Evil vs. Absence of Good

[chefmomster2]

Let me start with a disclaimer: You’ll need to keep the explanations to an elementary level. It has been a LONG time since I studied philosophy and I’m VERY rusty.

After reading some posts here I found myself thinking about evil. Here are some ideas that have occurred to me. Some may be absolutely incorrect. I would like to know your thoughts on evil.

I tend to think about evil as being the “absence of good”. These may be poor examples, but here goes: Darkness can be said to be the absence of light. There is no pure darkness, just this absence of light which we label darkness. Death would be an absence of life. Comfort might be the absence of pain. (Have pity on my poor philosophy skills! LOL)

When posters ask about God and evil, I find myself thinking of it in this way.

God created the world and it was GOOD. God is all GOOD. Man was created GOOD.

God allowed us to have free will. Although this in no way “caused” or “created” evil. it might be considered the factor that allowed its existence.

God created all things GOOD. Since we have the right of free will we can choose the GOOD or we can choose not to accept GOOD. If mankind always chose the GOOD, then evil would not exist. (Of course, that does not happen!)

So, following this same thought, sin would be any act that refuses some portion of the GOOD. Perhaps we can think about it in terms of charity. If we choose the whole GOOD, we will be consumed with charity. All of our actions would express this fullness. There would be no lack of charity in thought, word, or deed. Sin would be a complete or partial rejection of the GOOD of charity.

Would this make Man the “originator” of evil since he was responsible for its beginning?

Any thoughts? Does any of this make any sense? I’m just exploring the ideas. Where have I gone wrong?

 

[fhansen]

Let me start with a disclaimer: You’ll need to keep the explanations to an elementary level. It has been a LONG time since I studied philosophy and I’m VERY rusty.

After reading some posts here I found myself thinking about evil. Here are some ideas that have occurred to me. Some may be absolutely incorrect. I would like to know your thoughts on evil.

I tend to think about evil as being the “absence of good”. These may be poor examples, but here goes: Darkness can be said to be the absence of light. There is no pure darkness, just this absence of light which we label darkness. Death would be an absence of life. Comfort might be the absence of pain. (Have pity on my poor philosophy skills! LOL)

When posters ask about God and evil, I find myself thinking of it in this way.

God created the world and it was GOOD. God is all GOOD. Man was created GOOD.

God allowed us to have free will. Although this in no way “caused” or “created” evil. it might be considered the factor that allowed its existence.

God created all things GOOD. Since we have the right of free will we can choose the GOOD or we can choose not to accept GOOD. If mankind always chose the GOOD, then evil would not exist. (Of course, that does not happen!)

So, following this same thought, sin would be any act that refuses some portion of the GOOD. Perhaps we can think about it in terms of charity. If we choose the whole GOOD, we will be consumed with charity. All of our actions would express this fullness. There would be no lack of charity in thought, word, or deed. Sin would be a complete or partial rejection of the GOOD of charity.

Would this make Man the “originator” of evil since he was responsible for its beginning?

Any thoughts? Does any of this make any sense? I’m just exploring the ideas. Where have I gone wrong?

Yes, evil is considered a privation, a disorder, a corruption of good. And we’re always oriented towards pursuing the good so evil is to choose a lesser good over a greater one, for some perceived benefit to ourselves. IOW, all evil is done in the name of good.

 

[chefmomster2]

Yes, evil is considered a privation, a disorder, a corruption of good. And we’re always oriented towards pursuing the good so evil is to choose a lesser good over a greater one, for some perceived benefit to ourselves. IOW, all evil is done in the name of good.

:extrahappy:

 

[Counterpoint]

God created all things GOOD. Since we have the right of free will we can choose the GOOD or we can choose not to accept GOOD. If mankind always chose the GOOD, then evil would not exist. (Of course, that does not happen!)

Who willingly does not pursue the good as he or she sees it? Think about that and I believe you will come to the conclusion that what we call “evil” is simply the result of ignorance. (Everyone here is learning. There are no exceptions.)

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Who willingly does not pursue the good as he or she sees it? Think about that and I believe you will come to the conclusion that what we call “evil” is simply the result of ignorance. (Everyone here is learning. There are no exceptions.)

The person who knows that what is truly good will be painful or less immediately rewarding than the lesser good, and decides that he prefers his own immediate comfort over what is truly right.

