And the idea of this being an “evil” act depends on subjective circumstances. Eg. Is the lion killing humans? Is it just “trophy hunting” an endangered species? What about “regular” hunting (ducks, deer, etc)? Yes, we could go on and on…
On the other side of nature and species…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nEN8fp0vbw8
Edited to add:
Unless these animals are created. Then god saw fit for the animal world to endure suffering or evil without the benefit of sin. Just for fun…sounds sadist
Yeah, that doesn’t sound like something I’d call evil; it suggests to me that a very special definition of the word is being used, and I think that should be included.
If a lion killing a zebra colt to feed her young cubs is evil, then so is an abattoir systematically slaughtering and butchering hundreds of lambs a day to supply remote consumers who can avoid thinking about the processes involved in bringing meat to their dinner table without having to deal with blood on their hands or hearing the final squeals of doomed animals. Nasty, possibly evil, from the viewpoint of the lambs, but it doesn’t make us ‘Evil’. Collectively we make nasty things happen despite however we view our best intentions.
No, I am not a militant vegetarian. I like my T-bone, medium rare, mushroom sauce, thanks.
There is ‘evil’, nasty things that happen, and there’s ‘Evil’, some sort of personified supernatural force purposely making shit happen. Some of the religious like to mix the two meanings to fit their own agenda, like they do with ‘belief’/‘Belief’, ‘faith’/‘Faith’ etc
1 Like
@jayjay
Hi jayjay, welcome if you’re new.
Not able to agree with that claim…
In attempting to claim suffering is evil it seems to me you are heading towards a moral absolute which I reject in principle. However,the hedonist might define suffering (especially his )as evil.
When I try to pin evil down and define it,it becomes smoke in the wind. Of course I can think of examples which I THINK are evil EG The rape/murder of children and the holocaust.
I am unable to define any behaviour by an animal as evil or wrong, because as far as I’m aware,an animal has no moral sense.
The most disgusting disease I can imagine is not evil in itself, imo. Nor is any suffering caused to any human being by disease evil. By definition,there is no such thing as ‘a cruel disease’. Nor is animal suffering evil in itself, it just is, part of life if you like.
Now, that I can’t imagine a valid definition of evil is irrelevant to reality. (argument from ignorance) There may well be a definition with which I can agree. I may simply not come across it yet.
I’ve been having a little bit of a think. Not claiming a definition, but I think I may have the beginning of one. Could evil be said to exist when one human being harms one or more
people for gain? By gain I include emotional satisfaction .Is revenge evil? What about killing a man to have his wife/partner? What about harming/killing others for personal power or material gain? What about the actions of the psychopath,who lacks empathy and any moral sense apart from personal gain?
If evil is to be found anywhere, I think a good place to start might be the things we human beings do to each other. May any behaviour of Donald Trump or his sychophants be defined as evil? If not, why not, it’s behaviour for personal gain,specifically, power, imo.
As I said, I’m only just starting in a quest to define evil. IE in a way which is universally acceptable. Not sure it can be done.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Hedonism is a school of thought that argues seeking pleasure and avoiding suffering are the only components of well-being.[1] Ethical hedonism is the view that combines hedonism with welfarist ethics, which claim that what we should do depends exclusively on what affects the well-being individuals have. Ethical hedonists would defend either increasing pleasure and reducing suffering for all beings capable of experiencing them, or just reducing suffering in the case of negative consequentialism.[2][3] According to negative utilitarianism, only the minimization of suffering would matter.[4][5] Ethical hedonism is said to have been started by Aristippus of Cyrene,[6] a student of Socrates. He held the idea that pleasure is the highest good.[7]
For its part, hedonistic ethical egoism[8] is the idea that all people have the right to do everything in their power to achieve the greatest amount of pleasure possible to them. It is also the idea that every person’s pleasure should far surpass their amount of pain.[9]
@jayjay2, @the thread
For those that may be unfamiliar with the initial form of the argument from evil
- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Evil exists.
- If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Ha ha theists…LOL
There are two failing points for theists. The absolute moral value of god…good luck with that theists…LOL…and the clarification of the meaning of evil. Evil the word, exists as a descriptor…but does evil exist as a supernatural force? Ummmmm no, due to lack of evidence.
