A personal understanding
- of 'evil'
pt 2
There is a good easily readable article on the subject of evil from Wikipaedia.
I have copied it below as the article is worth reading.
My own perspective tends to be aligned with the part of the article
copied from near the end into section 1 below.
I also have the direct experience of dreadful authoritarian
abuse cascading across police, social workers,
judges -
- they all abused my children
to cover up their own negligence.
1. Articles describing what evil is
that dad feels are a reasonably good
short discussion on the matter.
1.1.
Proposal : Militant ignorance.
American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck on the other hand,
describes evil as militant ignorance.
The original Judeo-Christian concept
of sin is as a process that leads one to miss the mark
and not achieve perfection.
Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this
at least on some level, those that are evil
actively and militantly refuse this consciousness.
Peck describes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness
which results in
a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims
(often children or other people in relatively powerless positions).
Peck considers those he calls evil to be
attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience
(through self-deception) and views this
as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience
evident in sociopaths.
According to Peck,
an evil person
- Is consistently self-deceiving,
........ with the intent of avoiding guilt
........ and maintaining a self-image of perfection
- Deceives others
......... as a consequence of their own self-deception
- Psychologically projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets,
...... scapegoating those targets
...... while treating everyone else normally
..... ("their insensitivity toward him was selective")
- Commonly hates with the pretense of love,
....... for the purposes of self-deception
....... as much as the deception of others
- Abuses political or emotional power
........ ("the imposition of one's will upon others
........... by overt or covert coercion")
- Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly
.......... in order to do so
- Is consistent in his or her sins.
.......... Evil people are defined
.......... not so much by the magnitude of their sins,
.......... but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
- Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim
...........i.e. has low empathy.
- Has a covert intolerance to criticism
.......... and other forms of narcissistic injury
He also considers certain institutions may be evil,
as his discussion of the My Lai Massacre
and its attempted coverup illustrate.
By this definition,
acts of criminal and state terrorism would also be considered evil.
1.2.
Zimbardo's presentation describes psychological
behaviour that can be considered as evil
that links both individuals
and groups of individuals.
Follow this link - Zimbardo
2. The subject of Evil
taken from Wikipedia
Evil, in its most general context, is taken as the opposite
of that which is ascribed as being good.
Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality.
In certain religious contexts evil has been described
as a supernatural force.
Definitions of evil vary,
as does the analysis of its root motives and causes.
However, elements that are commonly associated
with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency,
selfishness, ignorance, or neglect.
In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence,
evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good,
in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.
In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence,
both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality
that itself must be overcome through achieving emptiness
in the sense of recognition of good and evil
being two opposing principles
but not a reality,
emptying the duality of them,
and achieving a oneness.
The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute,
relative,
or illusory
leads to questions about the nature of evil,
with views falling into one of four opposed camps:
moral absolutism,
amoralism,
moral relativism,
and
moral universalism.
While the term is applied to events and conditions without agency,
the forms of evil addressed in this article presume an evildoer or doers.
Contents
1 Etymology
2 Chinese moral philosophy
3 Western philosophy
3.1 Spinoza
3.2 Nietzchse
4 Psychology
4.1 Carl JungJung
4.2 Zimbardo
5 Religion
5.1 Bahai Faith
5.2 Buddhism
5.3 Hinduism
5.4 Islam
5.5 Judeo-Christian
5.6 Zoroastrian
6 Philosophical questions about evil
6.1 Is evil universal?
6.2 Is evil a useful term?
6.3 Is evil necessary?
Etymology
The modern English word evil (Old English yfel) and its cognates
such as the German Übel and Dutch euvel are widely considered
to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form of *ubilaz,
comparable to the Hittite huwapp- ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European
form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-.
Other later Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ifel, ufel,
Old Frisian evel (adjective and noun), Old Saxon ubil,
Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils.
The root meaning of the word is of obscure origin
though shown to be akin to modern German Das Übel
(although evil is normally translated as Das Böse)
with the basic idea of transgressing.
Chinese moral philosophy
Main: Confucian Ethics, Confucianism and Taoist Ethics
As with Buddhism below, in Confucianism or Taoism,
there is no direct analogue to the way good and evil are opposed
although reference to demonic influence is common in Chinese folk religion.
Confucianism 's primary concern is with correct social relationships
and the behavior appropriate to the learned or superior man.
Thus evil would correspond to wrong behavior.
