Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[Fist and Faith]

Hey, take two!!

[Dlan_Mhoram]

Well, first of all a confession, i havn´t read all the posts , i promise i ´ll do it. But i say i ´ll post in one day, so...

First of all a tecnichal point, you can´t speak about evil without any reference to good, evil is that kind of concepts that needs an oposite to get meaning, like responsability/freedon.
To explain this, if you can judge only when the judged were free to choose, if there are only evil you can´t judge, because the posibility to choose good dosen´t exists. as Nietzsche ( i love Nietzscche philosopy, enthusiastic, vitalist and terrifying clear) said I´m good so you that are not like me are evil. (nobleman´s Morality) or You are evil, so i that am not like you am good. (slave´s morality) this is a great example of what i want to say, Evil can´t be without good in the same way that freedon are always linked to responsability.

Now, in all the posts i´ve read you discuss about diferente evil definitions, let me set some previous concepts first please.
All moral judges, all judges in fact, depend on a "superior" opinion, a Supreme Judge to give them a valid meaning. Moral is the best example, what are "good" for religions?. That what God says is good. For nations God are the people (elections way), and so for all.
But, if you are agnostic, or don´t believe in God, goverment, or so, what are the Supreme Judge that gives them legimity to judge?. Or have they even the rigth to judge?.
To answer this cuestions i must set a principle, we are free i say that based on a simply reason, live is will, the manifestation of will (and so live) is elections, so if we are living we are electing something, is basicaly a judge. and we can´t stop we are live all time, no option in that, a strange thing when i say we are always free to choose i know, but live itself has "vicious circles" logic can´t be of aplication in live because live itself is paradojic. We are electing, so ... what are the guide to this elections?. Answer is obvious, our own moral, we live acording this and we don´t accept any other than ours. This tread is a good example of diferent definitions . This elections are based in moral, and for me, the one that make decisions, this moral is absolut. I don´t accept any other moral that the one i believe in. but this moral can be so wrong that any other thing in the world, i REALLY need a Supreme Judge. But there are not Judges (and this is now my personal opinion) in this world so my actions are moral while i say they are moral, and only while i say it, because i´m the Judge in my world. My world is ALL trhat exists for me, as Schopenhauer said, the world, the world that i´m seeing and affects me, are my own creation and interpretation of a reality that i can´t see without creating a masquerade for it.
So Evil, and Good are absolut concepts, but only in my world, in the sense i ´ve explain, and other people don´t have to accept it. So Evil and good are absolut individual concepts, but not absolut general concepts. In practice me agree to set some things like good and other like Evil, but only because is the only way to maintain a civilitation, in fact we all have our own concepts and only believe in them. One lawer told me one day that laws don´t seek justice, but find a solution to disputes.

So, there are absolut concepts of evil for me, but they can´t be recognised by other people because i´m the only one that gives them all sense. If we accept this we can speak about Evil or Good out of our world, so Evil and Good dosen´t exist. (notice capitals, please).

This means that when i see one man that is doing something i can say, he´s evil, but the man can say, no, i´m good, you are evil, and both of us are rigth.

And now my personal interpretation for Evil, Evil is when you negate the others free will , you don´t have rigth to use them as tools, they are living, they must judge and decide by thenmselves, this is not a cuestion about control, in many ways parents, laws, and others control our live, but they don´t negate our capability of choose, they can resting it, but never negate, and actually we can allways choose, but we are never completely free, because the same world makes some restrictions. So, evil is when you act like God when you can be wrong. I want to set this clear, this is my abolut concept for evil, but there are not abolut general concept for evil, Rigth?

The link with this topic, LF is no evil in general way, he´s the first of all for himself and others are only tools to reach his freedon. Freedom is a basic aspiration for every sensible form of live because live must be free to exist. remeber, live is will... But in my conception he´s the epitomizing of Evil, he don´t want others to be free, he want tools, and use others like tools.

And now some comments about other posts.

Zahir in page 1 speak about redemptive emotions well, i believe there are not any redemption posibility, maybe there are no absolut and general Evil, but we are free, and we choose, so we must accept the responsability our choose generates, we can never negate our responsability. Never. I can explain this if anyone want, but i think is very large to put in this post. The central idea is that we must choose always, so we choose acording our moral, and we are the "validators" of our moral. It dosen´t matter our motivations, at least we are going to be judged about our acts so an act can´t be delete and we have to pay for them.

