Evil

Last updated

In many Abrahamic religions, demons are considered to be evil beings and are contrasted with angels, who are their good contemporaries. Demon. A miniature from the Georgian manuscript of the 12th century.jpg
In many Abrahamic religions, demons are considered to be evil beings and are contrasted with angels, who are their good contemporaries.

Evil, by one definition, is being bad and acting out morally incorrect behavior; or it is the condition of causing unnecessary pain and suffering, thus containing a net negative on the world. [1]

Contents

Evil is commonly seen as the opposite, or sometimes 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. [2] 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, [3] 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. [3] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives. [4] 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. [5]

In some forms of thought, evil is also sometimes perceived in absolute terms as the dualistic antagonistic binary opposite to good, [6] in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. [7] 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 . [7] The ethical questions regarding good and evil are subsumed into three major areas of study: [8] 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.

Etymology

The modern English word evil (Old English yfel) and its cognates such as the German Übel and Dutch euvel are widely considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form of *ubilaz, comparable to the Hittite huwapp- ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European form *wap- and suffixed zero-grade form *up-elo-. Other later Germanic forms include Middle English evel, ifel, ufel, Old Frisian evel (adjective and noun), Old Saxon ubil, Old High German ubil, and Gothic ubils. [9]

Chinese moral philosophy

Evil is translated as 惡 in Chinese. [10] The duty of the emperor and of his officials is to restrain it, thus preserving the cosmic order. [11]

The nature of good and evil was also ascertainable by natural faculties without the need for revelation - "one will not achieve a perfect perception of good and evil if one has not exactly examined the nature and reason of things." [12]

Offenses against the Three Bonds and the Five Constants

Chinese cosmology, moral philosophy and law regard offenses against the Five Constants with particular abhorrence - anything that diminished the proper relationship between ruler and subject, father and son, husband and wife, elder and younger, and between mutual friends was a violation of the cosmic order and heinous. [11] Anything that went against the Way embedded in the order of human relationships was considered vile, and invited the displeasure of Heaven and ghosts, who were seen as inflicting retribution through the instrumentality of legal punishments on earth. [13] Chinese moral and legal philosophy views the violation of family and kinship order with particular abhorrence, considering it especially heinous. [14] In assessing the degree of evil, not only the severity of the effect against the life, health or dignity of a person is considered, but also the relational distance.

Ten Abominations ("十惡")

The Ming Legal Code identifies Ten Abominations - categories of prohibited conduct so abhorrent and heinous that the usual considerations of pardon would not apply [11] - these include plotting rebellion, great sedition, treason, parricide, depravity (the murder of three or more innocent persons or the use of magical curses), great irreverence (lese majeste), lack of filial piety, discord, unrighteousness and incest (fornication with relatives of fourth degree of mourning or less, or relationships with one's father's wife and concubines). [15]

Other views

As with Buddhism, in Confucianism or Taoism there is no direct analogue to the way good and evil are opposed although reference to demonic influence is common in Chinese folk religion. Confucianism's primary concern is with correct social relationships and the behavior appropriate to the learned or superior man. Thus evil would correspond to wrong behavior. Still less does it map into Taoism, in spite of the centrality of dualism in that system[ citation needed ], but the opposite of the cardinal virtues of Taoism, compassion, moderation, and humility can be inferred to be the analogue of evil in it. [16] [17]

European philosophy

In response to the practices of Nazi Germany, Hannah Arendt concluded that "the problem of evil would be the fundamental problem of postwar intellectual life in Europe", although such a focus did not come to fruition. [18]

Spinoza

Baruch Spinoza states

  1. By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.
  2. By evil, on the contrary, I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good. [19]

Spinoza assumes a quasi-mathematical style and states these further propositions which he purports to prove or demonstrate from the above definitions in part IV of his Ethics : [19]

Psychology

Carl Jung

Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the dark side of God. [20] People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow. [21]

Philip Zimbardo

In 2007, Philip Zimbardo suggested that people may act in evil ways as a result of a collective identity. This hypothesis, based on his previous experience from the Stanford prison experiment, was published in the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. [22]

