1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune I was just wondering what others considered evil. My first reaction is something or someone who harms another but is an earthquake 'evil'?

On a lighter note for me evil is needing to get up before 10AM.

In my book "evil" always implies a choice. No natural phenomenon is "evil" - nature doesn't plan good or evil things (I'm sure many will disagree with this statement though). I'm not a religious person, so I find the use of terms like "sinful" or "morally reprehensible" a bit off. The third definition (causing harm) would be mine, with the understanding that it implies a conscious decision to cause harm.

I don't really believe in evil. Everything a human does has its reasons somewhere in the said persons head. In my opinion evil is just something which humans came up with when they could not explain the actions of a criminal. Therefore I generally think that using the word evil to describe a person or his deeds only stems out of ignorance.

I know there are many flaws in my definition but I can say a person is evil if (s)he choses to harm someone with no valid reason.

So Argohir, if I chose to.. I don't know, cut someone open because I liked the sight of blood, would that be evil? There's a valid (if twisted) reason.

I tend to agree with Ziad, but would say a net effect of harm. A small amount of harm to someone can sometimes do a greater amount of good.

And I tend to agree with Rotku.

But I also think that it depends to some extent on the attitude of the person being harmed.

A child being punished may feel harmed but the parent intends the punishment to do good.

A country attacking another country may believe it has a good reason but the country being attacked will feel harmed and that the act is evil; also probably consider the attacking country evil.

In my view, I suppose evil is most simply described as harmful. As a noun, it could even be synonymous with harm. For example, if I'm attacked by someone and kill him in self-defence, his death is an evil thing, but I'm not evil for killing him and neither is my killing him an evil act. This is because I didn't choose that and no alternative.

Similarly, a mentally ill person killing someone while not being able to assess and/or control his behaviour does not commit an evil act.

Consequently, if we talk about evil in nature, it has much less of a moral connotation than if we judge people's actions. Such a person commits an evil act who knows what he's doing and is able to choose.

But if I am to say who is evil... I don't know. It appears a bit self-contradictory: on the one hand, it implies the person can't do good anymore or abstain from doing evil; on the other hand, a person unable to choose wouldn't be evil in any different sense from an evil beast, a natural disaster, an evil device.

The word "evil" is a pretty pejorative term. People (typically) don't call themselves or the things they like evil; they reserve it for the races, the ideas, the actions, etc. that they don't like and won't stand for. Five hundred years ago, the Jew was evil. Sixty years ago, the "Jap" was evil. Today, we perceive (for example), corporations as evil, but corporations aren't sentient beings capable of making choices.

Suffering is a different matter, since you at least, on a crude level, quantify it and know what it is when you see it. You may want to define suffering as "that which is not preferred", which leads us into (arguably) the realm of economics. In any case, we obviously have the choice to create suffering or not at our own gratification.

Evil is largely dependent on one's own moral concepts. Anything that is immoral is inherently evil. Evil cannot exist outside a moral construct.

Evil is only definite within the moral system it exists and is prone to radical change from system to system.

Evil is something that you dislike a very great deal.

IMO it's not a very useful word for it though, as people attach all other things to it as well. When it boils down to it though - that's about all it means...

I can't shake the gut feeling that, in the end, all things are neutral and that 'evil' is a meaningless human construct. Although, I can never reconcile this feeling with reason.

It is interesting that humans are not the only animals who exhibit evil behavior. Chimps murder other chimps (apparently) for the sport of it. Adolescent elephants have been known to kill rhinos without provocation and dolphins will sometimes brutalize and rape dolphins.

Evil depends on your own perspective. Everything is neutral, its how we respond to the situation that makes it 'evil' or 'good'.

It is interesting that humans are not the only animals who exhibit evil behavior. Chimps murder other chimps (apparently) for the sport of it. Adolescent elephants have been known to kill rhinos without provocation and dolphins will sometimes brutalize and rape dolphins. It's kind of disturbing that they all are some of the most 'intellectually advanced' species.

Harming another person deliberately or through neglect. Not just physical harm.