Still less does it map into Taoism,
in spite of the centrality of dualism in that system,
but the opposite of the cardinal virtues of Taoism,
compassion,
moderation,
and
humility
can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it.
Western philosophy
1. By good, I understand that
..... which we certainly know is useful to us.
2. By evil, on the contrary I understand that which
...... we certainly know hinders us
....... from possessing anything that is good.
Spinoza assumes a quasi-mathematical style
and states these further propositions
which he purports to prove or demonstrate
from the above definitions in part IV of his Ethics :
Proposition 8 "Knowledge of good or evil
...... is nothing but affect of joy or sorrow
...... in so far as we are conscious of it."
Proposition 30 "Nothing can be evil
...... through that which it possesses in common with our nature,
...... but in so far as a thing is evil to us
...... it is contrary to us."
Proposition 64 "The knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge."
Corollary "Hence it follows that if the human mind
...... had none but adequate ideas,
...... it would form no notion of evil."
Proposition 65 "According to the guidance of reason,
...... of two things which are good,
....... we shall follow the greater good,
....... and of two evils,
....... follow the less."
Proposition 68 "If men were born free,
....... they would form no conception of good and evil
....... so long as they were free."
Friedrich Nietzsche, in a rejection of the Judeo-Christian morality,
addresses this in two works Beyond Good and Evil and
On the Genealogy of Morals
where he essentially says that the natural functional
non-good has been socially transformed
into the religious concept of evil by the slave mentality
of the weak and oppressed masses
who resent their masters
(the strong).
Psychology
Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere,
depicted evil as the dark side of the Devil.
People tend to believe evil is something external to them,
because they project their shadow onto others.
Jung interpreted the story of Jesus
as an account of God facing his own shadow.
Zimbardo.
In 2007, Philip Zimbardo suggested
that people may act in evil ways as a result of a collective identity.
This hypothesis, based on his previous experience
from the Stanford prison experiment,
was published in the book
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.
Religion
Main article link: Problem of evil
The Bahai Faith asserts that evil is non-existent
and that it is a concept for the lacking of good,
just as cold is the state of no heat,
darkness is the state of no light,
forgetfulness the lacking of memory,
ignorance the lacking of knowledge.
All of these are states of lacking
and have no real existence.
Thus evil does not exist,
and is relative to man.
Abdul Baha the son of the Divine Manifestation
in "Some Answered Questions" states:
"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—
that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous.
Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings?
Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man;
a serpent is evil in relation to man;
but in relation to themselves
they are not evil,
for their poison is their weapon,
and by their sting they defend themselves."
Thus, evil is more of an intellectual concept
than a true reality.
Since God is good,
and upon creating creation
he confirmed it by saying it is Good (Genesis 1:31)
evil cannot have a true reality.
Buddhism. Extermination of Evil,
The God of Heavenly Punishment,
from the Chinese tradition of yin and yang.
Late Heian period (12th Century Japan).
Main: Buddhist Ethics.
The primal duality in Buddhism
is between suffering and enlightenment,
so the good vs. evil splitting has no direct analogue in it.
One may infer however from the general teachings
of the Buddha that the catalogued causes of suffering
are what correspond in this belief system to evil.
Practically this can refer to
1) the three selfish emotions—desire, hate and delusion; and
2) to their expression in physical and verbal actions.
Specifically,
evil means whatever harms or obstructs
the causes for happiness in this life,
a better rebirth,
liberation from samsara,
and the true and complete enlightenment
of a buddha (samyaksambodhi).
"What is evil?
Killing is evil,
lying is evil,
slandering is evil,
abuse is evil,
gossip is evil:
envy is evil,
hatred is evil,
to cling to false doctrine is evil;
all these things are evil.
And what is the root of evil?
Desire is the root of evil,
illusion is the root of evil."
Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.
Hinduism.
In Hinduism the concept of Dharma or righteousness
clearly divides the world into good and evil,
and clearly explains that wars have to be waged
sometimes to establish and protect Dharma,
this war is called Dharmayuddha.
This division of good and evil
is of major importance in both the Hindu epics
of Ramayana and Mahabharata.
However, the main emphasis in Hinduism
is on bad action,
rather than bad people.
The Hindu holy text, the Bhagavad Gita,
speaks of the balance of good and evil.
When this balance goes off,
divine incarnations
come to help to restore this balance.
Islam.
There is no concept of absolute evil in Islam,
as a fundamental universal principle
that is independent from and equal with good
in a dualistic sense.
