As for the second paragraph, a traditional Christian understanding is this:
Humanity was created innocent, without knowledge of good or evil. Upon discovering good and evil, humanity became, like God, capable of choosing between what is good and what is evil, but unlike God whose nature ensured goodness humans were free to choose evil and therefore fell into evil because of their transgressions against God. It's much more complicated than that, but ultimately from an Arminian (one Protestant background) theological perspective the existence of free will is the reason for evil in the world; although perfectly good, humans in order to be human and not mere automatons created by a capricious, controlling God had to be able to choose, and frequently chose (and choose) evil. Calvinists are a little different, but I'm not going to try to explain theodicy from a Calvinist perspective since I disagree with Calvin too much. I'm not sure what the Catholic and Orthodox positions on this are; I'm guessing Catholics and Lutherans tend to be more Arminian, and I don't know enough to speak for the Orthodox tradition.
Which leads me to the first paragraph; evil exists because it is deviation from God's will. Being free creatures, humans can choose to commit evil. Evil is not, for a Christian, a social or even ethical judgement, though it is often understood in such terms and actions can become justified by their contexts (stealing bread so as not to starve, for example, versus stealing an iPod because your mom won't buy you one), but rather a matter of deviating from the plan of God for creation. Hence, a traditional Christian perspective on evil is one that says that all improper action- the harm of the neighbor, for example- is sin and by consequence evil.
Islam and Judaism, to my knowledge, have very similar concepts of evil, though obviously there are significant differences between each as much as there is conflict within the Christian traditions at large.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the input, much appreciated! My question though is: who created evil? If you can follow evil path someone has to create this path. Or it had to always exist. Or it had to appear itself. My logic:
Evil appeared itself. -> False because it is said that God created everything.
Evil always existed. -> False because 1) it would mean that there was a power who was coexisting with God, 2) it would mean God didn't create evil and it is said God created everything.
Evil was created by God. -> False because everything what God has created was good. Unless evil is good.
Comment has been collapsed.
The way I understand a traditional Christian view is that evil did not exist, then humanity, becoming capable of free will, propagated evil into the world, not necessarily as a product of the creative act but as a direct rejection of God and God's order. That seems similar to me to Augustine's conception of evil, that is, that God is the ultimate good and that which is not God or serving God or in its proper place as God's creation is evil, not as the presence of evil but rather as the absence of good. I don't necessarily entirely agree; I think there is evil beyond the free action of humanity and the absence of good. I find a place for supernatural evil in the fall of the adversary from an ordained part of creation to a position where the adversary became offensive to God by seeking to corrupt humanity away and was cast out of heaven for it. For a time, this adversary has the power to sway humanity, but ultimately will be trampled underfoot in a display of God's sovereignty at the Eschaton. But, again, it's complicated, and Christianity has had, in its many branches, different answers over the centuries.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Islamic view of evil is similar in that particular respect. Good is what is in line with what God would like, and evil is that which deviates from what God would like. As deviation from what God would like requires freedom of choice, only those with free will (read "mankind") are capable of evil. In other words, the universe obeys God, but mankind may choose not to do so.
In Islam, it is intent which determines sin. An evil intention is considered sinful at the moment it is acted upon (regardless of outcome). Actions, by contrast, are only considered sinful when there is evil intent behind them. As knowledge is required before there can be rebellion to God, knowing that something is forbidden is a prerequisite for sin. People have a tendency to label what they like as "good" and what they do not like as "evil," but that is being short-sighted. A particular action or outcome may be "good" in one context and "evil" in another. It is a matter of whether or not the action or outcome is in "the proper place at the proper time." (e.g. taking something you have been gifted versus taking the same object when it is forbidden). Mankind rarely perceives "the big picture," hence the commonly asked question of "Why does God allow this?"
Rejection of that which is not understood for no other reason than it not being understood leads one astray.
P.S. (Muslim believe that Satan is a Jinn, not an angel. Jinn also have free will, whereas Angels do not.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Interesting.