Sure, sometimes it's necessary to harm a person to prevent that person from harming another--but doing so is evil. It may be a necessary evil, but a necessary evil is still...

well, y'know.

We could take Nietzsche's approach and claim that so long as we have the power to do so, evil is whatever we claim it to be. In "Beyond Good and Evil", Nietzsche basically states that Altruistic action is evil (at the very least degenerate and unnatural).

Evil and good is just the "colour" of an act really. Its just mother nature affecting us in one direction or another, thats all.

It is interesting that humans are not the only animals who exhibit evil behavior. Chimps murder other chimps (apparently) for the sport of it. Adolescent elephants have been known to kill rhinos without provocation and dolphins will sometimes brutalize and rape dolphins. OTOH, it turns out that that's at least in part due to socialization. Yes, primates can be socialized too.

article (long, but worth reading): http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/18139
Interesting bits
n the early 1980s, "Forest Troop," a group of savanna baboons I had been studying - virtually living with - for years, was going about its business in a national park in Kenya when a neighboring baboon group had a stroke of luck: its territory encompassed a tourist lodge that expanded its operations and consequently the amount of food tossed into its garbage dump. Baboons are omnivorous, and "Garbage Dump Troop" was delighted to feast on leftover drumsticks, half-eaten hamburgers, remnants of chocolate cake, and anything else that wound up there. Soon they had shifted to sleeping in the trees immediately above the pit, descending each morning just in time for the day's dumping of garbage. (They soon got quite obese from the rich diet and lack of exercise, but that is another story.)

The development produced nearly as dramatic a shift in the social behavior of Forest Troop. Each morning, approximately half of its adult males would infiltrate Garbage Dump Troop's territory, descending on the pit in time for the day's dumping and battling the resident males for access to the garbage. The Forest Troop males that did this shared two traits: they were particularly combative (which was necessary to get the food away from the other baboons), and they were not very interested in socializing (the raids took place early in the morning, during the hours when the bulk of a savanna baboon's daily communal grooming occurs).

Soon afterward, tuberculosis, a disease that moves with devastating speed and severity in nonhuman primates, broke out in Garbage Dump Troop. Over the next year, most of its members died, as did all of the males from Forest Troop who had foraged at the dump. (Considerable sleuthing ultimately revealed that the disease had come from tainted meat in the garbage dump, which had been sold to the tourist lodge thanks to a corrupt meat inspector. The studies were the first of this kind of outbreak in a wild primate population and showed that, in contrast to what happens with humans and captive primates, there was little animal-to-animal transmission of the tuberculosis, and so the disease did not spread in Forest Troop beyond the garbage eaters.)

The results were that Forest Troop was left with males who were less aggressive and more social than average and the troop now had double its previous female-to-male ratio. The social consequences of these changes were dramatic. There remained a hierarchy among the Forest Troop males, but it was far looser than before: compared with other, more typical savanna baboon groups, high-ranking males rarely harassed subordinates and occasionally even relinquished contested resources to them. Aggression was less frequent, particularly against third parties. And rates of affiliative behaviors, such as males and females grooming each other or sitting together, soared. There were even instances, now and then, of adult males grooming each other - a behavior nearly as unprecedented as baboons sprouting wings.

This unique social milieu did not arise merely as a function of the skewed sex ratio; other primatologists have occasionally reported on troops with similar ratios but without a comparable social atmosphere. What was key was not just the predominance of females, but the type of male that remained. The demographic disaster - what evolutionary biologists term a "selective bottleneck" - had produced a savanna baboon troop quite different from what most experts would have anticipated.

But the largest surprise did not come until some years later. Female savanna baboons spend their lives in the troop into which they are born, whereas males leave their birth troop around puberty; a troop's adult males have thus all grown up elsewhere and immigrated as adolescents. By the early 1990s, none of the original low aggression/high affiliation males of Forest Troop's tuberculosis period was still alive; all of the group's adult males had joined after the epidemic. Despite this, the troop's unique social milieu persisted - as it does to this day, some 20 years after the selective bottleneck.

