I can't really define evil, but I would say that a sociopath comes quite close, or someone who revels in other's physical/emotional torture. I don't necessarily consider anything biblically 'evil' though.
by definition, a sociopath is aware of but indifferent to the distinction between moral and amoral behavior.
Do we then define evil in terms of moral guidelines? Aren't moral guidelines ultimately subjective?
I might be aware that some people might find non-monogamous relationships morally reprehensible yet disregard their position when making my decision to be non-monogamous, would this not, in their eyes, make me a sociopath?
What about a person that tortures people for a living? Just a job, no joy gained from it. Is that person evil?
Nah because sociopaths are known to hurt/manipulate people and have no conscious about it. I don't see a non-monagamous relationship that's agreed on by all parties being evil, even to someone outside of it, unless they were complete freaks.
I would say that someone who tortures people that enjoy it-IE dominatrix, I wouldn't call that 'evil', it's providing a service that makes someone happy, whereas someone doing a job that's inherently mean/hurtful could be construed as 'evil' even if it's just a job (Back to the star wars debate of the storm troopers merely being workers but still all dying at the end) Since I don't use the term 'evil' for anything, I really have no grounds for discussion.
There's subjective moral guidelines and non-subjective moral guidelines.
If you hurt people purposefully and have no regret/guilt about it (whether or not you get paid) I would say that's as close to evil as it gets for me.
Evil is ultimately based on moral beliefs. Someone who willfully does something which is far enough on the opposite side of your own moral-spectrum is how we as humans define evil. However, evil doesn't exist without human thought to deem what is evil and what is not.
I'll agree with unhappymeal and ginnydoll that the concept of evil is a child of morality - without morality, there is no good or evil, stuff just happens
( ... )
My contention is not over whether or not evil is a moral distinction, my contention is that there exist some moral distinctions can be applied on a larger scale than one that only addresses one person's subjective viewpoint.
Clearly, it is not the case that a social group's conception of morality is not one that results from any kind of group concensus, otherwise you'd have to have a town meeting every time something new came up, and even were that to be the case, given that such concensi tend to be made by a minority of individuals chosen to make decisions for the whole of the group and their predisposition to act counter to that interest, that 'concensus' isn't very likely to reflect the actual positions of a substantial number of the citizens *cough*drugwar*cough*iraq*cough*.
However, YOU TOO agree with at least one fundamental factor of evil that DOES appear to be universalizable - The persuit of self interest when such persuit runs counter to or in defiance of the interests of others.
To clarify: Those "others" you mention - the ones whose interests conflict with the pursuit of self-interest of the potentially evil person (i.e. probably society at large, in most of our examples) - those are the people who will interpret and label the self-interest pursuit as evil. OTHER others (who aren't affected by said "self-pursuit") may not.
Comments 63
Reply
Do we then define evil in terms of moral guidelines? Aren't moral guidelines ultimately subjective?
I might be aware that some people might find non-monogamous relationships morally reprehensible yet disregard their position when making my decision to be non-monogamous, would this not, in their eyes, make me a sociopath?
What about a person that tortures people for a living? Just a job, no joy gained from it. Is that person evil?
Reply
I would say that someone who tortures people that enjoy it-IE dominatrix, I wouldn't call that 'evil', it's providing a service that makes someone happy, whereas someone doing a job that's inherently mean/hurtful could be construed as 'evil' even if it's just a job (Back to the star wars debate of the storm troopers merely being workers but still all dying at the end) Since I don't use the term 'evil' for anything, I really have no grounds for discussion.
There's subjective moral guidelines and non-subjective moral guidelines.
If you hurt people purposefully and have no regret/guilt about it (whether or not you get paid) I would say that's as close to evil as it gets for me.
Reply
Reply
Reply
:)
Reply
Reply
Perhaps a bit wicked, and certainly more than a little devilish though.
:D
Reply
Reply
I'm just looking to see how people define it, because I suspect that there IS a universal or at least universalizable notion of evil.
Reply
Reply
I will agree that an observer is required to make the call, though I am at odds with it being purely at the whim of subjective morality.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Clearly, it is not the case that a social group's conception of morality is not one that results from any kind of group concensus, otherwise you'd have to have a town meeting every time something new came up, and even were that to be the case, given that such concensi tend to be made by a minority of individuals chosen to make decisions for the whole of the group and their predisposition to act counter to that interest, that 'concensus' isn't very likely to reflect the actual positions of a substantial number of the citizens *cough*drugwar*cough*iraq*cough*.
However, YOU TOO agree with at least one fundamental factor of evil that DOES appear to be universalizable - The persuit of self interest when such persuit runs counter to or in defiance of the interests of others.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment