The Origin Of Evil?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Far from being a pretty good explanation, as I have already stated, it is basically a total non-explanation. It just passes the buck and necessitates the definition of "good" rather than "evil"; it does not answer the question.

teddyrob

It answers it perfectly in a scientific way and is clear in it's explanation, either you have failed to understand it or you don't agree with it.

Here's the problem: suppose you have no idea what either "evil" or "good" is. Let's replace them with the alien words floob and glarb:

"What is the origin of floob?"

"The origin of floob is the absence of glarb."

Has this second statement provided any actual information? Of course not - it's simply defined one word in terms of another word that equally needs definition. One cannot simply explain the origin of evil as the absence of good, as this basically just passes the buck from the origin of evil to the origin of good. Hence, the question has not been answered at all.

No, because we have recognition of what's good and evil. I honestly don't care what you have to say about humans being animals; until we run around naked, throwing our **** at eachother, we are better than every other species of animals on the planet for our moral recognition alone.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]No, because we have recognition of what's good and evil. I honestly don't care what you have to say about humans being animals; until we run around naked, throwing our **** at eachother, we are better than every other species of animals on the planet for our moral recognition alone.foxhound_fox

For the very reason why you argue it's subjective in one sentence and then use the obviously deplorable example of someone enjoying someone else's suffering in the next. I don't care if it's "subjective," as though there's some equal footing in the world of subjectivity. I disagree that it is subjective for the very reason that we as humans on the whole understand that making other people suffer is wrong; people who do this are considered to be in the wrong and they are either corrected or kept away from other people to prevent further wrong from being done.

Bumfluff mentioned how morality began as animals in a social group had to keep together to survive. Well, morality still exists for that exact same reason: every moral and philosophy in existence is geared entirely towards the greater good. Ask yourself: would you prefer to live in a world where the majority of people kill eachother or a world where they did not? Why? This very process is behind every moral decision and every moral belief and every code of honor and every fascist regime and every progress in Western thought, and it is the very fact that we are able to ask and answer those two questions that makes us objectively better than an amoral beast.

So then the fact that we eat other aninmals babies as well makes us amoral too?BumFluff122

But without good and evil or good and bad, what is the purposeor value of human life?

Without this precious quality of human beings being able of recognizing and differentiating good from bad or moral actions from immoral actions, there is no value and purpose to human life and we are reduced to being just selfish and amoral predators.

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Far from being a pretty good explanation, as I have already stated, it is basically a total non-explanation. It just passes the buck and necessitates the definition of "good" rather than "evil"; it does not answer the question.

GabuEx

It answers it perfectly in a scientific way and is clear in it's explanation, either you have failed to understand it or you don't agree with it.

Here's the problem: suppose you have no idea what either "evil" or "good" is. Let's replace them with the alien words floob and glarb:

"What is the origin of floob?"

"The origin of floob is the absence of glarb."

Has this second statement provided any actual information? Of course not - it's simply defined one word in terms of another word that equally needs definition. One cannot simply explain the origin of evil as the absence of good, as this basically just passes the buck from the origin of evil to the origin of good. Hence, the question has not been answered at all.

Yes I know that Floob is the absence of glarb. Glarb is the state of not having any floob present. If an alien came to earth full of floob then I will be prepared for a fight. If he came with Glarb he would be a placeful alien.

humanity caused evil to exist. its all in our minds.Severed_Hand

Humanity is only cause of evil. Although I bet you they think they are doing it for good and of course others think it is evil. Take Bush for instant. He thinks he was doing good in Iraq. I think it was evil. Depends how you view it. I suppose not even Hitler thought he was was evil or doing evil. I bet you he thought he was doing good.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]So then the fact that we eat other aninmals babies as well makes us amoral too?X4D

But without good and evil or good and bad, what is the purposeor value of human life?

Without this precious quality of human beings being able of recognizing and differentiating good from bad or moral actions from immoral actions, there is no value and purpose to human life and we are reduced to being just selfish and amoral predators.

[QUOTE="X4D"]

So then the fact that we eat other aninmals babies as well makes us amoral too?BumFluff122

But without good and evil or good and bad, what is the purposeor value of human life?

Without this precious quality of human beings being able of recognizing and differentiating good from bad or moral actions from immoral actions, there is no value and purpose to human life and we are reduced to being just selfish and amoral predators.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]So then the fact that we eat other aninmals babies as well makes us amoral too?X4D

But without good and evil or good and bad, what is the purposeor value of human life?