In other words, adolescent males that enter Forest Troop after having grown up elsewhere wind up adopting the unique behavioral style of the resident males. As defined by both anthropologists and animal behaviorists, "culture" consists of local behavioral variations, occurring for nongenetic and nonecological reasons, that last beyond the time of their originators. Forest Troop's low aggression/high affiliation society constitutes nothing less than a multigenerational benign culture.

So Argohir, if I chose to.. I don't know, cut someone open because I liked the sight of blood, would that be evil? There's a valid (if twisted) reason.
As I said it had many flaws, it was the first thing that came to my mind. What makes a reason valid? Maybe it is about crime and punishment; but it also has a lot of questions inside. But in the end, there are so many different situations to make a clear definition of evil.

Today in class, we were talking about Plato's Republic and the teacher asked "What is good?" because it is argued in a part of the book. Nobody was able to give a good answer and of course, the teacher didn't expect to get an answer from us. Because good&evil is not so simple. But I am interested in Ethics, so I like thinking about it.

Obviously it depends on a person's own moral compass as to what is evil. In my case the act is one performed where the (harm to victim):(benefit to executor) ratio is heavily in favor of the harm aspect. Stealing a loaf of bread from a bakery because if you didn't you would die and had no other means of procuring sustinance short of mugging somebody in the street for their money indeed harms the owner of the bakery yet the harm would be tiny compared to the benefit of the thief who would get to live.

I believe there must be a choice involved. The choice to do the easy thing that harms another when one could do a slightly more difficult thing yet harm nobody, the former is obviously an evil act.

An evil person would be a person who performs evil acts with abandon or simply doesn't care about the amount of harm he causes or even revels in the harm he causes.

Murder and killing is not always an evil act, as always there are mitigating circumstances. I wouldn't call a soldier an evil person for killing another soldier from a country they are at war with but I would call the same soldier evil if they harmed or killed a submissive and innocent civilian (if the civilian is attempting to harm/kill/disrupt the military operation they're fare game).

There are always mitigating circumstances and before one can call an act evil they should first see the whole picture of what occured rather than just the act itself.

It's all relative.

Although I find it interesting that a bunch of people who use the words "good" and "evil" every day in the D&D worlds, can't agree on what "evil" actually means.

Evil would be acting outside the accepted values of whatever is deemed right and wrong in society. In Western Civilization that would be the tenets of Judeo-Christian religion. Whether you are religious or not, Western values are based upon this. Therefore, using this definition, both fornication and murder are evil acts (albeit differing in severity). However, nowadays moral relativism seems to be the order of the day so the definition is much more hazy than it used to be. Many believe moral relativism to be an extremely slippery slope.

I don't believe that nature is capable of evil since animals don't have the moral compass that humans do.

morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKEDThat's what I've been using for a definition of evil here in the alleys...

"evil" always implies a choice.That's a second component. Choosing to do that which is morally reprehensible.

Everything a human does has its reasons somewhere in the said persons head.That's what makes ethics such a touchy subject. To some what they do makes sence, or even seems right, but to others, it is morally reprehensible.

In my case the act is one performed where the (harm to victim):(benefit to executor) ratio is heavily in favor of the harm aspect. Stealing a loaf of bread from a bakery because if you didn't you would die and had no other means of procuring sustinance short of mugging somebody in the street for their money indeed harms the owner of the bakery yet the harm would be tiny compared to the benefit of the thief who would get to live.That ratio would be a scale of evil, the greater the harm, the greater social evil. But harm is not the only indicator of evil. Perhaps a willful defiance of what is considered good could also be considered evil...

Murder and killing is not always an evil act, as always there are mitigating circumstances.Acts of war and self defence would be such circumstances. Also, killing someone who is a threat to those you care about would qualify. If someone threatend my mother, for example, and I were to oppose this to the point of the other person's death, that would not be evil.

Evil would be acting outside the accepted values of whatever is deemed right and wrong in society.So then Hitler's grand idea to purge the world of Jews wasn't evil because according to German society at the time it was considered the right thing to do?

I don't think what is evil could ever possibly be agreed upon. I don't see fornication as an evil thing especially if all parties involved understand what is happening and go along with the act willingly. For something to be evil there MUST be harm or at least intent/desire to harm.

