What is the best defintion of evil?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

I've been trying to come up with a definition of evil that applies most cases of evil through the context of wisdom and enlightenment. Below is the running definition and and perhaps you could modify or add on to it.

Evil:

Action(s) and or a delusional state of mind that is the result of ignorance of
negative effects on oneself or others. IE: power, security and pleasure
derived from attachments to form.
Celchuty
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:59 am

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Celchuty »

Evil: Trying to make someone else's decision against that person's wishes, or something that harms more than it helps in the long run.
Steven Coyle

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Steven Coyle »

for non-duality to blossom both good and evil are left to further and enhance the relation to source. though, this definition is rather obvious. a more stand-up is one where evil is simply the ingredient which adds for advice to the strong, and a god to the weak.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Evil is the opposite of livE. Or anything which opposes that what you call life.

This seems to cover most cases. This way evil quite naturally can be Satan (the opposer), death, illness, anything restraining seriously whatever expansion or freedom one thinks should be the case.

If life is defined as "everything that happens" then evil becomes possibly the term for any denial or delusion about it. So now we can even go to a more fundamental definition: evil is that which opposes what someone is defining and living as the way.
|read|
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by |read| »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Action(s) and or a delusional state of mind that is the result of ignorance of
negative effects on oneself or others. IE: power, security and pleasure
derived from attachments to form.
It's comforting to think evil suffers from a delusion, to which one's own intellect is superior. This is a mistake. Evil is well aware of the suffering it causes, and it simply does not care - otherwise, it would not be evil, but mere ignorance. Evil has the full force of intelligence behind it, and should not be underestimated. I'm talking both about the evil people do to others, and the evil they do to themselves. We're quick to realize we can lie and manipulate other people, but we're slower to realize that even the most intelligent of us is up to the task of lying to ourselves.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Nick »

Evil is that which stands most against one's purpose in life.

If one's purpose is to live wisely, then all things which work to prevent this could be considered evil, e.g. ego, woman, and delusion, whether they be in one's self, or another.

Of course evil is a result of existing in duality, and when duality is transcended, ideas such as good and evil become less meaningful because one has discerned truth from untruth. From that point using ideas like good and evil can be used as tools to help others transcend duality instead of letting the ideas control you.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Read,
Evil is well aware of the suffering it causes, and it simply does not care - otherwise, it would not be evil, but mere ignorance. Evil has the full force of intelligence behind it, and should not be underestimated. I'm talking both about the evil people do to others, and the evil they do to themselves. We're quick to realize we can lie and manipulate other people, but we're slower to realize that even the most intelligent of us is up to the task of lying to ourselves.
I'm still not following you here - would you go into a little more detail what you believe the difference between evil and ignorance are. Moreover, the way I think of it, ignorant people must also be evil by definition.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Evil is that which a virtuous man's habits must destroy. Only honest men habitually destroy ignorance.
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Carl G »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I've been trying to come up with a definition of evil that applies most cases of evil through the context of wisdom and enlightenment. Below is the running definition and and perhaps you could modify or add on to it.

Evil:

Action(s) and or a delusional state of mind that is the result of ignorance of
negative effects on oneself or others. IE: power, security and pleasure
derived from attachments to form.
One cannot have evil without having good. From the perspective of ultimate truth there can be neither. Therefore evil is relative and subject to personal definition. Evil has no direct relationship to wisdom or truth, even the apparent one -- the one you offer -- that evil is those things which are opposed to or stem from opposition to wisdom or truth.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by brokenhead »

|read| wrote:Evil has the full force of intelligence behind it, and should not be underestimated. I'm talking both about the evil people do to others, and the evil they do to themselves. We're quick to realize we can lie and manipulate other people, but we're slower to realize that even the most intelligent of us is up to the task of lying to ourselves.
I agree with this. Disease is not evil, suffering is not evil. For something to be evil, intent must be present. |read| takes it one step futher and mentions lying to oneself. Perhaps a case can be made for including under the umbrage of evil failing to take the next step, which is to actively seek the truth.
|read|
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by |read| »

My main point is that the scale of good vs evil is orthogonal to the scale of intelligence vs stupidity; these 2 variables are independent. You can be smart and evil, or smart and good, or dumb and evil, or dumb and good. If you conflate intelligence with goodness, and conflate stupidity with evil, then you end up condemning dumb people as evil for their honest mistakes. More importantly, you end up underestimating evil people because you assume they're stupid or delusional. The most dangerous person, a smart psychopath, will listen to your ideas about wisdom and fully understand them, nodding and smiling, and still cut your throat as soon as you look away.

