending upon the definition one uses to encapsulate the concept. For instance, the popular definition includes elements of malicious intent or actions that are designed to cause injury/distress to others. But what of the individual that accidentally causes harm to another, or whom takes a silent pleasure in seeing other’s misfortune? Here we enter a grey area, the distinction between good and evil blurring ever so slightly, preventing us from making a clear judgement on the topic.
Religion deals with this human disposition towards evil in a depressingy cynical manner. Rather than suggesting ways in which the problem can be overcome, religion instead proposes that evil or “sin” is an inevitable temptation (or a part of our character into which we are born) that can only be overcome with a conscious and directed effort. Invariably one will sin sometime in their life, whereupon the person should ask for forgiveness from their nominated deity. Again we see a shifting of responsibility away from the individual, with the religious hypothesis leaning on such concepts as demonic possession and lapses of faith as an explanation for the existence of evil (unwavering belief in the deity cures all manner of temptations and worldly concerns).
In its current form, religion does not offer a satisfactory explanation for the problem of evil. Humanity is relegated to the backseat in terms of moral responsibility, coerced into conformity through a subservence to the Church’s supposed ideals and ways of life. If our society is to break free of these shackles and embrace a humanistic future free from bigotry and conflict, moral guidance must be gained from within the individual. To this end, society should consider introducing moral education for its citizens, taking a lesson from the annals of history (specifically, ancient Greece with its celebration of individual philosophical growth).
Almost counter-intuitively, some of the earliest recorded philosophies actually advocated a utopian society that was atheistic in nature, and deeply rooted in humanistic, individually managed moral/intellectual growth. One such example is the discipline of Stoicism, founded in the 2nd century BC. This philosophical movement was perhaps one of the first true instances of humanism whereby personal growth was encouraged through introspection and control of destructive emotions (anger, violence etc). The stoic way was to detach oneself from the material world (similar to Buddhist traditions), a tenet that is aptly summarised through the following quote;
“Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one’s desires, but by the removal of desire.”
– Epictetus
Returning to the problem of evil, Stoicism proposed that the presence of evil in the world is an inevitable fact due to ignorance. The premise of this argument is that a universal reason or logos, permeates throughout reality, and evil arises when individuals go against this reason. I believe what the Stoics mean here is that a universal morality exists, that being a ubiquitous guideline accessible to our reality through conscious deliberation and reflective thought. When individuals act contrary to this universal standard, it is through an ignorance of what the correct course of action actually is.
This stoic ethos is personally appealing because it seems to have a large humanistic component. Namely, all of humanity has the ability to grasp universal moral truths and overcome their ‘ignorance’ of the one true path towards moral enlightenment. Whether such truths actually exist is debatable, and the apathetic nature of Stoicism seems to depress the overall human experience (dulled down emotions, detachment from reality).
The ancient Greek notion of eudaimonia could be a more desirable philosophy by which to guide our moral lives. The basic translation of this term as ‘greatest happiness’ does not do it justice. It was first introduced by Socrates, whom outlined a basic version of the concept as comprising two components; virtue and knowledge. Socrates’ virtue was thus moral knowledge of good and evil, or having the psychological tools to reach the ultimate good. Subsequent students Plato and Aristotle expanded on this original idea of sustained happiness by adding layers of complexity. For example, Aristotle believed that human activity tends towards the experience of maximum eudaimonia, and to achieve that end it was though that one should cultivate rationality of judgement and ‘noble’ characteristics (honor, honesty, pride, friendliness). Epicurus again modified the definition of eudaimonia to be inclusive of pleasure, thus also changing the moral focus to one that maximises the wellbeing of the individual through satisfaction of desire (the argument here is that pleasure equates with goodness and pain with badness, thus the natural conclusion is to maximise positive feeling).
We see that the problem of evil has been dealt with in a wide variety of ways. Even in our modern world it seems that people are becoming angrier, impatient and destructive towards their fellow human beings. Looking at our track record thus far, it seems that the mantra of ‘fight fire with fire’ is being followed by many countries when determining their foreign policy. Modern incarnations of religious moral codes (an eye for an eye) have resulted in a new wave of crusades with theistic beliefs at the forefront once again.
The wisdom of our ancient ancestors is refreshing and surprising, given that commonsense suggests a positive relationship between knowledge and time (human progress increases with the passage of time). It is entirely possible that humanity has been following a false path towards moral enlightenment, and given the lack of progress from the religious front, perhaps a new approach is needed. By treating the problem of evil as one of cultural ignorance we stand to benefit on a high level. The whole judicial system could be re-imagined to one where offenders are actually rehabilitated through education, rather than simply breeding generations of hardened criminals. Treating evil as a form of improper judgement forces our society to take moral responsibility at the individual level, thus resulting in real and measurable changes for the better.