Milgram experiment

In 1961, Stanley Milgram began an experiment to help explain how thousands of ordinary, non-deviant, people could have reconciled themselves to a role in the Holocaust. Participants were led to believe they were assisting in an unrelated experiment in which they had to inflict electric shocks on another person. The experiment unexpectedly found that most could be led to inflict the electric shocks, [23] including shocks that would have been fatal if they had been real. [24] The participants tended to be uncomfortable and reluctant in the role. Nearly all stopped at some point to question the experiment, but most continued after being reassured. [23]

A 2014 re-assessment of Milgram's work argued that the results should be interpreted with the "engaged followership" model: that people are not simply obeying the orders of a leader, but instead are willing to continue the experiment because of their desire to support the scientific goals of the leader and because of a lack of identification with the learner. [25] [26] Thomas Blass argues that the experiment explains how people can be complicit in roles such as "the dispassionate bureaucrat who may have shipped Jews to Auschwitz with the same degree of routinization as potatoes to Bremerhaven". However, like James Waller, he argues that it cannot explain an event like the Holocaust. Unlike the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the participants in Milgram's experiment were reassured that their actions would cause little harm and had little time to contemplate their actions. [24] [27]

Religions

Abrahamic

Baháʼí Faith

The Baháʼí Faith asserts that evil is non-existent and that it is a concept reflecting lack of good, just as cold is the state of no heat, darkness is the state of no light, forgetfulness the lacking of memory, ignorance the lacking of knowledge. All of these are states of lacking and have no real existence. [28]

Thus, evil does not exist and is relative to man. ʻAbdu'l-Bahá, son of the founder of the religion, in Some Answered Questions states:

"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves." [28]

Thus, evil is more of an intellectual concept than a true reality. Since God is good, and upon creating creation he confirmed it by saying it is Good (Genesis 1:31) evil cannot have a true reality. [28]

Christianity

The devil, in opposition to the will of God, represents evil and tempts Christ, the personification of the character and will of God. Ary Scheffer, 1854. Ary Scheffer - The Temptation of Christ (1854).jpg
The devil, in opposition to the will of God, represents evil and tempts Christ, the personification of the character and will of God. Ary Scheffer, 1854.

Christian theology draws its concept of evil from the Old and New Testaments. The Christian Bible exercises "the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world." [2] In the Old Testament, evil is understood to be an opposition to God as well as something unsuitable or inferior such as the leader of the fallen angels Satan. [29] In the New Testament the Greek word poneros is used to indicate unsuitability, while kakos is used to refer to opposition to God in the human realm. [30] Officially, the Catholic Church extracts its understanding of evil from its canonical antiquity and the Dominican theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who in Summa Theologica defines evil as the absence or privation of good. [31] French-American theologian Henri Blocher describes evil, when viewed as a theological concept, as an "unjustifiable reality. In common parlance, evil is 'something' that occurs in the experience that ought not to be." [32]

Islam

There is no concept of absolute evil in Islam, as a fundamental universal principle that is independent from and equal with good in a dualistic sense. [33] Although the Quran mentions the biblical forbidden tree, it never refers to it as the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'. [33] Within Islam, it is considered essential to believe that all comes from God, whether it is perceived as good or bad by individuals; and things that are perceived as evil or bad are either natural events (natural disasters or illnesses) or caused by humanity's free will. Much more the behavior of beings with free will, then they disobey God's orders, harming others or putting themselves over God or others, is considered to be evil. [34] Evil does not necessarily refer to evil as an ontological or moral category, but often to harm or as the intention and consequence of an action, but also to unlawful actions. [33] Unproductive actions or those who do not produce benefits are also thought of as evil. [35]

A typical understanding of evil is reflected by Al-Ash`ari founder of Asharism. Accordingly, qualifying something as evil depends on the circumstances of the observer. An event or an action itself is neutral, but it receives its qualification by God. Since God is omnipotent and nothing can exist outside of God's power, God's will determine, whether or not something is evil. [36]

Rabbinic Judaism

In Judaism and Jewish theology, the existence of evil is presented as part of the idea of free will: if humans were created to be perfect, always and only doing good, being good would not mean much. For Jewish theology, it is important for humans to have the ability to choose the path of goodness, even in the face of temptation and yetzer hara (the inclination to do evil). [37] [38]

Ancient Egyptian

Evil in the religion of ancient Egypt is known as Isfet , "disorder/violence". It is the opposite of Maat , "order", and embodied by the serpent god Apep, who routinely attempts to kill the sun god Ra and is stopped by nearly every other deity. Isfet is not a primordial force, but the consequence of free will and an individual's struggle against the non-existence embodied by Apep, as evidenced by the fact that it was born from Ra's umbilical cord instead of being recorded in the religion's creation myths. [39]

Indian

Buddhism

One of the five paintings of Extermination of Evil portrays one of the eight guardians of Buddhist law, Sendan Kendatsuba, banishing evil. Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba crop.jpg
One of the five paintings of Extermination of Evil portrays one of the eight guardians of Buddhist law, Sendan Kendatsuba, banishing evil.

