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

[Nqobile Mashinini Tshabalala]

"I believe in unconditional love for everyone and everything, which to me is inconsistent with believing "evil" exists, as I use the term." You are genuinely a better person than I am. I am earnestly trying to cultivate unconditional love for people but as for "everything"? I'm not there yet. Also, for me, evil exists.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Here is a shorter and re-worded summary of what I explained in the OP (Original Post):


I define the word "evil" as "should-not-have-ness" (e.g. "X happened but should not have happened", or "Y will inevitably happen but should not happen").

As I explain in my book, I believe it (i.e. should-not-have-ness, a.k.a. "evil") does not exist.

In fact, to say I believe it doesn't exist is an understatement. I think it's pure nonsense, like the idea of a "married bachelor", of a "round square", or of 2 + 2 equaling 5. I know it doesn't and can't exist, a priori, because it's a meaningless impossible pseudo-concept.


I hope that helps explain what I mean when I say "evil" (as I use the term) doesn't exist.

Keep in mind, if you use the word "evil" to refer to something else than what I use the word to refer, then likely I do believe that what you call "evil" exists. For instance, if you named your dog, "Evil Knievel", and when you say, "Evil exists", you mean that your dog exists; well then, of course I agree that "evil" (as you use the term) exists.

In contrast, when I say "evil" (as I use the term) doesn't exist, all I'm saying is that I believe that nothing happens that shouldn't happen. In other words, all I am saying is that no aspect of unchangeable timeless reality 'should' or 'ought' to be different than it unchangeable is.


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I am earnestly trying to cultivate unconditional love for people but as for "everything"? I'm not there yet.

Thank you for your comment. Might I suggest that you start by letting go of the trying?

My book explains more on the reasoning of that in detail, with memorable lines such "trying is lying" and "do or do not; there is no try".

May I ask if you have already read my book, In It Together, in full yet?

I ask simply because it helps me interpret the context of your comments. I'll tend to interpret the meaning of what you say very differently if it's being written after having already read my book as a post-reading comment/question versus if it is pre-reading comment/question.


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

[Kajori Sheryl Paul]

I have always believed that there are two sides of the same coin; good and evil; right and wrong; black and white; and so on. As you said words of different connotations. Your definition of evil also makes me believe that evil does not exists.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Dalia Chaouaf,

Thank you for your reply!

I was thought and I firmly believe that each and every person has free will.

Thank you for your reply! May I ask what you mean by the phrase, "free will"? In other words, can you please define "free will" as you use the words?

I find different people use that phrase very differently, so I ask only so I can correctly understand the meaning of your sentence above.

Obviously, circumstances and background influence a lot, but in the end, we are the only ones that can decide to be good. So I don't think that [should-have-not-ness] doesn't exist, but rather that [should-have-not-ness] isn't born, but [should-have-not-ness] is definitely made.

I'm sorry; I don't follow this line of reasoning.

What do you mean by the word "good" in the quoted sentence above?

May I ask, as you use the terms, in your opinion, does peanut butter decide for itself whether or not to be good? Does a puppy dog decide for itself whether to be good? Does a mouse decide for itself whether to be good? Does a spider decide for itself whether to be good? Does a dolphin decide for itself whether to be good? Does a sign-language-speaking ape decide for itself whether to be good? Does a three-year-old human child decide for itself whether to be good? Does ChatGPT decide for itself whether to be good? Does a cooked piece of chicken decide for itself whether to be good? Does a sleep-walking human who commits homicide while literally asleep decide for itself whether to be good?

Those aren't rhetorical questions. I am really asking. I think your answers will help me understand what you mean by (i.e. how you define) words like "good", "decide", and "self".


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

Does a dog decide for itself to be good or bad?
bad-dog.jpg (169.04 KiB) Viewed 3403 times

[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".

[...] 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.

I think [should-not-have-ness] exists in the form of malevolence in a person that is not provoked.

To be clear, are you saying that you think that unavoidable malevolence exists but 'should' not exist?

In other words, are you saying that unprovoked malevolence has occurred and you believe it 'should' not have occurred?

Those aren't rhetorical question. I'm genuinely asking so I can be sure i understand your meaning.


Thank you,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

[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".

[...] 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.