Jotlab 
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
28 April, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
Glad to see you writing more regularly.
The Genesis of Evil
As usual, your new essay raises multiple issues, many that (of course) you are unable to resolve in the short piece that you post. Unless I missed something along the way, “evil” is an invention of the Christian Eschatology. I don’t recall any discussion of intentionally malevolent forces (evil) in Plato, or the other Greek and Roman authors. Both civilizations had a pantheon of gods and goddesses, and often refer to the erratic and uncontrollable influences on people of the gods’ activities. But unless I misremember something, the idea that there is a malevolent force at work in the universe (“evil”) that intentionally seeks to do harm to humans arises out of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
In other traditions, “evil” is defined differently. In Buddhism, for example, it is equated more with “ignorance” (of our true nature) than with malevolence. People are evil because they are not enlightened. Evil actions arise in Islam due to separation from the will of God (close to the Judeo-Christian concept, only we now have differing opinions about what “God’s Will” really is).
Evil in the Christian tradition is uniquely the product of the fallen angel that becomes the devil. God is conceived as all good, and humans only experience bad things because we have fallen away from our proper place (all that apple-eating stuff). Today, we know that a lot of bad stuff happens (fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, accidents on the freeway, asteroid impacts, etc.) that may not be the result of the intentional actions of malevolent supernatural forces at work, but just bad luck: being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However, I do think the question remains open as to whether there is in fact, in addition to the majority of bad things happening just because of the random motions of atoms in the universe, any indication that intentionally malevolent forces do exist. I am of course, despite its unpopularity, a Descarteian dualist: I think “matter stuff” and “mind stuff” are discontinuous realms. That allows me to entertain the possibility of “evil” mind stuff as being a reality, though not in the way that atoms are “real”.
I recall reading some Bertrand Russell essay, and he did feel that there were people (like Hitler) who were so destructive and apparently immune to feelings of concern for their fellows, that they could only be described as a manifestation of some evil force, above and beyond the normal human range of good and bad. With Russell, I seek an explanation of how we (supposedly intelligent social creatures) can continue to do such terrible things to each other, if evil is not a palpable force.
The thing that must continue to amaze is that we do not rid ourselves of the “evil gene” and it keeps coming back in every generation. Today’s favorite must be Robert Mugabe, the dictator in Africa who just wants to keep control of power, regardless of how his people suffer. But the litany of thugs down through history who gained power only to destroy the societies they controlled is very long. Pol Pot’s killing of 1-2 million in Cambodia just to “communize” them, Stalin killing upwards of 20 million farmers because they didn’t want to cooperate with his grand schemes, etc. We also have the lesser “evils” like serial killers, child molesters, and people who think their ideas are so righteous that they have the right to set off bombs in public places and kill innocents to make their political point. The issue (for me) remains, where do such people keep coming from, if there is not a malevolent evil force that gets inside them, that somehow changes normal anti-social “bad” behavior into the desire/willingness to perpetrate extreme destructive acts that can impact hundreds, or millions?
I must take exception to at least one of your assertions. When you assert that “society should consider introducing moral education for its citizens”, I am only reminded that this is what we do now. We have madrassas teaching the morality of killing non-Muslems, Chinese schools teaching the correct thinking about communism and sacrifice for the state, church-sponsored schools teaching (whatever religion’s) morality, etc. Then there is everyone’s favorite, the schools in Germany in the 1930s teaching the mythology of the master race and how Jewishness was dragging down society and must be eradicated.
Which “moral education” would you have us teach? Civil education in the West seeks to teach tolerance for the views (and religions) of others, but even our liberal, morally neutral education breaks down when confronted with more primitive behavior (“cleanse the earth: kill all the (fill in your favorite group)”).
Like you, I admire Stoicism. Russell thought it was the only intellectually honest way an informed, self-conscious person could deal with the findings of modern science about our place in the universe (“A Free Man’s Worship”). I would only note that it was a response to the collapsing moral order of the Roman Empire. One of its greatest exponents (Marcus Arelius) was an emperor during this time, and was essentially depressed his entire life about his inability to correct the downward spiral of Rome’s power. A fitting philosophy for the apparent “Decline of the West” we fear is on the horizon.
