Evil Label
An Evil Label is an human value label for negative human states that are extreme human states.
- Context:
- It can range from being a Moral Evil, to being a Natural Evil.
- It can range from being a Supernatural Evil, to being a Secular Evil.
- It can range from (typically) being referenced by an Evil Beliver (with a belief in evil) to being referenced by an Evil Skeptic (like Nietzche).
- It can range from being Evil in Real-Life to being Evil in Fiction.
- …
- Example(s):
- the one applied to the mass shooting at Dodd Elementary School shooter/shooting.
- “"The existence of evil in our world is not a reason to disarm law-abiding citizens. The existence of evil is one of the very best reasons to arm law-abiding citizens"
- …
- the one applied to the mass shooting at Dodd Elementary School shooter/shooting.
- Counter-Example(s):
- a Good State.
- Unhealthy.
- See: Agency (Philosophy), Absence of Good, Wickedness, Commo Good, Supernatural, Worldview, Immorality.
References
2022
- (Wikipedia, 2022) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/evil Retrieved:2022-5-28.
- Evil, in a general sense, is defined by what it is not—the opposite or absence of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profound wickedness and against common good. It is generally seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personal moral evil commonly associated with the word, or impersonal natural evil (as in the case of natural disasters or illnesses), and in religious thought, the form of the demonic or supernatural/eternal. While some religions, world views, and philosophies focus on "good versus evil", others deny evil's existence and usefulness in describing people.
Evil can denote profound immorality, but typically not without some basis in the understanding of the human condition, where strife and suffering (cf. Hinduism) are the true roots of evil. In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force.[1] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives. [2] Elements that are commonly associated with personal forms of evil involve unbalanced behavior including anger, revenge, hatred, psychological trauma, expediency, selfishness, ignorance, destruction and neglect.
In some forms of thought, evil is also sometimes perceived as the dualistic antagonistic binary opposite to good,[3] in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.[4] In cultures with Buddhist spiritual influence, both good and evil are perceived as part of an antagonistic duality that itself must be overcome through achieving Nirvana.[4] The ethical questions regarding good and evil are subsumed into three major areas of study:[5] meta-ethics concerning the nature of good and evil, normative ethics concerning how we ought to behave, and applied ethics concerning particular moral issues. While the term is applied to events and conditions without agency, the forms of evil addressed in this article presume one or more evildoers.
- Evil, in a general sense, is defined by what it is not—the opposite or absence of good. It can be an extremely broad concept, although in everyday usage it is often more narrowly used to talk about profound wickedness and against common good. It is generally seen as taking multiple possible forms, such as the form of personal moral evil commonly associated with the word, or impersonal natural evil (as in the case of natural disasters or illnesses), and in religious thought, the form of the demonic or supernatural/eternal. While some religions, world views, and philosophies focus on "good versus evil", others deny evil's existence and usefulness in describing people.
- ↑ "Evil". Oxford University Press. 2012. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012.
- ↑ Ervin Staub. Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 32.
- ↑ de Hulster, Izaak J. (2009). Iconographic Exegesis and Third Isaiah. Heidelberg, Germany: Mohr Siebeck Verlag. pp. 136–37. ISBN 978-3-16-150029-9.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Ingram, Paul O.; Streng, Frederick John (1986). Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 148–49. ISBN 978-1-55635-381-9.
- ↑ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Ethics"
2020
- (Wikipedia, 2020) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_(video_game) Retrieved:2020-5-18.
- … The story follows four youths called the Light Warriors, who each carry one of their world's four elemental orbs which have been darkened by the four Elemental Fiends. Together, they quest to defeat these evil forces, restore light to the orbs, and save their world. ...
2018
- (SEP, 2018) ⇒ Calder, Todd, "The Concept of Evil", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).
- QUOTE: Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil. This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers. It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’ We need the concept of evil.
To avoid confusion, it is important to note that there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. The broad concept picks out any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw. The suffering of a toothache is evil in the broad sense as is a white lie. Evil in the broad sense has been divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils.
Evil in the broad sense, which includes all natural and moral evils, tends to be the sort of evil referenced in theological contexts, such as in discussions of the problem of evil. The problem of evil is the problem of accounting for evil in a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God. It seems that if the creator has these attributes, there would be no evil in the world. But there is evil in the world. Thus, there is reason to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator does not exist.
In contrast to the broad concept of evil, the narrow concept of evil picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc. As Marcus Singer puts it “‘evil’ [in this sense] … is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable” (Singer 2004, 185). Since the narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, it is appropriately ascribed only to moral agents and their actions. For example, if only human beings are moral agents, then only human beings can perform evil actions. Evil in this narrower sense is more often meant when the term ‘evil’ is used in contemporary moral, political, and legal contexts. This entry will focus on evil in this narrower sense. The entry will not discuss evil in the broad sense or the problem of evil to any significant degree (these topics will be discussed briefly only in section 2).
The main issues discussed by philosophers on the topic of evil have been: Should we use the term ‘evil’ in our moral, political, and legal discourse and thinking, or is evil an out-dated or empty concept which should be abandoned? What is the relationship between evil and other moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil action? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil character? What is the relationship between evil action and evil character? What types of evil actions and characters can exist? What is the proper analysis of derivative concepts such as evil institution?
- QUOTE: Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil. This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers. It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’ We need the concept of evil.
2005
- (Wallace, 2005) ⇒ David Foster Wallace. (2005). “Commencement Speech to Kenyon College Class of 2005."
- QUOTE: ... Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings. ...