Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Adrian Bouknight]

It sounds similar to old testament ideas of chaos. Tehom, or "The Deep" in the old testament is sometimes thought of as being dangerous or mysterious. Jonah is thrown into the deep, and sinks down to the pits of the underworld. Though the deep isn't inherently evil, despite it being associated with something dangerous.

[Tush4Christ]

Why do you view evil in the world as something that shouldn't exist? What makes you believe it shouldn't be, rather than accepting it as a part of reality over which we have no control? In other words, why not consider that evil simply exists and that we cannot change its presence?

[Neha Shakya]

I acknowledge that the concept of "evil" as described here is consistent with the idea of should-not-ness,' or the belief that something in immutable reality should be different. By rejecting this concept, I would adopt a philosophy of unconditional acceptance and love for all things, including those conventionally categorized as "evil." This attitude promotes inner serenity and a nonjudgmental approach to life by avoiding the bitterness that comes from believing that certain things should not exist.

To address your question, I agree that "evil" as defined as should-not-ness' does not exist because it violates the concept of totally accepting what cannot be changed. I consider "evil" as intentional injury or malevolence, which is different from the definition provided above.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Why do you view evil in the world as something that shouldn't exist? What makes you believe it shouldn't be,

I think you have misunderstood me.

I don't believe that evil shouldn't exist.

I believe that 'evil' is should-not-have-ness. They are two different words for the same thing. They are synonyms.

As I use, defined, and typically understand the terms, to say "X is evil" is the same as saying, "X shouldn't exist" or "X is but shouldn't be".

And I don't believe such "evil"/'should-not-have-ness' exists. In other words, I don't believe anything exists that shouldn't exist.


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I really appreciate your thoughts on evil and how you're challenging the traditional idea of what it means. I like how you define it as 'should-not-ness', it highlights how morality is subjective. It's almost like we're trying to impose our will on the world, and evil is just a reflection of our own limitations.

I agree with you that resentment and hate are toxic emotions that weigh us down. I also love your philosophy of unconditional love and forgiveness. It's about acknowledging the inherent value of everyone and accepting that we can't control everything.

However, I don't think [should-not-have-ness] doesn't exist. For me, it's a real force that operates in the world, often hidden behind more palatable labels like 'bad' or 'wrong.'

Hi, Josie Simon,

Thank you for your reply. If you believe 'should-not-have-ness' (a.k.a. "evil") exists, then please do post a reply in the following topic of mine, and please answer all 10 of the numbered questions:

Ten Questions for People Who Believe Should-Not-Have-Ness Exists (i.e. for people who believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts')


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[Mary Daurio]

As you mentioned,

"The hurricane that happened yesterday is evil". And a second person says, "That hurricane that happened yesterday should not have happened."

I believe that a hurricane is a force of nature, not evil or otherwise, as you seem to believe as well. But I do believe there is evil in men. It is evidenced when someone sees their fellow man fall by the wayside and walks on by. That type of behaviour is not like a hurricane, but a darkness or evil in humankind causes it.
But evil is just a term, and could be used in whatever manner suits the user. I do consider that there is evil, like coveting something so bad that to get the desired object, murder is contemplated and even acted on. I know this is not what you are considering evil or the absence of it. Perhaps it is just semantics. I will have to re-read and think about it more. Thanks for the interesting question.

[Mary Daurio]

You use the word evil in a slightly different way than I do. For me, evil is when someone is immoral and does wicked things without giving a care. The weather can not do a wicked thing, an evil thing; it is an element of nature, and while a hurricane may seem evil, there is no malicious intent. If you believe in any way in original sin, then there is evil. People do evil things, starving children is an evil, and there is no doubt about that; if there is food available, it is evil to withhold it. There are sins of omission that can sometimes be evil acts. An animal never acts out of malicious intent; usually, they act with a survival instinct.
If there were no evil, the world would be in a much better place. I will have to read the section over again when time permits, to see what I have missed in your definition. If a different definition is used for evil, then is that truly evil as the rest of the world knows it. Or would a different, less trodden-over word work?