Happy thoughts,
DHQ
29 April, 2008 at 11:43 am
vulcanis
Thanks again for the regular comments DHQ, it would be a lonely place without you around.
The idea of evil as ignorance is one which is appealing on so many levels. For one it negates the idea of evil as an inevitable trait of humanity that we are unable to escape (removes the idea of determinism). Secondly it places responsibility squarely upon the individual whilst also considering the possibility extraneous influences on moral development (nature and nurture combination – a person could be born with a predisposition towards evil and/or acquire it based on upbringing). Finally, it allows the possibility of re-education and rehabilitation for those lacking in moral fortitude.
On a more somber note, I hadn’t considered the similarity of my views on moral education to those whom I would actually consider to be the ‘epitomes of evil’. In my defense I would clarify my position by saying that the concept of moral education as described would be limited to study of the philosophical classics. Basically the aim of such clarification would be to teach younger generations of society the importance of introspection, inquiry and rational methodology. There would be no ‘punishment’ as such but rather a modification of the existing scholarly curriculum to include psychological and philosophical subjects as standard (in much the same way as mathematics and English are taught as part of a standard syllabus). My overall point with this proposition was to draw attention to a largely neglected part of our childhood education, and one which I wish I had the pleasure of engaging with prior to tertiary education.
You have given me food for thought based on the teaching of moral education; to teach such a subject there would need to be a universal set of ethical principles (again we have flashbacks to theology – the Ten Commandments et al). I’m now not 100% sure if such a concept is possible. Maybe a topic for the next essay…
1 May, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
The problem, for as long as we have had human societies, is “who watches the watchers?” Morality is about how we should behave (and how to justify our acts). How do we treat each other within the society, how do we treat members of other societies, how do we treat animals and nature (are they just “things” for our use, or do they have rights themselves that we have to respect).
So the group has a moral code that is imposed on the young. We are all taught the elements of how to behave long before we are old enough to think through the issues ourselves. That is why the madrassas grab the kids when they are only a few years old and begin the brain-washing. But the same things occur everywhere: get them young and “bring ’em up right” and they will walk the correct path when they are grown.
The issue then is where do the moral codes come from, and who defends them against change? At least the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic codes come from known ancient comunications from God (why he doesn’t talk to us today with the same clarity he addressed people 2000 years ago is a conundrum)(??). Once these codes are established in a society, because of their purported supernatural source, they can no longer be questioned, and are just passed along from elders to the young.
If the moral code has been handed down from God, then if you question it or challenge it you become a manifestation of evil yourself. The Ten Commandments do not include (like the U.S. Constitution), a provision for amendment. The defenders of the code become the sole source of authority in the society about what constitutes “correct behavior” (thus the power of the Mulahs in Islamic societies, and the moral authority of pastors in Christian societies).
But these guys are impervious to criticism. Thus my original point above: “who watches the watchers?” These guys (they are almost always men) control morality by claiming it is of supernatural origin, and any challenge to it is an affront to God. So who gets to vote on their proclamations? There is no vote (or amendment procedure). Thus we sputter on with archaic moral codes, handed down for centuries from an era when God spoke to mere mortals with things like burning bushes, and in trances.
Plato thought he could make a better society if the “philosopher-kings” were in charge. Modern readers have noticed that what he really did was create a vision of a two-level society much like the communist vision. At the top, running everything (and impervious to criticism from below) are “philosopher-kings” (e.g., the Politbureau). And underneath them is the mass of the hoi poi (the common people), with no say in the big decisions.
This seems to be close to what you are suggesting. But at least it has proper philosophic provenance: Plato thought of it first. However, we still come back to the original problem: “who watches the watchers?” Winston Churchill is credited with a comment that seems to capture our dilemma, Something like ‘democracy is the worst form of government we know of, except for all the other forms that have been tried’. Regular voting, with all its frustrations, is about the best way we have figured out to provide some kind of check on the leaders. However, the moral code of a society is not subject to questioning and modification by vote, so we still don’t have any leverage over it.
I don’t have any solutions here. Just the observation that it seems that the “universal moral code” that you would seek to teach to the young sounds a lot like the present moral codes promulgated by the major religions, only those are accompanied by the claim that “God told us to do it”.
You have to find yourself a new God to endorse your moral code before it will sell. I always liked Zeus, but he is likely to be drunk and hung over from all-night carousing with the lady gods.
