Would You Remove Evil?

[timtofly]

Why would you have to remove bad consequences to remove evil? I could jump off a cliff because I misunderstand the laws of nature, but that is not an evil act. Evil is the willful attempt to do something that harms; which is why people always try to argue that they didn't know what the results of their actions would be. If they truly did not know, then the act can not be considered evil.

@timtofly

Sorry, I'm not really sure what the thesis of your post is and how exactly you disagree with what I said.

I'm talking about removing evil from the universe permanently, which would also remove our knowledge of it.

I might also be wrong.. have been thinking about it. It's hard to think about because it's impossible to just remove evil from the universe..

Evil is for the most part unavoidable, as most assume evil.

Evil does not always happen from a willful act either. Galdre's point was a willful attempt. Even the first attempt was willful, even though the intent was not to harm. The consequence is still the same though. I agree with you that it is impossible to remove the result. Evil may or may not be the intent. Calling evil only the result of intent does not follow.

You are correct in that knowledge is the key. If the consequence was removed, so would the knowledge by default. If evil was removed we would live in a deterministic universe, where only good happened. There would be no reason to chose, because no matter what the choice, the outcome would be the same? Not necessarily. Science has proved that multiple outcomes are acceptable. What we remove is bad things happening.

Even when bad things happen we have the ability to move on. Our existance does not end. Even people who worry that it will, are unable to change their opinions about the matter, because even worrying produces the same result as those who do not worry. Even the ability to avoid evil is self determinism, but avoiding evil does not change the fact that evil can still happen in the future.

If someone were to shoot another person willfully or not willfully in the face and the bullitt never did any harm, that would not be a natural event. If a person were to jump off the cliff and float down, that would not be a natural event. I am quite sure that unless the knowledge were removed also, that the human brain would not be able to process said events rationally. IMO neither can we rationalize the supernatural by natural means. I am not sure we could even rationalize the removal of evil from the universe, without removing the knowledge that it exist first.

 

[Rashiminos]

Anyone who's really seen or suffered pointless evil should want a world without it.

Even though I may want no part in an evil world, it does not necessarily mean that I would not accept someone's choice to live there.

 

[Tahuti]

There is no evil to begin with, so it can't be removed either.

 

[Murky]

The problem with this is that one person deciding what is "evil" is too arbitrary. What is evil to me, may not be evil to someone else. For instance, I consider greed to be evil, but lots of other folks don't. What does it take to rid the world of evil? Everyone that is evil suddenly disappears?

 

[Benefactor]

Why do people keep saying without evil there can be no good? I don't really see how the two define each other.

 

[timtofly]

The problem with this is that one person deciding what is "evil" is too arbitrary. What is evil to me, may not be evil to someone else. For instance, I consider greed to be evil, but lots of other folks don't. What does it take to rid the world of evil? Everyone that is evil suddenly disappears?

Does not seem natural to me. I am not sure that the knowledge of evil would also disappear? Would any amount of people just up and disappearing not cause due stress also? I think that whatever was able to cause a group to just up and leave would also have to remove that knowledge from human psyche. Seems just removing the knowledge from all would be just as easy as doing it after a group of people disappeared.

I do not think that any one considers greed to be good. They do have the ability to rationalize it as necessary. Not everything that is necessary is good. Seems that war would fit in the same category as greed. Unless one goes to war against another persons greed. Then it gets really interesting.

 

[Rashiminos]

Would any amount of people just up and disappearing not cause due stress also?

Yes, it would.

 

[Tahuti]

The problem with this is that one person deciding what is "evil" is too arbitrary.

The definition of "evil" isn't decided by one person but by society at large, as a social construct. A society basically applies the term "evil" on every value and personality trait that - if practiced - would threaten that very society. For example, a conformist society would deem social defiance to be evil. For all intents and purposes, what a society commonly accepts as evil is in part what defines how it works.

 

[timtofly]

The definition of "evil" isn't decided by one person but by society at large, as a social construct. A society basically applies the term "evil" on every value and personality trait that - if practiced - would threaten that very society. For example, a conformist society would deem social defiance to be evil. For all intents and purposes, what a society commonly accepts as evil is in part what defines how it works.

