Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


I typically think of the word "evil" as simply meaning "something that ought not be" or in yet other synonymous words as meaning, "something that should not have happened".

Imagine one person says, "The hurricane that happened yesterday is evil". And a second person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday should not have happened." And a third person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday ought not have happened." And a forth person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday was morally wrong."

I would interpret all four people in the above situation as all saying the exact same thing, just with different words.

Likewise, I would interpret it as all four people either (1) saying something exists that I do not believe exists and/or (2) saying something that doesn't even make sense.

What is that singular thing (or pseudo-thing) to which each of those four people would be all referring? It is the pseudo-idea that unchangeable reality 'should' be different than it unchangeably is, or even could be. Perhaps the clearest label for what they are all describing is to call it 'should-not-ness'. By that definition, something is "evil" if it happened but 'should' not have happened or if it 'should' be different than it unchangeably is.

To me, to think that unchangeable reality 'ought' to be different doesn't make sense and is inconsistent with unconditionally accepting that which one cannot control and cannot change. For both those reasons, I do not believe it exists. In other words, since I unconditionally accept what I cannot change, I do not believe there can be anything that 'should' be different than it unchangeably is (i.e. anything "evil" as I use the term).

As I use the terms, I think logically one can not both (1) believe "evil" exists and (2) accept what they do not control (i.e. what they cannot change). That's because to say unchangeable reality 'should' or 'ought' to be different is to not fully and totally accept it. To think the proverbial cards you are dealt 'should' be different (i.e. to think the proverbial cards you are dealt are "evil") is to not fully and totally accept them.

So when I say that I don't believe "evil" exists, I am simply saying that I don't think unchangeable reality 'should' be different than it unchangeably is. In other words, when I say I don't believe "evil" exists, I am simply saying that I don't believe anything that I can neither control nor change is unacceptable.

I believe in unconditional love for everyone and everything, which to me is inconsistent with believing "evil" exists, as I use the term.

I believe in letting go of any and all resentment (i.e. unforgiveness or hate) of any kind for anything, which to me is inconsistent with believing "evil" exists.

For example, I believe even a rabid dog deserves unconditional love, forgiveness, and sympathy. As I use the terms, for one to say a rabid dog is "evil" is to say the opposite; It is to say one doesn't love the dog, or doesn't forgive the dog, or that one hates the dog or resents the dog, or that one otherwise doesn't accept that it is the way it is, any of which is inconsistent with my philosophy and beliefs. I don't think anything real is worth resenting or hating. I believe in unconditional love and forgiveness; I believe in unconditionally accepting what one cannot change (i.e. what one cannot control); And as I use the terms that means one must not believe in "evil".

Fully and unconditionally accepting that which we cannot control doesn't mean we don't do anything with what we can control. Quite the opposite: It means you would make your choices regarding what do you control in a loving way. You don't need to think the hurricane is evil to open an umbrella. Likewise, for example, when I say that I believe even a rabid dog deserves unconditional love, forgiveness, and sympathy, it doesn't mean I wouldn't--with loving sympathy in my heart--euthanize the poor dog, if it was the only the way to protect an innocent child from being bitten by dog and/or if I felt it was in the dog's own best interest to end its suffering earlier than later in that way. But I wouldn't do it with hate or resentment for the dog or with some sadistic glee that an "evil" dog is getting what it deserves. I'd accept that the dog having rabies and the other details of the situation were the unchangeable hand we were all dealt and that sadly putting the sick dog down was the most kind loving way for me to play that hand. I wouldn't hate the dog or the cards, or think either was evil, I'd just play the cards the best I could.

No matter where a finger may point, the finger will be pointing to something I believe is love-worthy and deserving of unconditional forgiveness, never something that is resentment-worthy (i.e. "evil").


If you use the word "evil" to refer to something else than I've described above, then indeed whatever you call "evil" might be something that I do believe exists. If you use the word "evil" differently than I do, then all bets are off. For example, you could have a dog named Evil, and then I would of course believe your dog Evil exists. I'd probably give Evil a little pet.


What do you think? Do you agree that what I call "evil" (i.e. 'should-not-ness') does not actually exist? Does the way you use and define the word "evil" match the way I've defined it and what I've written above? If not, how do you define the word 'evil'?



