The meaning of the word 'evil'

[Malcolm Wright]

I think it's when someone doesn't have remorse for something they did and you don't agree with it.

That's a pretty good, practical definition.

[Serinty]

Okay so call me simple minded if you will but it seems as though we forget that this word (and most others) has/have a very clear and defined meaning.

Evil- Profoundly immoral and wicked
For those who don't know
Immoral- Not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

So if the general consensus of the world is it is morally incorrect to do something than it is evil. I don't believe evil is a subjective word either. It has a clear and defined definition. As simplified as it may seem evil is based off majority wins. If the majority of people believe something is immoral then by definition it is evil.

For example; the general consensus of the world is it is unacceptable/immoral to rape children. Therefore to rape a child is evil. To hold someone against their will and torture/kill them is considered immoral by majority. Hence its evil. We need to be careful how we throw our words about. We use them to freely not thinking what they truly mean and are defined as.

Now to be very fair as much as I can be to myself at least, the word evil may at one point been subjective. When our society had a stronger base in christian religion or when they were more powerful in our ruling bodies, may be a better way of saying it, this word might be up for debate. Though as we have grown and progressed the word no longer has a definition strongly based off a religious concept.

[jwreck]

If something changes with the whims of the majority, you don't think that's subjective?

[Serinty]

No there is a difference between the whims of majority and the definition of the word evil. Dictionaries state the word evil as being defined by the majority of people’s opinions. For example the definition says nothing about if you commit murder then you are evil it also doesn’t say anything about maybes/possibilities. For me this is something so important to remember, words are meant to be used with purpose and they are defined for a reason. Not saying by any means that opinions don’t/won’t change thereby changing how we currently define evil. Throughout history there were things that were done that in our current state of mind we would consider evil (profoundly immoral). From the slavery in building the pyramids, the Romans depravity, rulers with absolute power, the practice of selling off your children, forcing 8 years olds into wedlock with 25 year old men, the list goes on and on, but at those times these were common practices. So if you take into consideration the definition of evil, at the time none of those things were evil because the general opinion was that they were acceptable practices. Now the majority has shifted and the people that do those things are/would be considered evil by our current standards.
If the conversation in this post is about where the majority actually stands in what is considered evil that is a different ballgame entirely and can vary on thousands of different subjects and if that was the case I may have misunderstood the post.

[jwreck]

Well generally lilly asserts that there is a universal truth about what is evil, which is in opposition to what you are saying. You are saying that evil is subjective. Even if the word always means the same thing, the measure changes. Its like saying a foot is always 12 inches, but an inch can change based on the belief of the majority.

[Claire Evans]

So what are things like murder?

[jwreck]

So what are things like murder?

Crimes? What do you mean?

[big steve]

Obama and Holder together= Evil

[Claire Evans]

Crimes? What do you mean?

Why is it crime? What goes through the mind of something who strangles a child, for example? Why would they want to do that and why does a conscience of another being prohibit them from doing the same act?

[Malcolm Wright]

Why is it crime? What goes through the mind of something who strangles a child, for example? Why would they want to do that and why does a conscience of another being prohibit them from doing the same act?

It is a crime because it damages the fabric of society.
The last two are unanswerable questions, highly dependent on individual circumstances.

M.

[Claire Evans]

It is a crime because it damages the fabric of society.
The last two are unanswerable questions, highly dependent on individual circumstances.

M.

Let's take the rape of a child. What do you call that?

[tobekobe]

Evil is the violation of, or intent to violate, some moral code. Evil is usually seen as the dualistic opposite of The Good. Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes; however, evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence.[1] The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute or relative leads to questions about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral absolutism, amoralism, moral relativism, and moral universalism.
While the term is applied to events and conditions without agency, the forms of evil addressed in this article presume an evildoer or doers.

[Malcolm Wright]

Let's take the rape of a child. What do you call that?

A crime.
And in a non-dogmatic sense, an evil. But because evil is so often associated with absolutist thinking, I prefer to just think of it as a crime.
I don't tend to think of the perpetrator as evil, but the deed, in a non-dogmatic sense, yes. Unless the perpetrator fulfills the act out of a desire to hurt and damage the child, it is probably better to see them simply as individuals whose orientation is a danger to children and to society.

M.

[Claire Evans]

A crime.
And in a non-dogmatic sense, an evil. But because evil is so often associated with absolutist thinking, I prefer to just think of it as a crime.
I don't tend to think of the perpetrator as evil, but the deed, in a non-dogmatic sense, yes. Unless the perpetrator fulfills the act out of a desire to hurt and damage the child, it is probably better to see them simply as individuals whose orientation is a danger to children and to society.

M.

e·vil/ˈēvəl/
Adjective:
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.


Does this not describe a child rapist? It stands to reason that evil people spawn evil deeds. This is no absolution or justification for child rape. Killing someone may be subjective. Killing someone in self-defence is not evil.

[jwreck]

Define rape. Define child. Now think of every possible scenario where a "child" can be "raped". Is every one of them "evil"?

[Claire Evans]

Define rape. Define child. Now think of every possible scenario where a "child" can be "raped". Is every one of them "evil"?

The forced penetration of someone under the age of 13, approx. Give me ONE instance when that is not an evil act and is justifiable?

[Malcolm Wright]

e·vil/ˈēvəl/
Adjective:
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.


Does this not describe a child rapist? It stands to reason that evil people spawn evil deeds. This is no absolution or justification for child rape. Killing someone may be subjective. Killing someone in self-defence is not evil.

My post contains the answer to your questions, but if you need to hear it again: no a rapist is not necessarily malevolent. He or she may be following compulsions that he or she may very much wish were controllable. But it depends on the individual. Some individuals lack even the ability to understand the real consequences of their actions - why call them evil? It makes no sense.

Perfectly decent people spawn terrible deeds, and malevolent people can also spawn good ones - depending on circumstance.

M.

[Malcolm Wright]

The forced penetration of someone under the age of 13, approx. Give me ONE instance when that is not an evil act and is justifiable?

In some cultures that is well beyond the age of marriage. I disagree with it. But following your definition of evil being immoral and malevolent, you can't exactly say that in those cultures, marrying an 11 year old is either immoral or malevolent.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that acts themselves are not definable as evil - I'm saying that it doesn't always translate to saying the perpetrator is evil. It depends. You have to look at each case individually. I hope you understand that.

M.

[Claire Evans]

My post contains the answer to your questions, but if you need to hear it again: no a rapist is not necessarily malevolent. He or she may be following compulsions that he or she may very much wish were controllable. But it depends on the individual. Some individuals lack even the ability to understand the real consequences of their actions - why call them evil? It makes no sense.

Perfectly decent people spawn terrible deeds, and malevolent people can also spawn good ones - depending on circumstance.

M.

And what makes a man want to rape a child? We are talking about children here, not raping adults. Would you not consider a paedophile who grooms children to trust them over a period of time and then rapes them and then does it over and over again. What do you call that?

[Malcolm Wright]

And what makes a man want to rape a child? We are talking about children here, not raping adults. Would you not consider a paedophile who grooms children to trust them over a period of time and then rapes them and then does it over and over again. What do you call that?

If I called it evil, it still wouldn't prove your point. It would only demonstrate my own threshold beyond which I am no longer able to interpret the complex impulses that make up a human being, some of them constructive, others destructive.

You keep asking me questions without tackling my core objection, which is that acts deemed evil do not necessarily stem from evil people.

M.