I was saying more that both hate and evil do exist in this world, but the sarcasm didn't come through correctly. Just as you said "hey, wait a minute there" when presented with the idea that hate doesn't exist, the same reaction is appropriate when someone tries to tell you evil doesn't exist. The difference in how we react stems directly from what we are told to think in school and by the media, the rationalizing and explaining any evils done by parties protected under PC law is pervasive and acceptable by most in our society. However, it's just as rediculous as saying that nobody hates anyone else.

I think what people mean, when they say "evil doesn't exist" is that "evil" is subjective (defined by the shifting sands of perception) - therefore "evil" is something that cannot be said to "exist" in the same say things defined by objective terms exist. In other words, when you state that "evil exists" - what exactly are you stating exists? There isn't a discrete class described by the term "evil" - a suggestion made by the rhetoric of monotheism. This is the specific rebuttal I think people are usually making when they say "evil doesn't exist"...

This isn't a very productive analysis, to simply chalk up any difference in opinion to the influence of over-simplified outside forces. It's like telling somebody "you voted for <certain politician> because you watch <certain cable news network> and you can't think for yourself." The possibility exists that people have well-reasoned opinions to support almost any position.

So...I'm curious: what is your definition of the word "evil" . . . ?

I think that evil is a scale that runs alongside of wrong. Wrong is used more in conjunction with law whereas evil has to be something more universal. I also think it is intertwined in some way with suffering on a bit of a primal level. It's far easier to cite examples than give a definition but I think this is a start. 'An action that is motivated by the desire to cause the suffering of another for personal enjoyment is evil'. It's a scale, so a child breaking another child's favorite toy might not be evil enough to be intuitive, but don't you think that gathering a deep personal satisfaction from the pain of others has a different air to it no matter how trivial?
I know that's not entirely clear, but it's the general direction.

That's a good definition. It reminds me of the one "rule" of Paganism: simply to "do no harm" . . .

One problem with defining "evil" is this: everything that is good for somebody is bad for somebody else. There is a see-saw of karma in the universe that intertwines everything - even things we don't know about or understand. But defining "evil" requires us to claim an understanding of this fantastically complex web of interactions. That is why "evil" can't be pinned down by one subjective observer. Thusly, alot of the definitions of "evil" we have are claimed to be handed down from an omnipotent deity - in effect, claiming a loophole to the subjective nature of the idea. However, the problem with that is: every group has a dogma that is biased to define "evil" as the actions of a group of outsiders. Consequently, the three major monotheistic religions can't get past their differences for long enough to realize that the core of their beliefs are identical. Because of man's need to define "evil" the world is plagued by "justified" violence. The "us vs. them" system never allows any group to recognize the "evil" of their own actions.

Edit: And if "evil" can't be properly defined, then what can be insisted upon as existing? What doesn't exist is, specifically, an objective evil.

Everything? I can think of lots of examples that would prove this statement to be false. I think it's sometimes the case that things that are good for one person are bad for another, but it's not always the case. Probably not even usually the case.

You're right. I should have said "something can be good for somebody, and bad for somebody else."
This narrow statement alone demonstrates that objective "evil' is a logical contradiction.

Evil will vary with the eye of the beholder.

Evil is what I think is bad. I'm not required to explain why because it doesn't matter why. It only matters you understand what I mean, not why I feel that way, unless I wish to expound. If I say all snakes are evil, you know I'm not fond of snakes but it's not a complete description of the critter.

Evil, like any other word, is used for communicating a thought. It's legitimate because it conveys my opinion or feeling about what I'm calling evil. Evil doesn't have to have an exact definition like mile or apple. Evil is descriptive like high or big.

Everyone can make a list of what they feel is evil, but everyones list will be different. You could substitute the word bad for evil, but I'd put it on a different rung of the ladder.....badder than bad.

Oh...wait...these days bad might be good.....or bad. :nuts:

I agree, Bruce, there is no such thing as objective "evil" . . .

...and further, this is despite our constant attempts to establish a concrete definition. Look at the history of mankind. Every culture, even ones that commit horrible atrocities, consider themselves to be the "good guys" - nobody ever thinks they are in the wrong. Nobody. This can't possibly be accurate. Every culture tries to define "evil" and fails because of their own skewed persepctive. Occam's Razor dictates that our culture is no different. On the basis of pure logic, I can't possibly believe that right now, in the country where I live, in the century that I live in, we have finally, after all of history, achieved the one true knowledge of good and evil, and can now point our finger in any direction and say, with 100% accuracy "this is evil" or "this isn't evil" . . . The very idea is ludicrous. I won't delude myself that way.

I like it when smart people talk simple so much that it illuminates the mind. ( well my cob dusty dim mind anyway-dosn't take much)

Does it make you...wet, skysidhe? ;)

I read this a couple days ago. A half a dozen emoticons came to mind. Too risky to be left up to an individuals interpretation I left it alone.

It begs for a response so I chose a quote from my other favorite pervert. I changed IS to IT of course.

"That depends on what your definition of "IT" is"


Now as I look and think about it I am quite sure that it is Fint who has ejaculations of the brain and not me. Mine only quivers like jello :p

Hehe