I think people commit [acts that should not have happened] regularly [...]

Can you give some examples of acts that some people have committed that you believe 'should' not have been committed?


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

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Selena R Romero,

Thank you for your reply and questions!

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".

[...] 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.

I have a few questions that trouble my mind because although I would love to agree with you, I do in fact believe that [should-not-have-ness] exists. Do you believe that good exists in this world?

That depends what you mean by the word "good".

If you mean should-have-ness (e.g. "You should have had a cup of coffee this morning!" or "You should have told me we were out of coffee!"), then no. In the same, I believe that should-have-not-ness doesn't exists, I also don't believe should-have-ness exists either.

However, if you mean the word 'good' in the sense of, "This peanut tastes good", then yes, I generally believe that exists, at least in the relativistic subjective sense of everyday experience, such that it would be no more or less true if we turned out to be living in the The Matrix and that peanut butter only existed within in The Matrix as an interesting (and delicious) invention of the programmers of The Matrix in which we live, meaning there is no such thing as peanut butter in the meta-world in which they live. Even in that case, the goodness of the peanut butter in my peanut butter sandwich I eat in this Matrix-world would still exist. I discuss that idea in my book in the parts where I talk about about how a dream is real insofar as it is consciously dreamt and consciously experienced. But of course such things are also subjective and relative, and thus often emergent rather than fundamental or physical.

If a rabid dog shouldn't be considered evil why then do you feel it deserves 'forgiveness?"

Great question!

In a sense, I don't.

May I ask, have you read my book, In It Together yet?

This idea is perhaps most directly addressed in my book in the chapter titled, "Suggestion Five — Let go of resentment, hate, and
unforgiveness towards others, including your past self. Accept their choices, and accept them as they are."

In that chapter, I write among other things, "if... then there is no need for forgiveness at all. There is nothing to forgive.

So it would certainly actually be more accurate to say that I believe even a rabid dog doesn't deserve unforgiveness (a.k.a. resentment, hate, etc.), then to say that I believe deserves forgiveness.

If I said death does not exist, am I not in essence denying the existence of life too? Please indulge me, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Yes, the concepts we are getting at are concepts such as duality transcendence and transcending the ego and seeing the unity of all things (i.e. monism vs dualism).

If you haven't read my book in full yet, there's no way I can explain it to you better in any other way. So if you haven't read my book in full yet, you will want to start there.

However, if you have read my book, and you still have questions like these (e.g. regarding the spiritual unity of all things and duality transcendence), then these topics can help elaborate on the foundation my book creates:

The lion & the antelope share a spirit. Even your worst enemy is but a friend—you yourself in fact—in playful disguise.

I have inner peace because I shamelessly know I do only what I want to do, and I don't ever do what I don't want to do.

Commentary on self-transcendence, ego death, and dying before you die; with a finger snap more brutal than Thanos


You can also might be interested to see this full list of all tweets I've ever made that have the hashtag #JustLoveEverything.


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

[Mounce574]

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".

[...] 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.

I think [should-not-have-ness] exists in the form of malevolence in a person that is not provoked.

To be clear, are you saying that you think that unavoidable malevolence exists but 'should' not exist?

In other words, are you saying that unprovoked malevolence has occurred and you believe it 'should' not have occurred?

Those aren't rhetorical question. I'm genuinely asking so I can be sure i understand your meaning.



Thank you,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

There are people who possess malevolence towards others without being provoked. I would consider those people evil. They do exist. There is no should they, should not, there just is. Therefore, I believe they are evil and they exist. I cannot change them, I am a person who has been targeted by one. So how is it that true evil does not exist? For examples: The Night Stalker, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc were evil. They existed.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi,

As I explained in the OP, I use the word 'evil' simply to refer to 'should-not-have-ness' (i.e. that it should not have happened or that it should not be the way that it is).

So anywhere you write the word "evil" in this thread, I interpret it as 'should-not-have-ness'.

For instance, if you write, "evil exists", then I read that as, "should-not-have-ness" exists, meaning things happen that shouldn't happen or that certain things are ways they shouldn't be.

Thus, to help avoid any accidental fallacies of equivocation, I will replace any usages of the word evil with "[should-not-have-ness]", making sure to use the brackets to indicate I did a word swap.

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".