Without this precious quality of human beings being able of recognizing and differentiating good from bad or moral actions from immoral actions, there is no value and purpose to human life and we are reduced to being just selfish and amoral predators.

I'm personally not so convinced that human beings are the only animals like this.

Of course, one could explain away what the dolphins did in that article in terms of just instinct and such like, but then that raises the question: why not do the same thing for human beings?

"I gotta get in on this" I think Animal Morality is more just something that happens, something that they are blindly driven to do, in other words its part of their instinct that makes them automaticaly form a heirarchy amongst themselves for the better of their 'pack'. but us humans with our advanced conscienceness and ability of advanced communication more over time formed what morality truely means in our eyes instead of just being naturaly driven towards something specific because not all human beings are born with the ability to think of things realisticaly and not all humans if left unhindered by a strict 'code of conduct' would know not to kill and rape and so on because they wouldnt know that it was necessarily wrong if no one told them so. No?MuddVader

Evil is whatever hastens the destruction of your life... its opposite, the good, is that which furthers your life.CptJSparrow

What about the sayingonly the good die young, all the evil seem to live forever?

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Evil is whatever hastens the destruction of your life... its opposite, the good, is that which furthers your life.teddyrob

What about the sayingonly the good die young, all the evil seem to live forever?

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Evil is whatever hastens the destruction of your life... its opposite, the good, is that which furthers your life.CptJSparrow

What about the sayingonly the good die young, all the evil seem to live forever?

Micheal Jackson died at 50. Was he only half good half bad?

Micheal Jackson died at 50. Was he only half good half bad?

teddyrob

It really depends on what you call evil. If you stand for something and someone opposes it, they could technically be considered evil to you. But in my opinion, evil is born from a person's need to better their lives. Bank robbers steal the money to make themselves rich. Killers murderpeople that theydon't like.

Morals. Simply enough, they are the only way to define evil. Without them there is no difference. Nothing is inherently evil. Not even humanity, as so many people seem to believe.

Evil is nothing more than a line, a qualification of things that would not allow either progress or social evolution. It isn't inherently evil to kill, but it really doesn't help anyones cause more than it does to chew tobacco. And its done by breaking anothers rights.

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

Micheal Jackson died at 50. Was he only half good half bad?

CptJSparrow

Partly his fault. He took illegal drugs, along with prescribtion drugs.He wasn't forced to do it. Partly doctors fault for also supply and adminstration of the drugs particularly the ones illegal out side of hospitals.

It seems clear to me that the answer is THOUGHT

Thought has created the ego, the gods, the thousands of beliefs, the ideologies, the suffering, the illusions etc

Your sense of self is a construct forged by thought-

Love isnt a thought/idea/concept, neither does it belong to any one of us

Is that too simplistic ?

It seems clear to me that the answer is THOUGHT

Thought has created the ego, the gods, the thousands of beliefs, the ideologies, the suffering, the illusions etc

Your sense of self is a construct forged by thought-

Love isnt a thought/idea/concept, neither does it belong to any one of us

Is that too simplistic ?

soren008

money is the root of all evil

Philosophically God is the creator of evil. In his all powering omnipotence he created the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". And in his power he forbade the first humans Adam and Eve from eating from his scared tree, in itself is conflicting, because of God's power of foresight he would and should of known that the curiosity of either Adam or Eve that they would eventually eat the forbidden fruit. God is the beginning and end, and in his power he was the one that doomed mankind.

It's all God's fault, philosophically of course.

In the brain.

Women. (Mathematics proved this) I found a pic once, but my work restricts most sites (except GS anda few others) so someone may have already posted this.

Women = Time X Money

Time = Money

Women = Money X Money (Money ^2)

Money = Root of all evil (Square root of evil)

Money ^ 2 = Evil

So...

Women = Evil

According to the Bible, the origin of evil would be Satan and his angels, as they were the first ones to sin. Then, Adam and Eve sinned. God bless, Crushmaster.Crushmaster

I don't think evil has any sort of objective or absolute standard behind it, so I'd say it originates from people and social constructs, since I think it's based on interpretation.-Chimera-

Evil is an idea created by humans, same as love, hate, and many other abstract ideas.

[QUOTE="soren008"]

No I guess I can't ... its a concept-idea-thought

Welli guess a better question would bethe origin of the things we define as evil like (Wars-Torture-Pedofilia-Rape-Murder..etc)

Where has all of these horrific deeds originate from ?

