It’s an interesting philosophical question that buttresses several other debates on good and evil/human nature. If self motivation is evil, all humans are inherently evil to some degree.
Conversely, if the question hinges on motivation alone- if it isn’t the self motivation but the lack of good intent in one’s deeds- we can point to countless examples of people who have done objectively horrible things from subjectively good intentions. That is to say: humans lie and cheat and steal to gain wealth and power- but those who try to form nations or reshape societies or the world are usually acting because they believe their way is “best” for others. So would one say that helping a neighbor for personal gain is more evil than killing millions to try and do what you think is good for the world? The concept of “good” or “evil” can be highly subjective and change across cultures or history. War is a perfect example- using recent conflicts such as conservative religious fundamentalists…
.. like ISIS or the Taliban vs. more “liberal” western powers like the USA- or communists and capitalists in the Cold War. Each side largely had citizens and soldiers supporting their cause because of a belief that ideologically the others values were poisonous, destructive, harmful. In cases such as these philosophers and academics struggle with the labels of “good” and “evil” coming closest to a conclusion either that both factors in some possibly self cancelling measure or that the issue comes down to evil vs. worse or more intense evil. Evil in such a sense is strongly a cultural value. Many nations gasp at the executions carried out by certain regimes but have police or judicial systems which also kill for the state. So we could say the concept of murder is near universally considered evil but what is considered murder or a justified killing can change based on culture. Even within a single culture there are debates such as wether one should be able to use deadly force when they…
.. feel threatened such as so called “stand your ground” or “castle” laws that allow sanctioned killing of thieves and trespassers. So we can see that there are qualifiers that can change wether one views the same ultimate act as evil or wrong or not.
In context to the devil and in the sense of the Bible, the evil of the devil can be summed up in one of two ways. In simple terms “rebellion-“ a crime that has led to quite a bit of romanticism of the character in popular fiction where rebellion against authority is often viewed as cool. In a more exact sense- abrahamic religions define good and evil simply as that which pleases the lord or is in accordance with the lords favor; and that which attempts to act against this plan or is displeasing. In abrahamic religion the ultimately moral arbitrator is God. The “original sin” in Genesis was to take fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was not simply a sin because it was forbidden, it was forbidden because by the logic…
.. of the text, if one simply acts according to their god then there is no evil nor no need to know of evil. Essentially the knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge to make self determined morals. Anti authoritarians and such often find the concept of limiting free though as evil, but in context to the story what is being discussed is following the judgment of an all knowing completely perfect always correct and good being or relying on one’s own tiny and flawed mind to decide things that will only cause problems and don’t actually need to be considered if one is living a “good” life.
I’m not saying that is the truth or the only perspective- but for context that is a major interpretation of the events and messages in the abrahamic holy books. In essence, characters including the “devil” (who may not exist or is likely several characters composite into one over time..) make their own and others lives terrible by not doing the things they are “supposed to” do or resisting the…
.. word of the one who in the story created and essentially ultimately controls everything. In that sense the concept of “hell,” like the devil a thing that has several names and may be several unique and discreet concepts lumped together and which is again not something that gets a lot of play in the books and much is added outside the text over time and even the very concepts of hell in religion have literally been shaped by pop culture, can be said not to be some place of banishment. In that sense “hell” could be said to be a state of sorts which the “devil” or those who reject god and hence reject “good” create for themselves. The catch of course is that many people and popular sentiment at times and places would hold to the idea that it would be better to be free and suffer self inflicted pain and hardship than live in “paradise” if the cost was conformity to rules other than those they accept themselves.
It’s ultimately silly since if one takes the texts as face value one is still following along the plan set forth by an omnipotent creator and the choice they’ve been given isn’t a choice of the path or destiny of their lives but a choice of wether they wish to be happy or not. If we reject the premise of the books and do not believe in such an omnipotent creator we are still blind to certain rules of causality and nature, so there isn’t really a self made destiny or self accepted rules. Death, gravity, inertia- they don’t need to be accepted to effect you and rejecting them doesn’t free you from their power. All men live under some law that isn’t their own and unless they ascend to some form of omnipotence that is just how it is. To the subject of morality this brings the focus to nature and it’s laws. Many belief systems ascribe natural forces and laws to spirits or deities. In this sense such things can be assigned morality or emotion through anthropomorphization. If we remove all..