[...] 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.

I think [should-not-have-ness] exists in the form of malevolence in a person that is not provoked.

To be clear, are you saying that you think that unavoidable malevolence exists but 'should' not exist?

In other words, are you saying that unprovoked malevolence has occurred and you believe it 'should' not have occurred?

Those aren't rhetorical question. I'm genuinely asking so I can be sure i understand your meaning.

There are people who possess malevolence towards others without being provoked. [...] They do exist. There is no should they, should not, there just is.

I agree.

Therefore, I believe they are evil and they exist.

I don't understand; are you saying that you believe they should be different than they unchangeably are?

If not, then they aren't "evil" as I use the term. In other words, unless you are saying that they should be different than the way they unchangeably are, it doesn't follow that should-not-have-ness exists from the fact that they exist.

I cannot change them, I am a person who has been targeted by one. So how is it that true [should-not-have-ness] does not exist?

I don't understand the question.

Why does the fact that malevolent people exist mean that should-not-have-ness exists or, in other words, that anything should be different than it is?



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

[Christopher Sublett]

Good cannot exist in the world without the existence of evil, which gives humanity and society a way to distinguish guidelines between the two concepts. My belief is that the divine creator, God, represents all that is good and Satan represents all that is evil, in any form of actions or thoughts the two concepts may appear. I do agree with part of your statement that some aspects in life we cannot control, therefore, it is inevitable that certain events or situations will occur no matter what happens to change the outcome.

Also, I can examine the word "live" and "lived" to further justify my point that good and evil exists within our vocabulary. God is associated as the "bringer" of life to live abundantly and Satan as the "bearer" of death to reap your soul as the Grim Reaper.

Metaphorically speaking, the word (live) is to be alive now in the present.
The word lived is to be (dead) after in the past.
If we live the (right) way in our life we go to heaven for being good.
If we live the (wrong) way in our life we go to hell for being evil.

In short, the word live is displayed the right way before adding the "D" for
death to the end for lived. Spelling lived backwards for the wrong way,
you get the word "Devil".

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Christopher Sublett,

Thank you for your reply!

To avoid accidental fallacies of equivocation or other misunderstandings, I will swap out your usages of the word "evil" with "should-not-have-ness", since I made clear in the OP that I only use the word evil to refer to the concept of "should-not-have-ness".

Needless to say, if you use the word "evil" to refer to something else, then whatever you use the word to refer to is presumably something I do believe exists. In contrast, when I say that "evil" (as I use the term) does not exist, all I am saying and all I mean is that I am saying 'should-not-have-ness' doesn't exist.

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".

[...] 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.

Good cannot exist in the world without the existence of [should-not-have-ness],

If you define the word 'good' as the opposite of should-not-have-ness, then I agree, and accordingly then in that exist I do not believe that "good" or "evil" (as I use the term) exists.

For instance, I do not believe either of the following are true:

1. You should have drank coffee yesterday.

2. You should not have drank coffee yesterday.

In fact, to say I don't believe either of the above is true is an understatement. More to the point: I don't even believe either of the above is coherent concept because the idea of 'should' and 'shouldness' itself is nonsense.

My belief is that the divine creator, God, represents all that is good and Satan represents [should-not-have-ness],

Then I conclude that must mean you don't believe God is all-loving and omnipotent, correct?

Would you say God did a bad job creating the world? Would you say God could have done better?

How else can you jive your belief in the existence of an omnipotent creator God with your belief in the existence of things that 'should' not exist?

I'm not saying that believing in Satan exists contradicts the belief in all-powerful all-loving God, per se. Rather, if you look at Satan as I look at killer hurricanes and cancer and lions brutally tearing apart their prey then it's completely consistent with an all-powerful all-loving God.

What would be inconsistent would be to say that such things (e.g. hurricanes, antelopes being killed by lions, cancer, Satan, etc.) "should" not exist, but do.

As I see it, to believe in an all-powerful God and think should-not-have-ness (a.k.a. "evil" as I use the term) exists is to therefore believe that God did a bad job. Or to believe he's just mean and hateful and nasty and such. Or stupid.

