debray@sbcs.UUCP (06/16/83)
Here's a question that arose in a discussion with a friend over lunch the other afternoon, and I thought I'd toss it onto the net. The question is, What is evil? Consider, for example, the construction of a torture device. My friend contends that this act, of itself, is evil. *My* opinion is that the evil is in the actual use of the device for torture. In this case, the act of constructing the torture device might be labelled evil because the intention in constructing it was evil (I'm being a little loose here: we really haven't defined "evil" yet - but that's what the question is about! For the time being, let's begin with some intuitive notion of "evil" and try to refine the idea.), but what about actions where the intentions are not clearly defined, or whose consequences can have either good or bad implications? Consider, for example, nuclear fission. Was Fermi's act of constructing a self-sustaining chain reaction good, or evil? It seems to me that the consequence of that act - atomic power - was not, of itself, necessarily good or bad; it's good if used for a "good" purpose, e.g. generating power, as a power source for space vehicles like Pioneer-10, and bad if used for "bad" purposes, e.g. for killing people. I myself believe in a "relative value system" (as opposed to an "absolute value system"), where things (objects, actions) are not good or evil of themselves, but become so only when evaluated in a context. I'm interested in hearing what others think about this. Saumya Debray ...philabs!sbcs!debray
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/18/83)
If you define evil to be "the absence of good" then the whole question changes. I have yet to find anything without *any* good -- there are merely things which are more good than others. By this reasoning, there is no way to assign "evilness" as a quality to something, only a way to measure its relative "goodness" to other good things. Of course, you now get to define "good" and you may have a symetrical problem, in which case you can accuse me of begging the question. But if "good/evil" are one quality, (albeit composed of separate qualities such as honesty, compassion...) the value system which emerges can be strikingly different from one that acknowledges two polar opposites. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
tim@unc.UUCP (06/20/83)
As far as I can tell, "evil" is a word we use to describe
behaviors we consider undesirable, and nothing more. There is
malevolence, but it need not always be undesirable (consider a soldier
fighting Nazis), and there is benevolence, but it need not always be
desirable (sheltering Hitler).
Since abandoning monotheism, I have had no need for the concept
that good and evil are things in themselves. Although I use the words
at times, they are only shorthand for desirable and undesirable. I
prefer to think in terms of what we should or shouldn't do in any
particular situation, and I don't see that the ideas of good and evil
help. Is this equivalent to your relativistic point of view, Saumya?
Tim Maroneywex@ittvax.UUCP (06/23/83)
Tim makes an interesting point on the nature of good and evil. I would like to take a slightly different tack, however. Copping straight from the notebooks of Lazarus Long (Heinlein), I will maintain that it is EVIL, and not merely undesirable, to hurt someone unnecessarily. Of course, necessary is in itself debatable, but I think I can cite examples of instances where an act is NEVER necessary. The first example that comes to mind is rape. Emotional issues aside, I cannot image a circumstance where rape is necessary. Or, alternately, giving harmful drugs to someone who does not need them. Again, the act itself never is necessary. Therefore, I would like to define it as evil. Comments? --Alan Wexelblat ittvax!wex or decvax!ucbvax!ittvax!wex@BERKELEY
rh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/24/83)
Just remember, Tim, as Salvor Hardin (the Great Father of the Foundation) said: I never let my sense of morals stand in the way of doing what is right. (or something like that) --Randy rh@mit-eddie
rimey@ucbvax.UUCP (06/27/83)
There are problems with using human life as a basis for good and evil.
First all all, we must consider other forms of life. After all, a
chimpanzee is intelligent, and is as capable of observing the world around
him as a baby human is -- shouldn't chimpanzee life then be also used as a
basis for good and evil every bit as much as a human baby's life is?
In addition, how about extra-terrestrial life? Even if you believe
that we shall never actually CONTACT any extra-terrestrial life, you
have to grant that there is a good chance that somewhere out there some
form of intelligent life exists. Shouldn't this contribute to a definition of
good and evil?? Perhaps it does not contribute to our working day-to-day
morality, but it must contribute to any complete definition of good and evil.
The point is that human life is not INTRINSICALLY special. However, we
certainly don't attribute the same importance to all forms of life as we do to
human life. There seems to be a contradiction here.
The contradiction is resolved by saying that human life is not
fundamental, and that life itself is not fundamental. What is more fundamental
is the set of things that makes life worth living--that is, feeling and thought.
The life of a chimpanzee has worth because the chimpanzee is an intelligent
being that can feel joy and pain. The life of a bacterium, on the other hand,
has little or no worth.
In short, life itself is not important. What is important is the
joy, pain, and intelligent achievement that life allows. It is only as a
vehicle to these other more fundamental definers of good that life is sacred.
-Lorenzo Sadun
sadun@ucbbach
P.S. Note that I have not claimed that feeling and thought are the ultimate
bases of good and evil, only that they are more fundamental than life.
L.S.wex@ittvax.UUCP (06/27/83)
Lorenzo makes the claim that the "joy, pain, and intelligent acheivement" of life are the most fundamental items (discussed so far). That's all well and good, except for one thing: I (and all other humans besides yourself) haven't the foggiest idea what you are \actually/ feeling. All we can do is get a distorted impression from your words and actions. The mental world is (at least for the moment) a completely private one; it would seem, therefore, to be difficult to judge the quality/worth of ANY life on something that is not even observable, let alone measurable. --Alan Wexelblat ittvax!wex or decvax!ucbvax!ittvax!wex@BERKELY