About control... we are free to break control, i think control is useless, but not Evil in my particular terms, in general terms i don´t recognize evil exist, you know. It´s a cuestion about degree, at least. Only to reafirm my opinio that we are always free, sometimes it can appear that we are not, but truly is that one alternative has a price so high for considerer it, but we can choose.

Well this was a great work, i hope my poor english not to be an problem to understand what i want to say. I´ll posts here more comments about the rest of the posts as soon as i can read it.

Bye

[Skyweir]

it would seem F&F that we are talking at cross-purposes here.

we seem to both be limiting the discussion to our own definitions of objectivity .. you see the concept of 'objectivity' in its broader sense .. of impractibility .. and I in its narrower sense as founds expression in substantive legal reasoning. I think both expressions hold some accuracies .. but both cannot be held to nullify the other .. because their views are too divergent to be compared under the one heading.

this thread is a good example of diferent definitions

astutely insightful

.. and .. very interesting stance dlan ..

Evil is when you negate the others free will

yes getting back on topic .. I think this is as good as any definition of evil yet ..

and I like your distinction between .. this concept of: 'negating others will' .. and that of: 'control'


I think this distinction is very relevant .. but as you explain as you elaborate on this .. the act of depriving the freed will of another .. then makes clear that the Creator is the evil here ..

After all .. it was the Creator who negated TC's free will .. and translated him to the Land to serve his purposes .. ultimately.

Yes TC .. was unhindered once he was in the Land .. but the choice to go there was not his.

<playing devils advocate here:|

Whereas Foul .. eventhough he had his hand played .. and was in the game .. he according to this definition never negated TC's will/choice factor.

food for thought *shrugs*

[Fist and Faith]

For that matter, the Creator committed an act of evil upon Foul by imprisoning him within the AoT after Foul messed up the Creation. There's poor little Foul, just doing what his nature demands, and this wonderful Creator pulls that kind of thing? What happened to compassion and understanding? Was there any attempt at rehabilitation?

But now I'm wondering about another couple of definitions, because I don't know how you can control someone without negating their free will? Can you give any example of that?

[Skyweir]

yes indeed!! but in the Creator's defence .. he did imprison Foul without a knowledge that he was there didnt he?

if not .. he through his error .. truly did make a rod for his own back!!

I think what dlan is asserting .. if I may .. is that unless a persons will is negated .. the mere act of controlling can infact engage the controllee in willing submission.

for example .. we are controlled each day we live .. in the side of the road we drive on .. stopping at electronic poles when they tell us to .. paying for goods as opposed to looting for them .. etc.. via a broad range of measures that exist to control and manage social movement and interactions.

Yet at the end of the day .. the choice with us remains .. as to whether we choose to be controlled by these measures and social structures or not ..

At the end of the day .. we can .. in certain circumstances still choose whether to submit to 'control' .. whereas .. where our will is negated .. the choice from us is removed

[Fist and Faith]

hmmm...
It's true that our brains have not been altered in such a way that our free will is removed. But if we exercise our free will in various circumstances, we are taken to jail at gunpoint. If this isn't it, how does one negate free will without a lobotomy? Is physical restraint a necessary part of your definition?

Not that I think what's going on is necessarily evil. I've stated somewhere or other that we can't live together without taking some rights away. Anarchy doesn't work if we want to live together. So I don't think controlling people is always evil, even if I believe evil always means controlling people. I think the evil people control for their own benefit or pleasure, rather than just to make societies manageable.

[Dlan_Mhoram]

I think this distinction is very relevant .. but as you explain as you elaborate on this .. the act of depriving the freed will of another .. then makes clear that the Creator is the evil here ..

After all .. it was the Creator who negated TC's free will .. and translated him to the Land to serve his purposes .. ultimately.

Yes TC .. was unhindered once he was in the Land .. but the choice to go there was not his.

<playing devils advocate here:|

Well, in defending the Creator´s acts... what have i got to defend them?? I think Creators are evil, if not remeber the last part of first chronicles (free translation)

So, find peace in your other innocence, you don´t choose this work,....
guilty are only whom choose....

