Does evil actually exist? Or is it a subjective concept based

File: Dutroux.jpg (56KB, 634x474px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 634x474px

>>3332708
>Does evil actually exist?
Yes.

>>3332708
Evil is mostly subjective but the vast majority of humanity, present and past, can agree on certain things instinctually. Killing other people without the Big Man On Top's permission or a reasonable casus belli, for example. Taking other people's things when the rest of the group doesn't want you to. Raping someone's property.

As an interpretation, yes.
As an absolute state? I have yet to be convinced.

Yes and no. Evil people do exist and I have met some of them, but I dont think it is an overarching force in the universe. Some people are just pieces of shit.

>>3332708

People here don't even know the difference between ethics and morality

morality is subjective but ETHICS is totally objective, and thus being unethical is what you would call evil

>>3332744
Are you goofin' us?

>>3332751

>he has no code of ethics and his decisions are made out of pure moral sentimentalism

that's why people don't like you and avoids you, nobody likes a unethical guy, not even unethical people

>>3332744
But ethics change over time, its subjective

File: thisloliismad.jpg (119KB, 839x835px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 839x835px

Evil is that which you don't want.
So yes, it exists and surrounds us all time.

When will you rise and fight against it?

File: 1401274998803.png (584KB, 1400x2700px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 1400x2700px

>>3332708
>Does evil actually exist?
Yes.

>>3332708
What exactly is evil?

>>3333051
Could it be that ethics change only because our knowledge changes?

>>3332708

We recognize evil when we see it, even when said evil is basically in agreement with our ethics. This suggests there is more to evil than simply "stuff I don't like", but to WHAT evil is, it seems to be the same "kind" of thing as beauty or justice are, they're abstractions and the standards for these things change over time but it's hard to say they're truly "subjective" because there is so much overlap between the conceptions f these things among diverse people and cultures. Most likely being able to detect evil (or beauty or justice) serves a useful evolutionary purpose, but that's not a very satisfying answer.

>>3333104
Would that mean that ethics are subjective and based off current culture and knowledge?

>>3333104

Name me a subjective belief that changes for any reason other than thru changes in our knowledge.

File: god is good-ish.png (1MB, 1063x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1063x1536px

>>3333094

Well done, you have successfully repeated OP's question. Now, how about attempting an answer?

>>3333089

The Demiurge is to blame not because his intentions were bad (like you say, he wanted to create something beautiful) but because he stole the Divine Power he needed to create humans and keeps us bound in a cycle of reincarnation and promulgates false religions to maintain his cosplaying as a god, even after his Daddy (the Unknowable Self-Contained) told him to stop.

>>3332708
>>2

>>3333241

All cultures abhor the murder of women and children, even those cultures that practice ritual murder still consider the non-sacral murder of innocents to be "evil".

>>3332708
Yes, evil does exist, and only humans are capable to do evil things, because we are the only creatures that posess self-reflection. There are a lot of people that say evil can't exist because the nature is indifferent, but a lion killing the cubs of a competitor is not the same as a man killing the sons of another man. The lion does not posess self-reflection and can not know it is doing something evil. The man can.

The defintion of evil is also pretty easy, everything that causes sufferage is evil. There are obviously some necessary evils like killing a mass shooter. So basically we have to put those kind of exception into the defintion, so evil is every action that causes sufferage, except those that are supposed to prevent even greater sufferage.

>>3332708
It's entirely subjective.

>>3333248
The Aztecs sacrificed innocent children and women and thought it was good

File: Edgemaster.jpg (154KB, 680x992px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 680x992px

>>3333255

>>3333266
How am I wrong. OBJECTIVELY prove to me anything is wrong. You can't.

>>3333253

I agree almost completely, except that sufferage is not a synonym for suffering and is not, in general, something I would oppose. Of course there are monarchists and such who think sufferage was an evil thing, but most of us enjoy being able to vote.

>>3333260
>non-sacral

Find me the society that encouraged the non-sacral murder of women and children.

>>3333253

>The defintion of evil is also pretty easy, everything that causes sufferage is evil.

I see you hate democracy.

