How to define evil?

[dark-amon]

Less then an hour ago I came across a topic wich questioned if a certain picture containing Hitler, the holocaust, and an achievement-joke was funny or evil.
Link: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.178935-Poll-Is-This-Picture-Funny-or-Evil

When reading the different posts on the thread I started to wonder what people actually define as evil. And so I ask the escapist-community: How do You define Evil?

I would prefer if we leave out the religious definition of the term, it's just to likely to end in argument. What I want is your dailyday definition.

My own is that evil is actions wich is morally weak or forbidden. They are selfserving and it's likely that the result of the action will have an eithe direct or inderect negative effect on others.

 

[delet]

To define the word 'evil', you must define the word 'bad'.
To define the word 'bad', you must define the word 'good'.
To define the word 'good', you must define the word 'bad'.
And so on...

The problem with defining so relative a term is that it's... relative. It's a definition based on comparison and opinion and as such, no decisive definition can be made.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

"Evil" huh

Well Evil is hard for me to define but i have to say that Evil. Its the actions that harm other people or a person who has no qualms of harming others can also define it. Evil is really a very loose term that many people have different uses.

Heck some people consider video games evil. So a term used that loosely really has no true definition even opinions of evil change over time.

 

[dark-amon]

To define the word 'evil', you must define the word 'bad'.
To define the word 'bad', you must define the word 'good'.
To define the word 'good', you must define the word 'bad'.
And so on...

The problem with defining so relative a term is that it's... relative. It's a definition based on comparison and opinion and as such, no decisive definition can be made.

But is it relative? Most likely you have a definition on evil you didn't share, but don't you think there will be a red line in many of the answers?
To be a relative term would mean that the term had no value of truth. And thus a term like evil would loose meaning. But the term has a value, if it didn't it would have been dispatched from many serious questions within philosophy and theology, and 'specially the ethical questions.

 

[delet]

To define the word 'evil', you must define the word 'bad'.
To define the word 'bad', you must define the word 'good'.
To define the word 'good', you must define the word 'bad'.
And so on...

The problem with defining so relative a term is that it's... relative. It's a definition based on comparison and opinion and as such, no decisive definition can be made.

But is it relative? Most likely you have a definition on evil you didn't share, but don't you think there will be a red line in many of the answers?
To be a relative term would mean that the term had no value of truth. And thus a term like evil would loose meaning. But the term has a value, if it didn't it would have been dispatched from many serious questions within philosophy and theology, and 'specially the ethical questions.

Oh, not at all. The very relativity of the terms 'good' and 'bad' (and by extension, 'evil') is what makes them so valuable in philosophy and ethical questions.

You can't define something as 'good' without comparing it to something 'bad', and vice versa, whether you're conscious of this comparison or not.
Example: A man is robbing a bank for the money. We consider that as 'bad' because he is endangering lives and taking money in an indecent manner. We consider a 'good' way of gaining money to earn it in a job.

The relative part of the definition, though, means that from other people's perspectives, 'good' and 'bad' can easily flip.
Example: Same as above, but from the robbers perspective. The man robbing the bank is 'good' because he is taking the money in an attempt to provide for his family, so they may have a chance to survive in the world, while the company he worked at previously is 'bad' because they fired him due to the economy going into the shitter.

Because there is no set definition, the ideas of what does or doesn't make something 'good' or 'bad' are highly philosophical and can raise many good points. It can also make a debate that will rage on for hours. It's one of my favorite topics to talk about, actually.

Also, just to clarify, this is definitly not a rant but just a clarification of my thoughts on the subject. I don't want to come out as seeming snappy or anything >.<

 

[dark-amon]

To define the word 'evil', you must define the word 'bad'.
To define the word 'bad', you must define the word 'good'.
To define the word 'good', you must define the word 'bad'.
And so on...

The problem with defining so relative a term is that it's... relative. It's a definition based on comparison and opinion and as such, no decisive definition can be made.

But is it relative? Most likely you have a definition on evil you didn't share, but don't you think there will be a red line in many of the answers?
To be a relative term would mean that the term had no value of truth. And thus a term like evil would loose meaning. But the term has a value, if it didn't it would have been dispatched from many serious questions within philosophy and theology, and 'specially the ethical questions.

Oh, not at all. The very relativity of the terms 'good' and 'bad' (and by extension, 'evil') is what makes them so valuable in philosophy and ethical questions.

You can't define something as 'good' without comparing it to something 'bad', and vice versa, whether you're conscious of this comparison or not.
Example: A man is robbing a bank for the money. We consider that as 'bad' because he is endangering lives and taking money in an indecent manner. We consider a 'good' way of gaining money to earn it in a job.

The relative part of the definition, though, means that from other people's perspectives, 'good' and 'bad' can easily flip.
Example: Same as above, but from the robbers perspective. The man robbing the bank is 'good' because he is taking the money in an attempt to provide for his family, so they may have a chance to survive in the world, while the company he worked at previously is 'bad' because they fired him due to the economy going into the shitter.

Because there is no set definition, the ideas of what does or doesn't make something 'good' or 'bad' are highly philosophical and can raise many good points. It can also make a debate that will rage on for hours. It's one of my favorite topics to talk about, actually.

Also, just to clarify, this is definitly not a rant but just a clarification of my thoughts on the subject. I don't want to come out as seeming snappy or anything >.<

Not at all, I guess I'm just a little old fashioned when it comes to the term 'relative'. Your argument is really good and well reasoned. I still think there are some things that is absolutes in ethical philosophy. (Though they will always be in evolution). But you take up the critical argument of perspective.

 

[geldonyetich]

Evil and good are but levels. However, I believe the most accurate measure can probably be derived on a "most harm done to the most people" scale. Unfortunately, what's deemed as "harm" and how to quantify it is somewhat debatable, so the best one can do is try to reckon it as best they're able.