Jump to content

Talk:Evil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question of a universal definition.

[edit]

I have rewritten the section: Question of a universal definition in a way that I think better discusses the topic it claims. If there are no comments or objections within a week, I will publish the changes. Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether one's definition of 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 rape of women, by men, is found in every society, and there are more societies that see at least some versions of it, such as marital rape or punitive rape, as normative than there are societies that see all rape as non-normative (a crime).[1] In nearly all societies, killing except for self-defense or duty is seen as murder. Yet the definition of self-defense and duty varies from one society to another.[2] Stanley Milgram's 1974 experiments were designed to explain how thousands of ordinary, non-deviant, people could have reconciled themselves to a role in the Holocaust. He showed that ordinary humans have the capacity for evil behavior when influenced, manipulated, or pressed into it by authority figures.[3] Social deviance is not uniformly defined across different cultures, and is not, in all circumstances, necessarily wrong, therefore it cannot be seen as a necessary or a sufficient characteristic of evil.[4]

Defining evil is further complicated by its multiple, often ambiguous, common usages: evil is often used to describe the whole range of human suffering, including that caused by nature, and it is also used to describe all human immorality from the "evil of genocide to the evil of malicious gossip".[5]: 321  It is sometimes thought of as the generic opposite of good. Marcus Singer asserts that these common connotations must be set aside as overgeneralized ideas that don't really describe the nature of evil.[6]: 185, 186  For example, the idea there can be such a thing as a 'necessary evil', which is doing what one dislikes, is untenable. "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".[6]: 186 

Renowned orthopedist and missionary to lepers, Dr. Paul Brand, asserts that pain is necessary, that it has a good and valuable purpose, that it fulfills that purpose well, and that it does so in a way nothing else can.[7]: 9  Leprosy attacks the nerve cells that feel pain resulting in no more pain for the leper. Rather than no pain being a good, this prevents pain from fulfilling its purpose, which leads to ever increasing often catastrophic damage to the body of the leper.[7]: 50, 51  Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is a neurological disorder that prevents feeling pain. It "leads to self-mutilation in the first months of life and to bone fractures, multiple scars, osteomyelitis, joint deformities, and limb amputation as the children grow older. Mental retardation is common. Death from hyperpyrexia occurs within the first 3 years of life in almost 20% of the patients." [8] Few with the disorder are able to live into adulthood.[9] Pain "is of the utmost importance to the survival of the individual and [human] race".[10] Evil cannot be correctly understood "(as some of the utilitarians once thought) [on] a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus".[11]

In contemporary philosophy, there are two basic concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. A broad concept defines evil simply as any and all pain and suffering: "The suffering of a toothache is evil, in the broad sense, as is a white lie".[12] Yet, according to Singer and Brand, the broad definition of evil is problematic.

The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, therefore it is ascribed only to moral agents and their actions.[5]: 322  This eliminates natural disasters and animal suffering from consideration as evil: "When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Their "agency" routinely produces consequences vital to some forms of life and lethal to others".[13]

The narrow definition of evil "picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc. As Marcus Singer puts it “‘evil’ [in this sense] … is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable”.[6] Eve Garrard suggests that evil describes "particularly horrifying kinds of action which we feel are to be contrasted with more ordinary kinds of wrongdoing, as when for example we might say 'that action wasn't just wrong, it was positively evil'. The implication is that there is a qualitative, and not merely quantitative, difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality."[5]: 321  In this context, the concept of evil is one element in our whole nexus of moral concepts.[5]: 324 

