Does "evil" exist?

Connor L. wrote: I'm not saying that evil is "just a matter of perspective". I'm saying that all actions exist independent of their contexts, and they only have labels when applying that context. Evil means something different to every person alive. But, each of us has to make that distinction, and also understand that the same perspective may not apply to the next person.

Simply viewing actions as actions with consequences can lead us to make decisions not based on some arbitrary value but rather what is in our hearts.

i dont know that i fully understand you here

my pressuposition is that actions have no meaning separated from their context

in fact the context is the cause of the action

eating only exists because of the context of hunger and nutrition

the action of typing these words is a result of the context of totjo and the topic at hand (and a billion other foundational contexts which work together to give meaning to each of our experiences)

so to my understanding it is not possible to remove an act from its context

im pretty sure youre expressing something that im not registering yet and so i cannot agree or disagree

Yes OB1 . . right with ya


It isn't a "mere moralistic judgment" or a "just a word" or just a concept
Each has a value in the sphere in which it is placed

We have to include upbringing, social influences, subconscious storage which are all factors that drive awareness for decision making.

e.g.
Jedi learn how to read the forest and trees.
Get rid of old data or what remains, let it not upset the center
Jedi want to make better decisions for a responsible self and act from that to serve those around him

So then, evil, in this case is that which is within that keeps him from his center, that which does not serve
In this way . . not limited to moralistic

Hmm. Perhaps the point is less difficult than I'm making it.

I'm fully aware that all actions cannot exist without some context.

But, the Buddhist principle of emptiness teaches us that we should be aware of that context as an observer rather than as somebody who blindly participates.

I guess my point is that evil only exists when we are participating. When we are observing, as I often try to do, actions are like kaleidoscopes with many different variations and perspectives to be pondered. This is like meditation.

When we are at the center of the Force, ALL is context and NOTHING is context. I'm not sure I can make it more clear. I will think about it.

Connor L. wrote:
When we are at the center of the Force, ALL is context and NOTHING is context.

Being there, or
operating from there
the lines fade away
the one and the many is the same
inner and outer the same
everything and nothing the same

in meditation state there is essence of
all inclusive and no matterness
where is evil then?
or good?

And
What I appreciate about the Buddha is that after he released the material and even more so after he left the way of aestheticism (which I perceive as "efforting" to get there), he ultimately came to the way of compassion (everyone is roughing it in one way or another. To be alive is difficullt.) common suffering.

Com = with. From oneself, see others.

What is the perception of evil then but limits, challenges, struggles, sorrow turned upside down or inside out.

No. There is no objective measurement for "evil." It's a subjective judgment call. As an idea, yes, it exists. However, lots of untrue ideas exist, that doesn't mean they exist in the world.

The real question now, I think, is "Does 'good' exist?"

"There is no death - There is the force "
There is nothing like evil in the force and after death, you became one with the force yourself. From that point of view you will see no evil. Only if you are alive you think there actually is evil (whatever form your mind think out)
However this is maybe not the correct answer, contemplation only.

Jestor wrote:

Streen wrote: I believe it exists, simply because we're talking about it. Even if everything is relative, and all ideas of morality are subjective, we still have the concept called Evil. So, at least in that sense, it exists.

Illusions, no matter how they are based in reality, are real one way or another.

By that logic, God exists...

And unicorns...

Right?

What's wrong with unicorns?? LOL

My point was more along the lines of the philosophy of quantum theory, that everything that can exist, does in some reality or dimension.

What would be considered evil to the gazelle is survival to a pride of lions. I'm sure someone will pick that statement apart till their blue in the face after all the trollish behavior I've spotted in the few days I've started an account.

The danger lies in thinking/believing in a "universal truth." Take good and evil for instance. What was evil to the Jews during the Holocaust was survival to the Germans. Yes, that's insanity, but remember we are not that far off from lesser primates. I won't go into why the Holocaust was wrong IMO, I'm not going to derail this thread in an attempt to make a point, however moot it may be.

Again, what is dangerous is the thought that because we personally percieve something to be good or evil, that it is "universally so", and worth harassing others over, maby even to life threatening levels. Millions have been killed over what others perceived to be evil, simply out of ignorance.

Perhaps one day mankind will wake up and begin the process of getting over some really petty dumb bullshit, and become all enlightened and work for the benifit of all. That day will probably mark the end of suffering as we know it. When that happens, kiss music and art goodbye, because the best of it was spawned from suffering, lol.

Morgana wrote: What would be considered evil to the gazelle is survival to a pride of lions.