This is one of my problems with the conception of "wisdom" popular on this site, as I understand it. Some seem to think that if people are intelligent enough and honest enough with themselves, they'll all arrive at the same normative "truths", that is, they'll all agree about what they should do - about which life pursuits are worthwhile and which are not. Some goals are a priori more logical than others. This is simply not the case.

Logical conclusions always hinge on alogical axioms. While our senses provide everyone with fairly consistent descriptive axioms (concerning what is, facts, evidence, data...), they provide no normative axioms (concerning what should be, goals, ethics...) Goals are much more arbitrary and variable between individuals, and as axioms, there is no way to argue logically for or against them.

And unfortunately, some people have no compunctions about inflicting suffering on others if this furthers their own goals. Preventing suffering is simply not a high-priority goal for them, or a goal at all, and some even enjoy inflicting suffering and make this a goal in and of itself. No amount of wisdom will cause them to see the error of their ways, because logically speaking, there is no error - they simply start with different axioms.

You can explain in great detail (and they can understand with perfect clarity) why one shouldn't lie and manipulate others, but it will always come down to the fact you think inflicting suffering is wrong, axiomatically, and they do not think this, also axiomatically. They may think dumb people deserve whatever suffering they "allow" to be inflicted on them, or that the world is inherently dog-eat-dog, or something else along those lines. They will understand your wisdom, and continue to inflict suffering, and continue to enjoy it. Wisdom is not an antidote for evil.

Of course, few people ever want to be seen as evil, so they will likely never admit their true axioms. You'll go around in circles with "wisdom" and sophisticated counter-"wisdom", but this is really all a smokescreen for their true intentions. Some may even encourage you to go on thinking evil is delusional, because this also works as a smokescreen.

This is not to say suffering does not arise from ignorance - suffering does arise from ignorance as well as from evil, and both need to be addressed. The ignorant are often fooled by and end up supporting or enabling the evil. Willful ignorance, the purposeful substitution of comfort and familiarity for truth, is also high on my list of harmful things.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Blair »

|read| wrote: You can be smart and evil, or smart and good, or dumb and evil, or dumb and good.
No, not even close. An evil person is dumb by nature. They are only smart in the ways of being evil, which brings more suffering on themself than they could ever hope to inflict on others.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Shahrazad »

What an idiot.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Blair »

You really should stop talking about yourself in this manner. It won't do you any good.
paco
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by paco »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I've been trying to come up with a definition of evil that applies most cases of evil through the context of wisdom and enlightenment. Below is the running definition and and perhaps you could modify or add on to it.

Evil:

Action(s) and or a delusional state of mind that is the result of ignorance of
negative effects on oneself or others. IE: power, security and pleasure
derived from attachments to form.
I promise I'll be good mommy!
I am illiterate
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

|read| wrote: Some seem to think that if people are intelligent enough and honest enough with themselves, they'll all arrive at the same normative "truths", that is, they'll all agree about what they should do - about which life pursuits are worthwhile and which are not. Some goals are a priori more logical than others. This is simply not the case.
It's not about arriving at normative truths or axioms or finding new goals of pursuits in life. If you got that impression you should read more carefully. It's all about removing any illusion about them. What remains has no inherent worth, purpose or goal. But that doesn't mean one grinds to a halt either, since everything has momentum. From the perspective of the wise eye life will be perceived as spontaneous and effortless. This is his "liberation". It doesn't mean remaining behavior won't appear as being full of purpose. One still follows the circumstance of nature, of past action, of earlier direction but it ceased being a pursuit, no attachment to origin or goal. Perhaps it could be said to be a pursuit of the pursuer's own tail.
|read| wrote:Logical conclusions always hinge on alogical axioms. While our senses provide everyone with fairly consistent descriptive axioms (concerning what is, facts, evidence, data...), they provide no normative axioms (concerning what should be, goals, ethics...) Goals are much more arbitrary and variable between individuals, and as axioms, there is no way to argue logically for or against them.
What the senses provide as well as any conclusions drawn from them are completely provisional. It doesn't work fundamentally different from arriving at some normative behavior. The distinction you try to make is not really there. Like a construct is created from the flow of stimulants (edit: I meant stimuli), in a very similar but slightly more complex manner our behavior, goals and ethics are shaped. It only looks like 'magic' or 'alogical' from the point of view of someone not knowing its exact causes. But the moment it's caused one can hardly say it's alogical, only that its causes are hard to determine exactly in this or that case because of the complexity involved.

