Evil is not absence of good

[Bahman]

We can define an action into three categories: Evil, Neutral and Good. Absence of Good in an action make an action neutral, same argument for Evil.

 

[LethalMouse]

In theology, no. Anything not congruent with God = evil.

In Darwinian logic, then anything that doesn’t further (or Contradicts) life/species etc perhaps = evil.

In Accidental we don’t matter logic, then everything is subjective and nothing can be good or evil and everything is neutral.

 

[SilverShadow22]

We can define an action into three categories: Evil, Neutral and Good. Absence of Good in an action make an action neutral, same argument for Evil.

There is no true neutral, there is only our inability to discern the truth.

 

[Aloysium]

What follows are rather strong words.
Don’t take them personally as I am addressing your argument.

That argument lacks validity in real life.
It therefore contains an absence of truth.
Truth is good.
I would consider ignorance an evil.

 

[LethalMouse]

What follows are rather strong words.
Don’t take them personally as I am addressing your argument.

That argument lacks validity in real life.
It therefore contains an absence of truth.
Truth is good.
I would consider ignorance an evil.

I think this can be a very good point, but I might suggest “willful” or “celebrated” ignorance being more in the line of evil than just natural inability.

 

[Aloysium]

I think this can be a very good point, but I might suggest “willful” or “celebrated” ignorance being more in the line of evil than just natural inability.

Depends on our definition of evil.
That’s a big problem with these sorts of threads.
Everyone’s talking about something different.

Blindness may be considered an evil because it is an absence of the good that is sight.
Much evil is the result of our willfully neglecting to do good.
In either case evil is an absence of good.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I disagree. Evil has no capacity to exist on its own. Every evil thing is a corruption, absence, or destruction of a good thing.

Rape could not exist without sex. But sex could exist without rape.

Murder could not happen without life. But life could exist without murder.

A lie could not be told without the existence of truth. But the truth could always be told without the existence of lies.

Evil can’t create, nor is it a created thing. The relationship between good and evil is much closer to that between light and darkness, where darkness is the lack of light rather than a particle or wave in and of itself.

 

[SilverShadow22]

I disagree. Evil has no capacity to exist on its own. Every evil thing is a corruption, absence, or destruction of a good thing.

Rape could not exist without sex. But sex could exist without rape.

Murder could not happen without life. But life could exist without murder.

A lie could not be told without the existence of truth. But the truth could always be told without the existence of lies.

Evil can’t create, nor is it a created thing. The relationship between good and evil is much closer to that between light and darkness, where darkness is the lack of light rather than a particle or wave in and of itself.

Most excellent explanation!

 

[esieffe]

What follows are rather strong words.
Don’t take them personally as I am addressing your argument.

That argument lacks validity in real life.
It therefore contains an absence of truth.
Truth is good.
I would consider ignorance an evil.

If that is true,… and it might be, I don’t know, but if true, then why is dispensation written right into the CCC that those ignorant of a sin being mortal, held to a different standard? Is that not one of the three qualifications?

1. serious matter, but 2) the person must know it is serious and then 3) freely commit it.

 

[SilverShadow22]

If that is true,… and it might be, I don’t know, but if true, then why is dispensation written right into the CCC that those ignorant of a sin being mortal, held to a different standard? Is that not one of the three qualifications?

He didn’t say ignorance IS evil, as in, something that confers evil (blame) on the ignorant; but ignorance is AN evil, meaning, even in the absence of full culpability, the act is still ‘evil’ and has ‘evil’ consequences and so brings down an abscence of good… Which is evil.

So, yeah… Ignorance is, in that sense, evil.

 

[sudy]

I think I’d have to disagree with the original post. I think it’s confused because it is associating evil with an action, whereas it’s not always down to the action. Sin can be committed by thoughts, words, deeds and omissions.

God is the source of all goodness. Original sin is a state not an act, leaving us weakened and inclined to evil. And although ignorance mitigates responsibility, the evil thought or deed remains evil.

 

[Jon_S_1]

We can define an action into three categories: Evil, Neutral and Good. Absence of Good in an action make an action neutral, same argument for Evil.

