Definition of Evil

[BlaineTog]

This is primarily just a semantics issue, but is sin defined as “evil,” or just “wrong”? Obviously, all evil actions are sinful, but would it be correct to call, say, suicide “evil” per se? I’ve always understood evil to be a term reserved for sins committed against others, whereas sins against the self are merely wrong or unfortunate (though both would be sinful).

Not a very big or important question, I think. I’m just curious what you all have to say.

 

[punkforchrist]

It may be semantics, but nowadays philosophy is almost exclusively concerned with sematics!

Sin means “missing the mark”, and it has moral implications. Evil may or may not be sinful (i.e. it could be natural evil, like the fact that we have limitations in our power and knowledge, or the reality of hurricanes, etc.) So basically I would say that sin is always evil, but evil isn’t necessarily sin. In its everyday context, though, we usually use the two interchangeably.

 

[Bishopite]

It may be semantics, but nowadays philosophy is almost exclusively concerned with sematics!

Sin means “missing the mark”, and it has moral implications. Evil may or may not be sinful (i.e. it could be natural evil, like the fact that we have limitations in our power and knowledge, or the reality of hurricanes, etc.) So basically I would say that sin is always evil, but evil isn’t necessarily sin. In its everyday context, though, we usually use the two interchangeably.

Sin is missing the mark, but it is much more than that too. Sin is a lack of divine grace; a deprivation of good, which is happens as a commission (directly sinning) or omission (by failing to do good).

 

[punkforchrist]

Indeed.

 

[davidv]

Sin is always committed against another, God.

 

[bogeydogg]

Masturbation is a sin committed against oneself as is all sexual immorality and yet the Bible clearly says that the sexually immoral will by no means see the Kingdom of Heaven so clearly a sin bad enough to exclude on from heaven could surely be called evil and yet not harm another.

 

[rpp]

If I recall my Aquinas correctly, evil is the absence of good, much like darkness is the absence of light.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist.

With regard to the nature of evil, it should be observed that evil is of three kinds – physical, moral, and metaphysical.

More here: Evil

James

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I think trying to make these distinctions between sin and evil misses the mark. As one of you said, evil is the absence of good. This is correct. I cannot think of any sin that is the presence of good, therefore sin is also an absence of good. Therefore sin and evil are synonymous. Trying to go further than this is pure sophistry.
Deacon Ed B

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think trying to make these distinctions between sin and evil misses the mark. As one of you said, evil is the absence of good. This is correct. I cannot think of any sin that is the presence of good, therefore sin is also an absence of good. Therefore sin and evil are synonymous. Trying to go further than this is pure sophistry.
Deacon Ed B

I don’t think so Ed. The Catholic Encyclopedia referenced in the prior post makes a clear distinction. Evil can can actually exist in nature or in a dominion designated by God. But it is only perceived as evil when humans are able to see it as causing them harm and can arise when humans stray outside of their proper dominions.

The average person may not need to differentiate all the nuances of evil and sin but there is a very developed philosophy and study of it since it gets into dogma at certain levels. But most of us can just assume we don’t want any part of evil nor do we want to sin and leave all the academic subtleties to much more scholarly men who study this stuff for the benefit of instruction Christ’s Church.

James

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

James, to say that something occurring naturally in nature is evil is not to accept creation with all of its extremes. A hurricane for example can be bad for us but of its nature, there is no evil intent. A snake is not evil. It does what it is created to do, i.e., bite to protect or to feed itself. Evil requires intent, as does sin.
Deacon Ed B

 

[CentralFLJames]

James, to say that something occurring naturally in nature is evil is not to accept creation with all of its extremes. A hurricane for example can be bad for us but of its nature, there is no evil intent. A snake is not evil. It does what it is created to do, i.e., bite to protect or to feed itself. Evil requires intent, as does sin.
Deacon Ed B

I disagree in part but I think we are more in agreement than disagreement Ed. I see hurricanes, black holes and other forms of matter redistribution and recycling as an inherent working of “this” creation. We can only speculate on why God used this pattern but no doubt He can just as easily recreate it all a new way at the end of time if he wanted to (e.g. new heaven and new earth).

But evil does not always impose on humanity an intent of doing evil to humanity since physical natural evil lacks its own directed will (unless from God). Thus God can use Evil to define boundaries or used in ways that suit His purposes. Whether by creative design or by consequence of the giving of free choice evil seems integral to creation (or we might not have choices at all). In other words what may be evil to us is only so because we are not God (or like God) and can not avoid consequences in treading where we should not or being out of harmony with natural order etc. In a sense God’s laws would not need to exist except to empower free choice and give us a thing to obey or disobey. Without free choice I can only imagine we are in a state of the beatific vision and of one accord with God or in a state of its opposite alone to self in hell.

From my reading I think that sometimes evil can be used by God to “perfect” good or teach a lesson or manifest the direction that he wants to elaborate the execution of His divine plan and Divine Providence.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia link above I have the following relevant extractions that relate to some Christian thought and will highlight some of these notions here. But I can’t spend a lot of time on this though - just tossing out a few ideas to prime the pump so to speak.

"The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii). Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music (De Civ. Dei,xi). Again, the excellence of God’s works in nature is insisted on as evidence of the Divine wisdom, power, and goodness, by which no evil can be directly caused. "

“St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii) points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (De Civ. Dei, XI, xii, De Vera Relig. xliv).”

James

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

We are saying the same thing but differently. God does not create evil. BUT he can use evil to bring about good. Permitting evil does not mean that God created it. This would be like saying that when God first created the angels that he created the devils knowing what they would do. He created them not to be devils, but good angels. It was their own pride that caused the sin and banishment from heaven. To be rewarded, free will must be exercised. This can be best summed up by the Easter Proclamation which proclaims the sin of Adam as “Oh Happy Fault” which brought us such a Savior, etc. Because of this Sin, we have the Eucharist which is the source and summit of all we believe. This was using evil, to bring about Good. What is important is to realize God did not create evil.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Allen537]

From a philosophical point of view, Evil has two aspects:the first is that evil is a privation, which is the lack of a due good. the second aspect is that evil is “qualified non-being”, meaning that it is something that cannot exist in and of itself.

Then you must consider the two types of evil, Moral Evil and Metaphysical Evil. Moral evil is something that resides in the free will, namely it comes about when we freely choose to sin. Metaphysical Evil is pure privation, such things like cancer, blindness, ect are are privations. Blindness is the lack of sight, which is a due good in relation to the human person, since it is normal for a person the possess the ability to see.

 

[emphaticbigot]

Yup! Evil is the absence of Good. Evil in relation to sin is Moral Evil. Sin as a Moral Evil is found only among human beings because they alone among all of God’s creatures have the capacity of intellection and free will. Now, Sin can be found in human acts, i.e., when it is consciously and deliberately in disagreement with right reason and the eternal law of God.