is ISIS evil?

I refrain from referring to the radical Muslim factions as an Islamic State in part because they are neither.

That said, I guess in your definition of evil I would wholeheartedly agree. I think taking life for one's personal gain is the epitome of what you call evil. It shows a complete disregard for the value of life.

Argos wrote: Only when we stop fighting our differences and protecting our own self-interests and start working for the greater good of all mankind together can such things cease to be.

The problem is, as you just described very well yourself: there is no 'greater good'. Our 'good' isn't necessarily other people's 'good', just like our evil isn't necessarily theirs. We can decide not to fight - but that only works if the other party does the same. Unilaterally stopping to fight while the other party keeps attacking may be noble, but it's also suicide. If two parties can reason with each other, stopping to fight is the only way to go. If they can't, and you can't reason with IS if by 'reasoning' you mean expressing our own views and suggesting 'getting along' as the solution, there's only one solution, as unfortunate as it may be.

What we can do, however, is keeping our own youth from getting radicalized and joining the fight. That requires understanding, compromises and incentives to keep the people interested in our way of life. In my opinion, this is what WE as Jedi can do.

If a definition of evil had to be objective, how would you chose to define it?

We can use good v bad, right v wrong as subjective terms... but does evil really have to be another subjective term? To me its always been about causing suffering, which is hardly subjective to me, but I've already posted mine earlier in the thread so wont rehash it, beyond saying I find compassion to be the opposite of evil.

Cyan Sarden wrote:

Argos wrote: Only when we stop fighting our differences and protecting our own self-interests and start working for the greater good of all mankind together can such things cease to be.

The problem is, as you just described very well yourself: there is no 'greater good'.

Indeed I did contradict myself, I suppose. My intention for using the term "greater good" simply being that we could all work to an end that did not cause someone to suffer because of another intentionally. My ingrained morality system leads me to this line of thinking and it's some hard wiring that is not easy to remove

Edit: Spelling is hard.

Adder wrote: If a definition of evil had to be objective, how would you chose to define it?

We can use good v bad, right v wrong as subjective terms... but does evil really have to be another subjective term? To me its always been about causing suffering, which is hardly subjective to me, but I've already posted mine earlier in the thread so wont rehash it.

If 'evil' is defined as 'causing suffering' (a definition to which I could agree), then 'good', being the opposite of 'evil' would have to be 'not causing suffering'. But in my opinion, 'good' is much more than merely not causing suffering.

I propose the following:

evil (adj.) causing suffering, out of someone's own free will.

good (adj.) benefitting to others, with deliberation and without ulterior motives

Argos wrote: My intention for using the term "greater good" simply being that we could all work to an end that did not cause someone to suffer because of another intentionally.

And just because this is more of an ideal than a reality in our world, it's still worth pursuing. But before that can happen, both sides will have to feel safe enough - and and this point, the restoration of safety will have to be our top priority.

Adder wrote: If a definition of evil had to be objective, how would you chose to define it?

We can use good v bad, right v wrong as subjective terms... but does evil really have to be another subjective term? To me its always been about causing suffering, which is hardly subjective to me, but I've already posted mine earlier in the thread so wont rehash it, beyond saying I find compassion to be the opposite of evil.

Suffering is itself subjective. Suffering is relative. You know suffering as it is only because you have things you consider to be joyous, or whatever you would put opposite suffering. Personally I don't think you can possibly give evil an objective definition because evil will change definitions at least a little bit depending on who is defining it. There is no one universal "evil" from my perspective.

Adder wrote: If a definition of evil had to be objective, how would you chose to define it?

This is the ethics philosopher coming out in me, but I'm always hesitant to define anything with an appeal to objectivity. Each culture has their own ideas about what is good and evil and to what degree and that hasn't stayed the same for all cultures (as cultures evolved their prioritizing of certain goods and evils might have shifted). Furthermore, once you've nailed down a definition, you have to figure out just how strictly applied that definition should be.

For example, your definition:

Adder wrote: To me its always been about causing suffering [...] beyond saying I find compassion to be the opposite of evil.

What if I can heal a person even though it may cause them suffering? What if I am helping someone work through emotional trauma, which can be quite painful, but am doing so compassionately? Does my compassionate intention outweigh the suffering of another person? Would that be true in all circumstances? This is why philosophy of ethics books are such large tomes (or any analytical philosophy for that matter).

Yea, but my working definition is a bit more detailed then just 'suffering' alone. I agree suffering is a subjective 'experience', but forcing suffering on someone else seems quite an objective action to me - and hence suitable for interpreting behaviour.

Anything can be subjective without conditions to constrain it into having some practical meaning... and mine would be knowingly causing suffering to someone against that persons will. I think subjective terms need to be clear and functional in being used for subjective things; like good and bad for experiential subjectivity, and right and wrong for informational subjectivity. It's why I view evils opposite as not good, but compassion, which I then define as knowingly reducing suffering to someone.

I like a little bit of structure, even if I have to invent it, so I"m not so much concerned about how other cultures define the term, unless it's a better definition of course!! Hence my curiosity in how others might functionally use the term.

Not to put the ISIS these terms of good or bad (because apparently every time these issues come into discussion about it this generates a lot of controversy), I define this organization as a group that advocates an ideology in extreme ways and possess many weapons and cash; I believe that this is a dangerous combination, because there is no leader, so to speak. So how to fight an idea? You can not kill it, and prohibit it will only lease more people to its ranks. After extremism is something that is either like that or no good, very different from what we do. After weapons and money finalize the package, then either you're with them or they used guns to make people accept your truth. These ideas I do not think any of them cool.