When did evil begin?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » When did evil begin? » When did evil begin?

When did evil begin?
Inquiring into the origins of evil.

Page: 1 2 3 4

When did evil begin?

sheepdog
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 118

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/06 - 12:58 PM: Subject: When did evil begin?	#1
By any given mythology, the universe evolved from some state of nothingness to its present state. My question is this: at what point in that evolution did evil begin? Let me pose some specific questions to try to pinpoint the time of evil's beginning. Was there evil before there were people? That is, in the total absence of humans, is there, or was there, evil? If so, then how did it manifest? If not, then what is it about humans that caused the beginning of evil? If there was evil before there were humans, then was there evil before there was life? If so, then how did it manifest? If not, then what is it about life that gave rise to evil's beginning? Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
"Him that I love, I wish to be free -- even from me." -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh

Jeff-ray-ray
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 06/03/06 - 07:33 PM:	#2
sheepdog wrote: By any given mythology, the universe evolved from some state of nothingness to its present state. My question is this: at what point in that evolution did evil begin? Let me pose some specific questions to try to pinpoint the time of evil's beginning. Was there evil before there were people? That is, in the total absence of humans, is there, or was there, evil? If so, then how did it manifest? If not, then what is it about humans that caused the beginning of evil? If there was evil before there were humans, then was there evil before there was life? If so, then how did it manifest? If not, then what is it about life that gave rise to evil's beginning? Thank you in advance for your thoughts. I dunno about that... I have yet to see anything created or destroyed, so I can't quite agree with the part that something can begin. I also have yet to see a purely good or evil act, so I can't seem to agree that there even is such a thing as evil.
The paradox we experience is that we feel separate and lacking something, and yet there is nothing to gain. In acquiring naturalness in the situation, we need to become lessthan more. It seems as if we are developing and advancing which we are in a relativesense but we do this by removing misunderstanding and our own ideas of how weshould do something. This is why we need relational attitudes such as acceptance, trust,and reliance more on our felt experience than our understanding. We must live the paradox. ---Zen and the Art of Archery

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2151

Posted 06/04/06 - 01:25 AM:	#3
i generally think the terms "good" and "evil" are used by individuals to apply abstract mental states to other individuals or events which hurt or destroy them. if you steal my car, you are "evil". if you shoot my dog, you are "evil". if you fix my car, you are "good". if you save my dog, you are "good". these abstract labels help me determine my future cooperation or competition with you based on emotional states, (outrage vs. pleasure). so i guess i'm a relativist, so you will have to specify the individual concerned and, if not human, i would have to anthropomorphize that individual, (like jeff-ray-ray's avatar). perhaps the first single cellular creature to absorb another single cellular creature's plasma into itself, thereby causing the "death" of the second creature could be considered evil -- if you accept that they were really "alive" and anthropomorphized their condition into human terms, but saying that is quite a stretch. would a lion killing a gazelle be considered "evil"? from the gazelle's point-of-view, perhaps. what if a lion kills another lion? if you anthropomorphize the lions, then perhaps it would be, since this is against their "natural order", but it might be necessary for survival. what about a shark eating a human swimmer? is the shark evil? if you say the shark is not evil, then you probably define "evil" as something that only applies to humans, probably as moral agents and free will and stuff. i have another concern about the use of the word "evil". as i said, it is an abstraction, it is not an attribute. if someone murders an innocent, is he evil? was he evil before the murder? what about when he was an infant? was hitler an evil baby? would it be morally acceptable to kill that baby that didn't do anything? i think the term "evil" is just an abstraction about what the person did in life to raise an emotional state which is unrelated to reasoning. without living observers, there is no one to apply labels, so an action isn't "evil", since there is no one to create an emotional state around the event. however, humans have a wide capacity of immagination and we can apply emotional reactions to long distant events. we could feel that an event was "evil" or "good" even though we were not present or affected at all by that event. we can then apply labels of "good" and "evil" to historical events.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

sheepdog
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 118

Posted 06/04/06 - 04:51 AM:	#4
Jeff-ray-ray wrote: I also have yet to see a purely good or evil act, so I can't seem to agree that there even is such a thing as evil. So how do you make choices? Are you saying there is not "purely" evil but there is that which is somewhat evil? So this is relativism -- states are more or less evil depending upon the comparison?
"Him that I love, I wish to be free -- even from me." -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh

sheepdog
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 118

Posted 06/04/06 - 05:01 AM:	#5
swstephe wrote: i generally think the terms "good" and "evil" are used by individuals to apply abstract mental states to other individuals or events which hurt or destroy them. Disagree. I am not Jewish and was not harmed by the holocaust, yet I recognize it clearly as evil. without living observers, there is no one to apply labels, so an action isn't "evil", since there is no one to create an emotional state around the event. Yes, if evil does not represent anything concrete. But if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Just because there is no one there to hear it, the sound is still produced. Suppose there were a planet full of people somewhere else and another alien force planted a doomsday weapon on the planet and then left. And sometime later the planet was blown up and all residing there killed instantly. Those who died would not be aware of their demises. Those who killed them would not be aware of the deaths. No one else would be aware of what happened. So is that therefore not evil? It seems to me that this could be the rationalization of a criminal mind (present company excluded, of course). "If no one knows about what I do, then it isn't wrong."
"Him that I love, I wish to be free -- even from me." -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh

Jeff-ray-ray
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 06/04/06 - 06:41 PM:	#6
sheepdog wrote: So how do you make choices? Are you saying there is not "purely" evil but there is that which is somewhat evil? So this is relativism -- states are more or less evil depending upon the comparison? There are things that appear evil, but I can't declare anything evil until I see an absolute.
The paradox we experience is that we feel separate and lacking something, and yet there is nothing to gain. In acquiring naturalness in the situation, we need to become lessthan more. It seems as if we are developing and advancing which we are in a relativesense but we do this by removing misunderstanding and our own ideas of how weshould do something. This is why we need relational attitudes such as acceptance, trust,and reliance more on our felt experience than our understanding. We must live the paradox. ---Zen and the Art of Archery