The primal duality in Buddhism is between suffering and enlightenment, so the good vs. evil splitting has no direct analogue in it. One may infer from the general teachings of the Buddha that the catalogued causes of suffering are what correspond in this belief system to 'evil'. [40] [41]

Practically this can refer to 1) the three selfish emotions—desire, hate and delusion; and 2) to their expression in physical and verbal actions. Specifically, evil means whatever harms or obstructs the causes for happiness in this life, a better rebirth, liberation from samsara, and the true and complete enlightenment of a buddha (samyaksambodhi).

"What is evil? Killing is evil, lying is evil, slandering is evil, abuse is evil, gossip is evil: envy is evil, hatred is evil, to cling to false doctrine is evil; all these things are evil. And what is the root of evil? Desire is the root of evil, illusion is the root of evil." Gautama Siddhartha, the founder of Buddhism, 563–483 BC.

Hinduism

In Hinduism, the concept of Dharma or righteousness clearly divides the world into good and evil, and clearly explains that wars have to be waged sometimes to establish and protect Dharma, this war is called Dharmayuddha. This division of good and evil is of major importance in both the Hindu epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata. The main emphasis in Hinduism is on bad action, rather than bad people. The Hindu holy text, the Bhagavad Gita, speaks of the balance of good and evil. When this balance goes off, divine incarnations come to help to restore this balance. [42]

Sikhism

In adherence to the core principle of spiritual evolution, the Sikh idea of evil changes depending on one's position on the path to liberation. At the beginning stages of spiritual growth, good and evil may seem neatly separated. Once one's spirit evolves to the point where it sees most clearly, the idea of evil vanishes and the truth is revealed. In his writings Guru Arjan explains that, because God is the source of all things, what we believe to be evil must too come from God. And because God is ultimately a source of absolute good, nothing truly evil can originate from God. [43]

Sikhism, like many other religions, does incorporate a list of "vices" from which suffering, corruption, and abject negativity arise. These are known as the Five Thieves, called such due to their propensity to cloud the mind and lead one astray from the prosecution of righteous action. [44] These are: [45]

One who gives in to the temptations of the Five Thieves is known as "Manmukh", or someone who lives selfishly and without virtue. Inversely, the "Gurmukh, who thrive in their reverence toward divine knowledge, rise above vice via the practice of the high virtues of Sikhism. These are: [46]

  • Sewa, or selfless service to others.
  • Nam Simran, or meditation upon the divine name.

Question of a universal definition

A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether one's definition of evil is determined by one's social or cultural background. C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man , maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. However, the rape of women, by men, is found in every society, and there are more societies that see at least some versions of it, such as marital rape or punitive rape, as normative than there are societies that see all rape as non-normative (a crime). [47] In nearly all societies, killing except for defense or duty is seen as murder. Yet the definition of defense and duty varies from one society to another. [48] Social deviance is not uniformly defined across different cultures, and is not, in all circumstances, necessarily an aspect of evil. [49] [50]

Defining evil is complicated by its multiple, often ambiguous, common usages: evil is used to describe the whole range of suffering, including that caused by nature, and it is also used to describe the full range of human immorality from the "evil of genocide to the evil of malicious gossip". [51] : 321  It is sometimes thought of as the generic opposite of good. Marcus Singer asserts that these common connotations must be set aside as overgeneralized ideas that do not sufficiently describe the nature of evil. [52] : 185, 186 

