The Soapboxx
Friday, March 16, 2007
Does 'Evil' Have A Face We All Know?
If I said to you: think of something 'evil', what picture forms in your mind?
The Devil? Hitler? Jeremy Beadle?
Now think of something 'good'. What do you see?
Family? A loved one? An animal? God?
The concept of good and evil is, of course, a difficult one to truly define. Indeed, some philosophers argue that both terms are essentially useless because they fall very much into the one man's meat/poison argument: terrorists are 'freedom fighters' in some parts of the Middle East, many religious groups think abortion is 'evil'. Hence, the process of motivation becomes somewhat important in regard to the categorisation.
Wikipedia suggests:
More Wiki on this:
In religious philosophy, the 'problem of evil' concerns itself with the suggestion that a truly good God would not have created a world/universe that contained even the slightest whiff of a hint of a flutter of a glimmer of a shadow of evil. But He clearly did. This is know as the Epicurean paradox.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief).
Looking at this problem from a mathematical perspective, this assumes that God is both benevolent and omnipotent. One formulation of the problem of evil may be schematized as follows:
Therefore, one can conclude that God either does not exist, or is indeed, evil, or partly thereof, which suggests to me that it's not God running the show at all, but rather, his once-close pal, and I suggest possibly the true King: Bill. Z. Bub.
The Devil? Hitler? Jeremy Beadle?
Now think of something 'good'. What do you see?
Family? A loved one? An animal? God?
The concept of good and evil is, of course, a difficult one to truly define. Indeed, some philosophers argue that both terms are essentially useless because they fall very much into the one man's meat/poison argument: terrorists are 'freedom fighters' in some parts of the Middle East, many religious groups think abortion is 'evil'. Hence, the process of motivation becomes somewhat important in regard to the categorisation.
Wikipedia suggests:
Many critics reject the current common usage of the term evil, suggesting that motivation must be taken into account. Thus, they feel it is inappropriate to apply the term to just anyone committing significant acts of violence such as terrorism and mass murder. Only those people motivated by sadism, lust for power or greed of wealth (in many forms) should qualify as evil. That does not mean they think violent acts like terrorism and murder are acceptable, just that perpetrators of those acts should not automatically be labeled evil. Under such applications of the term evil, malicious juveniles and sadistic minors are classified as evil despite their misguided purposes.Which is probably fair enough. I wrote before about whether Hitler consider himself an 'evil man', and inevitably he did not. Whilst most of us probably do, his oft-mentioned redeeming qualities of being a vegetarian and an animal lover probably don't go far enough to save him... but they do perhaps prevent him from being 100 per cent categorically evil in any absolute definition of the term.
There is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil.
More Wiki on this:
Psychologist and mediator Marshall Rosenberg claims that the root of violence is the very concept of "evil" or "badness." When we label someone as bad or evil Rosenberg claims, it invokes the desire to punish or inflict pain. It also makes it easy for us to turn off our feelings towards the person we are harming. He cites the use of language in Nazi Germany as being a key to how the German people were able to do things to other human beings that they normally wouldn't do. He links the concept of evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment ("punitive justice")- punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong. He contrasts this approach with what he found in cultures where the idea of evil was non-existant. In such cultures, when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out of harmony with themselves and their community, they are seen as sick or ill and measures are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and others, as opposed to punishing them.Perhaps one way to look at true evil is whether the actions are entirely self-serving; most 'evil' beings in history seemed to have some ultimate purpose that benefitted themselves or their race, but this theory excludes those who have no choice but to commit acts that others find verge on the threshhold of evil (i.e., they certainly are not 'good' acts) - stealing food to live, for example, or those people who kill doctors and nurses involved in abortions, or animal experimentation. Essentially these are 'evil acts'. To the perpetrators, they are probably closer to the opposite. In these examples, as detailed above, those involved excuse their actions because they feel they are doing what is essentially right, what is needed, and required. Two wrongs don't make a right, as well all know - or at least are told - but for many, they definitely do.
Psychologist Albert Ellis makes a similar claim, in his school of psychology called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. He says the root of anger, and the desire to harm someone is always one of the thought: 1) That they should/shouldn't have done certain things 2) That someone is awful/bad/horrible person for doing what they did 3) That they deserve to be punished for what they did.
He claims that without one of the following thoughts, violence is next to impossible.
In religious philosophy, the 'problem of evil' concerns itself with the suggestion that a truly good God would not have created a world/universe that contained even the slightest whiff of a hint of a flutter of a glimmer of a shadow of evil. But He clearly did. This is know as the Epicurean paradox.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. ... If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. ... If, as they say, God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" (Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief).
Looking at this problem from a mathematical perspective, this assumes that God is both benevolent and omnipotent. One formulation of the problem of evil may be schematized as follows:
- If God exists, then there would be no evil in the world.
- There is evil in the world.
- Therefore, God does not exist.
- If P is true, then Q is true
- Q is false
- Therefore, P is false
Therefore, one can conclude that God either does not exist, or is indeed, evil, or partly thereof, which suggests to me that it's not God running the show at all, but rather, his once-close pal, and I suggest possibly the true King: Bill. Z. Bub.
Recent Posts
Archives
