Revision as of 20:03, 25 October 2007 view source199.71.183.2 (talk) Undid revision 167053683 by 151.197.182.191 (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:00, 26 October 2007 view source JWSchmidt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,892 edits remove self-promotional link spam from User:Sadi Carnot/]Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Evil''' is a term describing that which is regarded as ] ], intrinsically ], wantonly ], ], or ]. | |||
<!-- If you are about to replace all instances of "evil" with "Irish Evil", as suggested by the comic at http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=816, don't. It's been done, many many times before, is considered vandalism, will be reverted and may result in a block of your account and or IP. --> | |||
In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about withering and ] —the opposite of ]. However, the definition of what counts as evil may differ widely from culture to culture. | |||
{{otheruses|Evil (disambiguation)}} | |||
In ethics, ] refers to behavior, which does harm, is dishonest, or fails to honor agreements. In some ]s, notably the ] and ] religions, '''evil''' is an active force. In the Christian religion, ] is, by definition, what God commands, and ] works to spread evil (disobedience) in the world. Evil thoughts are as serious as evil actions. In Zoroastrianism there are two Gods, the good ] and the evil ]. In most cultures, '''evil''' is used to describe acts or thoughts which are contrary to an established religion, or which could bring about ] and ] — the opposite of ]. | |||
The ] of '] versus evil' is expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures. This concept describes a ] of ] standards applied to human behaviour. In more casual or derogatory use, the word "evil" can characterize people and behaviours that are hurtful, ruinous, or disastrous. Evil cannot exist without good, nor good without evil, as they are both objective states and opposite ends of the same scale. | |||
== Etymology == | |||
The ] word 'evil' (] ''Yfel'') and its cognates such as the ] 'Übel' and the ] 'Euvel' are widely considered to come from a ] reconstructed form ''*Ubilaz'', comparable to the ] ''huwapp-'' ultimately from the ] form ''*wap-'' and suffixed zero-grade form ''*up-elo-''. Other later Germanic forms include ] ''evel'', ''ifel'', ''ufel'' ] ''evel'' (adjective & noun), ] ''ubil'', ] ''ubil'', and ] ''ubils''. The root meaning is of obscure origin though shown to be akin to modern English 'over' and modern German 'über' (OE ''ofer'') and 'up' (OE ''up'', ''upp'') with the basic idea of "transgressing". | |||
A similar term, ] (from the ] ''malus'' meaning "bad") describes the deliberate human intent to harm and be harmful. "Evil", by contrast, tends to represent a more elemental concept; a disembodied ] that is natural and yet abominable. Whereas "malice" is specifically concered with the act itself, "evil" is the cause of a malicious act. True evil is usually motivated by ] and/or ]. | |||
== Evil in philosophy and ethics == | |||
In Western philosophy, '''evil''' is usually limited to the idea of doing harm or damage to an object or creature. ] argued that that which we call evil is merely ignorance and that good is ''that which everyone desires''. | |||
] said that the difference between good and evil is merely one of personal inclinations: "Such things as please us, we denominate good, those which displease us, evil." {{Fact|date=September 2007}} | |||
Philosophers usually avoid arbitrary definitions of good and evil, in contrast to religious definitions, where a god or holy book has handed down a list of evil acts. | |||
The ] of '] versus evil' is expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures. Those who believe in the duality theory of evil believe that evil cannot exist without good, nor good without evil, as they are both objective states and opposite ends of the same scale. | |||
A similar term, ] (from the ] ''malus'' meaning "bad") describes the deliberate human intent to harm, while ] refers to a psychological state in which a person derives pleasure from the pain of another person. | |||
In the philosophical concept of evil, the intent to cause harm is crucial, so that acts that would otherwise be considered evil are not called evil when performed by very young children, by animals, or by the insane (See ]). | |||
== Evil as a religious concept == | == Evil as a religious concept == | ||
In a number of religious traditions, human beings are considered to be "governed" by an innate bent towards selfishness and pride, actions that are considered evil. In others, humans may be considered naturally good, and evil to be a 'force' that tempts them away from their natural state. Evil may be personified in the form of a figure of evil, such as ]. | |||
Most ancient ] cultures lacked a concept of "evil" as a human quality or as a quality of human actions, or if they had such a concept, they did not place as much importance on it as have their ] successors. This was also the case in many ]s, which had a concept of wrong doing, but ], when present, were much closer to embodiments of ] forces of nature. In the world of the ] epics, ] and ], for example, there are acknowledged human virtues such as honor, faithfulness, and vengeance (which later became a sin in ] thought){{Fact|date=April 2007}} but no direct corollary to the modern concept of evil. The gods do as they please, reward humans they like, and punish humans they dislike, for reasons unrelated to good and evil. | |||
==Zoroastrianism== | |||
In a number of religious traditions, human beings are considered to be "governed" by an innate bent towards selfishness and pride; qualities that are considered evil (see '']''). In others, humans may be considered naturally good, and evil to be a 'force' that tempts them away from their natural state. | |||
In the originally ] religion of ], the world is a battle ground between the god of good, ], and the god of evil, ]. This dualistic belief system had a heavy influence on the ]. | |||
==Judaeo-Christian religions== | |||
Evil may be personified in the form of a figure of evil, such as ] or ]. Polytheistic pantheons often have trickster gods, such as ], but these gods are viewed not as evil, but as chaotic. In ancient religions the duality of good and evil does not exist, and in its place we often find the duality of order and chaos. | |||
In the Hebrew Scriptures, evil is related to the concept of ] — "sin" translated in Hebrew is ''chata'' which means "missing the mark" (a term from archery). | |||
