Evilness Doesn't Exist

[4321lynx]

Well then, pretty much every human being who has ever lived, including you, is evil to some extent or another. The only differences are which people we regard as unimportant and how we rationalize writing them off.

God, this whole business is such fucking bullshit. People are not continuous, internally consistent entities, and yet you lot persist in pretending that they are and assigning static labels to them.

As one of our Mods has it in his avatar 'An evil man would do the things that come into my mind' (I think I got that quote right).
And somebody said ' I do not know what's in the mind of an evil man, but I know what's in the mind of a good man and it terrifies me'.

Nevertheless, there are men the sum of whose actions (or even the evil of their one action, pace bilby) earns them the label of evil men. (Men here = human beings, women get no free pass.)

 

[dx713]

Both side have a point here, I think.
Labels are useful, if we need nuances in our every word, we'll end talking like Ents. So, yeah, I can get behind calling some actions, or even some men, evil.
But I understand too this might have to be restricted to knowledgeable company, to people who understand a label is only a shortcut and does not represent reality, else we think only obviously evil men can do evil actions, and end all surprised when Eichmann ends looking/sounding more like a dull project manager...

 

[ronburgundy]

The OP makes the odd argument that because evil can be explained, it doesn't exist. IF we very narrowly define "evil" as a root desire to cause harm and suffering for its own sake, then of course an explanation of "evil" acts will conclude they are not due to such "evil", because behavioral motives are rarely unicausal and there is always a more distal motives at work. That means "good" doesn't exist either, because no one is good just for goodness sake (Fuck off, Santa). But that only means that that narrow definition of evil does not exist. There are other reasonable definitions that might exist. For example, a person with so little empathetic regard for others that they make no minimal effort to causing unnecessary pain and suffering to others. This includes people with "wrong" beliefs about what is necessary or a threat, etc.., because often those beliefs are highly irrational and the results of a failure to engage in minimal effort to ensure that they are valid.

IOW, evil is an type of active negligence where you act to cause self-serving but needless harm, not necessarily because that is your ultimate goal, but and don't care enough to bother trying to avoid causing it.

Also, the OP it makes a false equivalence between an action being motivated by the personal it yields, and an action being necessary for survival. Few specific acts are required for survival. We must eat and protect ourselves from threats, but there are countless ways to do these, thus making any particular way unnecessary, and many actions not even relevant to these goals. My definition above make it more clear that a failure to make an honest effort to distinguish necessary from unnecessary harm caused by one's actions is itself evil.

 

[bilby]

The OP makes the odd argument that because evil can be explained, it doesn't exist. IF we very narrowly define "evil" as a root desire to cause harm and suffering for its own sake, then of course an explanation of "evil" acts will conclude they are not due to such "evil", because behavioral motives are rarely unicausal and there is always a more distal motives at work. That means "good" doesn't exist either, because no one is good just for goodness sake (Fuck off, Santa). But that only means that that narrow definition of evil does not exist. There are other reasonable definitions that might exist. For example, a person with so little empathetic regard for others that they make no minimal effort to causing unnecessary pain and suffering to others. This includes people with "wrong" beliefs about what is necessary or a threat, etc.., because often those beliefs are highly irrational and the results of a failure to engage in minimal effort to ensure that they are valid.

IOW, evil is an type of active negligence where you act to cause self-serving but needless harm, not necessarily because that is your ultimate goal, but and don't care enough to bother trying to avoid causing it.

Also, the OP it makes a false equivalence between an action being motivated by the personal it yields, and an action being necessary for survival. Few specific acts are required for survival. We must eat and protect ourselves from threats, but there are countless ways to do these, thus making any particular way unnecessary, and many actions not even relevant to these goals. My definition above make it more clear that a failure to make an honest effort to distinguish necessary from unnecessary harm caused by one's actions is itself evil.