In contemporary philosophy, there are two basic concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. A broad concept defines evil simply as any and all pain and suffering: "any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw". [53] Yet, it is also asserted that evil cannot be correctly understood "(as some of the utilitarians once thought) [on] a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus". [54] This is because pain is necessary for survival. [55] Renowned orthopedist and missionary to lepers, Dr. Paul Brand explains that leprosy attacks the nerve cells that feel pain resulting in no more pain for the leper, which leads to ever increasing, often catastrophic, damage to the body of the leper. [56] : 9, 50–51  Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, is a neurological disorder that prevents feeling pain. It "leads to ... bone fractures, multiple scars, osteomyelitis, joint deformities, and limb amputation ... Mental retardation is common. Death from hyperpyrexia occurs within the first 3 years of life in almost 20% of the patients." [57] Few with the disorder are able to live into adulthood. [58] Evil cannot be simply defined as all pain and its connected suffering because, as Marcus Singer says: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil". [52] : 186 

The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, therefore it is ascribed only to moral agents and their actions. [51] : 322  This eliminates natural disasters and animal suffering from consideration as evil: according to Claudia Card, "When not guided by moral agents, forces of nature are neither "goods" nor "evils". They just are. Their "agency" routinely produces consequences vital to some forms of life and lethal to others". [59] The narrow definition of evil "picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc. Evil [in this sense] ... is the worst possible term of opprobrium imaginable”. [52] Eve Garrard suggests that evil describes "particularly horrifying kinds of action which we feel are to be contrasted with more ordinary kinds of wrongdoing, as when for example we might say 'that action wasn't just wrong, it was positively evil'. The implication is that there is a qualitative, and not merely quantitative, difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality". [51] : 321  In this context, the concept of evil is one element in a full nexus of moral concepts. [51] : 324 

Philosophical questions

Approaches

Views on the nature of evil belong to the branch of philosophy known as ethics—which in modern philosophy is subsumed into three major areas of study: [8]

  1. Meta-ethics, that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments.
  2. Normative ethics, investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking.
  3. Applied ethics, concerned with the analysis of particular moral issues in private and public life. [8]

Usefulness as a term

There is debate on how useful the term "evil" is, since it is often associated with spirits and the devil. Some see the term as useless because they say it lacks any real ability to explain what it names. There is also real danger of the harm that being labeled "evil" can do when used in moral, political, and legal contexts. [53] : 1–2  Those who support the usefulness of the term say there is a secular view of evil that offers plausible analyses without reference to the supernatural. [51] : 325  Garrard and Russell argue that evil is as useful an explanation as any moral concept. [51] : 322–326  [60] Garrard adds that evil actions result from a particular kind of motivation, such as taking pleasure in the suffering of others, and this distinctive motivation provides a partial explanation even if it does not provide a complete explanation. [51] : 323–325  [60] : 268–269  Most theorists agree use of the term evil can be harmful but disagree over what response that requires. Some argue it is "more dangerous to ignore evil than to try to understand it". [53]

Those who support the usefulness of the term, such as Eve Garrard and David McNaughton, argue that the term evil "captures a distinct part of our moral phenomenology, specifically, 'collect[ing] together those wrongful actions to which we have ... a response of moral horror'." [61] Claudia Card asserts it is only by understanding the nature of evil that we can preserve humanitarian values and prevent evil in the future. [62] If evils are the worst sorts of moral wrongs, social policy should focus limited energy and resources on reducing evil over other wrongs. [63] Card asserts that by categorizing certain actions and practices as evil, we are better able to recognize and guard against responding to evil with more evil which will "interrupt cycles of hostility generated by past evils". [63] : 166 

One school of thought holds that no person is evil and that only acts may be properly considered evil. Some theorists define an evil action simply as a kind of action an evil person performs, [64] : 280  but just as many theorists believe that an evil character is one who is inclined toward evil acts. [65] : 2  Luke Russell argues that both evil actions and evil feelings are necessary to identify a person as evil, while Daniel Haybron argues that evil feelings and evil motivations are necessary. [53] : 4–4.1 

American psychiatrist M. Scott Peck describes evil as a kind of personal "militant ignorance". [66] According to Peck, an evil person is consistently self-deceiving, deceives others, psychologically projects his or her evil onto very specific targets, [67] hates, abuses power, and lies incessantly. [66] [68] Evil people are unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim. Peck considers those he calls evil to be attempting to escape and hide from their own conscience (through self-deception) and views this as being quite distinct from the apparent absence of conscience evident in sociopaths. He also considers that certain institutions may be evil, using the My Lai Massacre to illustrate. By this definition, acts of criminal and state terrorism would also be considered evil.