In ] and ], evil refers to those aspects of human behaviour that are contrary to the ]. Evil is thus directly correlated to disobedience: the Commandments are a guideline for "what not to do". In the forms of malice and selfishness, evil represents the socially weakening and destructive behaviors that lead directly to a ''fruitless life'' and ]. On a more abstract level, evil refers to "Evil" refers to the lack of faith in ], the end result of which is separation from Him. | |||
===Judaeo-Christian religions=== | |||
In many ] faiths, evil is personified as ], a challenger of the law or will of God. Satan is defined in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings collectively as the devil, the adversary, false accuser, slanderer, the counterfeit, a liar, a murderer, one with no truth, the serpent, the evil one, the tempter, and a lion prowling around looking for someone to devour. Evil may also be pesonified as ]s or ]s who incite acts ] human beings and animals. | |||
In ] and ], evil is the result of dissociating from God's will. Judaism stresses obedience to the God's laws as written in the ] (see also ]) and the laws and rituals laid down in the ] and the ]. In Christianity, some sects stress obedience to God's law. Other sects emphasize Christ's statement that love of God and love of your fellow man is the whole of the law. Still others emphasize the idea that humanity is, within itself, irremediably evil, and in need of forgiveness. | |||
Some forms of Christianity do not personify evil in ], but instead consider the human heart to be inherently bent toward deceit, although human beings are responsible for their choices. | |||
On a deeper level, in the view of the esoteric understanding of the ], evil and good are subjective perceptions of a single continuum (i.e. soul). That is, to the rectified mind, which has transcended the dualities of perception, all phenomena are completely good (as is God). To the unrectified mind, the challenge is to find the good; once found, seeming evil turns out to be apparent good. | |||
In the ], evil is related to the concept of ] — "sinned" translated in Hebrew as ''chata'' which means, "missed the mark" (a term from ]). The mark in question is the law of God. | |||
Note that "self" does not necessarily have to mean "one's self," but also to the various units, groups, and demographics to which one belongs (for example: family, school, team, generation, nationality, race, or religion). The Israelites asked for national repentance of sin while the Christians focus on individual sins. Jewish beliefs and Christian teachings say each person will give an account of all their actions, including faith and obedience. | |||
In some ] faiths, evil is personified as ], a challenger of the law or will of God. Satan is defined in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings collectively as the devil, the adversary, false accuser, slanderer, the counterfeit, a liar, a murderer, one with no truth, the serpent, the evil one, the tempter, and a prowling lion seeking someone to devour. These faiths also teach that ]s or ]s may ] humans or animals and tempt them to do evil. It is argued by those who follow the ] and higher Biblical criticism that this concept of Satan developed over time. ] "haSatan" seems originally to have been the accuser, a title given to the prosecuting attorney at the heavenly court. He still has this character in the ]. It is argued that the larger role of Satan and his identification with ], later associated with the snake in the ], occurred during the period of the ] and subsequent exposure to ].<ref>Sanders, E.P., "The Historical Figure of Jesus", Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, p. 115 (1993)</ref> Orthodox Jews still hold to the traditional view of haSatan being an accusing angel in the heavenly court. | |||
Some cultures or philosophies believe that evil can arise without meaning or reason (in ] philosophy this is called ''surd evil''). Christianity in general does not adhere to this belief. | |||
Some forms of Christianity, as well as Judaism, do not personify evil in ]; these Christian sects instead consider the human heart to be inherently bent toward deceit, although human beings are responsible for their choices, whereas in Judaism, there is no prejudice in one's becoming good or evil at time of birth. In Judaism, Satan is viewed as one who tests us for God rather than one who works against God, and evil, as in the Christian denominations above, is a matter of choice.The Greek word used in the New Testament for evil can just as well be rendered by "a wrongdoer" or even as "the evil one". This ambiguity means that a passage in the Sermon on the Mount has been translated "Do not resist evil" and "do not set yourself against a wrong-doer." | |||
Judaism and Christianity both focus on individual repentance of sin, but in Judaism, repentance requires the forgiveness of the injured party, and thus is rather difficult in some cases, such as murder, but for other crimes, if one is sincerely asked for forgiveness on ], the Jewish Day of Atonement by someone who has truly repented, it is a religious obligation to forgive. In Christianity, the nature of repentance is highly dependent on sect. Jewish beliefs and Christian teachings say each person will give an account of all their actions, including faith and obedience. | |||
In the ], the story of ] is a bold example of how evil exists and seems at times to be victorious, although Christianity teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the perfection of God and the wages of that missing the mark of that perfection (sin) is death. It is believed that God is in control of all things, especially as its teachings show that Jesus conquered this evil, resulting in death, by being raised from the dead. | |||
Some cultures or philosophies believe that evil can arise without meaning or reason (in ] philosophy this is called absurd evil). Christianity in general does not adhere to this belief, but the prophet ] implied that God is ultimately responsible for everything including evil* ''(Isa.45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.")'' *note: Most new translations do not include the word evil. The word used is Rah and it is more linked to troubles or unpleasantness. | |||
], a former ] pastor and current ], says that "evil is animate and absolute. Evil is not a concept, but a living force. It is absolutely bad. None of it is acceptable in your life because it is out to destroy your soul and drive a wedge between you and your heavenly Father. There are hurting and oppressed people who labor under the darkness which has come upon them because of poor choices," he says. "The answer is ] ], who has the authority to drive out evil." | |||
The One forming light and creating darkness, | |||
Causing well-being and creating calamity; | |||
I am the LORD who does all these. Isa. 45:7 (NAS) | |||
