1 edit
@kellyjay saidI think @fmf gave a pretty good definition: “evil is … an egregious, gratuitous, sociopathic action that is gravely detrimental /damaging to others, and which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion.” To which I would only add “intentionally so”, and that evil is sometimes not so much a single person’s action, as a collective policy. That’s what I see.
For clarification when you see evil what is it you do see? Something not good, something that is … what?
@moonbus saidAh, good. Now that YOU have posted these words, KellyJay might address them... to rebut them or accept them.
I think @fmf gave a pretty good definition: “evil is … an egregious, gratuitous, sociopathic action that is gravely detrimental /damaging to others, and which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion.” To which I would only add “intentionally so”, and that evil is sometimes not so much a single person’s action, as a collective policy. That’s what I see.
@moonbus saidTo which I would only add “intentionally so"
I think @fmf gave a pretty good definition: “evil is … an egregious, gratuitous, sociopathic action that is gravely detrimental /damaging to others, and which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion.” To which I would only add “intentionally so”, and that evil is sometimes not so much a single person’s action, as a collective policy. That’s what I see.
Yes, in the vast majority of cases, but unpremeditated negligence can sometimes be "evil" too.
@moonbus saidSo it has to be GRAVELY detrimental and damaging, not just detrimental and damaging done with intent?
I think @fmf gave a pretty good definition: “evil is … an egregious, gratuitous, sociopathic action that is gravely detrimental /damaging to others, and which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion.” To which I would only add “intentionally so”, and that evil is sometimes not so much a single person’s action, as a collective policy. That’s what I see.
@kellyjay saidThe definition given so far is adequate and it will not be fruitful to insist on a too exact formulation of words. I propose instead to give some examples of evil.
So it has to be GRAVELY detrimental and damaging, not just detrimental and damaging done with intent?
Example 1. The Inquisition. This was not merely an aberration carried out by a few rogue priests. It was the explicit policy of the Church hierarchy to educate and promote people through the Church hierarchy to torture and murder people who believed things at variance with Church dogma, and it was carried out systematically throughout the Church's lands and across continents (including the New World and in India) for several centuries, causing the agonizing deaths of many millions of people. This was evil, not only in effect, but in intent as well.
Example 2. The trial of Galileo. This was not only an injustice against one man, but against humanity. Galileo was compelled, under threat of torture, to stop thinking. Not only to stop teaching and propagating his theories (that the Earth moves), but to STOP THINKING that the Earth moves. This was thought control, and thought control is evil, not only in effect (because it retarded the advancement of humanity's knowledge of how nature works by several centuries), but thought-control is intrinsically, in-itself, evil, especially when carried out, as it was, as a concerted policy across many centuries and many lands. Even if Galileo had been wrong that the Earth moves, it was evil to forbid him from thinking it so, and evil to threaten him with torture for thinking it. There were many many others who were actually tortured, some of them to death, for thinking (Giordano Bruno, for example); this is what evil looks like. Just for clarification, Galileo was not rehabilitated by the Church until the reign of Pope John Paul II.
Example 3. Hiding evidence and testimony of sexual abuse by the clergy, and moving pedophile priests around to other parishes where they continue to sexually abuse children, instead of turning the pedos and the evidence/testimony over to civil authorities for criminal prosecution. An investigation in France, for example, turned up evidence/testimony of tens of thousands of incidents of sexual abuse by the clergy there, going back decades. These are not just the actions of a few rogue priests; this is a policy -- not one which was ever formulated and written down somewhere as what was supposed to happen, but quite clearly a policy-in-effect, carried out by the Church hierarchy in many lands over a long period of time, with devastating effects on those who were abused. That is Churchianity in denial, in catastrophic neglect and dereliction of trust, and that is what evil looks like.
Further examples could be provided, but I think the above three show what sort of harm and what scope are involved in evil.
Thank you to @fmf for pointing out that premeditated intent, or mens rea, is not in all cases necessary to bring a judgment of evil; neglect or severe dereliction of trust also count as evil, in some cases.
1 edit
-Removed-There are well-known psychological techniques for making people afraid to think. Tools in trade for every sect or ideology, whether religious or political. It's fundamentally subversive of human flourishing to make people afraid of their own minds. It's my chief objection to the dogma of original sin -- the idea that people are fundamentally flawed is itself a flawed concept, because it makes them afraid to be who they are and even to think clearly about human nature and what contributes to detracts from human flourishing.
@moonbus saidHow about simply perverting that which is good for selfish means? Why is it also limited to the things done, would evil also be in the intent to do as well, not just when the act is carried out does the line get crossed?
The definition given so far is adequate and it will not be fruitful to insist on a too exact formulation of words. I propose instead to give some examples of evil.
Example 1. The Inquisition. This was not merely an aberration carried out by a few rogue priests. It was the explicit policy of the Church hierarchy to educate and promote people through the Church hierarchy to ...[text shortened]... bring a judgment of evil; neglect or severe dereliction of trust also count as evil, in some cases.
@kellyjay saidI'd say that there are no "thoughtcrimes".
How about simply perverting that which is good for selfish means? Why is it also limited to the things done, would evil also be in the intent to do as well, not just when the act is carried out does the line get crossed?
I realize that theism - Christianity for example - fixates on them.
In my view, morality simply governs human interaction.
Thoughts that do not result in immoral behaviour are just thoughts.