No other animal commits them ? it cannot be survival?

Every animal on Earth has basically one ultimate goal: the pursuit of its desires. Since humans have an increased mental capacity over other animals, our desires are more complicated (in some cases... in other cases hardly more complicated than other animals). With more complicated desires comes as well the capacity for increasingly destructive desires. And we also have a better ability through our technological advancements to pursue our desires on a much grander scale. So, everything you've listed is really just the combination of those three facts: we pursue our desires; our desires are more complicated and thus more prone to messed up tendencies; and we are more capable of carrying out broader desires than other animals.

Isn't that first sentence of yours tautological? It is just tantamount to saying living organisms do what they 'want' to do, but seeing as how the lower animals don't 'desire' to do anything, they merely do what is programmed in themselves to do. MetalGear_Ninty

Which is precisely the way that humans operate, too.

Humans have "programming", same as any other animal. It just happens to be more complicated. To deny this is to deny cause and effect, the very foundation of existence itself. Ultimately, we and every other animal have built-in fundamental goals that we are biologically driven to achieve, which have been sculpted through many, many years of natural selection, and every action we take is one that our brains perceive based on the sensory input they receive as the best course of action to achieve those goals.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Isn't that first sentence of yours tautological? It is just tantamount to saying living organisms do what they 'want' to do, but seeing as how the lower animals don't 'desire' to do anything, they merely do what is programmed in themselves to do. GabuEx

Which is precisely the way that humans operate, too.

Humans have "programming", same as any other animal. It just happens to be more complicated. To deny this is to deny cause and effect, the very foundation of existence itself. Ultimately, we and every other animal have built-in fundamental goals that we are biologically driven to achieve, which have been sculpted through many, many years of natural selection, and every action we take is one that our brains perceive based on the sensory input they receive as the best course of action to achieve those goals.

So humans don't have free will?MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]So humans don't have free will?foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Isn't that first sentence of yours tautological? It is just tantamount to saying living organisms do what they 'want' to do, but seeing as how the lower animals don't 'desire' to do anything, they merely do what is programmed in themselves to do. MetalGear_Ninty

Which is precisely the way that humans operate, too.

Humans have "programming", same as any other animal. It just happens to be more complicated. To deny this is to deny cause and effect, the very foundation of existence itself. Ultimately, we and every other animal have built-in fundamental goals that we are biologically driven to achieve, which have been sculpted through many, many years of natural selection, and every action we take is one that our brains perceive based on the sensory input they receive as the best course of action to achieve those goals.

Well, that entirely depends on what one means by free will.

If it's defined as the ability to act on one's desires, then of course they do. But that is not in conflict with what I said above.

If it's defined as the ability to arbitrarily choose one's desires, thenno. Someone cannot simply get out of bed in the morning and decide to want to do something else in life in the absence of any external input. Everything happens for a reason. The only changes in one's desires come from an external source that makes one's brain come to the conclusion that the previous set of desires held were not in accordance with one's fundamental biologically definedgoals in life.

I am personally not so sure whether free will exists, but isn't that so nihilstic?

MetalGear_Ninty

Perhaps it is, but I am of the opinion that the old adage is true that the truth - the whole truth, mind you, not just a select portion of it - is ultimately liberating. I do not believe that one's life can be truly improved by ignoring reality; one's existence is much richer and fuller, in my view,if one faces reality and finds one's way in reality, not in what one wishes reality to be.

Money. They say it is the root of evil.Kenny789

I am personally not so sure whether free will exists, but isn't that so nihilstic?

MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Which is precisely the way that humans operate, too.

Humans have "programming", same as any other animal. It just happens to be more complicated. To deny this is to deny cause and effect, the very foundation of existence itself. Ultimately, we and every other animal have built-in fundamental goals that we are biologically driven to achieve, which have been sculpted through many, many years of natural selection, and every action we take is one that our brains perceive based on the sensory input they receive as the best course of action to achieve those goals.

Well, that entirely depends on what one means by free will.

If it's defined as the ability to act on one's desires, then of course they do. But that is not in conflict with what I said above.

If it's defined as the ability to arbitrarily choose one's desires, thenno. Someone cannot simply get out of bed in the morning and decide to want to do something else in life in the absence of any external input. Everything happens for a reason. The only changes in one's desires come from an external source that makes one's brain come to the conclusion that the previous set of desires held were not in accordance with one's fundamental biologically definedgoals in life.