The same Creator asumes that he are Evil, or at least that he did something evil. In this part it seems that both SRD and i agree.

Gods and creators are too much powerful and powerless to desperate Change desperate by be judged in human´s terms and you got ..... .

The same can be aplied to LF, but ... LF din´t tried to negate TC free will, because he coudn´t do it without lost, but he tried to negate others free will, Ravers, Lawmasters, etc, etc. Only to reach a purpouse but he tried.

One last thing, don´t compare Creator with God, isn´t the same and is not a propper comparation, trying to give rigth moral side to Creator ... i don´t thing he was in the rigth moral side. TCC are not about a war between good (creator) and evil (LF) are about a war. With some very interesting ethic and moral cuestions.

At the end of the day .. we can .. in certain circumstances still choose whether to submit to 'control' .. whereas .. where our will is negated .. the choice from us is removed

Exact. Controll means some restictions, but you can always choose, maybe not always a good choose, but you can always choose betwen options.

It's true that our brains have not been altered in such a way that our free will is removed. But if we exercise our free will in various circumstances, we are taken to jail at gunpoint. If this isn't it, how does one negate free will without a lobotomy? Is physical restraint a necessary part of your definition?

A very simple way of negate all free will, to kill. If some kill you, you can´t choose, so kill is an action that negate free will, so kill is evil.
One litle appointment, some acts you choose can result in you being killed, in that case your death is part of your choose, or more exactly is part of your responsability for your actions.And with this i don´t mean i agree with death´s corridors . Physical restraint is not necessary.

Not that I think what's going on is necessarily evil. I've stated somewhere or other that we can't live together without taking some rights away. Anarchy doesn't work if we want to live together. So I don't think controlling people is always evil,

I agree, the great fail of anarchy,it is not a practical society

[[Syl]]

Good and evil are always going to be too subjective to debate about coherenty (for instance, my definition; good = constructive, evil = destructive... but even then, what is a brush fire?).

"Whatsoever is the object of any man's appetite or desire; that is it which he for his part calleth good." -Hobbes

I think I'd go with that, for the most part. Sure, on some level we say that some of the things we want are evil or at least wrong, but in this case we follow the higher level of what we want, and not the lower, baser level. Sometimes, the more we learn the more what we once considered good becomes evil... and those who don't want free themselves...

If evil is the opposite of good, something I don't always agree with, then evil is that which we don't want (thus making advertising evil by convincing us to buy stuff we don't want).

As a quasi-solipsist I'm more in favor of ethical as a non-subjective term.

[Skyweir]

as I am myself!

I prefer non-subjective uses also .. and to me what Hobbes is saying .. humans call anything 'good' they want or desire .. as their our appetites determine .. so 'good' is dependant upon .. the view point of the individual or group. Thus the claim of 'good' is not a sound of substantive definition.

Thus imho .. he is saying that good is 'wholly' subjective .. and non-determinative in an assessment of a pursuits beneficience .. or ethical value.

[Skyweir]

I stole this from Bannor .. I wanted it and I took it .. and it was good!! does doing something bad make me evil?? does doing something good make me righteous??

respectfully .. you see this rationale stinks!

and nah actually .. Bannor gave me the specs and I use it with his blessing .. thanks oh regaliest one!!

[Fist and Faith]

I, too, wish there were non-subjective ways of deciding right & wrong, good & evil, moral & immoral. I think that some crimes wouldn't be committed, because the would-be criminal would have an undeniable law to look at. Too many are able to rationalize their crimes.

It would also be nice to have rock-solid laws when it came time to punish criminals. Maybe these laws would even tell us what punishments are acceptable, and which are not. But anyway, I find it unfortunate that we must sometimes punish people who acted within their belief system.

[[Syl]]

But if you had no concept that stealing went against a greater good, then what would be bad about it? If your actions produced no ill effects (say Bannor never noticed), gave you nothing which you didn't want, wouldn't the act have been a good one?

[pitchwife]

Wow, looks like I missed out on an exciting discussion.

for instance, my definition; good = constructive, evil = destructive...

