The Reality of Evil

[tonyrey]

In our secular society “evil” is often watered down by words like “unacceptable”, “repugnant” and “antisocial” which suggest that evil is an outmoded concept. That is why I find it refreshing that a recent Isis atrocity was described by President Obama as “pure evil”. What is your view?

 

[ServusHumilis]

How could the secular world use the word much when the secular world is itself very evil? Many of Obama’s policies are also “pure evil” even if he’d never admit it. There’s even priests and prelates within the Church who must not truly believe the faith as they downplay the existence of hell or say few people go there as they wish to make sweeping and impossible doctrinal changes. The truth in the matter is Christ’s only reason for living was to die to save our souls from eternal hellfire, otherwise His ultimate Sacrifice along with the Church He handed down to us was all for nothing.

 

[Rhubarb]

Are there people that seriously deny that evil exists? I mean, I guess except for JL Mackie and other moral nihilists. Even the moral relativists - in all their various iterations - admit that there’s evil. They just disagree about what propositions of the form “x is evil” is true or false.

 

[oldcelt]

I do not think of evil as something that dwells out there waiting to attack. Rather, I look at evil as the actions of evil people…and it all comes from US. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

John

 

[tonyrey]

How could the secular world use the word much when the secular world is itself very evil? Many of Obama’s policies are also “pure evil” even if he’d never admit it. There’s even priests and prelates within the Church who must not truly believe the faith as they downplay the existence of hell or say few people go there as they wish to make sweeping and impossible doctrinal changes. The truth in the matter is Christ’s only reason for living was to die to save our souls from eternal hellfire, otherwise His ultimate Sacrifice along with the Church He handed down to us was all for nothing.

That is true but it has to be counterbalanced by His positive message. Jesus showed us how to overcome evil by loving others and if necessary sacrificing ourselves for them:

There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

John 15:13

He also promised us we would be united to Him in heaven if we keep His commandments. As He said to the good thief:

“Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Luke 23: 43

 

[tonyrey]

Are there people that seriously deny that evil exists? I mean, I guess except for JL Mackie and other moral nihilists. Even the moral relativists - in all their various iterations - admit that there’s evil. They just disagree about what propositions of the form “x is evil” is true or false.

There must be a reason why so many politicians avoid using the word. Perhaps because it has a religious connotation…

 

[tonyrey]

I do not think of evil as something that dwells out there waiting to attack. Rather, I look at evil as the actions of evil people…and it all comes from US. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

John

I think you’re exaggerating, John. “all”?

 

[Rhubarb]

There must be a reason why so many politicians avoid using the word. Perhaps because it has a religious connotation…

I think there’s a lot of reasons. Diplomatic reasons, semantic reasons, or just disagreement in what is evil.

 

[oldcelt]

I think you’re exaggerating, John. “all”?

I stand firm.

 

[fhansen]

In our secular society “evil” is often watered down by words like “unacceptable”, “repugnant” and “antisocial” which suggest that evil is an outmoded concept. That is why I find it refreshing that a recent Isis atrocity was described by President Obama as “pure evil”. What is your view?

We have to be willing to bury our heads in the sand to deny evil.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In our secular society “evil” is often watered down by words like “unacceptable”, “repugnant” and “antisocial” which suggest that evil is an outmoded concept. That is why I find it refreshing that a recent Isis atrocity was described by President Obama as “pure evil”. What is your view?

What do you understand Obama to mean by “pure evil?”

And why have you put your post in a Philosophy forum - for Obama to speak of “pure” evil tells me he is not using it philosophically?

Philosophically evil is just a lack of something that a thing is meant to possess.
That would suggest pure evil means a thing has absolutely no quality it I meant to have … which is somewhat ridiculous.

 

[Rhubarb]

Philosophically evil is just a lack of something that a thing is meant to possess.

Small point, but, there are lots of philosophical conceptions of evil. Like, deeply philosophic conceptions that are not the above.

 

[tonyrey]

I stand firm.

From the US?

Rather, I look at evil as the actions of evil people…and it all comes from US.

 

[tonyrey]

In our secular society “evil” is often watered down by words like “unacceptable”, “repugnant” and “antisocial” which suggest that evil is an outmoded concept. That is why I find it refreshing that a recent Isis atrocity was described by President Obama as “pure evil”. What is your view?