Yes, I think the concepts (like evil) exist within different domains of perception - since the main attribute I use for evil is around increasing suffering, it's really only usefully accurate (seemingly) when applied to the same species of animal - for it is within a species that we can be relatively sure perception of reality (and therefore things like suffering) might be similar enough to use these sort's of labels to define action and intent. A bit harsh I know, and why I extend it beyond species (see earlier post), but I remember some spiders are seemingly quite happy to be eaten during love making and these are within the same species!!

if you want to make the case that evil exists as an autonomous force or agency, independent of the cognition or intent of any particular individual, then i would love to hear what you have to say, because i consider it possible but do not know how i would go about to validate it as a position in intellectual discourse

for my part, i consider evil to be a MOOD more than a behavior

an intention or attitude which results in a behavior or an act

from this perspective, i belive that using the comparison of predatory animals is not appropriate, and this is why;

perception is predicated on biology

as far as we can tell
no other species is biologically capable of the type of cognition necessary for the context of evil to be applicable

i used the "zombie wasp" as an example of one of the more evil seeming predators that i know of because as insects it is easy to understand that their perceptual bias is so different from ours that if we could percieve the world as they do we would not even recognise it

likely we would not recognise ourselves

objectively we may live in the same world insofar as its the same planet, but the subjective experience is so different that we do not have the perspective from which to judge their actions in any moral sense

or in any correlative sense to our own values

and anyway, my position is that what i regard as genuine evil is not an issue of moral judgement so much as of physiological health and development

even using something like a lion or wolf pack - as mammals it is intuitve that we may equate more meaningfully with other mammals, but i think that this is not correct

im pretty sure that the research we ve got indicates that lions and wolves are incapable of abstract conceptualization

and it is this ability on which the concept of evil is based (unless you say it is a self contained force in the universe)

the story of adam and eve being shamed by their nakedess and evicted from the garden for eating the fruit of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil might suggest this

its not simply the act itself which qualifies as evil, but the implications of the act; the abstractions and conceptualizations that are associated with it

the limits of the ability for abstract thought amongst other animals are not fully explored, the most promising candidates that i know of being cetaceans, cephalopods, elephants, and NATURALLY (lol) some other primates

but by our current understanding
human beings are the only species on earth known to be capable of evil
because we are the only species capable of the conceptualizational complexity needed for evil to even make sense

sort of the inverse of your post Conner: the act itself is only a motion - but we can also say that a bullet is only a piece of metal

its the context of velocity and deliberate targeting that differentiates a bullet from the change in my pocket just as it is the context of the abstract implications and motives of a physical motion that give it the distinction of being evil or good and lions and tigers and bears are not able to grasp these abstract implications

Lykeios wrote: No. There is no objective measurement for "evil." It's a subjective judgment call. As an idea, yes, it exists. However, lots of untrue ideas exist, that doesn't mean they exist in the world.

The real question now, I think, is "Does 'good' exist?"

well, if evil does not exist, CAN good exist?

people talk about the relativity of evil as if to say that this disproves its existence

but in a way that logic might be backwards - good and evil are often spoken of as being a scale of opposite polarities, similar maybe to the north and south pole

or maybe the difference between hot and cold

well, of course relativity may appear throughout cultures

just as relative temperature may change at different coordinates

what is "really cold" to a canadian is a totally different experience from anything even concieved of by someone who has never been outside of thailand
but
proving that ones personal experience of hot vs cold is a relative, subjective experience
does not at all prove that hot and cold are totally imaginary
and
using the metaphor of the magnetic poles
if there is no south
could there be a north?

but if i exist as a single entity on the surface of a globe in a three dimensional world
doesnt this mean that by definition there MUST be both a "south" and a "north"?

and once i have the apparatus to sense temperature variation
that there must be both a hot and a cold?

in a way, doesnt the subjective relativity acually prove the idea has merit then?

It's gotta represent action I think, which can be referenced to make evil 'speech', or considered as evil 'thoughts', but what the word represents should probably best fit something which associates to the definition one uses for evil, and for my definition its really the action of awareness and increasing someones suffering. Good or bad is just a subjective interpretation afaik. Have a good weekend everyone
:lol:

Good and evil are ideas created but the collective human unconscious. There is not definitive reality to the concepts. What is good and what is evil change based on the individual perceiving them. Test: Can your idea of good/evil explain a natural order outside of human consciousness? They are mental constructs based on human instinct for prolonged survival in a herd. One might see all of the evil that humanity has done to the animals, humans and the earth, and see them begin to think about space travel and spreading that evil to other places. That could be reason enough to exterminate humanity on the whole. Is that an evil act? The perception of the 'evil doer' and the motivation are what make it inherently moral or amoral. You can't measure it from an objective perspective because as an external perspective, it necessitates subjectivity based on your morals, cultural bias and the law. This is why law cannot come from a perspective of morals. It has to come from a perspective of the best solution for the largest group of people. There will always be people that do not need laws to negate their own moral shortcomings. They can self govern by understanding their greater affect. The interesting people are the one's who see and understand this same bigger picture and still decide to upset the system, or try to tear it down. I think we should be trying to see what they see, rather than immediately demonising.

if "beauty is in the eye of the beholder..." then evil is her sister?