All of which is well and good; but leads to 'evil' being synonymous with merely 'psychopathic', which seems to me to be a less extreme descriptor. I would assert that the former label implies that little or nothing can be done, short of removing the 'evil' individual from society (either by lifelong incarceration, or death); While the latter implies a pathology that, in principle, may be amenable to treatment.

I hear people say "He is evil, and must be killed", when perhaps a better statement would be "He is a psychopath, and we must protect society by placing him in a secure psychiatric hospital until we are able to cure him".

Only if 'evil' refers to something more fundamental than a mere pathology is it a valuable concept. Its origins in the belief that a God imbues (or fails to imbue) each person with fundamental traits that define all of their actions, strongly suggests that 'evil' is as valuable a concept as 'soul', 'angel', 'demon', or 'God' - ie of no use at all outside fiction.

 

[Underseer]

Evil is a label we apply to decisions that have a negative effect on society.

The disagreement comes from the fact that we cannot agree on the consequences of some decisions, and so the concept of evil seems arbitrary.

More modern, less primitive people think that homophobia is harmful to society and so we slap the evil label on homophobia. Christians and Muslims think that not being homophobic is harmful to society, and so they slap the evil label on the lack of homophobia. Moral disagreements are ultimately a disagreement about consequences.

 

[bilby]

Evil is a label we apply to decisions that have a negative effect on society.

The disagreement comes from the fact that we cannot agree on the consequences of some decisions, and so the concept of evil seems arbitrary.

More modern, less primitive people think that homophobia is harmful to society and so we slap the evil label on homophobia. Christians and Muslims think that not being homophobic is harmful to society, and so they slap the evil label on the lack of homophobia. Moral disagreements are ultimately a disagreement about consequences.

I disagree. Modern people think homophobia is harmful to society and so we slap the 'bad' label on homophobia. Christians and Muslims think that not being homophobic is harmful to society, and so they slap the 'evil' label on the people who display a lack of homophobia.

This is not about moral disagreements; it is about whether moral failings are a case-by-case phenomenon, or an all-encompassing character trait that is likely to manifest in every part of a person's life.

"This person is not homophobic, therefore he is evil, therefore he is likely to do random acts of badness, therefore I do not feel safe with him as a next door neighbour, therefore I should make his life miserable until he moves away". That is the difference between 'evil' and merely 'bad'; and that is why the concept of evil needs to die.

If John does a bad thing, he is one of us who made a mistake. If John does an evil thing, he is one of them and needs to be eradicated for the protection of us all.

 

[Achwienichtig]

I've been reading Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' over the past week, and while reading the second chapter I learned that most African slaves who were uprooted from Africa, were actually sold to Europeans by other Africans. Likely not a shock to many, but it got me thinking about the concept of evil and what it means. The only thing I can reasonably conclude is that 'evil' doesn't actually exist, and is instead just an arbitrary label that we apply to behaviours that we don't like.

If one looks at patterns throughout history most behaviours that are deemed 'evil' can eventually be reduced to a survival or adaptability motive. In other words, behaviour is by default self-interested, and any act can be explained by some kind of selective pressure.

For example, one of the reasons African slavery happened at all in North America was because European colonies had a desperate need for cheap labour to survive. Another reason it happened was because it was profitable for Africans to sell members of other tribes. If these pressures were taken away, slavery wouldn't likely have happened. It's easy to label this type of thing 'evil', but more accurate and practical to call it what it is: various factions attempting survival.

Then politically, if you make it easy for someone to survive, you take a lot of the danger away from that person.

It is very interesting you should write about this, for I recently started reading a book on American history that got me thinking about something very similar. The book is "The American Experience" by Henry Bamford Parkes. The first chapter is about how American history is not about events but about a mindset. The mindset upon which America was founded was one in opposition to Europe's mindset at the time. Europe had a very sophisticated theory of human nature upon which they based their theory of governance. Essentially, the government was there to protect against the "fallen" depravity of man. Should government cease to function, literally all hell would break loose. Those who came to America rejected this assumption of man's depravity. They believed that people would live in harmony when left to govern themselves. And here's the kicker. This mindset worked! It worked, on one hand, because people depended on one another for their very survival and, on the other hand, because there was an overabundance of land and natural resources such that there was no competition over limited resources.