Guilt for which there are no mitigating circumstances.

And why have you put your post in a Philosophy forum - for Obama to speak of “pure” evil tells me he is not using it philosophically?
Philosophically evil is just a lack of something that a thing is meant to possess. That would suggest pure evil means a thing has absolutely no quality it I meant to have … which is somewhat ridiculous.

A false deduction. The motives of a person who commits an evil deed are positive: to derive pleasure and satisfaction from torturing and killing. Torturing and killing are themselves positive actions. The effects of an evil action or decision are also positive. Unhappiness, for example, is not merely an absence of happiness nor is pointless pain merely an absence of purpose.

All evil is** ultimately** negative because it defeats the God’s purpose in creating life. As St Thomas pointed out, it is incidental yet it undoubtedly has positive consequences. To be in Hell is to be separated from God yet it is the result of revolt and determination to be independent: “Let my will be done, let my kingdom come!” The damned don’t cease to exist yet they lack the fullness of existence with our divine Lord.

 

[tonyrey]

We have to be willing to bury our heads in the sand to deny evil.

One English philosopher renounced atheism because he came to the conclusion that evil cannot have a natural explanation. The newspaper reports about Auschwitz had a profound effect on him as it did on so many others - including myself…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

How could the secular world use the word much when the secular world is itself very evil?

Not just the secular world. There is plenty of evil being done in the name of God. People can do horrible things thinking they are being faithful.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Guilt for which there are no mitigating circumstances.

A false deduction. The motives of a person who commits an evil deed are positive: to derive pleasure and satisfaction from torturing and killing. Torturing and killing are themselves positive actions. The effects of an evil action or decision are also positive. Unhappiness, for example, is not merely an absence of happiness nor is pointless pain merely an absence of purpose.

All evil is** ultimately** negative because it defeats the God’s purpose in creating life. As St Thomas pointed out, it is incidental yet it undoubtedly has positive consequences. To be in Hell is to be separated from God yet it is the result of revolt and determination to be independent: “Let my will be done, let my kingdom come!” The damned don’t cease to exist yet they lack the fullness of existence with our divine Lord.

I really don’t understand what you are objecting to.
My small point is that “pure evil” is prob a contradiction in terms so far as trad Catholic philosophy is concerned. So what Obama is saying is more about inciting repugnance rather than having any rational content any two people might agree on.

“Inexcusable guilt” is a good interpretation though - though he seems to be saying much more than this as well.

 

[tonyrey]

I really don’t understand what you are objecting to.
My small point is that “pure evil” is prob a contradiction in terms so far as trad Catholic philosophy is concerned. So what Obama is saying is more about inciting repugnance rather than having any rational content any two people might agree on.

“Inexcusable guilt” is a good interpretation though - though he seems to be saying much more than this as well.

My point is that unlike many public figures Obama used the term “evil” rather than beat about the bush and “pure” indicates that there is no mitigating circumstance whatsoever. The topic is “The Reality of Evil” in our secular society and whether it is an outmoded concept. Whether it is positive or negative is really irrelevant.

 

[inocente]

In our secular society “evil” is often watered down by words like “unacceptable”, “repugnant” and “antisocial” which suggest that evil is an outmoded concept. That is why I find it refreshing that a recent Isis atrocity was described by President Obama as “pure evil”. What is your view?

Agreed. Although perhaps it’s theists who watered down the word, given that a Catholic on this thread called Obama’s policies “pure evil”, as if he compares with Stalin, ISIS and the Antichrist.

Whereas I think Obama used the word in its real sense, as given by its synonyms - unholy, vile, base, iniquitous, depraved, degenerate, villainous, sinister, vicious, demonic, diabolic and black-hearted.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is the first paragraph from the *Catholic Encyclopedia *article on Evil.

“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 human beings at least, the suffering in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist. Nevertheless, there is no department of human life in which its presence is not felt; and the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be has always called for explanation in the account which mankind has sought to give of itself and its surroundings. For this purpose it is necessary (I) to define the precise nature of the principle that Imparts the character of evil to so great a variety of circumstances, and (2) to ascertain, as far as may be possible, the source from which it arises.”