It seems that most people, whether they be religious or not, believe in something called evil. The problem is, there is actually no such thing as evil because "evil" is really nothing more than an English word we use to label an action or experience which we perceive in a negative way. If nobody had emotions or the ability to feel discomfort or pain then nobody would believe in evil. This goes for good as well, by the way.
One key to understanding all of this, at least from a Christian perspective, is to remember is that evil and sin are two completely different concepts.
One key to understanding all of this, at least from a Christian perspective, is to remember is that evil and sin are two completely different concepts.
Posts
15 comments:
Interesting post. When God created man He said it was very good. It was man that was deceived into thinking he needed to know both good and evil.
In the traditional sense, I understand the correlation between evil/sin, as the church speaks of it. How would you define the difference?
If there is no evil, then there can be no good.
Why would something need to be described as the opposite of evil if it didn't exist?
If there is no evil, then there can be no good.
You're right, there is no such "thing" as good either.
Why would something need to be described as the opposite of evil if it didn't exist?
Remember, "good" and "evil" are just words. What they refer to is the important thing. Since you see good as the opposite of evil, and since I defined evil as "an action or experience which we perceive in a negative way," then good would be "an action or experience which we perceive in a positive way." When I say that good and evil don't exist, of course, I simply mean that they don't exist ontologically. Emotionally speaking, yes, there's no doubt they exist, there's just no "thing" that one can point to and say "that is an evil."
Maybe a simpler way to put it would be, evil is an adjective, not a noun. :)
By the way, those looking for my response to JP can find it here.
I think virtually everyone in the thinking, English-speaking universe would disagree with your definition of evil - including most dictionaries and even Wikipedia.
So I guess if you're going to redefine the word, or say that it's nothing more than a word, you can base your argument on that redefinition and it will appear sound to you.
The primary question to me is: "How does God define evil?"
From the beginning, it is something that can be known; it is opposed to "good;" it is in fact an adjective which describes thoughts and inclinations of the heart; it is also a noun describing something with which good is repaid, according to the charge Joseph brings against his brothers. And that's just the references in Genesis.
It is much, much more than just the word attached to it.
I think virtually everyone in the thinking, English-speaking universe would disagree with your definition of evil
You are correct. In fact, in my experience, when people speak of "evil" they almost always mean something completely different from what everyone else around them means by it. Sure, most people agree that certain things are evil (or are normally evil), but very few people have actually sat down and thought about what exactly evil is. So the reason that most people would disagree with my definition is because, while they haven't taken the time to figure out what exactly "evil" is (not to be confused with figuring out "what is evil"), many won't like my deconstruction of the concept and word and will disagree with it.
So with that in mind, what is it that you believe "evil" to be?
Every thing in the world is known by its opposite, but I believe that doesn't apply 100% on religion and I believe God and Evil (Shaitan or Satan) both exists.
Don't go for logical proofs on this matter; you will get confused.
Don't go for logical proofs on this matter; you will get confused.
Um, okay then. Somebody's confused anyway.
"the chemicals in my brain drive me to disagree (and, perhaps unfortunately, we're all slaves to the chemicals in our brains)"
Why does your brian drive you to "disagree"? As I said before if there was trully no such thing as good or bad, our brians would never have been able to concieve the notion in the first place. Just as if there was no such thing as light, darkness would be without meaning. The fact that your brian perceives something as good or bad, liked or disliked proves that there is some standard outside of yourself with which you judge the sum of your experiences by.
"I don't deny that truth exists, just that truth and morality are the same thing"
"I'm only discussing moral relativism, not absolute vs. relative truth."
I'm not confusing truth and morality. But you seem to be missing the link between the two. I haven't met many serious relativists who deny absolute morality but believe truth can be known. If truth can be known, than the concept of absolute morality could be true.
In response to my acusation that you behave as though your moral relativism is superior to absolute morality you reply:
"Not superior, just more logically accurate (as far as I can tell)."
Not superior, just more logically accurate? I'm sorry, but how exactly is that not superior? If something is more logically accurate, does that not imply that the other option is less logical, and therefore inferior?