Take care,
DHQ
2 May, 2008 at 12:11 pm
vulcanis
Hello again DHQ,
I feel compelled to respond to your comments. The part that I feel most strongly about would be the following section;
“At the top, running everything (and impervious to criticism from below) are philosopher-kings (e.g., the Politbureau). And underneath them is the mass of the hoi poi (the common people), with no say in the big decisions. This seems to be close to what you are suggesting. ”
The moral education I am suggesting is one where each individual becomes his own king; he alone is responsible for enforcing moral standards. Each person becomes their own judge, jury and executioner so to speak. I believe that individuals can then become empowered through such education, removing the ‘ignorance’ that is proposed by the Ancient Greeks and which is responsible for so much immoral behaviour. The argument here is that if the constituents of society act as one in moral unison, the end product will arise as one that is virtuous.
The main problem I foresee with such moral freedom (individuals making their own decisions without some external policing force, be it God or government) is where the moral ideals of the minority do not match up with the majority (as is currently the case). One possible solution is the creation of a universal moral code similar to the one I have touched on multiple times. Another solution could include a matrix-esque/holodeck style environment where individuals are isolated from one another and given absolute freedom to enact whichever society they so choose without the ‘real-life’ consequences.
It would be intriguing to see the societies that would develop from such an environment; Stalinistic dictatorships versus Asimov utopias. However I would argue that such a drastic solution, while promoting the liberal ideals of ultimate freedom of expression, does little to improve and stimulate the development of the individual. If all desires were able to be immediately satisfied and fantasies enacted at a whim the progression of the human race would grind to a halt. It is the challenge of overcoming difficulties and deprivation that motivates one to make changes to one’s environment and aspire to greatness.
The cusp of my proposition can be summarised by the following;
Moral education empowering individuals to accept responsibility for the direction of their moral development, standardised across society according to Utilitarian principles (maximising the happiness of the largest number of people). The details of such a plan are numerous and at this stage, entirely fickle in nature (due in large part to my own ignorance on the topic).
To be continued!
2 May, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Dennis Quine
V:
I like your holodeck idea: get all the would-be nut cases together and let them build a society in virtual space. Let Hitler and Stalin battle it out without getting the rest of us killed. Sounds a lot like the SF movie “The One” from a few years ago. All the crazies were rounded up by the futuristic police and sent through a wormhole to a prision planet where they could organize any type of society they wanted. The entire planet was the jail (maybe it was earth in 2200).
But you do have the practical problem of identifying the “evil” and antisocial among us (technically, the sociopathic and psychopathic: people who have no empathy for others’ feelings or lives) and getting them off in their own world before they can do damage. This seems to close the loop back to your original essay, and the issue of why “evil” people continue to arise in our societies. We keep making them (genetics, early training, an “evil” spirit (?)).
We have a continuing problem in this country of apparently normal people having secret lives that can go on for years where they are serial killing, or plotting some massacre. These people clearly are carrying the “evil” gene, or infected by the evil spirit, whatever it is. They injure a lot of people before they are caught or killed. Record holder for a serial killer is in Russia: 56. Took them years to connect the dots and realize just one person was responsible for a bunch of murders, and to track him down. So its not just a problem for decadent western societies. US record is around 35, I think.
“The moral education I am suggesting is one where each individual becomes his own king; he alone is responsible for enforcing moral standards.”
Somehow we have to strike a balance between social order and maintaining commuity (generally, the top-down imposed moral code), and the individual’s freedom to control his own moral development and thus, behavior. Some societies have solved the problem by going off one end of the scale, like the Spartans and today’s North Korea. There is no such thing as an “individual” in those societies.
Examples of totally free-form societies where individuals have total freedom to choose their own moral codes and behavior are rare. Obviously: if we don’t agree on some minimum number of things that hold us together as a community, we are just a bunch of isolated individuals, and not a society at all. So, it is not surprising that no “free-form societies” exist. The expression is an oxymoron. Maybe the anything goes, drug subcutures come closest. But those enclaves of total irresponsibility have to exist inside a functioning society, else there is no one to run the power plants and pick up the garbage.
So I’m not quite sure your idea there will fly: it might work for awhile, but to survive, there has to be a community of people who share some values, else no gardens are planted. The hippy communes in this country that represent a protest against the larger culture still have a shared set of ideas and morality that allows them to buy a farm and try to survive. But most fail after a couple of years, as people peel off and go back to the larger society to find something besides potatoes to eat.
The most successful isolated enclaves have been those built by some religious sect with a charismatic leader. Lots of people around who can’t handle the individual freedom and choices that your proposal implies. So they follow someone who will tell them what to do (God is speaking through him).