Within Islam, it is considered essential
to believe that all comes from Allah,
whether it is perceived as good or bad by individuals;
and things that are perceived as evil or bad
are either natural events (natural disasters or illnesses)
or caused by humanity's free will
to disobey Allah's orders..
Judeo-Christian. Evil according to a Christian worldview
is any action,
thought or
attitude
that is contrary to the character or will of God.
This is shown through the law given in both the Old and New Testament.
There is no moral action given in the Bible
that is contrary to God's character or God's will.
Therefore evil in a Christian world view
is contrasted by
and in conflict with God's character or God's will.
This evil shows itself through deviation
from the character or will of God.
The Devil, in opposition to the will of God,
represents evil and tempts Christ,
the personification of the character
and will of God. Ary Scheffer, 1854.
In Judaism, evil is the result of forsaking God.
(Deuteronomy 28:20) Judaism stresses obedience
to God's laws as written in the Torah (see also Tanakh)
and the laws and rituals laid down in the Mishnah and the Talmud.
Some forms of Judaism do not personify evil in Satan;
these instead consider the human heart
to be inherently bent toward deceit,
although human beings are responsible for their choices.
In other forms of 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.
Christian theology draws its concept of evil
from the Old and New Testaments.
In the Old Testament,
evil is understood to be an opposition to God
as well as something unsuitable or inferior
such as the leader of the Fallen Angels Satan
In the New Testament the Greek word poneros
is used to indicate unsuitability,
while kakos is used to refer to opposition to God
in the human realm.
Officially, the Catholic Church extracts its understanding of evil
from its canonical antiquity and the Dominican theologian,
Thomas Aquinas, who in Summa Theologica
defines evil as the absence or privation of good.
French-American theologian Henri Blocher describes evil,
when viewed as a theological concept, as an "unjustifiable reality.
In common parlance,
evil is 'something' that occurs in experience that ought not to be."
In Mormonism, mortal life is viewed as a test of faith,
where one's choices are central to the Plan of Salvation.
Evil is that which keeps one from discovering
the nature of God.
It is believed that one must choose not to be evil
to return to God.
Christian Science believes that evil arises
from a misunderstanding of the goodness of nature,
which is understood as being inherently perfect
if viewed from the correct (spiritual) perspective.
Misunderstanding God's reality
leads to incorrect choices,
which are termed evil.
This has led to the rejection of any separate power
being the source of evil,
or of God as being the source of evil;
instead,
the appearance of evil is the result of a mistaken concept of good.
Christian Scientists argue that even the most evil person
does not pursue evil for its own sake,
but from the mistaken viewpoint
that he or she will achieve some kind of good thereby.
Zoroastrian.
In the originally Persian religion
of Zoroastrianism,
the world is a battle ground
between the god Ahura Mazda (also called Ormazd)
and the malignant spirit Angra Mainyu (also called Ahriman).
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 afghan belief,
angels and saints are beings sent to help us
achieve the path towards goodness.
Philosophical questions 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.
C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man,
maintained that there are certain acts
that are universally considered evil,
such as rape and murder.
However the numerous instances in which rape or murder
is morally affected by social context
call this into question.
One might argue,
nevertheless,
that the definition of the word rape
necessitates that any action described by the word
is evil,
since the concept refers to causing sexual harm to another.
Up until the mid-19th century, the United States —
along with many other countries —
practiced forms of slavery.
As is often the case, those transgressing moral boundaries
stood to profit from that exercise.
Arguably,
slavery has always been the same
and objectively evil,
but men with a motivation to transgress
will justify that action.
Adolf Hitler is a Nazi who is sometimes used
as a modern definition of evil.
The Nazis, during World War II,
found genocide acceptable,
as did the Hutu Interahamwe in the Rwandan genocide.
One might point out, though,
that the actual perpetrators of those atrocities
probably avoided calling their actions genocide,
since the objective meaning of any act
accurately described by that word
is to wrongfully kill a selected group of people,
which is an action
that at least their victims will understand to be evil.
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 moral) to commit genocide,
the belief in genocide
as fundamentally or universally evil
holds that those who instigated this genocide
are actually evil.
Other universalists might argue
that although the commission of an evil act is always evil,
those who perpetrate
may not be wholly evil
or wholly good entities.
To say that someone who has stolen a candy bar,
for instance,
becomes wholly evil
is a rather untenable position.
However, universalists might also argue
that a person can choose
a decidedly evil
or a decidedly good
life career,
and genocidal dictatorship
plainly falls on the side of the former.