In Christianity, there's really only God and angels as divine beings, and while it's never explicitly articulated, it's implicit that angels have free will because of the fall of angels under Satan, but then again Christian understanding of angels is a bad fusion of Second Temple Judaism's concepts with Hellenistic Gnosticism with little basis in scripture or solid theological pedagogy (for example, the doctrine of the Trinity is never clearly articulated in the Bible but can be extrapolated, without too much work, from the affirmation of the divinity of Christ and the role of the Holy Spirit, whereas, say, Calvin's interpretation of election breaks with the vast majority of historical Christian interpretation and is based on exclusively interpreting certain passages and words particular ways.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have the same thing in Islam as far as "divine beings" goes. The Jinn are beings of free will, similar to Humanity. Where Mankind is mostly material with a spiritual aspect, however, the Jinn are mostly spiritual with a material aspect. Satan held a lofty position and spent his time among the Heavenly Host before his fall, but he was never divine.
Comment has been collapsed.
There exist cruelty without any personal gain, so evil does exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to the long spoons parable, no; evil does not exist per se.
Comment has been collapsed.
Evil is in the mind of the one who perceives it. Everyone has their own ideas even if they are religious.
However personally I think most religious beliefs are just to control the people. That being said I still think there are wrong and unfair things one can do. Currently many such acts go unpunished. Even the very top elite do unfair things daily to stay in power/rich. There are many systems and ways/standards in place to control how we think. In general people are very controlled and masses are pretty unaware.
Slavery for one still exists even in western nations, it is just named differently for different people. Slavery just has taken a new form. And those in it usually don't have a voice either due being poor. Also it can be redirected elsewhere, like child labor in China.
There is a lot to talk about the subject. And a lot to read on the subject too. However since the general populace will never be as aware due many reasons, it is pretty pointless to know more yourself. Will be just sad to see how corrupt the world is and how there is nothing you can even do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Evil is a definition made for each individual. Because of that everyone will see things different. So one situation is "evil" for one, but for the other one completly ok and the next will tell you there is no such thing as evil
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, evil exists... Physical chemistry, organic chemistry and silicate's chemistry are the evidences...
Comment has been collapsed.
what about the things u feel? if u can't touch them, are they really there?
and the colours you see. are they the same colours for everyone?
and the things they tell you, are they real? or simply theories to simplify things?
or time itself, represented by a clock, but what is it, really, because sometimes, a minute drags over an hour, or a year seemed to have passed after a few days...
these are things that we perceive. we can't say it isn't there, but we can't say is does either.
some things, are just too complex for the human mind. one day, everything will be explained. but until then, enjoy the small things in life.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't belive in those things, we are humans hoomans, and hoomans don't like to be responsible for they shit actions.
So now we got like all kind of excuse for those things, but never is hooman fault. ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
If you wanted to get an objective answer there is no any. It's one of the main problems of meta-ethics and you can see how many different theories there are out there. As for second part of your post, check here.
If you wanted to get discussion around your question, you succeeded in it and I actually like it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, I see Evil kind of like Darkness or Cold. There isn't really such a thing as "Darkness". Darkness is merely the absence of light. Same with "Cold". Cold doesn't exist. Cold is just what we call the absence of heat.
Evil is the absence of Good. This actually fits with the idea that God created everything, and everything God created is Good. He didn't create Evil, because evil doesn't actually exist as a thing.
This isn't to say that you can't claim that a person or an act or a thing is evil - just like saying that cold doesn't exist doesn't mean Ice is suddenly warm and toasty. The words (darkness, cold, evil) exist to express the idea of the lack of the other (light, heat, good). So claiming that someone is evil - or that an act is evil - is merely claiming that there is a lack of goodness -- or a very low level of goodness comparatively speaking -- in them.
So just like you can say Navy Blue is darker than Sky Blue - you can say a given action is more evil than another, or a person behaves more evilly than another.
But to answer the question does evil exist, as it's own thing, it's own being - no. I don't think it does.