Necessity

Martin Luther believed that occasional minor evil could have a positive effect. Martin Luther by Cranach-restoration.jpg
Martin Luther believed that occasional minor evil could have a positive effect.

Martin Luther argued that there are cases where a little evil is a positive good. He wrote, "Seek out the society of your boon companions, drink, play, talk bawdy, and amuse yourself. One must sometimes commit a sin out of hate and contempt for the Devil, so as not to give him the chance to make one scrupulous over mere nothings ... " [69]

The international relations theories of realism and neorealism, sometimes called realpolitik advise politicians to explicitly ban absolute moral and ethical considerations from international politics, and to focus on self-interest, political survival, and power politics, which they hold to be more accurate in explaining a world they view as explicitly amoral and dangerous. Political realists usually justify their perspectives by stating that morals and politics should be separated as two unrelated things, as exerting authority often involves doing something not moral. Machiavelli wrote: "there will be traits considered good that, if followed, will lead to ruin, while other traits, considered vices which if practiced achieve security and well being for the prince." [70]

See also

Related Research Articles

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. Also called moral philosophy, it investigates normative questions about what people ought to do or which behavior is morally right. Its main branches include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karma</span> Intent and actions of an individual influence the future of that individual

Karma is an ancient Indian concept that refers to an action, work, or deed, and its effect or consequences. In Indian religions, the term more specifically refers to a principle of cause and effect, often descriptively called the principle of karma, wherein individuals' intent and actions (cause) influence their future (effect): Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and worse rebirths. In some scriptures, however, there is no link between rebirth and karma. Karma is often misunderstood as fate, destiny, or predetermination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meaning of life</span> Philosophical and spiritual question

The meaning of life pertains to the inherent significance or philosophical meaning of living. There is no consensus on a definitive answer, and thinking or discourse on the topic is sought in the English language through the question, "What is the meaning of life?". There have been many proposed answers to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds. The search for life's meaning has produced much philosophical, scientific, theological, and metaphysical speculation throughout history. Different people and cultures believe different things for the answer to this question. Opinions vary on the usefulness of using time and resources in the pursuit of an answer. Excessive pondering can be indicative of, or lead to, an existential crisis.

The problem of evil is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. There are currently differing definitions of these concepts. The best known presentation of the problem is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus. It was popularized by David Hume.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theodicy</span> Theological attempt to resolve the problem of evil

In the philosophy of religion, a theodicy is an argument that attempts to resolve the problem of evil that arises when all power and all goodness are simultaneously ascribed to God.

In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals. In other words, utilitarian ideas encourage actions that ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is, in some sense, to maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts. For instance, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the capacity of actions or objects to produce benefits, such as pleasure, happiness, and good, or to prevent harm, such as pain and unhappiness, to those affected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Morality</span> Differentiation between right and wrong

Morality is the categorization of intentions, decisions and actions into those that are proper, or right, and those that are improper, or wrong. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that is understood to be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness", "appropriateness" or "rightness".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Divine command theory</span> Meta-ethical theory of morality

Divine command theory is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by God's commands and that for a person to be moral he is to follow God's commands. Followers of both monotheistic and polytheistic religions in ancient and modern times have often accepted the importance of God's commands in establishing morality.

Righteousness, or rectitude, is the quality or state of being morally correct and justifiable. It can be considered synonymous with "rightness" or being "upright" or to-the-light and visible. It can be found in Indian, Chinese and Abrahamic religions and traditions, among others, as a theological concept. For example, from various perspectives in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism it is considered an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified, and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged" or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God.