>>3333267

You now that God exists. QED, you know objective truth exists.

>>3333277

Tons of societies encouraged doing it to out-groups. It was par for the course to do it to your enemies.

>>3333274

Not that fag but no, necessary evils are still evil.

>>3333253
So an act of evil that prevents further harm and suffering isn't evil?

File: Tipper.gif (2MB, 312x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 312x250px

>>3333267
>something cant be true unless its proven!
>prove to me that murder is wrong!

>>3333284

You should have no trouble finding me one, them. Protip: Tribes kill the men but they enslave / adopt / marry the women and small children. Well unless a priest convinces them their God told them to genocide them all, of course, but religion is the mindkiller.

>>3333290

See >>3333287

>>3333274
Well first of all I meant suffering, not suffrage. Sorry for that.

No, that would not be evil. A doctor cutting a person open with a scalpel is obviously something else than a murderer cutting a victim open with his knife.

>>3333294
not an argument

>>3333287
But if the end result of not committing the act of evil would be worse than the act itself, and the outcome is good and beneficial to all, is it not objectively a good thing? Wouldn't that make evil subjective?

File: HELL.png (2MB, 1300x1158px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1300x1158px

>>3333312

>>3333277

Why do the motives matter? Is killing innocent women and children not objectively wrong?

>>3333359

Well we aren't omniscient so we can't really take future consequences into account except by inference. But even with a crazed gunman shooting cops, killing him is STILL an evil act, just one that might be necessary.

>>3333384
So it isn't good to prevent further killings?

>>3333376

Killing is objectively wrong but religion can convince people to do things they know are evil by rephrasing it as a "meta-good", ie, that you are pleasing God by doing it.

>>3333397

Not for you, no. Good for the future victims, sure. But you still carry the evil of the killing, even tho you may feel perfectly justified and be acclaimed as a hero in the media.

>>3333127
Would our ethics change if we possessed all the relevant knowledge from the start?

>>3333359
You might think that, but it is really not. You can name any scenario you want where evil is seemingly subjective and I can explain how it is actually objective.

>>3333408

Not that fag but no. How we react would certainly change, but how we feel about it, morally, wouldn't.

>>3333412
How is evil defined?

>>3333420

He already told you, that which causes suffering.

>>3333406
But if it was good for the future victims and everyone views it as heroic then it was good, evil but good. So, isn't evil subjective?

>>3332744
>ethics is objective
No

>>3333399
Is abortion wrong?

>>3333426
"everything that causes sufferage is evil", from the original response to the OP, yes, but why?

Also, suffrage for whom? the victim?

How do you define suffrage?

If I wax my legs, for example, I will feel pain (since they've never been shaved or waxed before, I will likely feel a great deal of pain). Am I suffering? Is that act evil?

>>3333220
MUH FEFES GOD IS A MEANY BECAUSE I THINK I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROJECT MUH MISINTERPRETATIONS AND PETTY SENSE OF MORALITY ONTO A PERFECT BEING ;CCCCC

>>3333430

No it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. Like to cut someone with a knife is evil because it causes suffering, but a doctor cutting you open to get at a tumor is doing you a good, even tho he himself is doing a necessary evil.

>>3333436

Wrong? That's subjective. Evil? Yes, unless the life of the mother is at risk.

>>3333451
Why is any cause of suffering evil? Where did you obtain this definition?

>>3333442

Yes, albeit a very puny one you happily accept for the good of having a better social standing thru your attention to grooming.

>>3333451
> a doctor cutting you open to get at a tumor is doing you a good, even tho he himself is doing a necessary evil.

That is still an objectively good thing, so an evil act can be good.

Is evil inherently bad?

>>3333459

Suffering is evil.

>>3333454
>killing is evil because i sed so
Back to r*ddit

>>3333468

No, an act can be both good and evil at once. They're not really opposites, almost, but there is some overlap in cases where the good and evil are done to the same person.

>>3333454
So if the life of the mother is at risk an evil act is no longer evil, doesn't that mean that the evil associated with the act is subjective?

>>3333472
Why? And how is suffering defined?