---
The book is available for purchase from all major book retailers in both ebook and hardcover format.

View on Barnes and Noble | View on Amazon | View on Books-A-Million | View on Bookshelves

[Pauline Parnell]

I could agree that evil could be 'something that ought not to be' or 'should not have happened'. However, I do believe that evil do exists, and that good also exists in the world. They are two halves of the same whole. Man have the ability to make choices, they can choose to do good or choose to do evil. Evil is the opposite of good. If evil is something that should not have happened, then good is something that should be or should have happened.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Pauline Parnell,

Thank you for your reply!

I could agree that evil could be 'something that ought not to be' or 'should not have happened'.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the above sentence. Can you explain this a bit more?

It's probably worth my noting that the word 'evil' is just a word, and words are symbols used to represent ideas. Different people can use the same word to refer to different ideas. Thus, there is at least two different things we need to consider: (1) what you refer to with the word 'evil', and (2) what I refer to with the word 'evil'.

However, I do believe that evil do exists

Are you saying you believe that what I refer to with the word 'evil' exists? In other words, are you saying that there are things that have happened that shouldn't have happened? Are you saying that there are unchangeable aspects of reality that should be different than they unchangeably are?

If evil is something that should not have happened, then good is something that should be or should have happened.

Since I practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot change, I do not believe there is anything that happened that "should not" have happened.

If you say something unchangeable 'should' be different than it unchangeably is doesn't that mean you aren't fully accepting it? Doesn't that mean in some way you are resenting it, or not forgiving it, or otherwise not fully and totally accepting it?


Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

[Jenna Floyd]

Based on your definition of evil, I wholeheartedly agree that it does not exist. All things that exist should be what they are. In childhood, I learned of evil as a religious concept, which essentially said that things deemed “evil” should not exist, but do. As an adult, I don't really utilize the word, but I think of it more regarding things that cause great harm. That isn't to say that these things shouldn't exist, especially considering that harm is subjective, but it serves more as a way to convey the magnitude of the harm caused by said things.

[Amarachi Nzeakor]

I completely understand your point of view. But even the word "evil" is quite unpopular in my everyday usage. Connotatively, "evil" can stand in place of every negative and resentful emotion we feel, especially toward an uncontrollable situation, according to you. However, sometimes, the reason for pointing out a situation as negative is not really out of contempt but just for the sake of it. If we treated rabid dogs with the same love and care as we would our uninfected pets, then there is no awareness that one should stay away or at least be cautious of rabid dogs. For me, the negation is just to create a clear distinction. How we choose to handle the situation after that is indeed subjective, and as you mentioned, love should always be the way to go.

[Blessing Chi Peculiar]

I completely concur that evil does not exist based on your description of it. Everything that is supposed to be should already be. I was taught about evil as a religious idea when I was young, and it basically stated that things that are considered to be "bad" shouldn't exist but do. As an adult, I hardly ever use the word, but I tend to associate it with things that inflict a lot of harm. That's not to suggest that these things shouldn't exist, especially given that harm is subjective, but it serves more as a means of expressing the scope of the harm that the aforementioned things produce.

[Kelsey Roy]

Your examples for evil are a weather phenomenon and a diseased dog, would your answer chance if you applied it to the choices of humans? You stated that you believe in treating everyone with unconditional love, but certainly you don’t think everyone behaves or even thinks that way? Are serial killers evil? Are abusers evil? Are rapists evil?

I believe evil exists and is a force acting on humans to influence their behavior. I don’t believe unchangeable acts of nature are evil, so I agree with you on that front! Thanks for your insight!

[Stoppelmann]

Moral is an adjective, which means:
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behaviour.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behaviour; virtuous.

When we live, we discover that, in comparison to normal behaviour there are actions and characters amongst human beings that appear malevolent in their intentions, often because they disregard others and are only interested in their own well-being, and their own philosophy of life.

When our son was still growing up, we encouraged him not to act in that way or take on these characteristics, because it would have adverse impact on his life, and assured him that goodness and kindness were the better way to interact with people. It enabled him to differentiate and cope with people who appeared malevolent.

There were, of course, already standards in place, which encouraged people in the same way as we did our son, so that made the task easier, and conforming to the wholesome behaviour we encouraged was not so difficult for him.