To learn more about the "Dark doesn't exist" thing - look up a video on YouTube's V-Sauce about the speed of Dark.
Or just click this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvcpdfGUtQ :)
Comment has been collapsed.
It probably has already been stated (didn't feel like slogging through all the previous messages), but the biggest scientific and logic consensus on the notion of good/evil and morality in general would be that they were entirely created by humans. That does not make them any less "real", however, for in fine everything we experience is not an objective truth, but rather a product of our own mind, since everything must pass through our imperfect, limited brain.
This whole matter really is about the fundemental difference between objectivity and subjectivity. To the human race, there is no such thing as an "actual" objective reality, only a myriad (over 7 billion) of subjective ones, most being most likely very similar to one another, but nonetheless having each their own particular way to perceive the world around them (and themselves obviously). For example, think about the way we see colors, since it is easy to realize how nigh on impossible it it for someone to truly know if someone else sees them the exact way they do. This fact is true of pretty much anything else we perceive and/or think about.
As such, good and evil can only be, like absolutely everything else, subjective notions. Many philosophers tend to converge towards that notion as well, notably (one of my personal favorites), Jean-Paul Sartre. I don't know how much you know about his philosophy, existentialism, but in (very) short, it is about absolute freedom of choice for each and every individual, who ideally has to (though many would like to reject that responsibility), by himself, constantly define good and evil. To Sartre, every individual action is, to the person who performs it, by definition, good. Since a person has to choose constantly what they do day to day (no matter the "importance" of that decision; it could be about where exactly to put their foot when walking, what to eat for lunch, or whether to have a child or not) each and every one of their choices is, to them, good - "the best one they could have made" (even if that conflicts with what other people would see as good, for instance to a selfish person, the "good" they do with their choices would most likely be limited to them, and to most people that would rather seem more "bad" than "good").
All of that said, it seems self-evident that, if we intend to live together in a regulated society, we would need to "artificially" establish some form of objective truth and reality (which is the purpose of, most notably, science) and in many cases that is what we try to do - though not always, unfortunately. As such, what we define as "reality" is really more of a... consensus, a mutual agreement to use the same references to talk about something (if you're a bit familiar with math and physics you might understand the analogy to a reference point), whether it be as simple as an object, or sometimes as complex as an idea. For most of the former, we tend to do it pretty inconsciously, for instance we automatically assume that if we give an apple to someone, they will see, feel and smell the exact same things we do. This process must however also happen for things such as, you name it, morality, and the very complex nature of it all makes it much harder to agree on those notions, to make sure that they "fit" every subjectivity - in fact as you have probably guessed already, we never really managed it - aside from some "evident" notions such as hurting defenseless people - and we most likely never fully will. Not that that should stop us from trying though, talking of morality is essential to any healthy society, in my opinion.
So there was the most reasonable and coherent way I have found so far to explain reality in general, including the notion of morality. Hope I managed to make myself clear enough to make you think a bit about one or two things :)
Comment has been collapsed.
what a nice thread to find walls of text. i could build a skyscraper.
Comment has been collapsed.
To me it seems like evil is just humans creation. In nature evil doesn't exist - we cannot say that 2 animals fighting for territory are evil. But when you see 2 people doing the same you know something is wrong. Would it mean that evil is just in our minds? If it's only in our minds what are the measures to determine what is evil and what is not. What's evil for one person may be normal for another. It also changes in time. What was considered a common practice in the past (like slavery), today is considered evil or immoral. Who is right when there is no universal law to determine this and it all depends on one's interpretation?
Different thing is religion concept of evil. As far as I know in catholicism it is stated that nothing was created without permision of God and whatever God has made was good. I can't see a logical reason for evil to exist then. It couldn't exist always because it would mean there was a power which coexisted with God and it denies the idea of monotheism. Additionally it would mean something has appeared without permission of God. But on the other hand God couldn't create it because in this case it would be good. So evil either don't exist or it is good. I am not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what other religions say about evil. I'd appreciate any information about it.
What are your thoughts about this matter though?
Comment has been collapsed.