In contrast, since I don't believe in should-not-have-ness, it means I look around at the world and to me the world as a timeless 4D whole is perfect. To me, not a single spec is out of place. Unlike most people (i.e. anyone who believes should-not-have-ness exists), to me, when I look out at the world, I conclude that if it was made by an all-powerful God then that God is all-loving and did a wonderful great perfect job, and deserves infinite thanks, because there is nothing that should not be exactly as it is.

I know there isn't a nasty, stupid, mean, or unloving God because I see the perfection of the world. I know that if there is a God that God must be all-loving and perfect and wonderful and worthy of infinite love because this world is.

But those who think the world should be different than it unchangeably is have an opposite view to me: They therefore think that if there is a creator God, that God did a bad job. They say, "Creation should be different than it unchangeably is!"

With their judgementalism and hate, be it towards anything or anyone at all, they thereby curse and sneer at any creator God. "You did a bad job," they say to him. "Your creation should be different than how you created it," they say.


May I ask, what do you think about this image:

all-powerful-all-knowing.jpg (260.91 KiB) Viewed 2957 times

?


That's not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely curious about your comments on the above image and the other things I have written.

I love learning about different perspectives and viewpoints, so thank you for the intriguing and thought-provoking discussion.


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

[jeminah28]

The image looks like the man and woman are innocent from the one who knows everything. I wonder why God created the tree of knowledge for good and evil when he knew that they would fall.

[mrlefty0706]

I agree with you Eckhart/Scott, God did not do a bad job. God created a perfect world but human beings are not perfect so there is good and evil because we have free choice. Evil people like Putin, Trump, Hitler, Mussolini and many other dictators or dictator wannabees will be escorted to Hell on judgement Day.

[Kathie Slief Turner]

I hadn't given the word evil much thought before now. Reading the responses it seems that people know how they think about the word. I, too, was taught in the context of a religion, that evil exists and is assigned to murderers, rapists, wife beaters, and so on. Good vs. Evil, and all that goes with the concept.

Having read Scott's description, I like thinking about bad behavior without so much judgment. After all, if I were born one of these individuals, I would be committing murder. I believe these people are molded by a combination of genetics and environment. So in that respect, are they bad or just a victim of their birth into their family, inheriting genes that made them prone to violence or even born a psychopath? Are they still responsible for their choices and impulses? I want to say yes, because I believe in personal responsibility, and in a justice system that will decide what the appropriate punishment might be. To the death penalty, I say no. How can killing another person be anything but another murder?

Evil? I like Scott's take on this. Evil doesn't exist. It's bad when something occurs that should not have happened. Because of the religious history of the word, I think it needs to be re-evaluated. The dictionary defines evil, as an adjective to be profoundly immoral and wicked. As a noun, profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force. These definitions are actually not in contradiction to Scott's definition. Christianity would state that evil entered the world as a result of Adam and Eve giving in to temptation in the Garden of Eden. They disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. In talking about evil in the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew word ra' was, according to Aren Max Wilson-Wright, translated incorrectly as evil. I'm referencing an article in the Society for Classical Studies called In Search of the Root of All Evil: Is There a Concept of ‘Evil’ in the Hebrew Bible? He quotes from the book of Isaiah, Isaiah 31:2, for example, states that Yahweh brings raˤ (way-yābēˀ rāˤ) against Judah and its Egyptian allies in the form of military defeat. So if God brings ra', it most likely isn't evil. He also states the word ra' has a much broader meaning and is difficult to translate.

When someone uses the word evil, they reference things that aren't as they should be. The murderer shouldn't have been born to a family where the combination of genetics and environment was the cause of his tendency toward violence. Could've been you or me. Ultimately what I'm saying in too many words is that I like the notion of an unconditional acceptance of things that occur that are bad. From the rabid dog to the murderer on death row. I'm Buddhist and the notion of acceptance of things as they are is consistent with my belief system, which happens to be nontheistic. I respect those who are in a Christian religion, and accept that they define evil differently and believe evil is the be eschewed. When something bad happens to someone I know it is difficult at times to remember that the perpetrator of that violence deserves my acceptance as much as my acquaintance or friend. It's much easier to get angry at the perpetrator, or even hate them. But that's not the acceptance I strive for.

I agree with Scott. Unchangeable reality can't be evil. I'm reminded of the serenity prayer; God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.



Brilliant discussion on evil!