For the French philosopher ], ] is the invisible ] that never stops to generate us and to give us to ourselves in its pathetic self-revelation. God is Love because Love itself in an infinite love ''is'' Life. By consequence life is good in itself. The evil corresponds to all what denies or attacks life, it finds its origin in death which is the negation of life. This death is an inner and spiritual death which is the separation with God, and which consists simply in not loving, in living selfishly as if God didn't exist, as if he was not our Father of us all and as if we were not all its beloved Sons, as if we were not all Brothers generated by a same Life. The evil peaks in the violence of hatred that is at the origin of all the crimes, of all the wars and of all the genocides. But the evil is also the common origin of all those blind processes and of all those false abstractions that lead so many people to misery and exclusion. | |||
In the ], the story of ] is a bold example of how evil exists and seems at times to be victorious, although according to Christian beliefs, all have sinned and fallen short of the perfection of God (] 3:23), and the price of missing the mark of perfection (sin) is death. The crucifixion of Jesus was the sacrifice of a sinless, superior, and good being for the sins of mankind; thus, salvation from death occurs in understanding this idea and making the Christ Lord over one's life. | |||
==Is evil universal?== | |||
An important belief that has been emphasized by some Christian leaders relating to the belief that "all have sinned" and "sin separates Man from God" is that these beliefs imply a certain equality of all humanity; no one is no "more evil" than any other person. The murderous are in the same category as the saintly, and the rich are no more worthy of attention than the poor (] 2). The only difference between people, in terms of Christian salvation, is that some have made the commitment to Christ and that others have not. | |||
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendant definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by ones social or cultural background. ] among others, sometimes use the term ''evil'' as a generic label for reputed transgressions, inhumanities or moral corruptions which have reached a particularly 'extreme' degree. For example, activities such as ], ], ]s, ], and ] ] are often considered evil in the West. Some people, especially for religious reasons, regard such acts as ] or ] as evil, although there is wide societal disagreement as to whether these acts are even immoral. | |||
Generally, many Western societies are divided in their views on morality between two extremes. One, "]", holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by ], nature, or some other authority. The other, ], holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice. ] is a recent humanist term to find a compromise between the unattainable absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view. | |||
For the French philosopher ], ] is the invisible ] that never stops to generate us and to give us to ourselves in its pathetic self-revelation. God is Love because Love itself in an infinite love ''is'' Life. By consequence life is good in itself. The evil corresponds to all what denies or attacks life; it finds its origin in death, which is the negation of life. This death is an inner and spiritual death which is the separation with ], and which consists simply in not loving, in living selfishly as if God didn't exist, was not Father of us all and we His beloved Sons; as if we were not all Brothers generated by a same life. The evil peaks in the violence of hatred that is at the origin of all the crimes, of all the wars and of all the genocides. But the evil is also the common origin of all those blind processes and of all those false abstractions that lead so many people to misery and exclusion. | |||
A looser definition of evil describes it as death and ], whether it results from human or from other natural causes (e.g., ] and ]). In other words, it is not merely the intention to do evil, but the end result, namely, harm to others, that is evil. And, as ] observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, some philosophers (e.g. ]) maintain that not preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct. | |||
===Zoroastrianism=== | |||
{{main|Zoroastrianism}} | |||
In the originally ] religion of ], the world is a battle ground between the God, ], and the Evil Spirit, ] or ]. The final resolution of the struggle between good and evil was supposed to occur on a day of Judgement, in which all beings that have lived will be led across a bridge of fire, and those who are evil will be cast down forever. In Iranian belief, ] and ] are beings sent to help us achieve the path towards goodness. | |||
Some people define evil as not only a person who inflicts pain and suffering but does so for either solely selfish reasons (i.e. power or wealth) or because they are ] (which would mean they gain pleasure from it, placing it again entirely selfish). Under their definition of evil, a person who commits morally wrong acts but does so truly believing the ends justifies the means would not be evil, even if most people disagreed the ends justified the means. Even when they agree that the ends in and of themselves are morally wrong, so long as the person believes they are doing right regardless of how misguided they may be, they would not classify them as evil. This does not mean they do not view their actions as morally wrong, just that they do not see an evil intent in them. The intent of the actions is a key factor for them. Thus, for example ] would not, in these people's eyes, be evil as his motives are based on his belief about ], (e.g. the ], ] and ]) as being evil. | |||
== Evil in a Political Context == | |||
In liberal-democratic societies, many associate evil in politics, as revolving around authoritarian and especially totalitarian regimes, and demagogue leaders, such as the ] regime of ] in Germany for its mass genocide of Jews in the ], war crimes, as well as political and cultural persecution. In World War II and the post war years to present liberal-democratic societies view Hitler as a symbol of political and social evil in the modern world and is portrayed as such in most media presentations and representations of him. The ] regime of the ] has also been considered to be evil by a number of western liberal democracies, especially under the rule of ] for its mass persecutions of political opponents, religious, and cultural minorities (e.g. the Cossacks). Also the political writings of ] in '']'' often used by Hitler and Mussolini, are considered to be a source of evil in politics, as they often speak of ignoring accepted morals for the pursuit of ultimate power, as "the ends justifies the means". Machiavelli favoured a prince creating a climate of fear in order to rule a population, rather than relying on popular support. Machiavelli supports the use of deception and manipulation as means to increase a prince's personal power. The following statements in ''The Prince'' on how to gain control of a principality show little concern for traditional moral and ethical considerations in the thinking of Machiavelli. | |||