From the Nazi and general view of the German people, the Jewish solution was not evil. It was sincerely for the best in their view. However, to the rest of us, it is 'evil'...so in the end its really just neutral, and depends on how you look at it.

I think before you can debate the nature of evil, you have to debate whether morality operates under platonism or welfarism. Evil has to be normative in nature to have any practical purpose.

So then Hitler's grand idea to purge the world of Jews wasn't evil because according to German society at the time it was considered the right thing to do? From the Nazi and general view of the German people, the Jewish solution was not evil.Right.

Ponder this then:

During the Weimarer Republik "general view" of Jews wasnt all that unfavorably. An indicator would be the comparatively high number of 'mixed' marriages.
And during Drittes Reich, the Nazis kept the fate of the Jewish Germans - die Endlösung - from the German public for a reason.

I hate to get in the way of convenience but that's rather sloppy and careless an example for relativity of "evil".

Fine then, for a historical example vis-a-vis the relativity of 'evil', try....


The SPANISH INQUISITION!!!
♫ <DA-DAAHHHHH!> ♫

:D

No, seriously. From the perspective of the Inquisitors, they weren't doing evil...maybe at worst harmful things to a temporal body for the betterment of the 'inquistionee's' immortal soul - unless they converted to Christianity, they'd languish in Hell for eternity. :(

To the people being tortured, on the other hand, it was more of a lose-lose proposition; be maltreated to death, or recant your religious beliefs... :mommy:


(Oh, and be honest - did you expect this? ;) )

Evil would be acting outside the accepted values of whatever is deemed right and wrong in society. So then Hitler's grand idea to purge the world of Jews wasn't evil because according to German society at the time it was considered the right thing to do? History (and by extension, society) is written by the victor. I guarantee you that if the Axis had won WW2, Hitler's act wouldn't be considered the slightest bit evil as the victims would have demonized competely. Jew would be a curse word, and Hitler would be looked on as a savior of the world. Good and evil are defined by the society; the prevalent world society (perhaps someday galactic or universal...).

Acts of war and self defence would be such circumstances.No they most definitely would not. Acts of war and self defense may be necessary, but remain evil nonetheless.

Go pick up a military history book, one that does a good job of describing exactly what happens in a battle. Severing people's limbs is evil. Disembowling people is evil. Shattering bones, rending skin, spilling intestines onto the earth, etc, etc; these acts are evil. They are also part and parcel of war. Ergo, war is evil. Even when it's necessary.

Same applies to self defense. Think--truly think--about what 'killing the person threatening my mother' entails. Say you use a gun. Think about exactly what 'using a gun' means. Think about the high-velocity bits of metal (bullets) puncturing skin. Think about them fragmenting. Think about exactly what 'fragmenting' in a human body means.

Now tell me that isn't evil. Even if it's necessary.
History (and by extension, society) is written by the victor. I guarantee you that if the Axis had won WW2, Hitler's act wouldn't be considered the slightest bit evil as the victims would have demonized competely. Jew would be a curse word, and Hitler would be looked on as a savior of the world. Good and evil are defined by the society; the prevalent world society (perhaps someday galactic or universal...). 'By society' maybe, but you aren't society. Every person can and should come to own conclusions about what is evil, regardless of what Victor Davis Hanson (or whomever) says.

Yes, those conclusions will be influenced by parents, friends, lovers, television, books, and so on; but no one is (or at least needs to be) slave to such influences.

Selfishness is the root of evil so I would say that most humans are inherently evil.

Well, it's been almost two whole pages, and I'm proud of the fact that no one has taken the easy away out and simply posted

"I am :evil: "


(Waitaminute...aw, poopy :aww: )

Selfishness is the root of evil so I would say that most humans are inherently evil. But most humans have the ability to love, not just eros but various types of love and to be unselfish.