.. such concepts we are left with just… science and numbers. So we couldn’t say that a tornado or a flood are evil- they lack will, they simply are. The same flood that kills and destroys brings life and change. The same fire that burns creates new and fertile lands and spreads seeds and spurts migration etc. these forces have more than one facet to them. We can’t say that volcanic eruptions are bad or evil- much of the land humans live on was created through these eruptions. They bring all manner of destruction and death and other issues- but so many of these destructive forces aren’t things we’d wish away if we could rid ourselves of them because they are necessary to the functioning and health of the world or specific ecosystems and that one change would have ripples throughout a complex system.
The more complicated a system is the harder it can be to determine “good and evil” because it becomes impossible to track all the possible interactions and repercussions in the present let alone as contingencies for future events. This is where we return to the fundamental questions of good and evil, what they are, what or any degree intent or results or other factors play. The simplest view is that every action is either inherently good or evil. This view holds that wether it is an innocent person walking their dog or Charles Manson- to kill is evil for example. Of course that isn’t practical is it? If another country invaded or a person was going to kill you, such a view would hold your options would not include killing them. If we hold the simplest view, to take another’s freedom wouid be evil- wether that person was a slave or a prisoner. We obviously run into issues if we cannot kill Hitler and we cannot kill his troops and we cannot take their freedom.
More complex moral conflicts involve questions like wether it is evil to allow a great evil to occur when you had an option to stop it. Is it ok to stop evil through similar means? These are just simple and basic examples of a complex subject that’s been debated just about as far back in history as we can go- but ultimately it becomes a matter of pragmatism that humans resort to acts generally considered “wrong” but society allows justifications for wrongs where we don’t have a better answer in a practical sense. What is “evil” becomes “good” when enough people agree. Hence why it is seldom considered evil to defend your life by taking life or to save your life over saving another life- because for most people these things are in our self interest. In that situation most people would choose to survive over some moral code- so it makes sense that most people would forgive others in those situations so that they too could be forgiven if they ever had to face that problem.
In that and other sense we can see where in the social consciousness or in law, what is “good” and “evil” or “right” and “wrong” is often largely informed by the practical. We need to reconcile the philosophical or conceptual to the practical reality otherwise we can’t really justify our own actions. In that absolute sense discussed earlier- something inherently and objectively good shouldn’t require justification should it? In reality food and evil are less intuitive and more a values system passed down or imposed by social order and traction in most cases. If we take notice, those who tend to have the most “success” financially or even in their material ability to live a life of their choosing and accomplish large feats are often people who do not live by traditional ideas of good and evil yet largely consider themselves to be “good.”
When it is all said and some very few people are the “bad guy” in their own heads. At the very least most people who would be considered clinically “healthy” or “typical” mentally consider themselves the bad guy. Regardless of our deeds we will tend to find ways to justify them to ourselves and attempt to justify them to others as not “evil” or not making us “evil.”
Conversely, if the question hinges on motivation alone- if it isn’t the self motivation but the lack of good intent in one’s deeds- we can point to countless examples of people who have done objectively horrible things from subjectively good intentions. That is to say: humans lie and cheat and steal to gain wealth and power- but those who try to form nations or reshape societies or the world are usually acting because they believe their way is “best” for others. So would one say that helping a neighbor for personal gain is more evil than killing millions to try and do what you think is good for the world? The concept of “good” or “evil” can be highly subjective and change across cultures or history. War is a perfect example- using recent conflicts such as conservative religious fundamentalists…
In context to the devil and in the sense of the Bible, the evil of the devil can be summed up in one of two ways. In simple terms “rebellion-“ a crime that has led to quite a bit of romanticism of the character in popular fiction where rebellion against authority is often viewed as cool. In a more exact sense- abrahamic religions define good and evil simply as that which pleases the lord or is in accordance with the lords favor; and that which attempts to act against this plan or is displeasing. In abrahamic religion the ultimately moral arbitrator is God. The “original sin” in Genesis was to take fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was not simply a sin because it was forbidden, it was forbidden because by the logic…
I’m not saying that is the truth or the only perspective- but for context that is a major interpretation of the events and messages in the abrahamic holy books. In essence, characters including the “devil” (who may not exist or is likely several characters composite into one over time..) make their own and others lives terrible by not doing the things they are “supposed to” do or resisting the…
@inspectora- lol. In some ways that’s not so far from the truth.