August 5, 2013
-
Does Pure Evil Exist?
Here’s something I haven’t seen discussed for a while:
Does Evil Exist?
Evil is defined as : Immoral, wicked, harmful, disastrous, bad, ill-reputed, etc., etc. Or the cause of the above.
You will notice that these pejorative terms are all pretty much culture-linked, that is what is considered evil seems to depend on the culture so that while each society has its list of evils, they don’t necessarily agree – and in fact may be at odds with each other.
Islamism today is a good example. We consider the terrorist insurgents and religious terrorists as evil but they do not so regard themselves – As they see it, they are freedom fighters doing Allah’s will.
One aspect of evil is the idea that a person or persons willfully and deliberately violate their culture’s moral tenants – that is commit acts that they know are considered evil just to “be evil”; but even this kind of act is often for a purpose which the person feels is desirable or good : To gain admission to a group or to please God, or because the person is psychotic. (Can psychotics be evil?)
This raises the question of the existence of Absolute Evil – Is there any act or idea so evil that it is so universally condemned that no one would do it?
Comments (10)
To first respond to the blog itself before dealing with the final question.“Islamism” is not the best example. Not every aspect of “Islamism” or political Islam is violent or oppressive in nature or discernment.Who is this “we” you speak of? Do you deign to speak for all humane men? I for one do not consider Muslim militants to be evil. Misguided and mistaken I have little doubt but not evil. They are but men after all and barbarians to boot, but more of the latter later. Were the allied bombers evil for bombing Germany or Japan? Are machine guns evil in comparison to swords? Moot questions I know, as it seems are all moral questions but then, that is what concerns us here.Regarding your final question, whether an act is so evil that it is universally condemned does not mean that no one would carry it out. That is evident from living history or even a perusal of relatively recent newspapers.In a nutshell, evil is to deliberately go against one’s conscience or moral discernment, possible for all capable sentient beings, although its clarity is dependent on mitigating conditions or circumstance.Thus, the possibility, if not of necessity the actuality, exists for such moral clarity to be absolute, which individuals each recognise the same act as evil within its essence and not just in incidentals.Such an universally discerned evil as such by those capable of doing so, can be said to be a universal evil, an absolute evil.However, not one to use a hundred words when a thousand will suffice, I continue my thought on absolute or universal evil, or indeed, goodness on my own site, referring to your own blog of course.
@Lovegrove - Thanks for your thoughtful reply (which was apparently posted twice – I deleted the first)I wish you would give an example of what you see as an absolute or universal evil – as an abstract idea – such as murder, in all its definitions.
@Lovegrove - I did have to make changes to my comment a couple of times and because you do not allow editing of comments, I had to copy paste the comment, alter and save and then delete the previous comment. I seem to have neglected to delete the previous copy on the last time I did that. As the German spy (played by Hugh laurie)said when apologizing in an episode of Black Adder: “please to accept my apple logies”.I would say that to deliberate cause avoidable pain and suffering to others merely for one;s own twisted pleasure would be an example of a universal evil that would be condemned by all and sundry capable of discerning the morality involved.
@Socrates_Cafe - Murder and theft are not of necessity more evil than good, as examples in the blog I’m preparing indicate.
@Socrates_Cafe - The said blog has been completed and posted.
@Lovegrove - At first glance your suggestion that “… to deliberate cause avoidable pain and suffering to others merely for one;s own twisted pleasure” is a good example of absolute evil – but would hat not include almost all contact sports e.g. boxing, football,etc?
@Socrates_Cafe - If we leave aside such activities as contact sports, the example remains. But I will add that what happens often in contact sports, such as deliberately badly tackling an opponent, is a form of evil.
@Socrates_Cafe - If you qualify it by saying something like “a non-consenting other,” that should address the idea of contact sports or sadomasochistic activities between consenting adults. (Also, I would think most people in contact sports cause pain for the sake of the competition, rather than just to hurt another human being. Though, there are people who may just like making another people feel pain–but even those people shouldn’t be viewed as doing an evil act if it’s within the confines of an activity where the participants have consented to being hit/hurt.)
Reading this post, it seems to me that you are linking the idea of the non-existence of evil to moral relativism. I’m not so sure the two must go together. Someone like Jonathan Dancy, or other moral particularists, might think the two ideas can absolutely be distinct.I’m no moral philosopher, but I personally doubt this concept of absolute evil. While I believe humans can do atrocious things and have atrocious belief systems, I think labeling things like this as “absolute evil” is the easy way out. Human behavior has explanations. Now, providing explanations isn’t excusing the behavior (though sometimes it may), but it helps us understand why people can do terrible things.The closest I can think of to something that might be traditionally viewed as “evil” is psychopaths and their inability to empathize at times with others. But there’s growing evidence that this sort of behavior is a sort of biological defect that can be passed on genetically. It’s hard for me to label a biological inability to fully empathize with others as evil. Though, these sorts of people are definitely more dangerous to the other parts of the human population.As for acts that should not be committed: I’m probably not an absolutist, but I think there are plenty of appealing deontological or utilitarian theories on acts that should and should not be done.
Don’t you mean no one except someone who is pure evil itself?