Selfishness is the root of evil so I would say that most humans are inherently evil. Evil is more then simple biology in practical usage. It is not evil to look out for yourself (unless you're an altruist I suppose), even in ways that are unnecessary (as much as I hate advanced capitalism, it's premium on unnecessary material wealth isn't evil in itself). If selfish action leads to your own harm or another then that'd make for a more practical evil. If I or no other is harmed in the action I take then what purpose is there in labeling it evil? (as a note when I speak of harming myself I don't mean strictly physical harm, if my selfishness degenerates my mind into a state of depraved indifference, then it is harming me)

To label selfishness as evil itself removes evil from the physical realm; selfishness is an idea and for evil to exist in selfishness allows for evil to exist as thought alone. Damn it, I sound like a half-rate philosopher of language right now (and I don't even like most philosophers of language either).

The gratest problem with defining acts of evil is that the acts themselfs are rarely evil in the eyes of the people who do them. This makes defining the acts in question a problem.

No they most definitely would not. Acts of war and self defense may be necessary, but remain evil nonetheless.Eliminating an active threat, while not pleasant, is not necessarily evil. Blatantly ignoring the consequences of not eliminating this threat may be evil, for you are blatantly risking the lives of innocent people because you do not wish to act. Sloth is one of the Seven deadly sins.

one that does a good job of describing exactly what happens in a battle. Severing people's limbs is evil. Disembowling people is evil. Shattering bones, rending skin, spilling intestines onto the earth, etc, etc; these acts are evil. They are also part and parcel of war. Ergo, war is evil. Even when it's necessary.The soldier is simply to do his job with honour and not seek to torture his enemy, but to simply fight. The soldier that does this is not evil. In some cases, it may be an unpleasant way to support the greater good.

quote:Selfishness is the root of evil so I would say that most humans are inherently evil.

But most humans have the ability to love, not just eros but various types of love and to be unselfish.Both of you have a point here. Selfishness, be it pride, greed, lust, what have you, is evil, but overcoming that selfishness is how we do good...

Is that why Jesus was pacifist, Gnarff? I didn't read about him riding a horse into battle, and slaughtering the Romans.

The soldier is simply to do his job with honour and not seek to torture his enemy, but to simply fight. The soldier that does this is not evil. In some cases, it may be an unpleasant way to support the greater good.I suppose I should clarify; acts of war are evil. Those who commit them are commiting evil acts, but that does not make soldiers evil. Sorta like 'love the sinner, hate the sin', really; except unlike so many of those who say that, I actually mean it.

IMO, we cannot allow ourselves to lose sight of exactly what 'upholding the greater good' means when it involves violence, either on a personal level or on a large scale. I'd be the first to admit that violence can be necessary, but we need to keep in mind exactly how awful it is in order to keep ourselves from using it when it is not necessary.

Man isn't evil, the act he commit may be evil though.

But most humans have the ability to love, not just eros but various types of love and to be unselfish. Most humans have the ability to love if it suits thier needs. Most humans have a sense of loyalty or duty, but few if any possess the quality of selflessness. In a lot of cases an act of charity is done for self gratification or because it is convienient.
Evil is more then simple biology in practical usage. It is not evil to look out for yourself (unless you're an altruist I suppose), even in ways that are unnecessary (as much as I hate advanced capitalism, it's premium on unnecessary material wealth isn't evil in itself). If selfish action leads to your own harm or another then that'd make for a more practical evil. If I or no other is harmed in the action I take then what purpose is there in labeling it evil? (as a note when I speak of harming myself I don't mean strictly physical harm, if my selfishness degenerates my mind into a state of depraved indifference, then it is harming me)
Am I not my brothers keeper? All selfishness harms not only you but everyone around you and indirectly all of humanity. So, I would say that is a fairly evil state of affairs.

To label selfishness as evil itself removes evil from the physical realm; selfishness is an idea and for evil to exist in selfishness allows for evil to exist as thought alone. Evil can and does exist in thought alone and selfishness does not exist without thought. Most of a man's life is consumed with selfishness. Even if he begins with pure intentions, necessity or presumed necessity will push you tward selfishness or "to look out for yourself". If I am wrong ,why do we live in a world where a large portion starves while another waste and so on?

My 2 cents worth.