Regardless of the source of their definitions, most human cultures have a set of beliefs about what things, actions, and ideas are undesirable. Undesirable circumstances are often categorized as evil within some cultures. Natural evils generally include accidental death, disease, and other misfortunes, although some cultures see these occurrences instead as a healthy part of the natural order. Moral evils generally include violence, deceit or other destructive behavior toward others, although the same behavior toward "outsiders" of the group may be considered "good." War provides many examples, and "God is always on the winning side." The ]'s definition of evil is: "Taking advantage of another person for one's own benefit." | |||
:''...the ends justifies the means... The world consists mainly of vulgar people and the few who are honorable can safely be ignored when so many vulgar rally around the prince.'' {{Fact|date=September 2007}} | |||
Many cultures recognize many levels of immoral behaviour, from minor vices to major crimes. These beliefs are often encoded into the ]s of a society, with methods of judgment and punishment for offenses. | |||
:''Benefits must be conferred gradually so they are appreciated more thoroughly and harm should be inflicted all at once. Both harm and benefits should not serve as quick solutions to problems.''{{Fact|date=September 2007}} | |||
==Is evil a useful term?== | |||
:''Force is the most effective and efficient means to do something and the virtuous prince will employ its leverage.''{{Fact|date=September 2007}} | |||
The definition of evil has engendered some debate, much as the term ] has. It has been said that evil is subjective, that one person's idea of evil can be another person's idea of good, much like one person's terrorist is a freedom fighter of another. The term is often used by people or groups against their enemies, largely to evoke a strong emotional response against the person or group. For example, this claim has been made by some critics of the U.S. President ] with regard to his labeling ], ], and ] as part of an "]". | |||
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. | |||
Thus when the term ] is used to describe politicians or political policy that is it is often being used in a negative context, referring to Machiavelli's support of deception and manipulation to attain and preserve power. | |||
Some critics also feel the term evil is too closely linked with ], particularly ] and ]. Because of this, they think the term should be avoided in political discussion, especially in reference to members of other religions or leaders. Tolerance is demanded in the Western view such as the United States with an increasing hostility towards Christian fundamental beliefs. The moral truth it stands on is the foundation of the law which established the very freedom to express freedom of choice in religion. | |||
On the other hand, ], ], and elements of ] regimes tend to hold a common view that liberal-democratic regimes are evil and blame liberal democracy for high crime rates, profiteering, corporate crime, materialist individualism replacing common bonds of similar people, destruction of culture and its replacement with sleaze. All of which, the regimes claim will result in the destruction of humanity if liberal democracy is not restrained. | |||
It might be added that since use of the term evil to describe one's enemies is so comfortable that it removes all possibility of empathy and necessity for self-examination, its use usually indicates an absolutist or extremist attitude on the part of the user, regardless of his or her belief-system. | |||
== Philosophical Quandaries About Evil == | |||
===Is evil universal?=== | |||
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background. ], in '']'', maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. On the other hand, it is hard to find any act that was not acceptable in some society. The ] held favorable views regarding homosexual relationships between male youths and adult men.<ref>Nick Fisher, ''Aeschines: Against Timarchos,'' "Introduction," p.27; Oxford University Press, 2001</ref> Less than 150 years ago the ], ], and many other countries practiced brutal forms of slavery. The ], during ], found ] acceptable, as did the ] with the ] and the ] ] in the ]<ref name = "Gourevitch, 1999"> {{cite book | last = Gourevitch | first = Phillip | title = We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With our Families | publisher = Picador | id = ISBN 0-31224-335-9}}</ref><ref name = "PBS"> {{cite web | title = Frontline: the triumph of evil. | url = http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/ | accessdate = 2007-04-09}}</ref>. Today, there is strong disagreement as to whether ] and ] are perfectly acceptable or evils. Universalists consider evil independent of culture, and wholly related to acts or intents. Thus, while the ideological leaders of Nazism and the Hutu Interhamwe accepted (and considered it good) to commit genocide, the universally evil act of genocide renders the entire ideology or culture evil. | |||
==Scientific definition== | |||
Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of two opposed camps. One, ], holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by ], nature, morality, common sense, or some other source. The other, ], holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice. ] is the attempt to find a compromise between the absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view; universalism claims that morality is only flexible to a degree, and that what is truly good or evil can be determined by examining what is commonly considered to be evil amongst all humans. | |||
From a ] standpoint, some suggest that "evil" could be defined as increasing ] when the ] outweighs the benefit. This definition is, however, based on the non-physical concepts of "cost" and "benefit". | |||
==Sociological views on evil== | |||
A looser definition of evil describes it as death and ], whether it results from human or from other natural causes (e.g., ] and ]). In other words, it is not merely the intention to do evil, but the end result, namely, harm to others, that is evil. This is sometimes referred to as "natural evil," and some philosophers hold the position that this is an inappropriate use of the word "evil," as it is without intent. | |||