The chapter ends by stating that this mindset continues to be a major trait of Americans, but it is now (Keep in mind, this was written back in the 50's) coming to a point where those original conditions are entirely lost and our conditions are beginning to align with those of Europe at America's founding. So the question is, can we continue in our mindset, or should we consider revert back to the old European mindset? Which is healthier for our current situation?

This is such a fascinating perspective. We are so used to thinking that one mindset is good and another mindset is evil. This is what is supposed to differentiate between good and bad people. But this book challenges that idea. Hell, it even challenges Americans to change their mindset if conditions change. What the hell is he thinking?! Merican's don't change. Why would the greatest nation of earth, founded by slave owning--er, I mean--God fearing Christian men ever need to change its mind?

 

[ronburgundy]

The OP makes the odd argument that because evil can be explained, it doesn't exist. IF we very narrowly define "evil" as a root desire to cause harm and suffering for its own sake, then of course an explanation of "evil" acts will conclude they are not due to such "evil", because behavioral motives are rarely unicausal and there is always a more distal motives at work. That means "good" doesn't exist either, because no one is good just for goodness sake (Fuck off, Santa). But that only means that that narrow definition of evil does not exist. There are other reasonable definitions that might exist. For example, a person with so little empathetic regard for others that they make no minimal effort to causing unnecessary pain and suffering to others. This includes people with "wrong" beliefs about what is necessary or a threat, etc.., because often those beliefs are highly irrational and the results of a failure to engage in minimal effort to ensure that they are valid.

IOW, evil is an type of active negligence where you act to cause self-serving but needless harm, not necessarily because that is your ultimate goal, but and don't care enough to bother trying to avoid causing it.

Also, the OP it makes a false equivalence between an action being motivated by the personal it yields, and an action being necessary for survival. Few specific acts are required for survival. We must eat and protect ourselves from threats, but there are countless ways to do these, thus making any particular way unnecessary, and many actions not even relevant to these goals. My definition above make it more clear that a failure to make an honest effort to distinguish necessary from unnecessary harm caused by one's actions is itself evil.

All of which is well and good; but leads to 'evil' being synonymous with merely 'psychopathic', which seems to me to be a less extreme descriptor. I would assert that the former label implies that little or nothing can be done, short of removing the 'evil' individual from society (either by lifelong incarceration, or death); While the latter implies a pathology that, in principle, may be amenable to treatment.

I hear people say "He is evil, and must be killed", when perhaps a better statement would be "He is a psychopath, and we must protect society by placing him in a secure psychiatric hospital until we are able to cure him".

Only if 'evil' refers to something more fundamental than a mere pathology is it a valuable concept. Its origins in the belief that a God imbues (or fails to imbue) each person with fundamental traits that define all of their actions, strongly suggests that 'evil' is as valuable a concept as 'soul', 'angel', 'demon', or 'God' - ie of no use at all outside fiction.

Evil is the label for the observed behavior, psychological pathology is the causal explanation for that behavior. That pathology stems from rather fundamental aspects of a person brain, so it doesn't loose that sense of being a fundamental defining feature of the person. It only looses the supernatural quality, but I don't think that makes it non-existent or meaningless. We have many labels for how things act that are different from the actual causal explanation for those actions, such as shyness and outgoing for people, and sporty for cars, vicious for animals. Evil refers to the fact that a person (or set of rules created by a person) act consistently and knowingly in ways that harm others, even when it could be avoided. The fact that the cause is psychological pathology rather than a black soul or demonic possession is just a different explanation for that evil behavior.