In most contexts, the concept of good denotes the conduct that should be preferred when posed with a choice between possible actions. Good is generally considered to be the opposite of evil and is of ethics, morality, philosophy, and religion. The specific meaning and etymology of the term and its associated translations among ancient and contemporary languages show substantial variation in its inflection and meaning, depending on circumstances of place and history, or of philosophical or religious context.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Euthyphro dilemma</span> Ethical problem on the origin of morality posed by Socrates

The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The standard problem of evil found in monotheistic religions does not apply to almost all traditions of Hinduism because it does not posit an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian ethics</span> Branch of theology that defines virtuous and sinful behavior from a Christian perspective

Christian ethics, also known as moral theology, is a multi-faceted ethical system. It is a virtue ethic, which focuses on building moral character, and a deontological ethic which emphasizes duty. It also incorporates natural law ethics, which is built on the belief that it is the very nature of humans – created in the image of God and capable of morality, cooperation, rationality, discernment and so on – that informs how life should be lived, and that awareness of sin does not require special revelation. Other aspects of Christian ethics, represented by movements such as the social Gospel and liberation theology, may be combined into a fourth area sometimes called prophetic ethics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Irenaean theodicy</span> Christian theodicy

The Irenaean theodicy is a Christian theodicy. It defends the probability of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God in the face of evidence of evil in the world. Numerous variations of theodicy have been proposed which all maintain that, while evil exists, God is either not responsible for creating evil, or he is not guilty for creating evil. Typically, the Irenaean theodicy asserts that the world is the best of all possible worlds because it allows humans to fully develop. Most versions of the Irenaean theodicy propose that creation is incomplete, as humans are not yet fully developed, and experiencing evil and suffering is necessary for such development.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that examines right and wrong moral behavior, moral concepts and moral language. Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior". The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of philosophy called axiology.

Moral blindness, also known as ethical blindness, is defined as a person's temporary inability to see the ethical aspect of a decision they are making. It is often caused by external factors due to which an individual is unable to see the immoral aspect of their behavior in that particular situation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Good and evil</span> Philosophical dichotomy

In philosophy, religion, and psychology, "good and evil" is a common dichotomy. In religions with Manichaean and Abrahamic influence, evil is perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated. Taoist philosophies typically perceive the world through a dualistic cosmological lens, where this dichotomy is a central concept, and often symbolized by the taijitu, commonly known as the "yin-yang".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation problem</span> Consideration of predation as a moral problem

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.

Religious responses to the problem of evil are concerned with reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism whose religion is based on such a God. But the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.