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2151

Posted 06/04/06 - 07:10 PM:	#7
sheepdog wrote: Disagree. I am not Jewish and was not harmed by the holocaust, yet I recognize it clearly as evil. only because you empathize with the victims. you set up an mental state and an emotional reaction to what happened to them in order to protect your self, your loved ones, your community. however, there were people at that time, (and a small set of individuals in modern times), who have reversed their mental state and saw the victims as evil. sheepdog wrote: Yes, if evil does not represent anything concrete. But if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Just because there is no one there to hear it, the sound is still produced. Suppose there were a planet full of people somewhere else and another alien force planted a doomsday weapon on the planet and then left. And sometime later the planet was blown up and all residing there killed instantly. Those who died would not be aware of their demises. Those who killed them would not be aware of the deaths. No one else would be aware of what happened. So is that therefore not evil? It seems to me that this could be the rationalization of a criminal mind (present company excluded, of course). "If no one knows about what I do, then it isn't wrong." again, it is evil to you if you empathize with the aliens on the planet. you have set up a mental state of the aliens on the doomed planet being innocent and empathized with them. what if this was the planet of xenomorphs, (from the movie 'alien'), which would be a direct threat to any other planet they came in contact with, even, ultimately you yourself. would blowing up the planet where evil aliens come from be justified? would not blowing up the planet and helping them survive and explore the galaxy be justified? what if the aliens on the doomed planet were essentially good, but in 100 years, their evolution would bring about the destruction or enslavement of a 1000 other worlds, including this earth. lets say that you could destroy the planet today, but not after 10 more years because their technology would be too far advanced, (when they remember to cover up that exhaust port on the death star, for example). wouldn't destroying the same planet be considered "good" for the 1000 planets you saved? this is why i like, (but suck at), those ethical delimas. there are so many cases where a set of restrictions can make every ethical choice unacceptable, indicating that there are rarely, if any, truly absolute good or evil actions. as for your tree making sound, sorry to the buddhists, but "sound" is defined as "a vibration, as perceived by the sense of hearing". since the term "sound" depends heavily on the perception of an observer, then the answer is "no", a tree doesn't make a sound if there is no one to hear it. but the tree does make a vibration, whether or not there is someone to hear it. likewise, the act of blowing up planets with doomsday events is absolute, but the "evilness" or "goodness" of the event is up to the observer's perception of the event.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

sheepdog
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 118

Posted 06/04/06 - 08:38 PM:	#8
Jeff-ray-ray wrote: There are things that appear evil, but I can't declare anything evil until I see an absolute. The absolute is all that you see. The real is the absolute. Evil is a concept and cannot be absolute except as a concept. But like many concepts it models the absolute. Good/evil are dualities that model the absolute -- approximately since there are no dualites in reality, I admit. But the approximation is useful. Now all you have to do is decide which side of the real spectrum you choose to apply the model to.
"Him that I love, I wish to be free -- even from me." -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh

sheepdog
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 20, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 118

Posted 06/04/06 - 09:02 PM:	#9
swstephe wrote: likewise, the act of blowing up planets with doomsday events is absolute, but the "evilness" or "goodness" of the event is up to the observer's perception of the event. I understand where you are coming from. But I suggest, with respect, that you haven't followed your argument to its conclusion. Suppose we accept what you say, that "All evil/good is relative, and any perception of evil is therefore equivalent." The problem with this position is that it consumes itself. What I mean by this is that, if one accepts the idea, for instance, that blowing up an inhabited planet can be understood as good and not evil, then that implies that it is a desirable or reinforcable or promotable activity. But the activity itself destroys those who might act in such a way. The activity consumes those who act or might act thusly. And to promote it is to increase its influence and effect, which leads to more planets being destroyed, and so on, until there are no more planets to be destroyed. So to take your position is to support the elimination of your position, like a worm consuming its own tail. It is the destructive nature of the act -- destructive of real things -- that identifies what is evil. An act is evil when it in some way tends to destroy the actor or other potential actors, directly or indirectly. The universe exists because there is a balance in favor of creation. We model this tendency by the concept "good". There is a competing tendency toward annihilation which we model as evil. The very possibility that you may label what is actually good as evil is a product of the actual predominance of good. That said, certainly I agree that people are fallible and can easily mistake evil for good and vice versa. But our perceptions do not determine what is good and what is evil. All we can do is hope to perceive correctly.
"Him that I love, I wish to be free -- even from me." -- Anne Morrow Lindbergh

Jeff-ray-ray
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 06/04/06 - 09:04 PM:	#10
sheepdog wrote: The absolute is all that you see. The real is the absolute. Evil is a concept and cannot be absolute except as a concept. But like many concepts it models the absolute. Good/evil are dualities that model the absolute -- approximately since there are no dualites in reality, I admit. But the approximation is useful. Now all you have to do is decide which side of the real spectrum you choose to apply the model to. but what is this "evil" act that is so evil that it produces no good?
The paradox we experience is that we feel separate and lacking something, and yet there is nothing to gain. In acquiring naturalness in the situation, we need to become lessthan more. It seems as if we are developing and advancing which we are in a relativesense but we do this by removing misunderstanding and our own ideas of how weshould do something. This is why we need relational attitudes such as acceptance, trust,and reliance more on our felt experience than our understanding. We must live the paradox. ---Zen and the Art of Archery

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.