>>3333463
What use, then, is labeling things evil or good, if any random small act might be evil or good? What purpose does it serve?

>>3333479

No its STILL evil, what part of "necessary evil" don';t you understand? The idea is that the good that an act does can "outweigh" the evil of the act itself, but that doesn't make the ACT good, just the aggregate OUTCOME.

>>3333486
But if the outcome is good the act is objectively a good thing

>>3333481

Evil is not a binary, there are gradations of evil. The pain you cause when waxing a friend's leg is an evil, and you will probably wince sympathetically or even offer an apology because you KNOW it was evil. But the good you are offering your friend outweighs the evil of your action, resulting in a net good, and is thus a necessary evil.

>>3333494

The act and the outcome aren't the same thing. Why would you even assume they are? Causal relationship? Then everything that ever happened is the same thing.

>>3333498
That does not answer my question, it simply adds yet another facet to the definition

>an act is evil if it causes suffering
>some acts of evil are necessary
>if the outcome of an act is good, the act itself may still be considered evil
>there are gradations of evil

What is the use of the definition?
You say it is objective. How so? Is it inherent in all living things, or what?
What is suffering? How do you define suffering?

>>3333518

It's objective in the sense that everyone know it. Even the masochist knows his suffering is evil, that's why he gets off on it, but to him the good of his sexual release outweighs the evil he knows he is doing to himself.

>>3333539
What do you mean by "knows" it? On a subconscious level?

Also, does this only pertain to humans? Does it only apply to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens? Why does everyone "know"? Is it hard-coded into our genetics? Do we realize it immediately after birth?

>>3333539
So if evil isn't inherently bad, isn't defining something as evil meaningless?

>>3333518
Suffering is subjective, but the act of making someone suffer is not.

You should also see the difference between a priori and a posteriori ethics. Obviously you can not always know if your action is going to cause more suffering than you are trying to prevent. But that doesnt change the fact that a posteriori that act can be seen as objectively evil.

>>3333550
This. Why does it matter if something causes suffering or not, if an evil act could be as little as one that causes the slightest bruise?

>>3333558
So no action one may take is evil, but any action taken may or may not be evil, depending on whether or not it causes suffering?

Murder is not evil unless it causes suffering, then. I may murder someone completely painlessly, with no suffering, and that is not evil.

>>3333548

No, on a conscious level as well as an instinctual level. It is a product of our ability to self-reflect, so the other close relatives of modern humans were probably capable of evil too. Even very small infants are repulsed and shocked by violence and other very overt manifestations of evil.

>>3333550
>>3333563

It matters because we feel it. Whether you want to commit a necessary evil for a greater good or just stand by and hope someone else comes to help is a personal call, but we feel the outcome whether we want to or not, and carry the consequences of our actions whether we are heroes or villains.

>>3333539
>everyone knows it
Not objective
>suffering is evil
Wrong

>>3333576
You are incorrect, then. I am not consciously aware of "evil" as you define it, and I am a modern human.

You say every modern human (and probably close relatives) consciously knows that something is evil. I am modern human. I do not know this. Therefore, you are incorrect.

>>3333582
Why would I care that someone who got a paper cut? I don't feel it. Even if I did I wouldn't care. It's just a paper cut. According to this, it's evil.

>>3333587
a modern human*

>>3333582
Is standing by and doing nothing in the face of evil evil?

If you don't feel something is evil, is it still evil?

>>3333597
>If you don't feel something is evil, is it still evil?
This. You say we are all aware of evil. If we do not know it, it must not be evil.

>>3333587

If you cause suffering you feel guilt. This is because you know what you did was evil. This guilt might be trivial and fleeting, as when you wax a friends leg, or it might be haunting and traumatic, like when you shoot the kid with the gun who is killing schoolkids. This guilt might be assuaged with the virtue of having prevented further evil, or by the pleasure of reinforcing social bonds, which are the goods that outweigh the evil of your actions.

>>3333597

Inaction is not an action.

