The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
The question as to what is the definition of evil arose on another thread about Scientology and the occult.
Occultism was the name of the thread in the off-topic discussion.
I think that a definition of evil is vital to clarify, or at least discuss, if we want to grasp the good or bad effects of Scientology.
So here goes.
I would say that evil can be defined in one way as something morally bad or wrong, but this definition is just about what people call a good or bad action based on their moral code.
This definition is contingent on one’s beliefs and moral codes. It’s just an adjective.
Another definition of evil is a noun and can mean any intentional or malicious act that causes harm and destruction.
But again, this definition is based on a evaluation of consequences and doesn’t really get at the nature of evil.
Probably a definition that may give the essence of it is that evil is a force, or power, or a personification of an intention to harm.
But even this can be argued to be a relative term at times.
If someone wants to harm a child molester is that evil?
Restraining a child molester with imprisonment, or rehabilitating him, if such a means exist, would not be evil.
But maybe harming him would be evil.
I don’t know how many here would consider evil to be a person, like the devil.
But sometimes it looks as though the qualities of evil, that is, cruel and harmful acts, can be personified in a person such as Hitler.
However, there were those that benefited greatly from Hitler’s actions. They would not call him evil.
So what I am getting at is that all the definitions of evil involve situations that are particular, not universal; contingent, not necessary (necessary here means logically inevitable); and probable, not certain.
So evil is a relative term.
Calling something evil is OK if you are talking about the destructive and harmful consequence of something.
It is a commonplace term. People will know what you mean.
But pure evil may not exist. For pure evil to exist it would have to be universal, logically necessary and certain.
So is the Church of Scientology evil?
Calling the Church of Scientology evil is just being emotional and trying to influence a person with emotion rather than reason.
Being precise about the destructive actions of the Church is what can bring it down.
One is name-calling and the other is seeking the truth.
Name-calling won't make a difference in the long run; precision and truth will.
There is a lot of truth about Scientology posted on this board; but there is also just a lot of name-calling too.
Personally I am on the side of those who consider those acts considered evil to be the consequences of ignorance, greed, and lack of moderation and virtue (the ancient Greek meaning of virtue—a personal quality conductive to the discovery of truth). And those folks are Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhist.
So I will say that evil really doesn’t exist as a noun, only as an adjective.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Occultism was the name of the thread in the off-topic discussion.
I think that a definition of evil is vital to clarify, or at least discuss, if we want to grasp the good or bad effects of Scientology.
So here goes.
I would say that evil can be defined in one way as something morally bad or wrong, but this definition is just about what people call a good or bad action based on their moral code.
This definition is contingent on one’s beliefs and moral codes. It’s just an adjective.
Another definition of evil is a noun and can mean any intentional or malicious act that causes harm and destruction.
But again, this definition is based on a evaluation of consequences and doesn’t really get at the nature of evil.
Probably a definition that may give the essence of it is that evil is a force, or power, or a personification of an intention to harm.
But even this can be argued to be a relative term at times.
If someone wants to harm a child molester is that evil?
Restraining a child molester with imprisonment, or rehabilitating him, if such a means exist, would not be evil.
But maybe harming him would be evil.
I don’t know how many here would consider evil to be a person, like the devil.
But sometimes it looks as though the qualities of evil, that is, cruel and harmful acts, can be personified in a person such as Hitler.
However, there were those that benefited greatly from Hitler’s actions. They would not call him evil.
So what I am getting at is that all the definitions of evil involve situations that are particular, not universal; contingent, not necessary (necessary here means logically inevitable); and probable, not certain.
So evil is a relative term.
Calling something evil is OK if you are talking about the destructive and harmful consequence of something.
It is a commonplace term. People will know what you mean.
But pure evil may not exist. For pure evil to exist it would have to be universal, logically necessary and certain.
So is the Church of Scientology evil?
Calling the Church of Scientology evil is just being emotional and trying to influence a person with emotion rather than reason.
Being precise about the destructive actions of the Church is what can bring it down.
One is name-calling and the other is seeking the truth.
Name-calling won't make a difference in the long run; precision and truth will.
There is a lot of truth about Scientology posted on this board; but there is also just a lot of name-calling too.
Personally I am on the side of those who consider those acts considered evil to be the consequences of ignorance, greed, and lack of moderation and virtue (the ancient Greek meaning of virtue—a personal quality conductive to the discovery of truth). And those folks are Plato, Aristotle, and Buddhist.
So I will say that evil really doesn’t exist as a noun, only as an adjective.
The Anabaptist Jacques