Some ], ], ] and ] have attempted to construct scientific explanations for the development of specific characteristics of an "antisocial" personality type, called the ]. The sociopath is typified by extreme self-serving behavior, and a lack of ], or inability to ] with others, to restrain self from, or to feel remorse for, harm personally caused to others. However, a diagnosis of antisocial or sociopath personality disorder (formerly called psychopathic mental disorder), is sometimes criticized as being, at the present time, no more scientific than calling a person "evil". What critics perceive to be a ] determination is disguised, they argue, with a scientific-sounding name, but no complete description of a mechanism by which the abnormality can be identified is provided. In other words, critics argue, "sociopaths" are called such, because they are first thought to be "evil" - a determination which itself is not derived by a ]. | |||
As ] observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, some philosophers (e.g. ]) maintain that preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct. | |||
Research into sociopathology has also investigated biological, rather than moral underpinnings of behaviors that societies reject as sociopathic. Most neurological research | |||
Some people define being evil as not only inflicting pain and suffering but also as performing an act for either solely selfish materialistic reasons (i.e. power or wealth) or because they are ] and derive pleasure from the act. Under this definition of evil, a person who commits morally wrong acts for sincerely benevolent reasons would not be evil, even if most people disagreed with the means thus justified. Disregarding whether the ends were to be considered morally wrong they would not be classified as evil, so long as they truly believed in the pursued higher goal. This does not mean the actions could not be viewed as morally wrong, just that there would not be an evil intent in them, as the intent of the actions is a key factor. Absolute ignorance of the concept of morality would render a person completely morally neutral. | |||
into sociopathology has focused on regions of the neocortex involved in impulse control. | |||
==Evil in business== | |||
Regardless of the source of their definitions, most human cultures have a set of beliefs about what things, actions, and ideas are undesirable. Undesirable circumstances are often categorized as evil within some cultures. Natural evils generally include accidental death, disease, and other misfortunes, although some cultures see these occurrences instead as a healthy part of the natural order. {{Fact|date=February 2007}} Moral evils generally include violence, deceit or other destructive and ] behavior toward others, although the same behavior toward "outsiders" of the group may be considered "good." War provides many examples, and "God is always on the winning side." | |||
In business, evil refers to unfair business practices. The most widely agreed on unfair practices are ]s and ], but recently the term "evil" has been applied much more broadly, especially in the technology and ] industries. One of the slogans of ] is "don't be evil," in response to much-criticized technology companies such as ] and ], and the tagline of independent music recording company ] is "we are not evil," referring to the alleged evils of the ]. | |||
==Hacker jargon== | |||
Most cultures recognize many levels of immoral behaviour, from minor vices to major crimes. These beliefs are often encoded into the ]s of a society, with methods of judgement and punishment for offenses. | |||
As used by computer ]s, the jargon term ''evil'' implies that some system, program, person, or institution is sufficiently maldesigned as to be not worth the bother of dealing with. Unlike the adjectives in the cretinous/losing/]d series, ''evil'' does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's, and often acts as a synonym for the word ''difficult''. This usage is more an aesthetic and engineering judgment than a moral one in the mainstream sense. ''"We thought about adding a Blue Glue interface but decided it was too evil to deal with,"'' or ''"] is neat, but it can be pretty evil if you're prone to typos."'' Often pronounced with the first syllable lengthened, as {{Unicode|/'i:::vɪl/.}} Compare to ]. | |||
===Is evil a useful term?=== | |||
There is a school of thought that holds that no ''person'' is evil, that only ''acts'' may be properly considered evil. | |||
The usage of evil as a prefix for usernames or email addresses on the ] can be traced back to "evilsteven", a founding member of the noend listservs in ] and ]. | |||
Psychologist and mediator ] 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-existent. 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. | |||
Psychologist ] makes a similar claim, in his school of psychology called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy or ]. He says the root of anger, and the desire to harm someone, is almost always one of these beliefs: | |||
# That they should/shouldn't have done certain things | |||
# That someone is an awful/bad/horrible person for doing what they did | |||
# That they deserve to be punished for what they did | |||
He claims that without one of the preceding thoughts, violence is next to impossible. | |||
] on the other hand, describes evil as "militant ]".{{Fact|date=September 2007}} In this it is close to the original Judeo-Christian concept of "]" as a consistent process that leads to failure to reach one's true goals. | |||
According to Scott Peck, an evil person: | |||
* ''Projects'' his or her evils and sins onto others and tries to remove them from others | |||
* Maintains a high level of ''respectability'' and lies incessantly in order to do so | |||
* Is ''consistent ''in his or her sins. evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency | |||
* Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints. | |||
He also considers certain institutions may be evil, as his discussion of the ] and its attempted coverup illustrate. By this definition, acts of ] and ] would also be considered evil. | |||
===Is evil good?=== | |||
], former head of the ], asserts that evil is actually good (an often-used slogan is, "evil is live spelled backwards"). This belief is usually a reaction to religious definitions of evil, which some think oppose the natural pleasures of life or the natural instincts of men and women. In the more extreme cases, however, this belief can be interpreted to mean that hurting others is acceptable if you can get away with it, an interpretation that Anton LaVey never supported. | |||