The standards I mentioned above constitutes what we call morality, which is a noun, and means:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
3. Virtuous conduct.

There is another term for what I have described as malevolent intention, and although it is not a word I personally used very often, it seems quite common. Evil is an adjective which means:
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.

I am cautious about people using Good and Evil as nouns, because for me they are adjectives and describe intention. Normally, there are not two forces, one of Good and the other of Evil, instead there are only experiences of behaviour that are wholesome or good or on the contrary evil, or malevolent. Inanimate things are neither. Experience of the natural world, or of wild animals, can be described using these words, but for me they lack the intention that chooses to behave in one way or another.

On the other hand, if one experiences an accumulated intensity of malevolent behaviour, such as in people possessed by the violence of war, driven by an intention that they seem unable to disobey, we could use the term Evil as a noun.

In that sense, an accumulated intensity of goodness might be called “the” Good, although it usually expresses the intention of every individual, rather than an enforced behaviour.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Your examples for evil are a weather phenomenon and a diseased dog, would your answer chance if you applied it to the choices of humans?
I don't see why it would.

If a dog can't be 'evil' (as defined in the Original Post), then I don't see how a human could be. What is a human other than a super-smart dog with opposable thumbs? Granted, in my experience, puppies are easier to potty train than human toddlers.

The only way I can imagine someone getting to that conclusion reasonably would be to appeal to some kind of religious belief, supernatural belief, or superstition that I don't share and that isn't scientifically verifiable. In other words, they might propose some kind of magic soul that all humans have but no animals do, that can itself become corrupted or such.

But, even in that case, it would still seem that 'evil' (as defined Original Post) doesn't exist. Rather, the person would be using the word 'evil' to refer to something else entirely: that other supernatural thing and/or the qualities of that other supernatural thing.

You stated that you believe in treating everyone with unconditional love, but certainly you don’t think everyone behaves or even thinks that way?

That's correct.

Some people are a lot meaner and less loving than I am. Some humans are very hateful, very resentful, very unforgiving, very violent, and very sadistic, among other things.

Being around those kinds of people can be as dangerous and devastating as being caught in a deadly hurricane or volcano eruption.

It could be like having your whole family killed by a rabid dog.

It can be so sad to say the least. It can bring much pain and death to people.

Are serial killers evil? Are abusers evil? Are rapists evil?

The word 'evil' is used to mean very different things to different people. I spoke to one person recently who uses the word 'evil' to simply mean 'sadistic', meaning that person typically considers the words 'evil' and 'sadistic' to be completely synonymous, neither meaning anything more or less than other. So, as that person uses the term, many cats and many serial killers would indeed be "evil" (i.e. sadistic), and thus of course I believe that what that person calls 'evil' exists. I believe sadism exists.

In contrast, according to the definition in the Original Post (OP), nothing is 'evil' nor can anything be 'evil', at least not from the view of someone who fully puts into practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which he or she cannot control (i.e. that which he or she cannot change). According to the definition in the Original Post (OP), neither a human serial killer, nor a killer hurricane, nor a rabid dog that kills a child would be 'evil'. They would be harmful and violent and cause a lot of pain, and the destruction they cause would surely make you and I both sad; But simply as a matter of semantics, as defined in the Original Post, they would not be evil; nothing would.

I believe evil exists and is a force acting on humans to influence their behavior. I don’t believe unchangeable acts of nature are evil, so I agree with you on that front!

[Emphasis added.]

Can you define "evil" as you use the term?

Can you tell me more about the "force acting on humans" you mentioned? How is that force itself not an unchangeable act of nature? If someone gets struck by that force and is forced to do destructive things or such, how is that fundamentally different from them just getting rabies and going crazy from the rabies and killing people as a result of being crazed with rabies?

When I think of forces, I think of things like gravity or electromagnetism (i.e. the force that pulls two magnetic together). And I think of those and what they do as acts of nature. Is the force you are talking about on par with the other so-called four fundamental forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force), meaning are you proposing a fifth fundamental force of nature or something along those lines?

Does the force only act on humans? Or does it act on animals, such as dogs, elephants, and dolphins?

Thanks for your insight!

And thank you for yours! Your post was quite intriguing and thought-provoking and intriguing!