Views on the nature of evil
tend to fall into one of four opposed camps:
Moral absolutism holds that good and evil
.... are fixed concepts
.... established by a deity or deities,
.... nature,
.... common sense,
.... or some other source.
Amoralism claims that good and evil
..... are meaningless,
..... that there is no moral ingredient in nature.
Moral relativism holds that standards
..... of good and evil are only products of local culture,
..... custom,
.... or prejudice.
Moral universalism 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.
Plato wrote that
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.
Proposal : Only acts may be properly considered evil.
One school of thought holds that no person is evil,
and that only acts may be properly considered evil.
Psychologist and mediator Marshall Rosenberg
claims that the root of violence
is the very concept of evil or badness.
When we label someone as bad or evil,
Rosenberg claims,
it invokes the desire to punish or inflict pain.
It also makes it easy for us to turn off
our feelings towards the person we are harming.
He cites the use of language in Nazi Germany
as being a key to how the German people
were able to do things to other human beings
that they normally would not 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,
are seen as sick or ill
and measures are taken to restore them
to a sense of harmonious relations
with themselves and others.
Psychologist Albert Ellis agrees,
in his school of psychology called
Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy, or REBT.
He says the root of anger,
and the desire to harm someone,
is almost always related to variations
of implicit or explicit philosophical beliefs
about other human beings.
He further claims that without holding variants of those
covert or overt belief and assumptions,
the tendency to resort to violence in most cases is less likely.
Proposal : Militant ignorance.
American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck on the other hand,
describes evil as militant ignorance.
The original Judeo-Christian concept
of sin is as a process that leads one to miss the mark
and not achieve perfection.
Peck argues that while most people are conscious of this
at least on some level, those that are evil
actively and militantly refuse this consciousness.
Peck describes evil as a malignant type of self-righteousness
which results in
a projection of evil onto selected specific innocent victims
(often children or other people in relatively powerless positions).
Peck considers those he calls evil to be
attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience
(through self-deception) and views this
as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience
evident in sociopaths.
According to Peck,
an evil person
- Is consistently self-deceiving,
........ with the intent of avoiding guilt
........ and maintaining a self-image of perfection
- Deceives others
......... as a consequence of their own self-deception
- Psychologically projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets,
...... scapegoating those targets
...... while treating everyone else normally
..... ("their insensitivity toward him was selective")
- Commonly hates with the pretense of love,
....... for the purposes of self-deception
....... as much as the deception of others
- Abuses political or emotional power
........ ("the imposition of one's will upon others
........... by overt or covert coercion")
- Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly
.......... in order to do so
- Is consistent in his or her sins.
.......... Evil people are defined
.......... not so much by the magnitude of their sins,
.......... but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
- Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim
...........i.e. has low empathy.
- Has a covert intolerance to criticism
.......... and other forms of narcissistic injury
He also considers certain institutions may be evil,
as his discussion of the My Lai Massacre
and its attempted coverup illustrate.
By this definition,
acts of criminal and state terrorism would also be considered evil.
Martin Luther argued 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 chance
to make one scrupulous over mere nothings... ."
According to certain schools of political philosophy,
leaders should be indifferent to good or evil,
taking actions based only upon practicality;
this approach to politics was put forth by Niccolò Machiavelli,
a 16th-century Florentine writer who advised politicians
"...it is far safer to be feared than loved."
The international relations theories of realism and neorealism,
sometimes called realpolitik advise politicians
to explicitly ban absolute moral and ethical considerations
from international politics,
and to focus on self-interest,
political survival,
and power politics,
which they hold to be
more accurate in explaining a world
they view as explicitly amoral 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 wrote: "...there will be traits considered good
that, if followed,
will lead to ruin,
while other traits,
considered vices
which if practiced
achieve security and well being for the Prince."
Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan,
was a materialist and claimed that evil is actually good.
He was responding to the common practice
of describing sexuality or disbelief as evil,
and his claim was that when the word evil is used
to describe the natural pleasures and instincts of men and women,
or the skepticism of an inquiring mind,
the things called evil are really good.
3. Alice & Ben need your help.
Please help stop Alice and Ben being abused
by people in power;
evil social workers like Helen Jones,
the evil judge Barnett of Chester
and the evil authority of Cheshire West and Chester
in England.
4. Feedback and about.
Click here for a table of evidence -
-
various documents that show the domestic violence, domestic abuse and corruption.
Link here to Your Comments & Questions.
Link here to know more About Moral Propositions.