On top of it all you still fail to realize that if you believe in moral relativity you have no right to participate in any debate, anything you say must be nonesense, because you cannot simultaneously believe that all morality is relative while advocating moral relativity.
Back to the school analogy, whether a madrasa in Iran teaches children to blow themselves up to kill their enemies or a school in Canada teaches children to respect their fellow man, should be without meaning to you, it all just a matter of opinion, right? I like chocolate, you like vanilla.
I'm sorry, but almost everything you've contirbuted here (on prescott's blog)has been nothing but soft-headed post-modern nonesense. Not to mention that your comment about us being slaves to the chemicals in our brains, denys the existance of free will.
Why does your brian drive you to "disagree"?
I'm not a neurobiologist, I couldn't tell you.
As I said before if there was trully no such thing as good or bad, our brians would never have been able to concieve the notion in the first place.
Just like the way our brains couldn't have conceived unicorns and leprechauns if it weren't for the fact that they already existed, right? But let's break this down and make it simple: tell me exactly what you mean by the words "good" and "evil" and we can discuss whether there's any valid reason to believe whatever it is you mean exists.
I'm not confusing truth and morality. But you seem to be missing the link between the two. I haven't met many serious relativists who deny absolute morality but believe truth can be known.
Today must be your birthday because here I am. :) Now I don't claim that all truth can be known because there's no way for me to be sure that this is the case, but we can know some truth for sure, at least within the context of our limited senses and mental abilities.
If truth can be known, than the concept of absolute morality could be true.
Could be true, certainly. Is it? Well, I've yet to see anyone give any actual evidence for its existence.
Not superior, just more logically accurate? I'm sorry, but how exactly is that not superior?
It all depends on the criteria we've chosen to judge it by (good old relativism in action).
If something is more logically accurate, does that not imply that the other option is less logical, and therefore inferior?
If logic is what we're judging, then yes, it would be superior. I don't like to make the assumption that everybody is using the same standards as I am as I often turn out to be incorrect when I do (logic isn't a favourite standard for many people I've met). :)
On top of it all you still fail to realize that if you believe in moral relativity you have no right to participate in any debate, anything you say must be nonesense, because you cannot simultaneously believe that all morality is relative while advocating moral relativity.
Of course I can, as evidenced by the fact that I'm doing so right now and haven't been thrown in prison yet. Unless you're referring to some other form of "rights." This seems to be another case of confusing morality with truth, but maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.
Back to the school analogy, whether a madrasa in Iran teaches children to blow themselves up to kill their enemies or a school in Canada teaches children to respect their fellow man, should be without meaning to you, it all just a matter of opinion, right? I like chocolate, you like vanilla.
It tends to affect people a little more than just ice cream flavours, but ontologically speaking, yes, it is all just a matter of opinion. But without meaning? Of course not. Yes, "meaning" is just as relative as morality, but that doesn't mean that we don't feel feel a sense of meaning.
I'm sorry, but almost everything you've contirbuted here (on prescott's blog)has been nothing but soft-headed post-modern nonesense.
It's just basic logic, linguistics and ontology. You don't have to agree, but I challenge you to come up with some solid, logical arguments against what I wrote in the blog entry this comment page is for.
Not to mention that your comment about us being slaves to the chemicals in our brains, denys the existance of free will.
You don't say. :) I believe free will to be an illusion, but it is very likely that you and I define the term "free will" differently. What exactly do you mean by the term?
Now all that being said, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to advocate that people should do whatever they want whenever they want. Technically people can (and do), but we still need to ask ourselves what exactly we want out of life as well as what we're willing to do and give up in order to accomplish it, and that often includes following certain relative sets of rules and standards since our desires are often for stability in society.
You are absolutely right. Good and Evil are value judgments. Each person in each circumstance redefines their definition of good and evil from situation to situation. This is also based on attitudes, prejudices, likes / dislikes, and background.