>>3333608
Yes it is you stupid dualist

>>3333602

Well when I say "everyone knows", I am not including the "morally blind", aka, psychopaths. If I say "everyone knows what red is", showing me a blind man is not a refutation. The action itself can still be evil, even if you yourself lack the part of your brain that informs you of this fact.

>>3333615
>morally blind
So this is the power of enlightenment 'philosophy'...

>>3333612

Then "action" simply means "chain of causality".

File: Bonhoeffer.jpg (28KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 403x403px

>>3333612
+1

>>3333621

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

>>3333608
Its a choice, is choosing not to save someone when you are capable of saving them evil?

>>3333629
>refusing food when hungry is, itself, hunger.

>>3333633

You either do something, which can be good or evil, or you do nothing,which is neither.

File: 22b.jpg (33KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x500px

>>3333635
>choosing to refuse a meal is not a choice

>>3333637
So watching suffering isn't evil, even if you can prevent it? Is it evil to enjoy watching someone suffer?

>>3333643

It's a choice but it's not an action. Why do you assume those are synonyms?

>>3333645

No but it is characteristic of evil people and so a trait to be wary of. Most people are repulsed by bullies and sadists because they know such behavior is evil.

>>3333399
>killing is objectively wrong

Prove it.

>>3333671

You know it is. What are you asking me for, a mind-reading machine to confirm what everyone knows, that you KNOW killing is wrong?

File: 1445491954635.jpg (587KB, 1024x993px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1024x993px

>>3333659
a choice is an action because it is a catalyst

>>3333680
You have said literally nothing.

Prove that I shouldn't kill someone.

>>3333668
Well this is more proof that evil is subjective

Some people would believe that watching someone suffer when you can prevent it is evil, others would say enjoying the suffering of others is evil, your moral code allows you to view these actions as not evil

Is it evil to burn food while starving people watch you?

>>3333685

Then "action" merely means "chain of causality". Action requires intent, a rock falls, it does not act to cause itself to fall but is merely ACTED upon. A man throws a rock, the man acts to cause the rock to fall and is the one who acts upon. An observer neither acts nor is acted upon, except in the trivial causal sense.

>>3333690

The proof is that you now it would be wrong. Ask me to prove that you know you're not omniscient.

>>3333705

Some people are evil, but most people are good. Evil is causing suffering, most people, even evil people, know what evil is and would know that burning food in front of starving people is evil, they may still do so because they are evil people, but they still know it is evil, they just don't care.

>>3333729
But you didn't cause them to starve, thus suffer, and choosing to not help has already been established as not being evil so, is it evil?

>>3333294
Murdering bad people is right, not wrong. Checkmate drumpf

>regressing points when proven wrong

>>3333744

You didn't make them hungry but you caused them anguish, which is mental suffering. It's not as evil as starving them by taking their food, but it's still a minor evil.

>>3333754
So if you simply throw the food away out of their sight and watch them continue to suffer, you aren't evil and you aren't doing an evil thing?

>>3333762

Correct. Likewise, if you gave them your food, you know this would be a good thing.

>>3333762
>>3333768
>aren't doing an evil thing

If you simply don't care you aren't doing anything, if you watch them suffer while not caring them you are engaging in behavior typical of evil people, but you're still not actually doing anything evil.

>>3333571
Okay, lets say you find someone who has absoluetely nobody who would miss him, and you give him sleeping pills without his knowing and then murder him in his sleep.

Now you have to further define if that person wanted to die, or if it didnt want to die.

If that person wanted to die, then killing it painlessly might be not evil, depending on if the reason it wants to die is suffering, for example due to a chronic sickness, and not the person being mentally Handicaped or something similar.

But if the person does not want to die it doesnt matter in what way you kill him, because dying is in itself a kind of suffering. Generally, nobody wants to die, the same way nobody wants to feel pain. So dying is im itself a form of suffering seperate from physical pain. Pain might lead up to the moment of death, but the moment of death is a suffering even if no pain was involved. So by causing somebodys death, you are always causing suffering. Killing somebody painfully would just be an additional, second way of suffering.