Taking a life without need or necessity is inherently evil.

An example, Native Americans would kill a buffalo and use every single part of its body for something useful, nothing to waste. However, hunters now a days hunt for single organs, leaving the rest of the bodies to rot unused.. than when that same hunter dies his body is embalmed and buried so deep that the circle of life is broken and his body is useless to the same earth that he raped. This to me is Evil .

A mentally unstable man may accidentally kill a child, by ignorance or an honest chemical imbalance/brain defect which causes him to be oblivious/not aware of the consequences of his actions... This to me is not evil . However, a mentally unstable person who derives pleasure from purposely killing or abusing a child is evil, no matter the cause or reason for his mental instability. If his mother/father beat/abused him then he is a product of evil. Born innocent but trained to be evil from His environment and not to be forgiven as it is a circle that needs to be broken.

Gaining pleasure from any non consensual torture, death, rape, and not to mention maliciousness, ruthlessness, and jealousy for the gain of power is the root of evil.

Power is Evil, Money is Evil, Vanity is Evil, & Obsession is Evil.
These things are the root of all evil and keep it alive and thriving.

There is no such thing as evil. No person is wholly bad, nor wholly good. Events or things can't be evil, because events and things have no motivations in and of themselves. They merely exist. Actions, however, could probably be good or evil, but since good and evil are such subjective terms, I would prefer that society eschew such labels entirely. So much "evil" has been done in the name of "good". The last thing our society needs is more handy labels with which to sway the masses.

Drew has an excellent point -- evil is a pejorative word; we sometimes associate it with "that which causes suffering", but even then, we are inclined to slap labels on things like "pollution", or "capitalism", or "communism" as evil.

Take pollution, for example. No one likes pollution, and we'd all get rid of it if we had a mgaic wand. However, to get rid of some pollution, you have to make sacrifices -- companies have decreased revenue, then workers get fired, not everyone gets the goods (computer games, toys, pencils, whatever). So -- is pollution evil? Most economists will probably tell you that there's an optimal amount of pollution (not zero), not accounting for magic wands and such.

Money is -- in my mind -- a great thing to have (for society and for oneself). Money = goods = services. Moreover, money is one step above the barter system; saying money is bad is sort of like saying having computer games or Diet Coke is bad. Computer games and Diet Coke, in the right circumstances, can very well become a medium of currency.

Desire for money can lead to bad things -- theft, burglary, etc. (Of course, there are a number of things we do to address this, e.g. minimum wage, etc.) However, desire for most things can lead to suffering and pain. Desire to overthrow your tyrannical and backwards government will lead to suffering (and probably unncessitated suffering) in general, if you look at the French Revolution. Desire for good things can lead to suffering and pain -- robbing a store to feed your family is noble and all, but that might mean the storeowner goes broke next month and has to move his to the slums.

Suffering is bad because we don't prefer it. In fact, much of what we consider "evil" equates to "what we don't prefer". This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because I believe most people would prefer peace, joy, lcompassion, and ove in perfect cirucmstances. Of course, circumstances are not perfect, and there are always complications (e.g. people who prefer to cause suffering, ignorance, lack of compassion, etc.)

Evil is more than a lable or pejorative word and if you fail to see that I do not understand what kind of life you have lived to lead you to this conclusion or even what world you live in. Evil surronds us all and we are drowning in it. Someone, please explaine to me how good and evil are subjective terms. How can pollution be a tolerable thing that, 'just is'? How is money a great thing to have if everything we do to get it, and everything we want to get with it is destroying our habitat and our sense of right and wrong? Good and Evil are not lables, they are tangible. Do we not use WORDS to convey meaning, to express tangible evidence? Look around you, and I don't mean in the safety of your own environment, and tell me you do not see the poisoning of minds leading to harmful, hurtful, hateful, and fatal actions. Is this not evil? Evil exist because it is taken lightly or ignored or considered a pejorative term or a belief of the unwashed and non-intellectual types. (No offence ment to anyone)

Is that why Jesus was pacifist, Gnarff? I didn't read about him riding a horse into battle, and slaughtering the Romans.The soldier did not ask for the war, nor did he start it. He is defending his family and country. I would guess that the majority would rather not be fighting, but they fight for their family and country.