The things to watch out for from the theists horseshit, is any error of ambiguity fallacy…like the usually purposeful equivocation fallacy. Platinga and “the church” are big exploiters of the words “faith” and “evil” as equivocation fallacies…which have both already been addressed on this thread.
I just don’t know if jj is an atheist or theist…maybe if I watch the video, I could likely figure that out…or equate jj’s sidesteps as a typically theitard dishonest trait. But alas, I try to stay away from utubby vids, and prefer the OP clearify specific points of the video, in his own words, so there is no ambiguity…how about it jj?
Welcome BTW jj. 
1 Like
Cranky …pinning down “evil”, as you addressed is like near fucking impossible. It’s so “subjective” and motive does play apart.
I narrowed it as close to un-empathetic self-interest (or self-love). It “fits” all the above scenarios.
However in adopting this definition, I have committed “evil” (eg. Leaving my husband or religion - I was in-empathetic to their “emotions” due to my actions which were completely motivated by self-interest (self-love).
Perhaps, motives and “history of behaviour”,
intention for action -
all need to be assessed in determining an “evil” act.
For myself, evil - such a sweeping concept - doesn’t really exist and is a poor descriptor.
3 Likes
Yair. It seems to be one of those times where the individual might say"I can’t define devil, but I know it when I see it"
It does seem that the perception of evil tends to be subjective. Does that mean that can be no objective definition of evil?
May we extend it to our own society? IE it seems to be the consensus in my country and I suspect yours, that people such as Hitler,Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were evil personified. So too that people who intentionally harm children or who commit murder for money are also evil.
What about psychopaths such as Ted Bundy? Surely he was evil? Yet he would almost certainly not have seen himself as such. The term may well have had no meaning for him. It is my understanding that people we would call truly evil have little if any self awareness and simply do not see themselves as evil.
In her book,’ Eichmann In Jerusalem’ Hannah Arendt coined the term “the banality of evil” in referring to Adolf Eichmann and others responsible for the Holocaust. That in their personal lives, such people tended to be like burgermeisters in the most banal meaning of the term.
I think it was her who tried to define evil as ‘the absence of empathy’. Does conscience have to exist in the perpetrator for an evil doer to be existentially evil?
As with other important questions which plague the thinking person, I’m not convinced there is a simple answer
Thought for today “Humans are more rational-ising animal’s than rational ones”(anon) Over a lifetime it has become clear to me that human beings can and regularly do rationalise any behaviour whatsoever.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil is a 1963 book by political theorist Hannah Arendt. Arendt, a Jew who fled Germany during Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, reported on Adolf Eichmann’s trial for The New Yorker . A revised and enlarged edition was published in 1964.
Overview[edit]
Arendt’s subtitle famously introduced the phrase “the banality of evil”. In part the phrase refers to Eichmann’s deportment at the trial as the man displayed neither guilt for his actions nor hatred for those trying him, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply “doing his job” ("He did his ‘duty’…; he not only obeyed ‘orders’, he also obeyed the ‘law’.“p. 135).”
1 Like
Perhaps it’s a question of “necessary” evil. Pain, suffering, anger - can all be positive and necessary. I know my evil act (as I define evil) was a necessary evil.
Mkay.As long as you aren’t going to claim ‘suffering is noble’ That disgusting old twat,Teresa of Calcutta actually said “the suffering of the poor is beautiful”
Of course, basic suffering is very necessary, without it we would die.
“may be necessary” is heading in my direction of '“the end justifies the means .” Bbitter old cynic that I am, it is my observation is ‘the ends justifies the means’ is the most common human rationalisation. Also the way politics and business actually work***… Of course self interest and naked fear are the most reliable motives.
***Most vivid examples in recent years; the moral bankruptcy shown by elected officials in their continuing support and justification of Donald Trump. A side of politics the public rarely gets to see.
In business; people like the odious Mark Zuckerberg and Fuck face,who owns Amazon.
I can’t listen to the video yet but right off the bat I have to ask what in the hell is meant by “EVIL.” Why should I believe “evil” exists? “God,” a fictitious fantasy is disproved by “Evil,” another fictitious fantasy? Really?