It's funny, we were just talking about this... seeing the lava flows on the big island of Hawaii... was seeing the powers of creation at work, or is it the powers of destruction... this hot flowing newly broken rock destructs everything that comes in its way, trees, plants, roads, villages... and then come the rain and the sea, destructing the new rock, churning it into sand and creating beautiful sandy beaches, and growing new plants who's roots shoot deep into the stone and further its crumbling.

So Evil and good are absolut individual concepts, but not absolut general concepts. In practice me agree to set some things like good and other like Evil, but only because is the only way to maintain a civilitation.

Dlan, I think you hit the point. Each of us has an internal belief/moral system that guides us in every decision we make (many times unconciously). But in order for humans to live in a society we need to come up with a shared moral code that guides the individual in the context of the community. This works for larger and larger circles of community, first your family, then your workplace, your municipality, state, country, etc. WW2 was maybe the first time in which the "community" of the whole of humanity was considered, hence the need for a "universal law".

Each community may come up with a different definition of good and evil, and then you have wars between communities for enforcing thier own moral definition on other communities (e.g. Iraq...)

-pitch

[Dlan_Mhoram]

I stole this from Bannor .. I wanted it and I took it .. and it was good!! does doing something bad make me evil?? does doing something good make me righteous??

Absolutely, only acts can be judged you can´t judge anymore, interests, and objetives are too subjetive to judge even compared with Good and Evil, for us the other people are their acts.

I, too, wish there were non-subjective ways of deciding right & wrong, good & evil, moral & immoral

Me too, but i think honestly must prevail, and honestly i don´t believe in that. There are no GOOD and EVIL, and more, sometimes we must do some Evil. Not as Maquiavelo said, we must pay for our acts, but i believe sometimes me must do something evil in order to bring a major good. I repeat, this is not a justification for evil. Some phrase that can ilustrate this way of thinking. I do what i must when i must, and then I´ll pay the price for my actions .

Dlan, I think you hit the point. Each of us has an internal belief/moral system that guides us in every decision we make (many times unconciously). But in order for humans to live in a society we need to come up with a shared moral code that guides the individual in the context of the community. This works for larger and larger circles of community, first your family, then your workplace, your municipality, state, country, etc. WW2 was maybe the first time in which the "community" of the whole of humanity was considered, hence the need for a "universal law".

Yes, i agree with that totally

[hamako]

but i believe sometimes me must do something evil in order to bring a major good. I repeat, this is not a justification for evil. Some phrase that can ilustrate this way of thinking. I do what i must when i must, and then I´ll pay the price for my actions .


But isn't that the whole point - this isn't evil, because there is a , probably, just cause.

Evil per se is to me purely for the intention of causing harm. Once you bring a justification that the perceived evil action is for the greater good, then it ceases in my mind to be evil. It might be wrong (in terms of a shared/individual moral code), but that doesn't necessarily make it evil.

take this trite example:

I'm sitting in a highbrow meeting and I pick my nose very obviously making a bit of an exhibition of it - get the picture Now that 's going to be wrong - inappropriate and probably offensive to some. But it's hardly evil is it?

Use the harm test - has this caused anyone genuine harm - only if someone has a real problem with nose picking and gets really worked up about it to the point where they suffer nervous shock, probably need counselling. If this is the case - did I intend it - the intent test. Was it reasonably foreseeable that someone in the room would be so offended by it that they would suffer mental harm? Again, probably not.

Verdict: not evil your honour


Unless of course I got caught by my wife, and then it's a hanging offence

[/code]

[hamako]

and yeak, I've cocked up on the formatting, but that's definitely not evil

[Dlan_Mhoram]

But isn't that the whole point - this isn't evil, because there is a , probably, just cause.

And what?. The fact is that you have done something evil, just cause may exists or not, but the evil act is surely done. And at least you con only judge acts, there are no justifications, you have choose to do something evil, your reasons are of importance for you, but for me, the one who has suffer evil maybe not.

One example: I have kidnaped one little girl because his father is a terrorist, the girl don´t know anything, and i kill the girl because the father, the father goes crazy and die or go to the jail if you prefer. Is good the thing i have done to the girl?. kill the litle innocent girl is good because her father has die?. Not for the girl, and surely not for the mother.

