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