Christ did not fight becuase solutions through non violence are always better. The soldier fights when that is not likely, by the pride, wrath or greed of his leaders...

I'd be the first to admit that violence can be necessary, but we need to keep in mind exactly how awful it is in order to keep ourselves from using it when it is not necessary.Exactly. The soldier ought do his duty with no malice but rather the understanding of the reasons he is needed here.

In a lot of cases an act of charity is done for self gratification or because it is convienient.That is one of the problems with Charity. A few small donations in a kettle at Christmas time, despite the good it does for those in need, is not the limit of what is needed of us. We give a little here or there and think we have charity, but do we ignore those in need at other times?

Am I not my brothers keeper?We are, but how many of us know how to see that need and respond in a way that's really helping them? Sure sometimes that simply supplying a little labour for an afternoon, or taking them a meal when they are pressed for time due to emergency, but cleaning their house because they are lazy does more harm than good. It is not enough to give, but to serve.

Evil can and does exist in thought alone and selfishness does not exist without thought. Most of a man's life is consumed with selfishness. Even if he begins with pure intentions, necessity or presumed necessity will push you tward selfishness or "to look out for yourself". If I am wrong ,why do we live in a world where a large portion starves while another waste and so on?Exactly. Some only exist to generate wealth. Giving to the poor reduces the wealth available to be made...

It is not enough to give, but to serve.
A powerful statement. And a simple truth that few are willing to face.

Well, 'evil' is certainly a subjective notion. That said, all observers must agree that Terrell Owens is evil. It is an objective truth.

Well, he has consistently behaved in a mean, spiteful, hateful manner. He keeps paying the consequences for his actions, yet seems to have no inclination to curb or restrain himself.

Yep, I'd have to agree that he fits my subjective definition of 'evil'. (good - if non sequitur-ish - example)

Evil is more than a lable or pejorative word and if you fail to see that I do not understand what kind of life you have lived to lead you to this conclusion or even what world you live in. Evil surronds us all and we are drowning in it. Someone, please explaine to me how good and evil are subjective terms. How can pollution be a tolerable thing that, 'just is'? How is money a great thing to have if everything we do to get it, and everything we want to get with it is destroying our habitat and our sense of right and wrong? Good and Evil are not lables, they are tangible. Do we not use WORDS to convey meaning, to express tangible evidence? Look around you, and I don't mean in the safety of your own environment, and tell me you do not see the poisoning of minds leading to harmful, hurtful, hateful, and fatal actions. Is this not evil? Evil exist because it is taken lightly or ignored or considered a pejorative term or a belief of the unwashed and non-intellectual types. (No offence ment to anyone) But -- things are hardly so black-and-white that you can point to a person, or to concept, and declare, "this is evil".

Good and evil, in one sense, don't exist just like capitalism and free speech don't exist -- they're abstracts, and only exist when real, tangible things are in place.

I believe suffering exists, for example, and that alone very, very much encapsulates what is evil. No one wants to suffer. (And for those who do want to suffer, then not being able to suffer is a sort of suffering.)

"Evil" is a word that conveys value (or lack thereof). People point to a gay couple, or to pornography, or to an American, and they say, "that is evil". When that happens, people (can) become convinced that a gay couple, or pornography, or Americans need to be destroyed or cast out, even at some great or greater cost. Of course, people say a gay couple, or pornography, or Americans are evil because those things offend them or their values.

Homosexuality, pornography, or Americans are not intrinsically evil, assuming you look at things scientifically/rationally. These things do not radiate evil auras like the One True Ring or whatever. These things may cause suffering, and we may choose to address them on that basis, however.

Suffering is more "real" than evil, in my opinion. However, just completely eliminating something that causes suffering always has consequences.