Even what I earlier called 'spontaneous ' and 'effortless' life is still fully causal. Anyone will still be able to pick apart specific causes in psychology, culture, genetics and general circumstance, "explaining" even the drive to philosophy and religion at some point perhaps. But the question of "wisdom and ignorance" or "good and evil" does not arise when picking apart specific causes. Science is only a methodology, not being, not living the whole sum of it.
|read| wrote:Preventing suffering is simply not a high-priority goal for them, or a goal at all, and some even enjoy inflicting suffering and make this a goal in and of itself.
That's right: suffering behaves the same as all ignorance: it breeds, wants to replicate only more of the same.
|read| wrote:they will understand your wisdom, and continue to inflict suffering, and continue to enjoy it. Wisdom is not an antidote for evil.
There's hearing of wisdom, getting the idea behind it but it's not the same as understanding. It's not about accumulating facts about how "it" works that one can hear, nod the head and do something else instead. It doesn't work on that level but your example implies it's like explaining the dangers of alcohol to an addict. Wisdom goes beyond that: it destroys the whole dynamic, it spoils the whole dream as well as the nightmare. Understanding it equals seeing it in action; being submitted to its ongoing action.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Read,
Of course, few people ever want to be seen as evil, so they will likely never admit their true axioms. You'll go around in circles with "wisdom" and sophisticated counter-"wisdom", but this is really all a smokescreen for their true intentions. Some may even encourage you to go on thinking evil is delusional, because this also works as a smokescreen.
What you are saying needed to be expanded on, as much of the evil done in the world is done by men unconsciously in the name of materialistic goals. Most "smart" evil people are also very dull, and severely lacking in imagination. For instance: I know a fellow who holds a high level position in an corporation. but he values making money over everything else because that is all his imagination can come up with as a worthwhile goal, he is programmed to be enslaved to the demands of survival. And that is why he makes unethical decisions. The emotion of self-interest/survival is stronger than the desire to do the right thing. He is only an intelligent person as far as adapting to his environment, but as far as real intelligence goes, its absent. He is boring in conversation, unable to imagine how others feel when he acts, and therefore his life is dedicated to petty and mediocre pursuits.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that a clever person is still as dull as the intellectually handicapped dullard. One is just more successful than the other in a material sense. However, both lack the imagination necessary for compassionate argument, and both lack the imagination and courage necessary to break away from materialistic goals. Basically, as long as ones primary values are materialistic, suffering in the name of profit will be acceptable, and one's imagination will continue to be enslaved to the demands of the corporation, rather than the individual.
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Ataraxia »

To me, evil is so poorly defined that I find it prudent to consign the term/concept to the same category as the Abrahamic God--I am ignostic on both. There are perfectly good words that better explain what people are referring here, rather than the term evil; "Ignorance" , "Obstacles to truth", and so forth.

I'm with Nietzsche on this matter -- thinking in the good/ evil binary is slave morality writ large.

Religious.
paco
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:57 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by paco »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I've been trying to come up with a definition of evil that applies most cases of evil through the context of wisdom and enlightenment. Below is the running definition and and perhaps you could modify or add on to it.

Evil:

Action(s) and or a delusional state of mind that is the result of ignorance of
negative effects on oneself or others. IE: power, security and pleasure
derived from attachments to form.
The best definition of evil is " a bright day underneath the sun with a corona.." LOL
I am illiterate
|read|
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by |read| »

Thank you for your thoughtful and civil response, Diebert van Rhijn.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's not about arriving at normative truths or axioms or finding new goals of pursuits in life. If you got that impression you should read more carefully. It's all about removing any illusion about them. What remains has no inherent worth, purpose or goal. But that doesn't mean one grinds to a halt either, since everything has momentum. From the perspective of the wise eye life will be perceived as spontaneous and effortless. This is his "liberation". It doesn't mean remaining behavior won't appear as being full of purpose. One still follows the circumstance of nature, of past action, of earlier direction but it ceased being a pursuit, no attachment to origin or goal. Perhaps it could be said to be a pursuit of the pursuer's own tail.
I have 2 problems with the idea explained in your leading paragraph. First, if a person takes any conscious action at all, they have some kind of normative motivation. If you do something, you have decided you should do it, regardless of whether you choose to call this a goal or a pursuit or refuse to call it anything. If you decide you to change how you live, this is a goal. If you decide not to fight the influences of past events and environment, this is also a goal. If you decide to have no attachment to the idea of goal, this is itself a goal, and a hypocritical one.