>>3333768
And others would say it is evil, that would mean evil is subjective based on your own moral compass

>>3333782

Call what evil? The failure to act? Then they are guilty of the same evil, as is literally everyone on Earth. Not helping might be cowardly, it might be hateful, it might be motivated by anything, but it is not an action and so causes nothing.

>>3333791
Inaction cause preventable suffering, this is evil.

Even in that rush song they say "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice". Evil is subjective, something that I feel to be evil, that I know is evil is something you don't think or feel is evil. The same can be said for any " evil" thing.

>>3333811

Inaction does not cause. Inaction is choosing not to cause. This can be a reflection of an unpleasant character, or a defective of self-actualization, but in any case it not a cause.

>>3333824
Its still evil to let something bad happen when you can prevent it

>>3333791
I wouldnt say so, not taking an action that reduces suffering is equally evil. However, it can be harder to judge, because everybodys top priority is one owns suffering. So if somebody is starving, and you have so much food you have to throw some of it away it is obviously evil to not give the starving one the food you are throwing away, since giving it to them doesnt increase anybodys suffering while reducing it for the starving one.

If you however have barely enough for yourself it is not evil if you are not willing to put yourself into half-starvation. You might reduce the suffering of the starving one, but you are increasing your own suffering for it.

>>3333829

It could be a reflection of an evil or weak nature but it is not in itself evil. Most people will feel guilty about not helping when they know they can, because they know that helping would be good.

File: 1504238325643.png (112KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x500px

>>3333707
not acting requires the intention not to act and an observer chooses to remain an observer because people have will power and are not objects like rocks

>>3333707
The thing is not chain of causality but choice.
Off the top of my head if a person a) knows and is fully aware about something and b) can act then that person is morally responsible for what happens
I.e. if someone is about to drown and a bystander a) can see that and b) can save them then that bystander is morally responsible

>>3333747
How do you know they are bad if they haven't had a trial?

>>3333841
Well that's your opinion on a subjective topic

>>3333839
>I wouldnt say so, not taking an action that reduces suffering is equally evil.

Then everyone is equally guilty of every evil action ever committed. To sit idly by while suffering is happening right in front of you does not reflect well upon your character, but you are not doing anything that is either good or evil.

>>3333842

Intentions are not actions either.

>an observer chooses to remain an observer because people have will power and are not objects like rocks

>people decide things because they are capable of making decisions. Also, rocks can't think.

Still not an action.

>>3333844

That person will know that helping the person would be good, while jeering at them would be evil. Doing nothing is neither, tho it might tell you something about the person ho choses not to do good at little or no cost to himself.

File: Any?.jpg (37KB, 256x235px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 256x235px

>>3333860
deciding something is an action because it materially alters reality

>>3333872

Then every interaction is an action. You are acting right now by using your eyes to read these words. The word becomes meaningless.

>>3333853
As i said this depends on if helping increases your own suffering or risk to do so. If standing up against the nazis because they are killing jews might mean that you will be killed along them it is not evil if you stay passive. Obviously, everybodys own suffering is the most important one.

Things get hard to judge when it comes to less extreme examples. For example, is it evil to Spend money on an expensive car while other people dont have enough to eat?

File: *snap*.png (209KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 1000x1000px

>>3333877
>inter/actions/ are actions
exactly.

>>3333886
>For example, is it evil to Spend money on an expensive car while other people dont have enough to eat?

I don't see how it could be. Helping hungry people is good, as most people feel. Starving people is evil, again as most people feel. Not doing either is neither.

File: humpty-dumpty.jpg (60KB, 235x342px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 235x342px

>>3333890

Option B: According to the in-ought problem, it is not possible to infer logically a moral conviction from any empirical fact

>>3333914

Proving that logic, and all assorted symbol games such as language, are a crude approximation of reality-as-she-is. When facts and truths collide, always pick facts.

File: (You).jpg (127KB, 428x392px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 428x392px

>>3333900

>>3333927
>blue board

DELET THIS GURO MOOOODS

File: autism.png (51KB, 338x288px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 338x288px

>>3333930

>>3333709
I know that I should kill people.

Prove me wrong.