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Lykeios wrote: No. There is no objective measurement for "evil." It's a subjective judgment call. As an idea, yes, it exists. However, lots of untrue ideas exist, that doesn't mean they exist in the world.

The real question now, I think, is "Does 'good' exist?"

well, if evil does not exist, CAN good exist?

people talk about the relativity of evil as if to say that this disproves its existence

but in a way that logic might be backwards - good and evil are often spoken of as being a scale of opposite polarities, similar maybe to the north and south pole

or maybe the difference between hot and cold

well, of course relativity may appear throughout cultures

just as relative temperature may change at different coordinates

what is "really cold" to a canadian is a totally different experience from anything even concieved of by someone who has never been outside of thailand
but
proving that ones personal experience of hot vs cold is a relative, subjective experience
does not at all prove that hot and cold are totally imaginary
and
using the metaphor of the magnetic poles
if there is no south
could there be a north?

but if i exist as a single entity on the surface of a globe in a three dimensional world
doesnt this mean that by definition there MUST be both a "south" and a "north"?

and once i have the apparatus to sense temperature variation
that there must be both a hot and a cold?

in a way, doesnt the subjective relativity acually prove the idea has merit then?

The only problem with comparing good and evil to hot and cold or north and south magnetic poles is that we have ways to measure cold and magnetic polarity. We can't measure good and evil. We have different scales of temperature but 70* F in one place is 70* F in another (regardless of personal feelings towards said temperature). The point of a compass points at the north magnetic pole (which is not actually in the same location as the north geographic pole) regardless of the compasses position.

Good and evil, however, have no numerical or instrumental measurement which we can use to quantify it. It is purely an emotional reaction. Like they said in an episode of Daredevil "or maybe evil is like pornography and you just know it when you see it."

I would like to believe in an absolute good and evil. It would certainly simplify life. It's one of the reasons that I like fantasy books and movies. In most of them there really isn't much of a question on what's good and what's evil. The dude leading the army of orcs is evil and the elves are good. Simple.

Unfortunately humans aren't like that. Real life isn't like that. Everything exists as a shade of grey and no one sees the same spectrum. The best that we can hope for is to be around people who see a spectrum that's close enough to ours that we can get along.

"shades of grey" is another way of saying "relativity"

and even though there is some relativity to the idea of evil this does not at all mean that evil is an illusory concept

there is relativity to the experience of temperature
relative to the individual species like a penguin or a camel
or to the individual culture such as an inuit or a malaysian
and then to the individual organism such as peter or sarawut

but this relativity again does not mean that HOT and COLD are illusory
it only means that particular individuals will find themselves located at different places on the scale or the globe or born into species and cultures with varying levels of sensitivity and sophistication

and measurement is a result of the advancement of culture and technology

a duck has absolutely no way to intellectually express how they MEASURE either temperature or magnetic polarity and yet they all go south when it gets cold

they do this infallibly

according to our current understanding of ducks, it is not possible for a single one of them to conceptualize that temperature, as a variable scale of precise degrees, or polarity, as an invisible force capable of physically moving a metal object, are real

but obviously they acknowledge the reality of these things

so, saying that we do not yet have the sophistication to measure evil is not evidence that evil is not a valid concept or that it doesnt exist

If anyone has never seen a talk by Philip Zimbardo on the subject of evil then I would recommend they do so.

His Ted Talk 'The Psychology of Evil' is a good introduction to why people do things we might consider evil (though his focus is more on groups than lone individuals), and may help some to clarify whether they believe evil exists or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

i enjoyed that a lot Edan

this one is a little bit longer but i thought it was very interesting as well, if anyone is simply interested in exploring the topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLp7vWB0TeY

I think acts, big and small, can upset our sensibilities of proper behavior and they can be called evil, sure. But do I believe there is a SOURCE of evil that's lurking behind and in all those acts?

No.

Here is another way of looking at it... Do animals have consciousness? Are they self aware enough to avoid suffering? Do they seek acts that prolong life and avoid death? Then would another species that understands that concept then be evil in nature to kill those beings that are self aware enough to have pain/death avoidance? Or is there a separation between species? Could an advanced alien species view is the same way if they had greater awareness than us? Would that make them evil? Would any of those acts be evil in nature or are they based on perspective?