We are back where we started: moral codes promulgated by religions (sponsored by God) provide the best chance for a society to hold together and survive in an unfriendly world. Even if they are irrational.
Anyway, got to go get my hair cut. But the barber will only be there if he respects the Protestant Work Ethic (or is broke and needs the money).
Take care,
DHQ
5 May, 2008 at 3:56 am
dave
The term sociopath is no longer used in the current DSM-IV.
Evil exists in order to provide us with the opportunity to not choose it. And until we have a better understanding of what constitues consciousness, we’re not going to solve the problem of evil.
5 November, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Visionary
A great essay thanks.
An interesting comment Dave. I am a political philosopher looking for a way to combine politics and ethics into a single discipline. I recently spent some time investigating good and evil and came to a very similar conclusion.
7 November, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dennis Quine
Vis:
Bertrand Russell apprently came to the conclusion after WW II and its attrocities that “evil” was a palpable force in the world, and not just the manifestation of human stupidity. So he might agree with “evil exists…”
I have a little trouble with figuring out how it gets created in the Big Bang and subsequent goings on the last 13-14 B years. For that matter, how does “good” get created if we are going to ascribe to them some kind of independent spritual existence. Easier for me to think of “evil” as just human selfishness and stupidity manifested in acts against our fellow humans (or animals). But I could be wrong.
DHQ
7 November, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Visionary
DHQ,
It depends greatly on the meaning assigned to the word palpable. If by ‘palpable’, Bertrand Russel means a manifestation or something that can be touched, then I don’t agree with him. If he means something perceptible then I might. Hot and cold are perceptible, we have sense receptors specifically developed to detect them. However, they are still abstract concepts with no absolute reality. Like hot and cold, good and evil are polar opposites on a spectrum of dualistic realities. Where the crossover point occurs from one value to the other is a completely subjective observation.
In my essays on good and evil, I speculate that evil is a function of consciousness. Without consciouses and choice, I don’t think evil can exist. Nothing done by an animal, even a fox killing a whole hen house of chickens for no good reason can be described as evil. The fox doesn’t have choice, only instinct.
An act can only be described as evil if conscious choice was possible.
I’d love to hear your opinions on my articles
Good and Evil, Choice and Responsibility
Consciousness and Original Sin
8 November, 2008 at 12:57 am
vulcanis
Hi DHQ!
Visionary,
From what you have said there it seems that you may be adverse to the concept of universals; concepts which exist independently of human existence – you describe them as ‘absolute realities’.
I was eating a museli bar the other day and found it to be quite sweet in its taste. I then started to muse about the possibilities of unviveral sweetness, and came to the conclusion that it could only exist if one utilised the definition of sweetness rather than the label ‘sweet’. When one uses the word ‘sweet’, it is almost certainly a subjective perceptual experience of some greater underlying property of reality (universal?).
Plato’s conceptualisation of universals (unfortunately!) involved the incorporation of deities, whereupon every object in reality was an imperfect copy of some ‘ideal’ base unit present in heaven -an infinite Noah’s ark. Stated otherwise, the table you see in front of you is a representation of some perfect heavenly table. Extrapolating further, Plato also postulated that this facilitated the transfer of meaning between people; we seem to all have some sort of ignorant grasp of such heavenly ideals and in day-to-day interaction are clumsily able to transfer our internal thoughts through reference to such universals.
Applied to the concept of evil, I agree wholeheartedly that evil is certainly an abstract concept with subjective interpretations. Does the murderer consider himself evil? Would a mirror ‘bizzaro’ Earth in some distant solar system consider crime to be good and evil to be altruistic behaviours? More importantly; does evil actually exist?
If we use basic biology and the fundamental rules which seem to govern our universe, the proposition of evil and good could be supported. Complex cellular activity seems to be encouraged by ‘good’ behaviours such as cooperation. Cells that work together result in an overall system that is, in the long term, stable and sustainable. An ‘evil’ system where cells destroy one another for individual gain are surely unable to support themselves for any generous amount of time. Does this support the universal concept of good and evil along with the corresponding acts that we consider characteristic of this dichotomy? I’m not entirely sure…
However, in response to such a theory, I would rebut myself by saying the evil and good require intention; surely the ‘dumb’ animal whom kills its neighbour in order to survive is not evil..simply doing what it must do to ensure its own existence. Thus again human consciousness has ascribed a label to a certain set of ‘neutral’ behaviours that would not have such connotations, or perhaps different connotations, if our species did not exist.