File: trigger.jpg (37KB, 446x602px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 446x602px

>>3333930
just some examples of evil to get the conversation flowing

>>3333626
>causality
Nice meme kid

>>3333635
Misinterpretation. Fullness is a state of hunger, as is hungerness. The misconception that the lack of something specific is somehow not a state of that thing is a dualist meme.

>>3333707
>causality
Drop this meme.
An action is a state of being defined by being done. The rejection of a thing is itself an action regarding a thing, as the acceptance of a thing is an action regarding.

>>3333434

You marxists like to masturbate to Hegel and not even understand why hegel proves that ethics is objective (yeah, marxists think they are the ultimate form of hegel synthesis, they are that retarded)

>>3333399
>>3333260

>giving examples of shit tier cultures as the ultimate ethics

The most important point of ethics is that it knowledge keeps improving towards perfection, and ding ding ding, through knowledge we can know more and more about ethics, the fact that you feel that those cultures were doing wrong is proof of this

it's impossible to argue that western civilization is at equal foot than any shit-tier ancient culture, western civilization is more advanced, and has a better code of ethics, and through that code of ethics itself you can know that those cultures were lower in ethics.

Probably in the future the ethics will improve further and further, along with the basic requirements of every citizen. That's why you see in latin america full of unethical evil people, and in first world countries you see tons of good natured people

>inb4 some wild anarcho primitivist starts arguing against this

>>3333824

Inaction is against our western ethics

Even some practical mundane code of ethics of some schools of professionals say explicity that you have to act, keeping quiet and ignoring is unethical

Humans and other animals have some very basic moral systems built in to them("fairness" to an extent, mercy, and so on, although its restricted normally to members of the same species and sometimes family or group). Killing is clearly something most humans regard as evil, its not something humans are really good at dealing with either(despair from mortality, PTSD existing since forever, and so on).

To answer, I would say both. Evil does exist, and some people commit evil acts. It is often used by demagogues in order to manipulate others into achieving their goals, a la propaganda.

A lot of morality is more instinctual than people think. Amygdalic and hypothalamic impulses show this. These parts of the brain are ancient, and our prefrontal cortexes are relatively new, having significantly fewer connections than the other older brain structures.


more abstract concepts I dont know.

>>3333444
Haha, yeah, you tell him that your god can't be judged, then he can't judge him! Arguments sure are easy when you're a Christian.

>>3334870
God is beyond judgement. He is not my God, He is the God of all. You use this language because you have been tricked, so tricked that you cannot see that you have been tricked, and so on. This sick logic was understood once, but you idolaters now worship that same logic. Behold!, for, I have eaten that Fruit, and am now as the gods!

>>3333333

File: 1461616845633.png (247KB, 432x313px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 432x313px

>>3333089
This one always makes me laugh

I miss when /x/ made actual quality memes

>>3333399
So everyone agrees that capital punishment and abortion are objectively wrong then?

File: Opinions.gif (85KB, 576x810px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 576x810px

Good and evil can only exist with respect to some ideological goal (peace, stability, etc).

In that sense the structures of morality are subjective, but within that context you can measurably deduct some degree of good or evil.

>>3332708
Sounds like a spook

>>3333089
>Gnostics having a good/evil dichotomy
Dermuige is a flawed being who fucked up making this world. Calling him evil would be like calling moot evil everytime he fucks up.

File: 1491648418822.png (337KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1144x888px

>>3333094
fuck off moral relativist

>>3336037
>Gnostics having a good/evil dichotomy
Plenty of Gnostics subscribe to a good/evil dichotomy.
That dichotomy was central to both the Manichaens and the Marcionites and is a perfectly valid position to hold.

>calling moot evil
>moot
Abit out of touch with things, friendo?

>>3336074
Too bad both are not considered gnostic, especially the Manchieans coz of their lack of esotericism ala claim to secret knowledge. Even marconites' concept of 'evil' (particularly how the material is inferior not opposite of the spiritual) closer to the good/bad dichotomy than the good/evil one

>moot
I use him specficially coz he was very young and inexperienced when he created 4chan compared to hiro who has a more sinister past with regards to 2ch