Evolutionary theodicies are responses to the question of animal suffering as an aspect of the problem of evil. These theodicies assert that a universe which contains the beauty and complexity this one does could only come about by the natural processes of evolution. If evolution is the only way this world could have been created, then the goodness of creation is intrinsically linked to the pain and evil of the evolutionary processes.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ "What does Evil mean?". www.definitions.net. Retrieved 2023-12-28.
  2. 1 2 Griffin, David Ray (2004) [1976]. God, Power, and Evil: a Process Theodicy. Westminster. p. 31. ISBN   978-0-664-22906-1.
  3. 1 2 "Evil". Oxford University Press. 2012. Archived from the original on July 12, 2012.
  4. ↑ Ervin Staub. Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 32.
  5. ↑ Matthews, Caitlin; Matthews, John (2004). Walkers Between the Worlds: The Western Mysteries from Shaman to Magus. New York City: Simon & Schuster. p. 173. ASIN   B00770DJ3G. Archived from the original on 2021-09-17. Retrieved 2021-09-17.
  6. ↑ de Hulster, Izaak J. (2009). Iconographic Exegesis and Third Isaiah. Heidelberg, Germany: Mohr Siebeck Verlag. pp. 136–37. ISBN   978-3-16-150029-9.
  7. 1 2 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.
  8. 1 2 3 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ""Ethics"".
  9. ↑ Harper, Douglas (2001). "Etymology for evil".
  10. ↑ ""恶"字的解釋 | 漢典". www.zdic.net (in Chinese (China)). Retrieved 2024-08-06.
  11. 1 2 3 Jiang, YongLin (2011). "Early Ming Cosmology". The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Legal Code. p. 58.
  12. ↑ Heiner, Roetz (1993). Confucian Ethics in An Axial Age. p. 8.
  13. ↑ Jiang, YongLin (2011). "Early Ming Cosmology". The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Ming Code. p. 59.
  14. ↑ Jiang, Yonglin. "Early Ming Cosmology". The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Ming Code. p. 61.
  15. ↑ Jiang, YongLin (2011). "Early Ming Cosmology". The Mandate of Heaven and the Great Legal Code. pp. 58–61.
  16. ↑ C.W. Chan (1996). "Good and Evil in Chinese Philosophy". The Philosopher. LXXXIV. Archived from the original on 2006-05-29.
  17. ↑ Feng, Yu-lan (1983). "Origin of Evil". History of Chinese Philosophy, Volume II: The Period of Classical Learning (from the Second Century B.C. to the Twentieth Century A.D. Translated by Bodde, Derk. New Haven, CN: Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0-691-02022-8.
  18. ↑ Neiman, Susan (2015). Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy. Princeton University Press. p. 2. ISBN   978-0-691-16850-0. OCLC   1294864456.
  19. 1 2 de Spinoza, Benedict (2017) [1677]. "Of Human Bondage or of the Strength of the Affects". Ethics. Translated by White, W.H. New York: Penguin Classics. p. 424. ASIN   B00DO8NRDC.
  20. ↑ "Answer to Job Revisited : Jung on the Problem of Evil". Archived from the original on 2018-05-06. Retrieved 2017-07-19.
  21. ↑ Stephen Palmquist, Dreams of Wholeness: A course of introductory lectures on religion, psychology and personal growth (Hong Kong: Philopsychy Press, 1997/2008), see especially Chapter XI.
  22. ↑ "Book website".
  23. 1 2 Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (4): 371–8. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.599.92 . doi:10.1037/h0040525. ISSN   0096-851X. PMID   14049516. S2CID   18309531. as PDF. Archived April 4, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  24. 1 2 Blass, Thomas (1991). "Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (3): 398–413. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 7, 2016.
  25. ↑ Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D.; Birney, Megan E. (September 1, 2014). "Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science". Journal of Social Issues. 70 (3): 473–488. doi:10.1111/josi.12072. hdl: 10034/604991 . ISSN   1540-4560.
  26. ↑ Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D. (13 October 2017). "50 Years of "Obedience to Authority": From Blind Conformity to Engaged Followership". Annual Review of Law and Social Science . 13 (1): 59–78. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113710.
  27. ↑ James Waller (February 22, 2007). What Can the Milgram Studies Teach Us... (Google Books). Oxford University Press. pp. 111–113. ISBN   978-0199774852 . Retrieved June 9, 2013.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  28. 1 2 3 Coll, 'Abdu'l-Bahá (1982). Some answered questions. Translated by Barney, Laura Clifford (Repr. ed.). Wilmette, IL: Baháʼí Publ. Trust. ISBN   978-0-87743-162-6.
  29. ↑ Hans Schwarz, Evil: A Historical and Theological Perspective (Lima, Ohio: Academic Renewal Press, 2001): 42–43.
  30. ↑ Schwarz, Evil, 75.
  31. ↑ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947) Volume 3, q. 72, a. 1, p. 902.
  32. ↑ Henri Blocher, Evil and the Cross (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994): 10.
  33. 1 2 3 Jane Dammen McAuliffe Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān Brill 2001 ISBN   978-90-04-14764-5 p. 335
  34. ↑ B. Silverstein Islam and Modernity in Turkey Springer 2011 ISBN   978-0-230-11703-7 p. 124