When we find the aliens I’m sure we can compare notes and come up with some useful comparisons.
Thanks for the discussion, I will check out your essays Visionary.
8 November, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Dennis Quine
Vulcanis!!!
You are back in cyberspace!
I thought they might have sent you off to some diamond mine or something where the sun never shines.
Now the conversations can begin again.
DHQ
8 November, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Visionary
Vulcanis,
My first reaction would be to say yes I probably am averse to the concept of Universals. Since the word concept implies intelligent thought logically a Universal cannot exist independently of the intelligence that created it.
This is just my first impression though. So let me have some time with the idea.
In my essays on Good & Evil I came to the same conclusion that you arrived at in your final paragraph. I’m very interested to hear what you have to say after reading the article.
10 November, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Dennis Quine
Visionary:
Enjoyed both of your essays, and I do think you are probably on to something in arguing that “evil” can only be ascribed to “bad behavior” undertaken by a conscious agent. For non-self conscious actors (wild animals, etc.), the idea doesn’t work.
The idea does seem to have some provenance: in Genesis one of the things Adam and Eve acquire after eating the apple is “knowledge of good and evil”. Before that blunder they were innocent, but we must note, still conscious. So they were incomplete humans.
That seems to get us into an unexpected paradox: if knowledge of ‘good and evil’ is an essential element of a fully human self-conscious being, how could God have created Adam and Eve with such a missing component and thought his work was done? Thus He must have known they were incomplete humans, and He left the apple hanging around (and the snake) to see if Adam and Eve could finish things up themselves. So the whole ejection from Eden was a trap laid beforehand by God (who is omnicient after all). Very confusing.
I wonder if science fiction is on to something (unintentionally) in portraying most “self conscious” computers and robots as nut cases out to conquer the world. That seems to be the standard mantra: the AI goes berserk and tries to destroy everything. So … maybe having our AI manifest evil behavior is a better test of self consciousness than the Turing test, which does not seem to (necessarily) involve “knowledge of good and evil”. Or is a berserker intelligent machine just a plain old screwed-up machine with no intelligence or consciousness? “Intelligence” can be assessed in AI in a somewhat straight-forward manner (all of the chess programs I try running are smarter than me), but self-consciousness is tough. So what if the machine tells us it is conscious; until it proves it can do bad things and knows they are bad, maybe we won’t know it is really self-conscious.
I am also dismayed by the cultural-specificity of what constitutes evil behavior. I have read about the Palestinian families who sent their children out with bombs wrapped around them to blow themselves up (and try to take some Israelis along also). Then, after a “successful” self-sacrifice, the parents hold a party where all the neighbors celebrate the event. That seems to me to be as evil an act as one could perpetrate: to intentionally sacrifice one’s children, brainwashed about the 72 virgins and all that, then to celebrate it. Maybe they have too many kids and they don’t have any intrinsic value. Just another mouth to feed.
I’m not sure how to relate to that moral system. It seems to violate the fundamental “selfish gene” precept that you protect your genetic heritage into the future. So we have a religion that violates basic biological sanity and says that slaughtering your progeny is admirable (for the right cause). Hitler did that right at the end, sending out 10/12 year olds, but we generally admit he was insane and “evil”.
Your essays (and Vulcanis’ before) just reveal how ignorant I am of something I thought I understood. Just like Socrates walking around poking holes in Athenians’ purported knowledge. No wonder they put him out of their misery.
Take care,
DHQ
14 November, 2008 at 7:38 am
vulcanis
Visonary,
I also enjoyed your essays. I wanted to comment on the first, where you outline the basis behind evil as pertaining to tigers.
That got me thinking, can an animal actually be evil? Like most things, it seems plausible that evil is one of those variables that is on a sliding scale, fuzzy logic corresponding to an ‘inbetween’ or a ‘neither here nor there’. In short, maybe there can be varying degrees of evil. And in relation to animals, perhaps a tiger can be evil. Some would argue that pets have a personality, so why not a mean streak to go along with it?
Felines are one species that kills indescriminantly, for fun. Would this constitute evil? I would argue it does; premeditated murder for enjoyment. Certainly not an act that would be comparable to a similar one originating with a species with a predefined set of morals, but still present on that sliding scale of evil and good.
Evil may simply be an intangible product of such moral codes. Without some objective rulebook against which to measure physical acts and intentions, surely the notion of evil (and good) would not exist.
I think we can be reasonably assured that consciousness denotes the capability for evil and good, and is qualified by the intention behind the act. But where to from here?
Cheers,
Vulcanis