Some evil is a result of ignorance, but not all. Laziness, greed, lust, all can motivate us to do things that are wrong that we know are wrong while we’re doing.

 

[Counterpoint]

The person who knows that what is truly good will be painful or less immediately rewarding than the lesser good, and decides that he prefers his own immediate comfort over what is truly right.

Some evil is a result of ignorance, but not all. Laziness, greed, lust, all can motivate us to do things that are wrong that we know are wrong while we’re doing.

It’s all ignorance. If I would have known better, I would have chosen differently.

 

[chefmomster2]

If it is all ignorance, then where is the guilt? I know there are different types of ignorance, vincible and invincible. How would sin be determined?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If I would have known better, I would have chosen differently.

You hold too high an opinion about your capacities. This comment is actually funny: famous last words. Pray you are not led into temptation.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I think evil is more than just the absence of good. That is if we restrict ourselves to moral evil.

The will is involved, along with deliberate choice.

It involves a deliberate decision. It is a wilful turning away from that which is good.

I think most of us know that stealing is sin. Having been trained in that maxim, if we then make a deliberate decision to steal, that’s not a mere absence of good. That’s a deliberate decision to defy the moral law, however we might try to justify it.

What we find however is we can’t break the moral law. At the day of our judgement, it breaks us. It’s a bit like trying to deny the law of gravity. A man might decide to do just that, put on a blindfold, and then step off the edge of a cliff. For a few seconds he might think he’s gotten away with it.

He will soon find however, he hasn’t broken it at all. It will have broken him.

 

[fhansen]

I think evil is more than just the absence of good. That is if we restrict ourselves to moral evil.

The will is involved, along with deliberate choice.

It involves a deliberate decision. It is a wilful turning away from that which is good.

I think most of us know that stealing is sin. Having been trained in that maxim, if we then make a deliberate decision to steal, that’s not a mere absence of good. That’s a deliberate decision to defy the moral law, however we might try to justify it.

What we find however is we can’t break the moral law. At the day of our judgement, it breaks us. It’s a bit like trying to deny the law of gravity. A man might decide to do just that, put on a blindfold, and then step off the edge of a cliff. For a few seconds he might think he’s gotten away with it.

He will soon find however, he hasn’t broken it at all. It will have broken him.

Stealing can be considered a lesser good because there’s still a good to be gained by it. IOW, the thief doesn’t steal just for the sake of sheer evil, to harm his neighbor. Rather he steals in order to gain some benefit for himself. And even if harm of neighbor were the only purpose, there’s still a motivation towards some good, such as the feeling of having power or control-goods in themselves when properly exercised- even if in this case those goods are abused to cause an inordinate feeling or distorted degree of self-love, aka “pride”. And generally speaking we must feel that we have the right to commit the act at the time; we’ve justified it IOW.

 

[Counterpoint]

If it is all ignorance, then where is the guilt? I know there are different types of ignorance, vincible and invincible. How would sin be determined?

Guilt doesn’t change past acts, only future ones.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Stealing can be considered a lesser good because there’s still a good to be gained by it. IOW, the thief doesn’t steal just for the sake of sheer evil, to harm his neighbor. Rather he steals in order to gain some benefit for himself. And even if harm of neighbor were the only purpose, there’s still a motivation towards some good, such as the feeling of having power or control-goods in themselves when properly exercised- even if in this case those goods are abused to cause an inordinate feeling or distorted degree of self-love, aka “pride”. And generally speaking we must feel that we have the right to commit the act at the time; we’ve justified it IOW.

All right, we’ll take it up a level. If a man murders his neighbour in cold blood, what’s the lesser good in that?

 

[chefmomster2]

All right, we’ll take it up a level. If a man murders his neighbour in cold blood, what’s the lesser good in that?

I believe that in his usage, good is in the eyes of the person acting. (Correct me if Im wrong.) Let’s say that the neighbor keeps calling the police on him for his parties that run late into the night. He finally cant stand it anymore. He waits for the neighbor to step out of his house one night and shoots him fatally wounding him.

“Good” for him is getting the neighbor off his back. (Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!)

But, I agree with you that there is definitely a moral component at work. The man is certainly NOT “ignorant” nor is he “guiltless”. As an adult he is required to follow the law and could not credibly claim that he had no knowledge of the law (not an excuse legally) nor that he could not predict the evil outcome of his act. (After all, that outcome was the “good” he was seeking.)