Even ] allowed that there are cases where a little evil is a positive good. He wrote, "Seek out the society of your boon companions, drink, play, talk bawdy, and amuse yourself. One must sometimes commit a sin out of hate and contempt for the Devil, so as not to give him the change to make one scrupulous over mere nothings... ."<ref> Martin Luther, ''Werke'', XX, p58</ref> | |||
It is not uncommon to find people in power who are indifferent to good or evil, taking actions based solely on practicality; this approach to politics was questioned by ], a sixteenth century Florentine writer and politician who declared in '']'', "the ends justifies the means... The world consists mainly of vulgar people and the few who are honorable can safely be ignored when so many vulgar rally around the prince."{{Fact|date=September 2007}} The ] theories of ] and ], sometimes called '']'', about which ] wrote, explicitly disavow absolute moral and ethical considerations in international politics in favor of a focus on self-interest, political survival, and power politics, which they hold to be more accurate in explaining a world they view as explicitly ] and dangerous. Political realists usually justify their perspectives by laying claim to a "higher moral duty" specific to political leaders, under which the greatest evil is seen to be the failure of the state to protect itself and its citizens. Machiavelli mocks: " need not worry about incurring the disgrace of those vices without which it would be difficult for him to save the state, for if everything is carefully considered, it will be found that something which seems a virtue would, if practiced, become his ruin, and some other thing, which seems a vice, would, if practiced, result in his security and well-being."{{Fact|date=September 2007}} | |||
==Sociological views on evil== | |||
Some ], ], ] and ] have attempted to construct scientific explanations for the development of specific characteristics of an "antisocial" personality type, called the ]. The sociopath is typified by extreme self-serving behavior and a lack of ] as well as an inability to ] with others and to restrain himself from, or to feel remorse for, harm personally caused to others. However, a diagnosis of antisocial or sociopathic personality disorder (formerly called psychopathic mental disorder), is sometimes criticized as being, at the present time, no more scientific than calling a person "evil". There is much debate over this, however. Some, most prominently ], author of Without Conscience, consider ] to be a widespread disorder quite distinct from ]. | |||
What critics perceive to be a ] determination is disguised, they argue, with a scientific-sounding name but no complete description of a mechanism by which the abnormality can be identified. In other words, critics argue, "sociopaths" are called such because they are first thought to be "evil" - a determination which itself is not derived by a ]. | |||
Research into sociopathology has also been investigated biologically,<ref></ref> Are there biological reasons why people are evil rather than moral? Are there physical underpinnings of behaviors that societies reject as sociopathic? Most neurological research into sociopathology has focused on regions of the ] involved in ]. Some other research seems to indicate that sociopathy may at least partially be related to a lack of ability to realize the true consequences of one's actions. | |||
When a person acts in such a way as to use others as means to achieve one's own personal ends or fails to consider the consequences of his or her acts upon the lives of others, it is considered to be ]ic or ]ic. If one accepts the Christian ethic that "by their deeds you shall know them", such acts are evil. This is the view taken by ], the Christian theologian of ]. Some authors, like the psychologist ], consider society as a whole to be moving towards a psychopathic mindset, but this stance has yet to gain wider acceptance. | |||
==Evil in business== | |||
In business, evil refers to unfair or unethical business practices. Firms that have a ] are often able to maintain the monopoly using tactics that are deemed unfair, and monopolies have the power to set prices at levels which are not socially efficient. Some people therefore consider monopolies to be evil. Economists do not generally consider monopolies to be "evil" though they recognize that certain business practices by monopolies are often not in the public interest. | |||
Recently the term "evil" has been applied much more broadly, especially in the technology and ] industries. One of the slogans of ] is "]," in response to much-criticized technology companies such as ] and ], and the tagline of independent music recording company ] is "we are not evil," referring to the alleged evils of the ]. The economist ] has argued that ] ], set up as fictive individuals by law, are required to work according only to the criteria of making ]s for their ]s, meaning they function as sociopathic organisations that inherently do evil in damaging the ], denying labour justice and ] the powerless. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] (''s.v.'' '''Negative transcendence''') | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
==Further reading== | |||
* ] (1999) ''Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty''. New York: A. W. H. Freeman / Owl Book | |||
* Shermer, M. (2004). ''The Science of Good & evil.'' New York: Time Books. ISBN 0-8050-7520-8 | |||
* Wilson, William McF., and Julian N. Hartt. "Farrer's Theodicy." In David Hein and Edward Hugh Henderson (eds), ''Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology of ]''. New York and London: T & T Clark / Continuum, 2004. ISBN 0-567-02510-1 | |||
*{{cite book |last=Oppenheimer|first=Paul |title=Evil and the Demonic: A New Theory of Monstrous Behavior |year=1996 |publisher=New York University Press |location=New York |id=ISBN 0-8147-6193-3 }} | |||
* Vetlesen, Arne Johan (2005) "''Evil and Human Agency - Understanding Collective Evildoing''" New York: Camebridge University Press. ] | |||
==External links== | <!-- ==External links== --> | ||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
{{Philosophy navigation}} | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
Line 167: | Line 93: | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] |
Revision as of 03:00, 26 October 2007
Evil is a term describing that which is regarded as morally bad, intrinsically corrupt, wantonly destructive, inhumane, or wicked. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about withering and death —the opposite of life. However, the definition of what counts as evil may differ widely from culture to culture.