This has been an area of interest to me for some time, and having grown up in a very religious setting and going to church colleges for the first 4 years of my undergrad studies, I have had the opportunity to address it with a fair few opinionated people.
Here's my take:
Good and evil as a force or entity of any sort do not exist. This concept is a purely human creation. When other animals commit acts that in the human realm would be considered evil, we simply say that it's a part of their survival instinct. The problem with humans is that in the course of our evolution it became necessary at some point to be able to subvert our instincts in order to survive. This ability to analyze and rationalize our actions has lead to no end of difficulties for our species. I have found in my extensive work with some of the most "evil" members of humanity, that these acts by in large stem from conflicts between our rational and instinctive selves that we have come to call insecurity, jealousy, fear, even compassion and love, and maybe the intrinsic need for a higher power to guide us. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the conflict, but I have clearly witnessed the results. When the resulting act is altruistic, we have given it the name "good", and when it is selfish we have called it "evil", and since we don't understand the internal forces that might bring a person to such a decision, we often find it easier to heave the responsibility onto an external force.
Due to this unprecedented evolutionary leap, we have become very conflicted and confused species that has done so much to hurt each other and our fragile world, but also with the ability and such great potential to heal that which we have caused and maybe in the distant future help guide other species through similar evolutionary transitions on a less turbulent path than our own.
This theory(not a belief) is a work in progress, as any should be. I would welcome any and all comments, either here or at my personal e-mail: mep_histopheles@yahoo.de
Um, Just want to make something very clear that many people seem very confused about. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, or more specifically a biblical worldview, good and evil are not opposites, at least not in the dualistic Eastern philosophy way most people characterize them to be. If good and evil are two sides of the same coin, if good and evil are co-dependent, one needing the other to survive, then evil can't really be evil, and good isn't really good, the would need to be redefined as our our host would suggest them to be "negative and positive" forces. This is a fallacy that dilutes both good evil, and destroys any possibility or meaning in hope. From a biblical perspective evil is something that will be overcome by good. Christ will save us from our sins, and the evil that has seeped into Creation will be removed, thus Creation and everything in it will be redeemed. In revelation, and Jesus' accounts in the gospels, we percieve the eschatalogical trajectory of evil to be one of defeat. Good triumphs over evil! This is what we hope for as Christians, the day of victory! Clearly if Good is going to defeat evil, evil and good are not equals. C.S.Lewis explains Goodness as something eternal, while evil is temporal, because there was a beginning to evil, and there will be an end. Thus, evil is inferior to good, and good does not need evil to exist. Just as the garden of Eden was good before evil was introduced to it.
I find the arguments for evil needing good very weak. I'll use a few simple examples to show what I mean.
Did you enjoy life before you experienced death? Was it really that first experience with death that opened your eyes and made you fall in love with life all of a sudden?
Actually, it's statistically proven that a person is extremely more likely to commit suicide if they know someone else who has committed suicide, or if they live with a 5-10 mile radius of person who has. Shouldn't it have the opposite effect? Shouldn't someone else's tragedy make me appreciate life all the more?
In addition, making evil and good equals, or proposing that evil is necessary for good to exist is extremely dangerous. It, in fact, substantiates every act of evil in the world. We cannot object to evil, or people who commit evil acts, because they are merely serving the balance of the universe.
Here's an even more absurd hypothetical question. How are you doing your part to keep the universal balance of evil and good? Have you been naughty enough today, or have been focusing too much time on being good.
I'll stop beating the dead horse. My point is, a cursory glance at scripture will quickly inform you that evil and good are not that same, that they both exist, and re intrinsic to our present existence, our struggle with sin, and Christ's redeeming act on the cross.
You have one part of your assumption correct. Their is no such thing as evil if your trying to think of it as a force that is opposite of good. Evil in essence the absence of love.
Their is only one true force, feeling or emotion and that is love. All other feelings, emotions, forces or whatever we define it as, are just a perversion of love. Hate, anger, fear, greed, joy, jealousy, etc, are dependent on love.
A good analogy would be that is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is not a force that is self-generating, it only exists because their is an absence of light.
Post a Comment