  35. ↑ Jane Dammen McAuliffe Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān Brill 2001 ISBN   978-90-04-14764-5 p. 338
  36. ↑ P. Koslowski (2013). The Origin and the Overcoming of Evil and Suffering in the World Religions Springer Science & Business Media ISBN   978-94-015-9789-0 p. 37
  37. ↑ Gurkow, Lazer. "Why Did G-d Create Evil?". Chabad. Retrieved October 17, 2023.
  38. ↑ rabbifisdel (2010-07-08). "The Human Dichotomy: Good and Evil | Classical Kabbalist" . Retrieved 2023-10-18.
  39. ↑ Kemboly, Mpay (2010). The Question of Evil in Ancient Egypt. London: Golden House Publications.[ ISBN missing ]
  40. ↑ Philosophy of Religion Charles Taliaferro, Paul J. Griffiths, eds. Ch. 35, Buddhism and Evil Martin Southwold p. 424
  41. ↑ Lay Outreach and the Meaning of 'Evil Person' Taitetsu Unno Archived 2012-10-18 at the Wayback Machine
  42. ↑ Perumpallikunnel, K. (2013). "Discernment: The message of the bhagavad-gita". Acta Theologica . 33: 271. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.1032.370 .
  43. ↑ Singh, Gopal (1967). Sri guru-granth sahib [english version]. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co.
  44. ↑ Singh, Charan (2013-12-11). "Ethics and Business: Evidence from Sikh Religion". Social Science Research Network. Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. SSRN   2366249.
  45. ↑ Sandhu, Jaswinder (February 2004). "The Sikh Model of the Person, Suffering, and Healing: Implications for Counselors". International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling. 26 (1): 33–46. doi:10.1023/B:ADCO.0000021548.68706.18. S2CID   145256429.
  46. ↑ Singh, Arjan (January 2000). "The universal ideal of sikhism". Global Dialogue. 2 (1).
  47. ↑ Brown, Jennifer; Horvath, Miranda, eds. (2013). Rape Challenging Contemporary Thinking. Taylor & Francis. p. 62. ISBN   9781134026395.
  48. ↑ Humphrey, J.A.; Palmer, S. (2013). Deviant Behavior Patterns, Sources, and Control. Springer US. p. 11. ISBN   9781489905833.
  49. ↑ McKeown, Mick; Stowell-Smith, Mark (2006). "The Comforts of Evil: Dangerous Personalities in High-Security Hospitals and the Horror Film". Forensic Psychiatry. pp. 109–134. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-006-5_6. ISBN   9781597450065.
  50. ↑ Milgram, Stanley (2017). Obedience to Authority. Harper Perennial. pp. Foreword. ISBN   9780062803405.
  51. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Garrard, Eve (April 2002). "Evil as an Explanatory Concept" (Pdf). The Monist. 85 (2). Oxford University Press: 320–336. doi:10.5840/monist200285219. JSTOR   27903775.
  52. 1 2 3 Marcus G. Singer, Marcus G. Singer (April 2004). "The Concept of Evil". Philosophy. 79 (308). Cambridge University Press: 185–214. doi:10.1017/S0031819104000233. JSTOR   3751971. S2CID   146121829.
  53. 1 2 3 4 Calder, Todd (26 November 2013). "The Concept of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  54. ↑ Kemp, John (25 February 2009). "Pain and Evil". Philosophy. 29 (108): 13. doi:10.1017/S0031819100022105. S2CID   144540963 . Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  55. ↑ "Reviews". The Humane Review. 2 (5–8). E. Bell: 374. 1901.
  56. ↑ Yancey, Philip; Brand, Paul (2010). Fearfully and Wonderfully Made. Zondervan. ISBN   9780310861997.
  57. ↑ Rosemberg, Sérgio; Kliemann, Suzana; Nagahashi, Suely K. (1994). "Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy type IV)". Pediatric Neurology. 11 (1). Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery: 50–56. doi:10.1016/0887-8994(94)90091-4. PMID   7527213 . Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  58. ↑ Cox, David (27 April 2017). "The curse of the people who never feel pain". BBC. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  59. ↑ Card, Claudia (2005). The Atrocity Paradigm A Theory of Evil. Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN   9780195181265.
  60. 1 2 Russell, Luke (July 2009). "He Did It Because He Was Evil". American Philosophical Quarterly. 46 (3). University of Illinois Press: 268–269. JSTOR   40606922.
  61. ↑ Garrard, Eve; McNaughton, David (2 September 2012). "Speak No Evil?". Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 36 (1): 13–17. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.2012.00230.x.
  62. ↑ Card, Claudia (2010). Confronting Evils: Terrorism, Torture, Genocide. Cambridge University Press. p. i. ISBN   9781139491709.
  63. 1 2 Card, Claudia (2005). The Atrocity Paradigm A Theory of Evil. Oxford University Press. p. 109. ISBN   9780195181265.
  64. ↑ Haybron, Daniel M. (2002). "Moral Monsters and Saints". The Monist. 85 (2). Oxford University Press: 260–284. doi:10.5840/monist20028529. JSTOR   27903772.
  65. ↑ Kekes, John (2005). The Roots of Evil. Cornell University Press. ISBN   9780801443688.
  66. 1 2 Peck, M. Scott. (1983, 1988). People of the Lie: The hope for healing human evil. Century Hutchinson.
  67. ↑ Peck, 1983/1988, p. 105
  68. ↑ Peck, M. Scott. (1978, 1992), The Road Less Travelled. Arrow.
  69. ↑ Martin Luther, Werke, XX, p. 58
  70. ↑ Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Dante University of America Press, 2003, ISBN   978-0-937832-38-7

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.