Evil - What Is It Really?

[Thirteenthorder]

Evil is something that a majority of people in our societies today don't appreciate and don't like to think about, but do we really know just what evil is?

Can evil be classified, distinguished?

Every cliché story has a hero and a villain. The hero is usually labeled "good" while the villain is labeled "evil". But what makes him 'evil'?

I believe it's a Black sort of thing. Black isn't a color, rather the absence of color. Evil isn't necessarily bad, rather the absence of the things we label as 'good'.

What do you guys think?

[Night the Lucario]

Evil is relative. Every story has a 'hero' and a 'villain', yes, but... have you ever read a story in which the 'hero' kills off an entire race of beings because they weren't 'good'? Besides, even the most evil despots, the few that there are, almost always have good intentions. And, say, a Paladin from D&D. 3.5 edition. They can't be anything aside from Lawful Good, but it's really easy to use their extremely strict codes to warp them into the primary antagonist.

Also, I'd like to raise a point about your 'Black' metaphor. White is the absence of all colour, not black. Black is caused by mixing all three primary colours together. So technically, black is every colour.

I know, I know, visible light is said to be white, and is comprised of the seven colours we see. Think from an artistic side, though.

[PsychoYoshi]

Eh, I dunno if I'd call evil an "absence of good"; I'm more a believer in the philosophy that good and evil are two diametrically opposed forces. In order for an adjective like "good" to make sense in the first place, it requires an opposite to act as a comparison.

The main problem is that cliche stories are really, well, stories. In fiction, it's very easy to have a clearly-defined line between good and evil because we, as humans, overwhelmingly crave such simplicity. In real life, there's a whole bunch of gray between the black and white, and sometimes you might not even have a clearly segregated black/white scenario at all, just lighter and darker shades of gray. I do not believe, however, like some ethical relativists do, that good and evil are indistinguishable from one another, and there are clearly choices that are morally superior to others.

Can evil be classified? Yes. If there are two choices that are morally negative, most of the time it is possible to do some reflection and determine which is more negative. For example, I think most people would view abortion as a morally neutral act at the absolute best. However, in my mind, there is a very clear distinction in morality between taking a morning-after pill and killing a growing cell that has no self-concept and a partial-birth abortion where a full-term baby is murdered (word chosen very deliberately).

Can evil be distinguished from a non-evil act? Yes, though it's more difficult than doing a pro/con analysis of two concrete moral choices. Most actions in the world are morally gray, but there are a few clear-cut exceptions--unjustified murder, stealing, destruction of property, and so forth, such actions are always bad. Selflessly donating money, time, and the like without any hope of reward is always good (unless you're Ayn Rand). The problems begin when we evaluate all of the actions in the middle.

For example, let's throw the following question out there: Is it OK to steal food from someone else if you need it to survive?

My answer to the question would probably depend on a number of details about the situation. Is it a rich, greedy person who would certainly not grant my request for food but certainly could survive without a loaf of bread? Is it another beggar? Is there no way to become employed to earn the food? Once all of these variables have been analyzed, it's usually possible to set up a pro/con deliberation like we have with the abortion option.

Evil also needs to be evaluated based on two criteria: intention and outcome. My dividing line between a neutral intention and an evil intention is that an evil one consciously makes the decision to inflict harm on someone/something else without justification. Beyond that, it's not fully possible to say whether an act is good, evil, or neutral until it has been carried out and the consequences have been observed. As the old mantra goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Sure, it may be possible (cough) that the Westboro Baptist Church is actually full of well-meaning, non-hypocritical, pious followers who are completely correct that there's a Christian God who will darn all people who are gay. However, their actions do not justify their belief.

Also, just so everyone is clear on the light metaphor:
Verity is talking about additive color mixing, this is how light works. The three primary colors of light are red, blue, and green, and they combine into white light.

Night is talking about subtractive color mixing, this is how paint works. The three primary colors of art are red, yellow, and blue, and produce brown when mixed.

[Cornwad]

Also, I'd like to raise a point about your 'Black' metaphor. White is the absence of all colour, not black. Black is caused by mixing all three primary colours together. So technically, black is every colour.

No, you have it backwards. That's why empty space is black while looking straight at the sun makes you see white.

I think good and evil just depends on how you see things. Everyone who disagrees with me is working for the forces of evil.

[Macawmoses]

bumped for move

[Dog Food]

Evil is whatever you interpret it to be. It, to me, is an act that is not Good or Neutral. I also must interpret what Good and Neutral are in order to define Evil.

In this society, Evil is "immoral" deeds, like murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.

But, all words are what you interpret them to be. None of this would have any meaning if somewhere down the road people hadn't given meaning to these words. They just as soon could have had 'nothing' mean 'all' and 'many' mean 'few'. So, that is why Evil is nothing more than a word, and it can mean whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

[Zero]

No, you have it backwards. That's why empty space is black while looking straight at the sun makes you see white.

Correct, but regardless, you can still easily consider black a color. All of the frequencies in the visual spectrum of light are absorbed by things that are black, which is probably what he got confused about.

At any rate, Evil is evil, good is good, but it's all in different shades of grey. Pure good and pure evil aren't realistic. It really isn't that difficult to determine what it is evil and what is not. If you have a shred of morality or tad bit of common sense you can tell the difference.

[StarWindWizard7]

Evil is something that a majority of people in our societies today don't appreciate and don't like to think about, but do we really know just what evil is?

Can evil be classified, distinguished?

Every cliché story has a hero and a villain. The hero is usually labeled "good" while the villain is labeled "evil". But what makes him 'evil'?

I believe it's a Black sort of thing. Black isn't a color, rather the absence of color. Evil isn't necessarily bad, rather the absence of the things we label as 'good'.

What do you guys think?

... :|

I think Evil is a "bad" thing when they want to kill people or the population of sorts.
I think that's evil, and no good can really come from it.
(villains killing good people)

[Eizweir]

To most people, the difference between good and evil is what the person's ultimate goal is.  To me, the difference isn;t what, but how the person achieves that goal.

Good people will look out for other people first and try to make everyone comfortable.  The good person has morals and standards that keep that person from doing things that make them uncomfortable. 

Evil people, now, don't necessarily have bad intentions, they just think the ends justify the means.  An evil person won't worry about innocent people dying or something as long as that person gets what he/she wants