The reason I think the "enlightened" on this site are expected to reach consensus about acceptable and unacceptable pursuits, is the simple fact that many times I have read an enlightened individual condemning certain pursuits as unacceptable on the basis of lack of enlightenment. It cannot be that all pursuits are unenlightened, because the enlightened spend considerable time and effort in the pursuit of condemning unenlightened pursuits. (Also, they pursue maintaining a website, or at least they choose not to pursue breaking the habit of website maintenance.) It must be that some pursuits are enlightened and some are not. How does one decide, if not by logic with its necessary axioms?

If I were to strip away all motivation, and lie motionless on the floor until my autonomic processes finally gave out, where would I have gone wrong? Should I have fed myself, that is, do the enlightened have the goal of staying alive? Why? Any logical justification will ultimately rely on axioms.

Second, while I do not think it is possible to eliminate all one's goal and ambitions, I do think it is possible to minimize them. However, I do not see any reason to think I should do so, or why such behavior should be considered "enlightened". Do you? If so, why?
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by BMcGilly07 »

Evil: a thing, and as such does not ultimately exist (see: imaginary).

I don't see the concept of evil as a useful tool in the higher functions of wisdom. It is only useful for those more unconscious than conscious, and even then it is a dangerous plaything of the masses; it all too easily becomes the reason to oppose, and an apt descriptor of many who then act against those who are "evil".
|read|
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by |read| »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What the senses provide as well as any conclusions drawn from them are completely provisional. It doesn't work fundamentally different from arriving at some normative behavior. The distinction you try to make is not really there. Like a construct is created from the flow of stimulants (edit: I meant stimuli), in a very similar but slightly more complex manner our behavior, goals and ethics are shaped. It only looks like 'magic' or 'alogical' from the point of view of someone not knowing its exact causes. But the moment it's caused one can hardly say it's alogical, only that its causes are hard to determine exactly in this or that case because of the complexity involved.

Even what I earlier called 'spontaneous ' and 'effortless' life is still fully causal. Anyone will still be able to pick apart specific causes in psychology, culture, genetics and general circumstance, "explaining" even the drive to philosophy and religion at some point perhaps. But the question of "wisdom and ignorance" or "good and evil" does not arise when picking apart specific causes. Science is only a methodology, not being, not living the whole sum of it.
Yes, I agree. Normative, descriptive, wisdom, ignorance, good, and evil, are all high-level abstractions which supervene on biological and physical processes. When I say an axiom is alogical, I mean it cannot be justified by logic operating at the same level of abstraction. For example, I can conclude I should eat, because starving is painful, and I do not want to feel that pain. But why should I not want to feel that pain? There is no explanation at this level of abstraction - aversion to pain is an alogical axiom. However, aversion to pain does have biological causes which can be explained in terms of the functions of my nervous system.

Nonetheless, we only communicate in terms of high-level abstractions. You cannot reach in and directly alter the functions of my nervous system. This is another way of stating my point; when followed back to its roots, philosophy inevitably reaches a place where logic operating at the level of philosophy can reveal no deeper reasons for a given belief - it is a philosophical axiom. Two people with different, contradictory axioms cannot be reconciled by communication. All that is left is to attempt to understand the causes of the axioms operating at lower levels of abstraction, such as biological and physical.

I was hesitant to reply on this point, lest it distract us from the more important problems I addressed in my last post. The "enlightened" do have goals, albeit minimized. So the question remains, why minimize goals? I do not think that understanding the nature of abstractions renders them any less useful, interesting, or valuable.
Last edited by |read| on Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by BMcGilly07 »

It's past my bed time, but before I go, |read|, how did you arrive at axioms being "alogical"? I think that's a misnomer. An axiom isn't without logic or logical components, but rather is the logical conclusion of the application of the Law of Identity (A=A).
|read|
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:16 pm

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by |read| »

I was going to say "Please derive my aversion to pain from nothing but A = A", but that would be flippant. Please get a book, and read about propositional calculus, then first-order logic.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the best defintion of evil?

Post by Dan Rowden »

Good: that which most increases my will to power.
Evil: that which most decreases my will to power.
Locked