No, neutral objects have no moral bearing. They are neither good nor evil.

Evil objects arise from a removal of the good or a deprivation of the good.

Typically selfishness or pride is the root of most deprivations. :

 

[Mintaka]

Most people are ignorant because nobody has taught them. As the eunuch asked Philip, “How can I understand if I no one shows me?” (Acts 8:31)

So ignorance is an evil, yes, but the ignorant are victims of it, just like the neglected are victims of neglect. Only those who are wilfully and purposefully ignorant are doing it to themselves.

So yes, the Church does make allowances for victims of ignorance.

 

[MT1926]

We can define an action into three categories: Evil, Neutral and Good. Absence of Good in an action make an action neutral, same argument for Evil.

I can agree with your title but do not agree with your definition. Since we are talking about Good and Evil we are talking about morality and I do not think there exists a morally Neutral action. I would think of it more as a sliding scale that varies between Good and Evil.

Therefore absence of good can not make an action neutral since a moral action can not be neutral.

With that in mind I can agree Evil is not the total “absence” of good. An evil action is one that is lacking in goodness.

 

[seagal]

I can agree with your title but do not agree with your definition. Since we are talking about Good and Evil we are talking about morality and I do not think there exists a morally Neutral action. I would think of it more as a sliding scale that varies between Good and Evil.

Even on a sliding scale there is a centre. I can think of lots of morally neutral actions: eating an orange, taking a walk, doing a math problem. None of them either good or evil, without the context of intent.

With that in mind I can agree Evil is not the total “absence” of good. An evil action is one that is lacking in goodness.

I don’t see the distinction.

 

[MT1926]

Even on a sliding scale there is a centre. I can think of lots of morally neutral actions: eating an orange, taking a walk, doing a math problem. None of them either good or evil, without the context of intent.

Exactly the point. There isn’t a morally neutral action because the action has to have an intent. Eating the orange is good if the intent is to increase your vitamin C levels and be healthy. Doing a math problem is evil if the intent is to figure out how to calculate the correct amount of TNT needed to blow up someones car.

I don’t see the distinction

Let me try this again. I was honing in on “total absence”. Basically the total absence of something is nothing.

I am starting from the standpoint of goodness is the way the world should be. Plants are growing, it is good. The air is clean, it is good, etc.

The thought process is the reason we recognize evil is because it is lacking in goodness or the way things should be. From this process we can say evil is not the total absence of good, because we hold faith that God is capable of bringing good out of something evil. Therefore, even a totally evil horrific act can still have the presence of God’s goodness that might bring about some future good. Even though we might never realize what that good might be.

Now that I reread the OP, I guess I disagree with the title. To me evil is a lacking in goodness, because as I stated above goodness is the starting point. Without good we would not recognize evil.

 

[Aloysium]

If that is true,… and it might be, I don’t know, but if true, then why is dispensation written right into the CCC that those ignorant of a sin being mortal, held to a different standard? Is that not one of the three qualifications?

1. serious matter, but 2) the person must know it is serious and then 3) freely commit it.

Depends on our definition of evil.
That’s a big problem with these sorts of threads.
Everyone’s talking about something different.

Blindness may be considered an evil because it is an absence of the good that is sight.
Much evil is the result of our willfully neglecting to do good.
In either case evil is an absence of good.

 

[Bahman]

In theology, no. Anything not congruent with God = evil.

In Darwinian logic, then anything that doesn’t further (or Contradicts) life/species etc perhaps = evil.

In Accidental we don’t matter logic, then everything is subjective and nothing can be good or evil and everything is neutral.

So you are saying that everything is matter of definition? But in reality we can distinguish between evil and good since we can subjectively experience them hence they are both real.

 

[Bahman]

There is no true neutral, there is only our inability to discern the truth.

There exists neutral action since an action cannot be neither evil or good.

 

[Bahman]

What follows are rather strong words.
Don’t take them personally as I am addressing your argument.

That argument lacks validity in real life.
It therefore contains an absence of truth.
Truth is good.
I would consider ignorance an evil.

That cannot be true. We can have knowledge of something which true but it is evil.