The duality of 'good versus evil' is expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures. This concept describes a hierarchy of moral standards applied to human behaviour. In more casual or derogatory use, the word "evil" can characterize people and behaviours that are hurtful, ruinous, or disastrous. Evil cannot exist without good, nor good without evil, as they are both objective states and opposite ends of the same scale.
A similar term, malice (from the Latin malus meaning "bad") describes the deliberate human intent to harm and be harmful. "Evil", by contrast, tends to represent a more elemental concept; a disembodied spirit that is natural and yet abominable. Whereas "malice" is specifically concered with the act itself, "evil" is the cause of a malicious act. True evil is usually motivated by greed and/or sadism.
Evil as a religious concept
In a number of religious traditions, human beings are considered to be "governed" by an innate bent towards selfishness and pride, actions that are considered evil. In others, humans may be considered naturally good, and evil to be a 'force' that tempts them away from their natural state. Evil may be personified in the form of a figure of evil, such as Satan.
Zoroastrianism
In the originally Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, the world is a battle ground between the god of good, Ahura Mazda, and the god of evil, Ahriman. This dualistic belief system had a heavy influence on the Abrahamic religions.
Judaeo-Christian religions
In the Hebrew Scriptures, evil is related to the concept of sin — "sin" translated in Hebrew is chata which means "missing the mark" (a term from archery).
In Judaism and Christianity, evil refers to those aspects of human behaviour that are contrary to the Ten Commandments. Evil is thus directly correlated to disobedience: the Commandments are a guideline for "what not to do". In the forms of malice and selfishness, evil represents the socially weakening and destructive behaviors that lead directly to a fruitless life and death. On a more abstract level, evil refers to "Evil" refers to the lack of faith in God, the end result of which is separation from Him.
In many Abrahamic faiths, evil is personified as Satan, a challenger of the law or will of God. Satan is defined in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings collectively as the devil, the adversary, false accuser, slanderer, the counterfeit, a liar, a murderer, one with no truth, the serpent, the evil one, the tempter, and a lion prowling around looking for someone to devour. Evil may also be pesonified as spirits or demons who incite acts possess human beings and animals.
Some forms of Christianity do not personify evil in Satan, but instead consider the human heart to be inherently bent toward deceit, although human beings are responsible for their choices.
Note that "self" does not necessarily have to mean "one's self," but also to the various units, groups, and demographics to which one belongs (for example: family, school, team, generation, nationality, race, or religion). The Israelites asked for national repentance of sin while the Christians focus on individual sins. Jewish beliefs and Christian teachings say each person will give an account of all their actions, including faith and obedience.
Some cultures or philosophies believe that evil can arise without meaning or reason (in neo-Platonic philosophy this is called surd evil). Christianity in general does not adhere to this belief.
In the Bible, the story of Job is a bold example of how evil exists and seems at times to be victorious, although Christianity teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the perfection of God and the wages of that missing the mark of that perfection (sin) is death. It is believed that God is in control of all things, especially as its teachings show that Jesus conquered this evil, resulting in death, by being raised from the dead.
Dr. Brian Connor, a former Baptist pastor and current exorcist, says that "evil is animate and absolute. Evil is not a concept, but a living force. It is absolutely bad. None of it is acceptable in your life because it is out to destroy your soul and drive a wedge between you and your heavenly Father. There are hurting and oppressed people who labor under the darkness which has come upon them because of poor choices," he says. "The answer is Jesus Christ, who has the authority to drive out evil."
For the French philosopher Michel Henry, God is the invisible Life that never stops to generate us and to give us to ourselves in its pathetic self-revelation. God is Love because Love itself in an infinite love is Life. By consequence life is good in itself. The evil corresponds to all what denies or attacks life, it finds its origin in death which is the negation of life. This death is an inner and spiritual death which is the separation with God, and which consists simply in not loving, in living selfishly as if God didn't exist, as if he was not our Father of us all and as if we were not all its beloved Sons, as if we were not all Brothers generated by a same Life. The evil peaks in the violence of hatred that is at the origin of all the crimes, of all the wars and of all the genocides. But the evil is also the common origin of all those blind processes and of all those false abstractions that lead so many people to misery and exclusion.
Is evil universal?
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendant definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by ones social or cultural background. Western societies among others, sometimes use the term evil as a generic label for reputed transgressions, inhumanities or moral corruptions which have reached a particularly 'extreme' degree. For example, activities such as rape, child molestation, serial killings, terrorism, and genocidal dictatorship are often considered evil in the West. Some people, especially for religious reasons, regard such acts as homosexual behavior or abortions as evil, although there is wide societal disagreement as to whether these acts are even immoral.