Synonyms for Evil are "“bad, vicious, ill, wicked,” and other personal judgments about the events or things in the world around us. The online etymology dictionary suggests …
" In Old English and other older Germanic languages other than Scandinavian, “this word is the most comprehensive adjectival expression of disapproval, dislike or disparagement” [OED]. Evil was the word the Anglo-Saxons used where we would use bad, cruel, unskillful, defective (adj.), or harm (n.), crime, misfortune, disease (n.). In Middle English, bad took the wider range of senses and evil began to focus on moral badness. Both words have good as their opposite. Evil-favored (1520s) meant “ugly.” Evilchild is attested as an English surname from 13c."
Why would I even bother with such a word? There are things I like in this world and things I dislike. People do things we judge to be evil and that only means that we don’t like them, don’t approve of them, view them as abhorrent, etc… It does not mean that Evil exists as a thing.
The argument from evil is useless from a position of logic but it may have an impact of the mind of a gullible Christian who already believes in the concept. Beyond that, I find it useless and a complete waste of time. I no more believe in Evil than I believe in a God.
Nope - nor does the “ends justify the means”.
I gave a small example. Pain is a necessary bodily response for self protection or awareness and can be “good” (google people who don’t have our pain receptors) or you mentioned suffering (can be good). War to defend a people against (eg Hitler) necessary “evil”? (IMO yes) But within that there were some true “evils” committed by the allies.
Theresa had no empathy (her callous attitude toward the suffering of others) and self-interest 
imo
The idea of evil is far from clear cut.
I know this - UNLESS evidence is offered up for the existence of some supernatural entity wielding evil with the blessing and permission of another supernatural entity - the broad stroke of evil used by theists is bullshit.
Speaking of which - did jayjay just drop out? Haven’t heard a peep from him, unless he’s still trying to put his own thoughts together.
Evil is if course subjective,
and influenced by perception. The psychopath not being able to understand his or her actions are evil is an interesting one. If they’re not mentally capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong would it even be legal to try and convict them?
As I said, IMHO an evil act is one that ddliberately causes unnecessary suffering, but from there we have to debate necessary. Is eating meat necessary for humans in developed countries in the 21st century, just as one example?
Yet as a meat eater I don’t view the consumption of meat as evil. Though subjecting animals we eat to unnecessary suffering I might consider to be unethical, like Halal or Kosher butchery for example, because more humane methods are available, but then I’m not religious so again it’s a subjective opinion.
Of course not. Right from the beginning the video worked from the presupposition that there was a god. But it all returns to the same point, please provide evidence to support your assertion of a god.
1 Like
The psychopath understands their actions are illegal and not acceptable to society. They may not “feel” it (as in why society has come to this conclusion) or care or they feed their own internal needs/impulse - all of which gives society the “right and responsibility” to remove them from society (which method, psychiatric facility or prison is subjective).
A drunk driver doesn’t have a legal “excuse” when he is so intoxicated he didn’t “know” …a person may have an undiagnosed mental illness and still be legally responsible and convicted because there is an understanding of societal law.
Edited to add: what if I bought into the simulation idea to such a degree I convinced myself that other people are just “background characters that are programmed” - does that mental thought pattern absolve me legally from killing -
What about the “devil made me do it” or “I was on a mission from God”… (re:killing/murder)
In Australia, a person may be judged to be 'not guilty due to insanity, rather than the US version of “guilty but insane”" Such pleas are so rarely successful that they are rarely offered.
Our most prolific mass murderer is Martin Bryant. In 1996,at Port Arthur Tasmania he shot dead 35 people and wounded 23. He was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole.
Bryant is ‘intellectually challenged’ , but it was determined he was fit for trial.
Bryant used an AR-10 semi automatic rifle.
As a direct result of that tragedy,tough new gun laws were introduced federally within a few weeks.Today it is very difficult to own even a hand gun in Australia. In what is surely a coincidence, since those laws were passed, there have been no mass shootings in Australia. 
Below couple of clips with Aussie comic Jim Jeffries, who is very popular in the US. The topic; gun control. Worth watching if you haven’t seen them: (13M views)