Think about pollution. Pollution is not evil in itself. Pollution does not come from the Devil, or does it desire to eat babies or kick puppies. Pollution causes lung cancer (for example), but if we demanded that factories stop polluting, there are still consequences. Factories shut down because they can't keep up with costs, and workers are laid off. Unemployed workers can no longer feed their families, and their children are forced to drop out of school in order to help earn money for the family. Some of the unemployed, now without work, kill themselves. Other families have to switch from eating healthy fruit to eating potatoes and macaroni; this lack of nutrition results, twenty years later, in cancer.

The possibilities are endless with pollution or without, but both have consequences that no one wants. It's important, then, to weigh what will happen if you choose to eliminate suffering at the expense/risk of other/more suffering.

I'm not saying pollution is good, or that factories ought to be free to pollute -- but what I am saying is that eliminating pollution always involves costs and benefits.

Obviously, you can change "pollution" here to something else you oppose: pornography, etc. However, getting rid of pornography, for example, puts free speech at risk, something we value greatly.

Not that I have anything against p0rn, but whats p0rn got to do with freedom of speech?

People don't like porn, because they think it's offensive or degrading to women, and believe it should be banned. The response to that, naturally, is that makers of pornography have a right to free speech through porn.

I don't believe in evil. Because it's definition varies startlingly from person to person I find it difficult to attatch a meaning to the word, especially since it is all relative to the viewer. For example, I could see Hitler as evil, but he would almost certainly not have seen himself as being so. Therefore, I can merely determine if person is violating rules in terms of my personal interpretation of "the rules," rather than simply label them as "evil."

Good and evil are qualitative terms. Quality is not subjective. There is a basic level of good and evil inherent to all sentient beings, that is beings that have a nervous system, but not necessarily self-awareness. And you could stretch that even further into every single living organism.

Living things direct themselves towards things that help them grow and proliferate. This could be called as the basic level of 'good'. Every living thing also tends to avoid things that are harmful to them, sentient beings avoid things that make them experience pain. This could be understood as the basic level of 'evil'. In any case this is the most rudimentary experience of quality that is common with every living thing. Statistically speaking, since there are exceptions. However, organisms that do not act according to this basic level of good and evil don't get to pass their genes onward as much as the organism that abide by this rule.

Evil is that which is harmful. Good is something that is beneficial. Without this basic experience of good and evil, life would not exist as we know it.

When it comes to society, things get a little more complex since the consequences are not that easily perceivable or straightforward. With human perception good and evil are in the eye of the beholder, but only to a certain extent. The basic instincts are always there underneath the cultural influences, and most of the cultural influences rest on top of this basic level of sentience.

In my humble opinion, the terms "good" and "evil" imply intent. Without knowing the intent behind an action, it is impossible to know if the action was borne of good or evil. Since I have only seen the inner workings of one mind (mine) it logically follows that there is only one human being on the face of this earth who I am qualified to judge as good or evil. Since it is impossible to know what motivates the actions of people like George Bush, Ted Bundy, Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Mother Theresa, or Keanu Reeves it is similarly impossible to judge any of them as "good" or "evil".

I'm not quite sure about my own definitions, but I have some guidelines about good and evil. Good is for me a category that involves care for the well-being (on all levels) of oneself and others, or at least our closest environment. Evil is exploiting one part of the environment - or all of it - for personal gains and outside of the group conventions. As such, good and evil can be both conscious choices and, to a lesser degree, unconscious guidelines.

While I would agree that intent can be judged on a good-evil axis, I would argue that the methods used to pursue a goal can also be considered from an ethical perspective. How you treat yourself, your allies or assets, the opposition and the non-involved observers in the name of your cause can show a lot in terms of good or evil. After all, few people can honestly say that they are doing something that would benefit only them or that is, to be frank, evil. Most would speak of necessary sacrifices, or the need for progress, or of the necessity to restore the proper ways, etc. etc.

Evil is the unnecessary impediment of the self-interest of one person by another person.

We all just need to see the wisdom in balance, as Jaroo once said...

The life is evil.. Its the reason why we're having so much pain... The Satan is evil.. also he's another reason why we're having pain... The death is nice... Its the only medicine which finishes our pain...

Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales if you read any NY Times articles.

Probably just socialists in general (unless your socialist party happens to be Sinn Fein, then its okay).