In my original proposition, this is a choice that displays a complete absence of Good" as defined by the Church. Therefore it is called completely evil. He is fully culpable.

 

[fhansen]

All right, we’ll take it up a level. If a man murders his neighbour in cold blood, what’s the lesser good in that?

There will generally be a reason, unless for mental impairment, etc, even if the reason were nothing more than to experience the feeling of having power over someone else’s life-and death.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

It’s all ignorance. If I would have known better, I would have chosen differently.

Does not mesh either with my own experiences or with what I’ve heard from others. Most people at some point find themselves doing something while at the same time explicitly telling themselves that it is wrong. And yet continuing doing so anyway, at least for a while.

Then there is also the case where we know something is wrong, but for some reason it begins to seem attractive to us, and so we forcibly suppress the knowledge that it is wrong.

Ignorance it is not, at least not always.

 

[tonyrey]

Does not mesh either with my own experiences or with what I’ve heard from others. Most people at some point find themselves doing something while at the same time explicitly telling themselves that it is wrong. And yet continuing doing so anyway, at least for a while.

Then there is also the case where we know something is wrong, but for some reason it begins to seem attractive to us, and so we forcibly suppress the knowledge that it is wrong.

Ignorance it is not, at least not always.

Moral evil is always a form of ignorance because ultimately it is not in our own or others’ interest to ignore or reject the teaching of Jesus.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I think evil is more than just the absence of good. That is if we restrict ourselves to moral evil.

The will is involved, along with deliberate choice.

It involves a deliberate decision. It is a wilful turning away from that which is good.

But while it is a willful turning away from that which is good, it is not a turning towards some other principle of the same kind and on the same level, called evil. Turning away could be described as “trying to remove the good that should be there,” or “trying to cause an absence of good”.

In the most evil act with the least motivation (and usually there are motivations, we tend to chose lesser goods over the greater necessary goods when we sin), there is still the person (us) and the ability to act and the fact that we are doing something, each of which is good. You could say that a sin is evil because it is an exercise of the will (which is, if not corrupted, a good thing - the will is meant to be used) lacks the good of “seeking the good that we know we should seek,” if you will.

And so it is still this absence that makes it evil. I think though that the whole point of “evil is the absence of good” is that there are not two eternal principles- only one, God, together with the choice to hide from it. God is the ultimate good, and there could be no good without Him, but there is no equivalent position of evil. All evil is an opposition to, a lack of, or a twisting of good (all of which could be phrased in the language of “lack of” if desired).

This is in contrast to the various world views like Zoroastrianism or the like that contend that not only is there God who is good, but that there is another eternal force that is evilness itself and more or less on the same level as God (whereas in Christianity, the closest we have is a fallen angel, a creature so far below the eternal good as to make a fly seem more or less equal to the sun in power, who chooses to oppose God).

One of the arguments for God is in fact that goodness would not make sense without Him. In the same way, true evilness as a thing itself separate from good and not just an absence of or opposition to good, would require a sort of Anti-God (which turns out to be self-contradictory).

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Moral evil is always a form of ignorance because ultimately it is not in our own or others’ interest to ignore or reject the teaching of Jesus.

Certainly it is ultimately not in our best interest, but we know this and do it anyway. I am perfectly capable of doing something that I completely and totally know is ultimately harmful to me because I decided that I wanted a transitory reward. Not, mind you, because I thought it would be worth it. I might easily know that it isn’t. In fact, I may very well even be telling myself in my head with actual words “this is wrong, I shouldn’t be doing this, why am I doing this, this is not worth it, I should stop this, this is wrong” while I’m doing it and yet not stop, at least not immediately. There is no ignorance in such an act. Humans are perfectly capable of behaving irrationally while knowing that we are doing so.

 

[ynotzap]

But man shows a propensity to follow the dictates of his passions, knowing that where the passions might lead is contrary to his knowledge of the good. The good that I want to do is not the good that I do, and the evil I don’t want to do is the evil I do, in me is a conflict, who will help me? Jesus Christ. Ignorance of the real good is a factor in mans choice, but not the only factor. His will is weak, his mind is limited, and unable to have complete control of his passions, this is human experience, the criterion of all our knowledge.

 

[Thorns]

JPII seemed to disagree that evil is simply a deprivation of good, he stated that it was a driving force.

Is he correct?