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

However, sometimes, the reason for pointing out a situation as negative is not really out of contempt but just for the sake of it. If we treated rabid dogs with the same love and care as we would our uninfected pets, then there is no awareness [to] be cautious of rabid dogs. For me, the negation is just to create a clear distinction. How we choose to handle the situation after that is indeed subjective, and as you mentioned, love should always be the way to go.

Yes, overall, that's a wise point.

William Shakespeare wrote, "Love all, trust a few".

In my poem, What Grace Meant to Me, I wrote, "To love and forgive unconditionally, but only trust intelligently."

I believe in unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness, but I will still likely fire an employee who steals, and still likely not hire one who stole from their last job.

I believe in unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness, but I will still likely put a rabid dog down, with a heart heavy with loving sympathy for the dog.

I believe in unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness, but locking up murders and sexual predators in jail or mental institutions, to prevent them from hurting people.

One can believe in and be practicing unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness while choosing to divorce or break up with a spouse or partner who cheats and has an affair, or who is abusive in other ways.

Of course, Shakespeare may have said it best with his 5 word phrase quoted above.

Thank you for the wise point!

Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Stoppelmann,

Thank you for your reply!

In your above post, I find the following words of yours especially interesting and hope to one day understand what you mean by it even better:

wild animals, can be described using these words, but for me they lack the intention that chooses to behave in one way or another.

However, to understand your comments on matters related to 'evil' and 'morality' and such, and to have any hope of being understood myself, I really would first need a direct yes/no answer to this question:

Let's look at the following four sentences, all four of which I believe to be true:

1. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to drink coffee tomorrow morning.

2. I, Scott, do not believe we 'should' or 'ought' to not drink coffee tomorrow morning.

3. I, Scott, will drink coffee tomorrow morning.

4. I, Scott, don't know if you will drink coffee tomorrow morning or not, and I, Scott, lovingly don't care if you do drink coffee tomorrow or not.


I don't believe any of the above four statements contradict any of the other ones. Do you?

Thank you,
Scott

[Proof Readar]

Evil does exist and good does exist. Let's find something that define evil and good. To me, evil is defined by any act done to an individual with the aim of the doer being to evoke unhealthy emotion, I.e sadness, in the life of the individual who is the sufferer.

Good is then defined by any act done to an individual with the aim of the doer being to evoke healthy emotions, I.e joy or gladness, in the life of the individual who is the recipient.

In summary, evil exists and good exists. What distinctively define both is the kind of emotion that each produce in the life of the receiver or the bearer (of either good or evil).

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Evil does exist and good does exist.

It sounds like you might simply be defining the word 'evil' differently than me, meaning you are simply using the word 'evil' to refer to something different than I do. Thus, we may not actually disagree, but rather it may be the case that our seeming disagreement is merely an illusion of equivocation, such as would likely be the case if we argued about whether a weapon-having snake was armed.

If not, then please specify exactly which is the very first sentence from the Original Post (OP) with which you disagree, so then I can better understand where our views diverge.


Thank you,
Scott

[NadiaBoateng]

What I understand by evil is what is predominant in our today's world. Imagine how the rich keeps getting richer to the detriment of the poor folks. And imagine how the poor keeps getting poorer to the satisfaction of the the rich folks. I believe the world has lost it's compassion. Everyone wants what's best for himself, not minding whatever happens to his neighbor.

[JUSTIN CHRISTENSEN]

It seems that your definition of "evil" is primarily based on the idea of "should-not-ness" and a lack of acceptance for what is unchangeable. I feel like the more classic usage of the term "evil" refers to actions or behaviors that are morally reprehensible, rather than situations or circumstances that cannot be changed. In either case, I think that at best the concept of "evil" is certainly a silly one.

Even in the classic viewpoint, the idea that any entity could be "evil" is hard for me to swallow. I have never met anyone who relentlessly pursues the goal of "be bad all the time for the sake of badness". Sure there's plenty of people who are more interested in looking out for #1 than contributing to the good of the world, but is it "evil" to want good things for yourself and your loved ones? I certainly don't think so.

My belief is that the word "evil" is primarily a weapon, used to attack and vilify. Long story short, I agree with you, but for different reasons.