Generally, many Western societies are divided in their views on morality between two extremes. One, "moral absolutism", holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by God, nature, or some other authority. The other, moral relativism, holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice. Moral universalism is a recent humanist term to find a compromise between the unattainable absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view.
A looser definition of evil describes it as death and suffering, whether it results from human or from other natural causes (e.g., earthquakes and famine). In other words, it is not merely the intention to do evil, but the end result, namely, harm to others, that is evil. And, as Plato observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, some philosophers (e.g. Bernard Gert) maintain that not preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct.
Some people define evil as not only a person who inflicts pain and suffering but does so for either solely selfish reasons (i.e. power or wealth) or because they are sadistic (which would mean they gain pleasure from it, placing it again entirely selfish). Under their definition of evil, a person who commits morally wrong acts but does so truly believing the ends justifies the means would not be evil, even if most people disagreed the ends justified the means. Even when they agree that the ends in and of themselves are morally wrong, so long as the person believes they are doing right regardless of how misguided they may be, they would not classify them as evil. This does not mean they do not view their actions as morally wrong, just that they do not see an evil intent in them. The intent of the actions is a key factor for them. Thus, for example Osama Bin Laden would not, in these people's eyes, be evil as his motives are based on his belief about western culture, (e.g. the United States, Christianity and Judaism) as being evil.
Regardless of the source of their definitions, most human cultures have a set of beliefs about what things, actions, and ideas are undesirable. Undesirable circumstances are often categorized as evil within some cultures. Natural evils generally include accidental death, disease, and other misfortunes, although some cultures see these occurrences instead as a healthy part of the natural order. Moral evils generally include violence, deceit or other destructive behavior toward others, although the same behavior toward "outsiders" of the group may be considered "good." War provides many examples, and "God is always on the winning side." The Unification Church's definition of evil is: "Taking advantage of another person for one's own benefit."
Many cultures recognize many levels of immoral behaviour, from minor vices to major crimes. These beliefs are often encoded into the laws of a society, with methods of judgment and punishment for offenses.
Is evil a useful term?
The definition of evil has engendered some debate, much as the term terrorism has. It has been said that evil is subjective, that one person's idea of evil can be another person's idea of good, much like one person's terrorist is a freedom fighter of another. The term is often used by people or groups against their enemies, largely to evoke a strong emotional response against the person or group. For example, this claim has been made by some critics of the U.S. President George W. Bush with regard to his labeling North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil".
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.
Some critics also feel the term evil is too closely linked with religion, particularly Christianity and Islam. Because of this, they think the term should be avoided in political discussion, especially in reference to members of other religions or leaders. Tolerance is demanded in the Western view such as the United States with an increasing hostility towards Christian fundamental beliefs. The moral truth it stands on is the foundation of the law which established the very freedom to express freedom of choice in religion.
It might be added that since use of the term evil to describe one's enemies is so comfortable that it removes all possibility of empathy and necessity for self-examination, its use usually indicates an absolutist or extremist attitude on the part of the user, regardless of his or her belief-system.
Scientific definition
From a physical standpoint, some suggest that "evil" could be defined as increasing entropy when the cost outweighs the benefit. This definition is, however, based on the non-physical concepts of "cost" and "benefit".
Sociological views on evil
Some sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists have attempted to construct scientific explanations for the development of specific characteristics of an "antisocial" personality type, called the sociopath. The sociopath is typified by extreme self-serving behavior, and a lack of conscience, or inability to empathize with others, to restrain self from, or to feel remorse for, harm personally caused to others. However, a diagnosis of antisocial or sociopath personality disorder (formerly called psychopathic mental disorder), is sometimes criticized as being, at the present time, no more scientific than calling a person "evil". What critics perceive to be a moral determination is disguised, they argue, with a scientific-sounding name, but no complete description of a mechanism by which the abnormality can be identified is provided. In other words, critics argue, "sociopaths" are called such, because they are first thought to be "evil" - a determination which itself is not derived by a scientific method.
Research into sociopathology has also investigated biological, rather than moral underpinnings of behaviors that societies reject as sociopathic. Most neurological research into sociopathology has focused on regions of the neocortex involved in impulse control.
Evil in business
In business, evil refers to unfair business practices. The most widely agreed on unfair practices are sweatshops and monopolies, but recently the term "evil" has been applied much more broadly, especially in the technology and intellectual property industries. One of the slogans of Google is "don't be evil," in response to much-criticized technology companies such as Microsoft and AOL, and the tagline of independent music recording company Magnatune is "we are not evil," referring to the alleged evils of the RIAA.
Hacker jargon
As used by computer hackers, the jargon term evil implies that some system, program, person, or institution is sufficiently maldesigned as to be not worth the bother of dealing with. Unlike the adjectives in the cretinous/losing/brain damaged series, evil does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's, and often acts as a synonym for the word difficult. This usage is more an aesthetic and engineering judgment than a moral one in the mainstream sense. "We thought about adding a Blue Glue interface but decided it was too evil to deal with," or "TECO is neat, but it can be pretty evil if you're prone to typos." Often pronounced with the first syllable lengthened, as /'i:::vɪl/. Compare to evil and rude.
The usage of evil as a prefix for usernames or email addresses on the Internet can be traced back to "evilsteven", a founding member of the noend listservs in San Francisco and New York.