Does evil actually exist...

>Does evil actually exist?
Yes.

What exactly is evil?

Could it be that ethics change only because our knowledge changes?

We recognize evil when we see it, even when said evil is basically in agreement with our ethics. This suggests there is more to evil than simply "stuff I don't like", but to WHAT evil is, it seems to be the same "kind" of thing as beauty or justice are, they're abstractions and the standards for these things change over time but it's hard to say they're truly "subjective" because there is so much overlap between the conceptions f these things among diverse people and cultures. Most likely being able to detect evil (or beauty or justice) serves a useful evolutionary purpose, but that's not a very satisfying answer.

Would that mean that ethics are subjective and based off current culture and knowledge?

Name me a subjective belief that changes for any reason other than thru changes in our knowledge.

Well done, you have successfully repeated OP's question. Now, how about attempting an answer?

The Demiurge is to blame not because his intentions were bad (like you say, he wanted to create something beautiful) but because he stole the Divine Power he needed to create humans and keeps us bound in a cycle of reincarnation and promulgates false religions to maintain his cosplaying as a god, even after his Daddy (the Unknowable Self-Contained) told him to stop.

...

All cultures abhor the murder of women and children, even those cultures that practice ritual murder still consider the non-sacral murder of innocents to be "evil".

Yes, evil does exist, and only humans are capable to do evil things, because we are the only creatures that posess self-reflection. There are a lot of people that say evil can't exist because the nature is indifferent, but a lion killing the cubs of a competitor is not the same as a man killing the sons of another man. The lion does not posess self-reflection and can not know it is doing something evil. The man can.

The defintion of evil is also pretty easy, everything that causes sufferage is evil. There are obviously some necessary evils like killing a mass shooter. So basically we have to put those kind of exception into the defintion, so evil is every action that causes sufferage, except those that are supposed to prevent even greater sufferage.

It's entirely subjective.

The Aztecs sacrificed innocent children and women and thought it was good

...

How am I wrong. OBJECTIVELY prove to me anything is wrong. You can't.

I agree almost completely, except that sufferage is not a synonym for suffering and is not, in general, something I would oppose. Of course there are monarchists and such who think sufferage was an evil thing, but most of us enjoy being able to vote.

>non-sacral

Find me the society that encouraged the non-sacral murder of women and children.

>The defintion of evil is also pretty easy, everything that causes sufferage is evil.

I see you hate democracy.

You now that God exists. QED, you know objective truth exists.

Tons of societies encouraged doing it to out-groups. It was par for the course to do it to your enemies.

Not that fag but no, necessary evils are still evil.

So an act of evil that prevents further harm and suffering isn't evil?

>something cant be true unless its proven!
>prove to me that murder is wrong!

You should have no trouble finding me one, them. Protip: Tribes kill the men but they enslave / adopt / marry the women and small children. Well unless a priest convinces them their God told them to genocide them all, of course, but religion is the mindkiller.

See

Well first of all I meant suffering, not suffrage. Sorry for that.

No, that would not be evil. A doctor cutting a person open with a scalpel is obviously something else than a murderer cutting a victim open with his knife.

not an argument

But if the end result of not committing the act of evil would be worse than the act itself, and the outcome is good and beneficial to all, is it not objectively a good thing? Wouldn't that make evil subjective?

...

Why do the motives matter? Is killing innocent women and children not objectively wrong?

Well we aren't omniscient so we can't really take future consequences into account except by inference. But even with a crazed gunman shooting cops, killing him is STILL an evil act, just one that might be necessary.

So it isn't good to prevent further killings?

Killing is objectively wrong but religion can convince people to do things they know are evil by rephrasing it as a "meta-good", ie, that you are pleasing God by doing it.

Not for you, no. Good for the future victims, sure. But you still carry the evil of the killing, even tho you may feel perfectly justified and be acclaimed as a hero in the media.

Would our ethics change if we possessed all the relevant knowledge from the start?

You might think that, but it is really not. You can name any scenario you want where evil is seemingly subjective and I can explain how it is actually objective.

Not that fag but no. How we react would certainly change, but how we feel about it, morally, wouldn't.

How is evil defined?

He already told you, that which causes suffering.

But if it was good for the future victims and everyone views it as heroic then it was good, evil but good. So, isn't evil subjective?

>ethics is objective
No

Is abortion wrong?

"everything that causes sufferage is evil", from the original response to the OP, yes, but why?

Also, suffrage for whom? the victim?

How do you define suffrage?

If I wax my legs, for example, I will feel pain (since they've never been shaved or waxed before, I will likely feel a great deal of pain). Am I suffering? Is that act evil?

MUH FEFES GOD IS A MEANY BECAUSE I THINK I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROJECT MUH MISINTERPRETATIONS AND PETTY SENSE OF MORALITY ONTO A PERFECT BEING ;CCCCC

No it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. Like to cut someone with a knife is evil because it causes suffering, but a doctor cutting you open to get at a tumor is doing you a good, even tho he himself is doing a necessary evil.

Wrong? That's subjective. Evil? Yes, unless the life of the mother is at risk.

Why is any cause of suffering evil? Where did you obtain this definition?

Yes, albeit a very puny one you happily accept for the good of having a better social standing thru your attention to grooming.