I think the OP described the "evil" this thread addresses. Some of us have pointed out that certain things are unavoidable unless removed from the human psyche altogether. Societies may try to avoid the inevitable, but most fail in doing so.

 

[Narz]

The point is that if bad things didn't exist, we wouldn't have anything to judge everything else by, so it'd just be "neutral" to us, not good.

There would still be non-helpful (though not deliberately hurtful) acts so helpful acts would be superior to them & would be appreciated.

Even though I may want no part in an evil world, it does not necessarily mean that I would not accept someone's choice to live there.

I don't think people choose to live an evil life. Generally people dubbed evil have been treated very poorly growing up (though there's probably some genetic base to it).

 

[warpus]

There would still be non-helpful (though not deliberately hurtful) acts so helpful acts would be superior to them & would be appreciated.

I have been trying to think about this but thinking on a Friday is hard.

If there was no evil, and it disappeared as well as us losing all memory of it ever existing.. Would "meh" be the new evil and "great" be the new good?

 

[Narz]

I guess so. Would that be so bad?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Briefly: yep.

Would you remove such vile emotions as hatred, rage, jealousy, greed, vanity?

Greed and vanity aren't inherently evil IMAO (not IMHO when I'm playing God!). They just lead to a lot of bad consequences ... and good ones too. I'd leave them be, unless my Godlike powers will continue for decades of experimentation - in which case I'll experiment.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why do people keep saying without evil there can be no good? I don't really see how the two define each other.

You are thinking of good by itself, but indistinguishable from what you now perceive as good, which is,however, defined by its antithesis. Aristotle famously gave this definition of how to portray an object: "you define it by reference to its nearest kind, and most striking antithesis".

Children of age 2 and onwards have a very clear sense of evil, due to either conscious or not conscious "evil" thoughts during the onset of the Oedipal complex.

Children before that age have again a sense of evil, but it is not at all conscious, however their genes carry it, which is why they feel happy when something "good" happens; they do not know why, they just know due to genes that it is fruitful and positive.

 

[Skwink]

No, balance is good for the world.

 

[Agent Cooper]

Why do people keep saying without evil there can be no good? I don't really see how the two define each other.

Agree completely.

The notion that good and evil in some way exist to counterbalance eachother, is deeply flawed.

Evil is inflicting suffering to other beings with no sympathy whatsoever for the victims or the death or everlasting and increasing pain they will endure because of the act.

There's no selfserving purpose in commiting truly evil acts, as in the sense of motivating others to do good to counter your act or promote benevolent behaviour. I'm not even sure that the opposite of 'evil' is 'good'. They could be two side of the same coin and the true opposite of both of them could be indifference/apathy.

The saying goes that all that is necessary for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing -> apathy.

So my answer to the question is an absolute 'yes'.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Why do people keep saying without evil there can be no good? I don't really see how the two define each other.

They are complementary. The actual Truth is both beyond good and evil. The evil will force you to look for good and through good you will find the Truth of the Beyond.
So perhapes what we find evil today will not look as such tomorrow. You cant say about animals that they are evil but if you see human behave as one you will be disturbed. So what you actualy witness is progression from lesser to higher truth.

 

[Rashiminos]

The evil will force you to look for good

Not really. Evil generally entices more evil (in return, passing it along, way of life, etc).

 

[berkut]

Imagine if, for some reason, you had the ability to remove evil from yourself and all life. Would you do so? Would you remove the temptation to steal, to be greedy, to murder, to torture, to rape? Would you remove such vile emotions as hatred, rage, jealousy, greed, vanity?

Evil is just the absence of good, so I definitely would remove it.

 

[Kyriakos]

It is at least possible that good got its natural status in humans (since it still is natural to do good, and to have good done upon oneself) int he progress of humanity, in very locked dialectic relation with evil. It may even be felt in a scale, where in the one end is that which is good, and on the other that which is evil, harmful, destructive etc. Thus good is defined also as the great distancing from that which is evil, and vice versa.