With you definition of evil... i don´t really agree with that. I can´t say more, but i think evil is more than causing arm.

[Fist and Faith]

I do not agree that the ends justifies the means. During WWII, the US put citizens of Japanese ancestry into camps, fearing some might be trying to damage us from the inside. Obviously, if there were any Japanese spies/moles here, they would have been posing as American citizens of Japanese descent. And the fear was also that those who had lived here for generations would still feel more loyalty to Japan. So if they're all in camps, the bad guys can't do any damage.

This was evil. What this country claims are the most basic rights of all people were taken from some in order to safeguard others. I think it's wrong. I don't want freedom and safety to come at such a price. The guilt would overpower the happiness of my safety. I would have been there trying to bust them out. Everybody needed to be more careful, and pay more attention - to everyone, not just the Japanese.

I also think our way of life should come using its own ideals, not using the ideals of its enemies. What they did built distrust between different groups of Americans, so the end that was supposed to justify the means wasn't as great as they would have hoped. The country ended up being harmed after all. Not that I need that to support my position. Whatever the ultimate outcome, I oppose the evil act. A lot of Americans currently want to do this with anyone of Middle Eastern/Arabic descent. (Never mind that they don't know the difference between someone from India and someone from Iraq, or the difference between Hinduism and Islam.) I will oppose it if it happens.

Anybody know Ursula K. Le Guin's Those Who Walk Away From Omelas? (Not sure if that's the exact title.)

[Skyweir]

I do not agree that the ends justifies the means.

Falls over!! oh I thought you were a believer in the greater good theory .. whats in the best interest of the majority and all that

This was evil. What this country claims are the most basic rights of all people were taken from some in order to safeguard others. I think it's wrong.I don't want freedom and safety to come at such a price.

I would tend to agree with you!! Isnt it interesting how fear predicates such radical notions? Like racial profiling and the absence of adhering to once heralded democratic principles.

A lot of Americans currently want to do this with anyone of Middle Eastern/Arabic descent. (Never mind that they don't know the difference between someone from India and someone from Iraq, or the difference between Hinduism and Islam.) I will oppose it if it happens.

So you too voice an expression of a Universal standard .. that cannot be compromised by subjective positions.

dammit .. someone said .. we all know .. or have an inner knowledge of right and wrong .. this 'knowledge' .. that 'all' share .. where does it come from????

Is it intrinsic knowledge? .. 'pure intelligence'? .. part of the very essence of humanity???

YES YES YES!!

Universal Law claims there is a code that certain principles are elicited from .. there may be some divergencies .. but there are fundamental principles that we all subconsciously share .. that give us that 'knowledge' and more accurately 'intelligence' that guide our actions.

Not all abide by this intrinsic 'intelligence' .. but it exists .. as does 'choice' and 'independent will' .. Universal Law is not dependant nor is it discredited according to individual departures from this 'intelligence'.

But if you had no concept that stealing went against a greater good, then what would be bad about it? If your actions produced no ill effects (say Bannor never noticed), gave you nothing which you didn't want, wouldn't the act have been a good one?

it would not accord with my personal integrity .. no matter if Bannor is unaware .. and no harm was caused .. Lets say it was something more substantive than an emoticon .. lets say it was some physical property .. i took a liberty in taking possession of that which was not mine to take. If I did not gain his consent regarding my action .. I have committed a trespass against him. Perhaps one of limited degree .. but I am aware of my trespass .. I am conscious of a 'wrong' .. this consciousness and 'intelligence' affirms this to me.

Some of us would not care whether they trespass against another in such a small matter .. but evenso the knowledge exists and by us a choice is made. The choice does not represent the standard .. it represents the subjective position that cannot form a reliable, sound or broadly applicable standard.

[Ryzel]

Anybody know Ursula K. Le Guin's Those Who Walk Away From Omelas? (Not sure if that's the exact title.)

The correct title is The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, so you were very close. And I would recommend everyone to dig up a copy and read it. (Incidentally it won the short story category of the Hugo Award in 1974, so it should be possible to get it in a Hugo Awards collection.) Otherwise it is collected in The Wind's Twelve Quarters (Vol. 2) which I have, and possibly other books.