> a doctor cutting you open to get at a tumor is doing you a good, even tho he himself is doing a necessary evil.

That is still an objectively good thing, so an evil act can be good.

Is evil inherently bad?

Suffering is evil.

>killing is evil because i sed so
Back to r*ddit

No, an act can be both good and evil at once. They're not really opposites, almost, but there is some overlap in cases where the good and evil are done to the same person.

So if the life of the mother is at risk an evil act is no longer evil, doesn't that mean that the evil associated with the act is subjective?

Why? And how is suffering defined?

What use, then, is labeling things evil or good, if any random small act might be evil or good? What purpose does it serve?

No its STILL evil, what part of "necessary evil" don';t you understand? The idea is that the good that an act does can "outweigh" the evil of the act itself, but that doesn't make the ACT good, just the aggregate OUTCOME.

But if the outcome is good the act is objectively a good thing

Evil is not a binary, there are gradations of evil. The pain you cause when waxing a friend's leg is an evil, and you will probably wince sympathetically or even offer an apology because you KNOW it was evil. But the good you are offering your friend outweighs the evil of your action, resulting in a net good, and is thus a necessary evil.

The act and the outcome aren't the same thing. Why would you even assume they are? Causal relationship? Then everything that ever happened is the same thing.

That does not answer my question, it simply adds yet another facet to the definition

>an act is evil if it causes suffering
>some acts of evil are necessary
>if the outcome of an act is good, the act itself may still be considered evil
>there are gradations of evil

What is the use of the definition?
You say it is objective. How so? Is it inherent in all living things, or what?
What is suffering? How do you define suffering?

It's objective in the sense that everyone know it. Even the masochist knows his suffering is evil, that's why he gets off on it, but to him the good of his sexual release outweighs the evil he knows he is doing to himself.

What do you mean by "knows" it? On a subconscious level?

Also, does this only pertain to humans? Does it only apply to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens? Why does everyone "know"? Is it hard-coded into our genetics? Do we realize it immediately after birth?

So if evil isn't inherently bad, isn't defining something as evil meaningless?

Suffering is subjective, but the act of making someone suffer is not.

You should also see the difference between a priori and a posteriori ethics. Obviously you can not always know if your action is going to cause more suffering than you are trying to prevent. But that doesnt change the fact that a posteriori that act can be seen as objectively evil.

This. Why does it matter if something causes suffering or not, if an evil act could be as little as one that causes the slightest bruise?

So no action one may take is evil, but any action taken may or may not be evil, depending on whether or not it causes suffering?

Murder is not evil unless it causes suffering, then. I may murder someone completely painlessly, with no suffering, and that is not evil.

No, on a conscious level as well as an instinctual level. It is a product of our ability to self-reflect, so the other close relatives of modern humans were probably capable of evil too. Even very small infants are repulsed and shocked by violence and other very overt manifestations of evil.

It matters because we feel it. Whether you want to commit a necessary evil for a greater good or just stand by and hope someone else comes to help is a personal call, but we feel the outcome whether we want to or not, and carry the consequences of our actions whether we are heroes or villains.

>everyone knows it
Not objective
>suffering is evil
Wrong

You are incorrect, then. I am not consciously aware of "evil" as you define it, and I am a modern human.

You say every modern human (and probably close relatives) consciously knows that something is evil. I am modern human. I do not know this. Therefore, you are incorrect.

Why would I care that someone who got a paper cut? I don't feel it. Even if I did I wouldn't care. It's just a paper cut. According to this, it's evil.

a modern human*

Is standing by and doing nothing in the face of evil evil?

If you don't feel something is evil, is it still evil?

>If you don't feel something is evil, is it still evil?
This. You say we are all aware of evil. If we do not know it, it must not be evil.

If you cause suffering you feel guilt. This is because you know what you did was evil. This guilt might be trivial and fleeting, as when you wax a friends leg, or it might be haunting and traumatic, like when you shoot the kid with the gun who is killing schoolkids. This guilt might be assuaged with the virtue of having prevented further evil, or by the pleasure of reinforcing social bonds, which are the goods that outweigh the evil of your actions.

Inaction is not an action.

Yes it is you stupid dualist

Well when I say "everyone knows", I am not including the "morally blind", aka, psychopaths. If I say "everyone knows what red is", showing me a blind man is not a refutation. The action itself can still be evil, even if you yourself lack the part of your brain that informs you of this fact.

>morally blind
So this is the power of enlightenment 'philosophy'...

Then "action" simply means "chain of causality".

+1

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Its a choice, is choosing not to save someone when you are capable of saving them evil?

>refusing food when hungry is, itself, hunger.

You either do something, which can be good or evil, or you do nothing,which is neither.

>choosing to refuse a meal is not a choice

So watching suffering isn't evil, even if you can prevent it? Is it evil to enjoy watching someone suffer?

It's a choice but it's not an action. Why do you assume those are synonyms?

No but it is characteristic of evil people and so a trait to be wary of. Most people are repulsed by bullies and sadists because they know such behavior is evil.

>killing is objectively wrong

Prove it.

You know it is. What are you asking me for, a mind-reading machine to confirm what everyone knows, that you KNOW killing is wrong?