Does All Evil Begin with a Lie?

I asked this question last year of people an art festival and posted their responses in an article on my website. I'm very interested in hearing what this community thinks.

True or false: All evil begins with a lie.

There are various ways to phrase the same inquiry, but I think this is the simplest.

I asked this question last year of people an art festival and posted their responses in an article on my website. I'm very interested in hearing what this community thinks.

True or false: All evil begins with a lie.

There are various ways to phrase the same inquiry, but I think this is the simplest.

Evil begins with the thought of intention and the lie follows.

Evil begins with the thought of intention and the lie follows.

I believe only acts can be evil.

Evil begins with the thought of intention and the lie follows.

I believe only acts can be evil.

Without thought there would be no acts.

[Scott]

I suspect the question can't be answered without defining the equivocal word evil.

The assumption that a lie is evil seems very naive; in the event that the truth is evil a lie could carry characteristics of good. Before we lie we weigh the truthful information for its satisfaction value, if we are not content with its ability to satisfy us we distort it until it does. Anyone that has participated in a friendship with someone has told a little white lie, whether it be to protect or influence the other person lying is a large part of our daily interactions with each other. Pillow talk would be the most common example of how dishonest we might be with our friendships outside of the home; inside the home being absolutely truthful with our partners might be too harsh a judgment to express to them. In any event intentions are at the root of most lies, being on the eve of 2012 there is nothing scarier than a devoted disciple of the church doing god’s work. Although his intentions are good in his eyes, doesn’t mean that we all need our fill of worm wood. More evil acts originate out of so called truthful information, the man doing god’s work hole heartedly believes that he is in the realm truth if he thought otherwise why would he continue to peruse any further? After I post this message and someone else comments on this subject with some kind of ethical dictionary explanation arguing another aspect that might disprove my own, does this mean that I’m lying to you right now? I only want to convey my opinion and to me it is truth, what evil could come of this? If the road to hell was paved with good intentions what is the road to heaven paved with?

Evil as in...? Please define evil

Evil begins with the thought of intention and the lie follows.

I believe only acts can be evil.

Without thought there would be no acts.

I agree. However, you could say the same thing about many things that precede an act. The question is at what point in the course of events does an observer say "You are now engaging in an evil act."?

-- Updated May 28th, 2012, 2:30 am to add the following --

I suspect the question can't be answered without defining the equivocal word evil.

I agree. That is definitely a requirement of any analysis.

Define: evil, begins, lie, truth, false. Or think of a more specific way to ask the question. Without this you will have no true answer.

I will say that identification is the "greatest good".

So you see: you ask an artist you get a poem, and from a philosopher questions.

Are all evils evil to all? Or like love and beauty, are some evils in the eye of the beholder?

In discussing lying or deception, it is important to consider it's evil twin self-deception; lying to oneself also. Self-deception is the way a person who is overly hedonistic is able to keep his or her conscience quarantined and under control. The art of lying to oneself can been seen as first lying to others then using internal radar to obtain the feedback from the others to convince yourself of the veracity of the deceptions.

With the conscience quarantined and under control the person is better able to invest in manipulative and exploitative power plays against other people without having to undergo severe discomfort.

-- Updated May 28th, 2012, 4:16 pm to add the following --

I would think that in understanding the beginning of evil that Kant's practical imperative is adequate for those who are free to choose among various options: "Always treat humanity whether in your own self and in that of any other, always as an end and never merely as a means." But, when a person is trapped in a triage situation and it becomes a matter of choosing the lesser evil such as is the case when to not lie would cause the death of innocent persons then it is a matter of making the decision and being responsible for it.

Those who choose bad options for personal or narcissistic purposes when they could have done otherwise create dis-harmony and although they may benefit in the short run, they and others as well would have to face the consequences in the long run.

I asked this question last year of people an art festival and posted their responses in an article on my website. I'm very interested in hearing what this community thinks.

True or false: All evil begins with a lie.

There are various ways to phrase the same inquiry, but I think this is the simplest.

I'd say evil, the way I'm taking it, doesn't start with any lie it depends on it i. e. like you took the last cookie and said you didn't. Evil comes from dark thoughts, but that alone wouldn't make you evil. It's more of a sub-division. That's my idea anyway. For me I know I'm dark, very dark, but I'm not evil. There's a difference in the way I'm using evil.

I happen to think the worst evils come from truths, or at least thoughts that the thinker thinks is true.

Take for example the destruction of people committing genocide. They most likely believe that their culture/nation/whathaveyou is better than the other. This is not necessarily a lie, but an incorrect truth. Which would make it not a truth anymore than it is a lie.

I think the undefined term, "evil", comes from the even more difficult to define term, "neutral". As does "good" - as in the opposite of evil. Because there is no action that is unequivocally evil or good in a subjective world. And if the world were a truly objective world, then the words "good" and "evil", in a moral understanding, would be meaningless.

So, like everyone has said before... each word needs to have a solid definition.

The question as posed too vernacular for its metaphysical purport. I'd rather pose the question as 'are absolute truth and absolute goodness the same?' . Goodness and truth as we know them are not absolute ; lying is human and unknown in metaphysical terms.

An example from real life is art itself. If an artefact tells a lie which is to say it is deliberately or naively false is fails the truth test and is not a work of art. The work of art is also beautiful but beauty is the sensual evidence of truth.

One would say a lie is an untruth. But all 'lies' are not evil. One may 'lie' to save ones life. One could say the same about the word 'betrayal'. The words lie and betrayal are not evil per se. It is how a lie and a betrayal is applied to a situation that would make it evil. Good intentions can morph into evil acts as well. Truth can also be used to commit evil acts. So 'does all evil begin with a lie' would have to be no. Situation and intention determines how evil begins.