References

  1. ^ Brown, Jennifer; Horvath, Miranda, eds. (2013). Rape Challenging Contemporary Thinking. Taylor & Francis. p. 62. ISBN 9781134026395.
  2. ^ Humphrey, J.A.; Palmer, S. (2013). Deviant Behavior Patterns, Sources, and Control. Springer US. p. 11. ISBN 9781489905833.
  3. ^ Milgram, Stanley (2017). Obedience to Authority. Harper Perennial. pp. Foreword. ISBN 9780062803405.
  4. ^ McKeown, Mick; Stowell-Smith, Mark (2006). "The Comforts of Evil Dangerous Personalities in High-Security Hospitals and the Horror Film". Forensic Psychiatry. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-006-5_6.
  5. ^ a b c d Garrard, Eve (April 2002). "Evil as an Explanatory Concept" (Pdf). The Monist. 85 (2). Oxford University Press.
  6. ^ a b c Marcus G. Singer, Marcus G. Singer (April 2004). "The Concept of Evil". Philosophy. 79 (308). Cambridge University Press.
  7. ^ a b Yancey, Philip; Brand, Paul (2010). Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310861997.
  8. ^ Rosemberg, Sérgio; Kliemann, Suzana; Nagahashi, Suely K. "Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy type IV)". ScienceDirect. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  9. ^ Cox, David (27 April 2017). "The curse of the people who never feel pain". BBC. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  10. ^ "Reviews". The Humane Review. 2 (5–8). E. Bell: 374. 1901.
  11. ^ Kemp, John (25 February 2009). "Pain and Evil". Philosophy. 29 (108): 13. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  12. ^ Calder, Todd. "The Concept of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  13. ^ Card, Claudia (2005). The Atrocity Paradigm A Theory of Evil. Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780195181265.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but this reads more like a school essay than a Wikipedia entry. I think we're getting a little too detailed into the various arguments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Hand That Feeds You:Bite Okay, what do you suggest? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Hand That Feeds You:Bite There were originally two paragraphs on deviance that is not actually discussed in any of the literature on the nature of evil, the concept of evil, the definition of evil, that I found anywhere. I don't think anyone uses it as a definition of evil, but it was already there, which generally indicates someone was invested in it, so I left it and just shortened it, but that whole first paragraph could easily go.
Whether or not "pain and suffering" are adequate definitions of evil is the entire discussion so leaving any of the rest out would be counterproductive to the goal of an actual discussion of definitions. I am happy to rewrite in any style you think would be less essay-like. Please do make a suggestion. I believe cooperation produces the best result. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The Hand That Feeds You:Bite Please don't just be negative, work with me. I think this is as short as I can make it, does this help?
Defining evil is complicated by its multiple, often ambiguous, common usages: evil is often used to describe the whole range of suffering, including that caused by nature, and it is also used to describe all human immorality from the "evil of genocide to the evil of malicious gossip".[1]: 321  It is sometimes thought of as the generic opposite of good. Marcus Singer asserts that these common connotations must be set aside as overgeneralized ideas that don't really describe the nature of evil.[2]: 185, 186 
In contemporary philosophy, there are two basic concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. A broad concept defines evil simply as any and all pain and suffering: "any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw".[3] Yet, it is also asserted that evil cannot be correctly understood "(as some of the utilitarians once thought) [on] a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus",[4] because pain "is of the utmost importance to the survival of the individual and [human] race".[5] Renowned orthopedist and missionary to lepers, Dr. Paul Brand explains that leprosy attacks the nerve cells that feel pain resulting in no more pain for the leper. Rather than "no pain" being a good, this leads to ever increasing often catastrophic damage to the body of the leper. According to Dr. Brand, pain is both necessary and a good.[6]: 50, 51, 9  As Marcus Singer says: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".[2]: 186 
The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, therefore it is ascribed only to moral agents and their actions.[1]: 322  This eliminates natural disasters and animal suffering from consideration as evil: according to Claudia Card, "When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Their "agency" routinely produces consequences vital to some forms of life and lethal to others".[7] The narrow definition of evil "picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc. “Evil [in this sense] … is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable”.[2] Eve Garrard suggests that evil describes "particularly horrifying kinds of action which we feel are to be contrasted with more ordinary kinds of wrongdoing, as when for example we might say 'that action wasn't just wrong, it was positively evil'. The implication is that there is a qualitative, and not merely quantitative, difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality".[1]: 321  In this context, the concept of evil is one element in the whole nexus of moral concepts.[1]: 324 

References

  1. ^ a b c d Garrard, Eve (April 2002). "Evil as an Explanatory Concept" (Pdf). The Monist. 85 (2). Oxford University Press.
  2. ^ a b c Marcus G. Singer, Marcus G. Singer (April 2004). "The Concept of Evil". Philosophy. 79 (308). Cambridge University Press.
  3. ^ Calder, Todd. "The Concept of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  4. ^ Kemp, John (25 February 2009). "Pain and Evil". Philosophy. 29 (108): 13. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  5. ^ "Reviews". The Humane Review. 2 (5–8). E. Bell: 374. 1901.
  6. ^ Yancey, Philip; Brand, Paul (2010). Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310861997.
  7. ^ Card, Claudia (2005). The Atrocity Paradigm A Theory of Evil. Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780195181265.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me repeatedly, I don't always have time to check Wikipedia. I also have this page on my watchlist, so I'll get to respond when I can. I'll need time to read through this and I can't guarantee it'll be anytime soon. In the meanwhile, hopefully someone else offers advice. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I made a false assumption, that's entirely on me. I appreciate that you responded and explained.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has been here for a week now, and all it has received is one non-participant response, so I am going to proceed on the assumption there is no one that objects or cares or whatever. I am going to be bold, and publish them accordingly.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlock please

[edit]

Why is this page locked? When will it be unlocked?

The page is not technically locked, but semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. This is due to persistent vandalism. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, please ask at the Tea House. Remember, you should always sign your comments in talk pages by adding four tildes at the end. -- Alexf(talk) 11:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number 4

[edit]

Please, cite the source correctly. 81.0.166.183 (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re going to have to be more specific. I don’t know what you want done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evil&oldid=1260899764"