 

[rousseau]

All of which is well and good; but leads to 'evil' being synonymous with merely 'psychopathic', which seems to me to be a less extreme descriptor. I would assert that the former label implies that little or nothing can be done, short of removing the 'evil' individual from society (either by lifelong incarceration, or death); While the latter implies a pathology that, in principle, may be amenable to treatment.

I hear people say "He is evil, and must be killed", when perhaps a better statement would be "He is a psychopath, and we must protect society by placing him in a secure psychiatric hospital until we are able to cure him".

Only if 'evil' refers to something more fundamental than a mere pathology is it a valuable concept. Its origins in the belief that a God imbues (or fails to imbue) each person with fundamental traits that define all of their actions, strongly suggests that 'evil' is as valuable a concept as 'soul', 'angel', 'demon', or 'God' - ie of no use at all outside fiction.

Evil is the label for the observed behavior, psychological pathology is the causal explanation for that behavior. That pathology stems from rather fundamental aspects of a person brain, so it doesn't loose that sense of being a fundamental defining feature of the person. It only looses the supernatural quality, but I don't think that makes it non-existent or meaningless. We have many labels for how things act that are different from the actual causal explanation for those actions, such as shyness and outgoing for people, and sporty for cars, vicious for animals. Evil refers to the fact that a person (or set of rules created by a person) act consistently and knowingly in ways that harm others, even when it could be avoided. The fact that the cause is psychological pathology rather than a black soul or demonic possession is just a different explanation for that evil behavior.

Yea this is a good point.

I guess at the end of the day I get the necessity for the word evil, but my major point is that any behaviour is usually a flavour of self-interest. People act in ways which ultimately help themselves and those they pull into their own group. Which, as mentioned above, is an important distinction as a flat, black/white label doesn't paint us a full picture of what's actually going on when people do things, and it obscures the negative things that seemingly moral people do.

 

[George S]

I've been reading Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' over the past week, and while reading the second chapter I learned that most African slaves who were uprooted from Africa, were actually sold to Europeans by other Africans. Likely not a shock to many, but it got me thinking about the concept of evil and what it means. The only thing I can reasonably conclude is that 'evil' doesn't actually exist, and is instead just an arbitrary label that we apply to behaviours that we don't like.

If one looks at patterns throughout history most behaviours that are deemed 'evil' can eventually be reduced to a survival or adaptability motive. In other words, behaviour is by default self-interested, and any act can be explained by some kind of selective pressure.

For example, one of the reasons African slavery happened at all in North America was because European colonies had a desperate need for cheap labour to survive. Another reason it happened was because it was profitable for Africans to sell members of other tribes. If these pressures were taken away, slavery wouldn't likely have happened. It's easy to label this type of thing 'evil', but more accurate and practical to call it what it is: various factions attempting survival.

Then politically, if you make it easy for someone to survive, you take a lot of the danger away from that person.

The essences known as Good and Evil are said to exist by the religious. These essences come in pairs and are absolutes. Of course, the world doesn't really work in binary at the macro level. Good vs. Evil are modeled as God vs. Devil. White vs. Black. Freeborn vs. Slave. (To join a Masonic lodge a man (no woman) must be freeborn.)

There are various ways to obtain human labor. One is to hire a live-in housekeeper. The difference between this condition and slavery is blurry. Orders by the master of the house are to be obeyed in exchange for room and board and spending money. Another is to pay the housekeeper enough so they can rent their own rooms and pay for their own food with some left over for spending money.

All employment is partial slavery. "I agree to do what you want and you give me valuta to purchase what you would otherwise provide if I were a slave."

One of my ancestors, one George Steele, was declared a free man on May 16, 1642 in Connecticut. He had sold his and his family's labor as indentured servitude. Voluntary slavery with an end. Soldiers have their room and board, education, medical care and some spending money in exchange for obedience to orders even to the point of dying when ordered to. Voluntary slavery.

Slavery is one end of the spectrum. The other end is selling one's services for an hour labor.