What are some other roots for the tree of evil?

[Rade]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) is when a human uses another human as a means to an end, even if those being used agree. Comments -- other roots for the tree of evil ?

 

[z-component]

So, in other words, people taking advantage of others? I think while mentioning 'evil,' one has to also mention personal greed.

 

[*melinda*]

-- other roots for the tree of evil ?

Evil trees?

Actually, I'm curious. What is your definition of evil?

I don't think I could really comment on the 'cause of all evil' without knowing your definition of evil itself.

 

[sameandnot]

perhaps, rade, the root would be more simply understood as "the idea that entities are seperate, in Reality and experience, at all." this idea of seperateness (in-dependence of things), appears to be the "root" of one's "taking advantage of others."
How could there be evil if all identified themselves with the whole? (everything else)
even science has come to recognize that all "things" are connected (and that their particular interactions bring about the state of the whole).

so, upon actualizing this knowledge, of non-seperateness, how could one do harm to another; as this kind of behavior is really doing harm to oneself? and even to one's children... grandchildren.

to bring upon ill-relations, to one's offspring is surely a scoundralous deed, in itself.

 

[Rade]

What is your definition of evil? I don't think I could really comment on the 'cause of all evil' without knowing your definition of evil itself.

Let me first provide my concept of the "root of all good" = opposite of "root of all evil". Thus, from the above definition, the root of all good is when "a human uses self as a means to an end, even if the self disagrees". So, we have the two concepts:
root of all evil = when a human uses another person as a means to an end
root of all good = when a human uses self as a means to an end.
Thus I end with a tension dynamic between "another person + self" such that evil = (dynamics of another person + self) as negation of good. What I mean by this definition is that evil is obtained when a human fails to rationally internalize a moral axiom that her own worth (self), and the worth of fellow human beings (another person) form a neutral union (synthesis) to define the ultimate good for life as a human being qua living within Homo sapiens the species. Good is obtained when such internalization is consciously realized and acted upon.

 

[blackmama]

Let me first provide my concept of the "root of all good" = opposite of "root of all evil". Thus, from the above definition, the root of all good is when "a human uses self as a means to an end, even if the self disagrees". So, we have the two concepts:
root of all evil = when a human uses another person as a means to an end
root of all good = when a human uses self as a means to an end.
Thus I end with a tension dynamic between "another person + self" such that evil = (dynamics of another person + self) as negation of good. What I mean by this definition is that evil is obtained when a human fails to rationally internalize a moral axiom that her own worth (self), and the worth of fellow human beings (another person) form a neutral union (synthesis) to define the ultimate good for life as a human being qua living within Homo sapiens the species. Good is obtained when such internalization is consciously realized and acted upon.

sooo...what are saying? if a person is evil, there not human! then i must be in troble!

 

[Rade]

sooo...what are saying? if a person is evil, there not human! then i must be in trouble!

Consider what you just wrote ... a "person"...not "human". This is not logical, all people are human--when is the last time you saw a non-human person ? I can see that you are confused, but good news is that it really is up to you whether or not you are in trouble.
What I am saying is that you get to choose to be either good or evil or some mixture of the two. How ? To the degree that you maximize the root of all good path vs the root of all evil path that I present above. In short, never, ever use another human being as a means to an end. But you must decide this is how you will live your life, each and every day--you can never let up, never stop thinking about how you treat other people in your life. So this is the moral code for how to interact with others, that is, never follow the root of all evil. But, what about yourself--how should you interact with yourself ? Always use self (and only self, never others) as a means to an end. Take a walk in the woods because it makes you feel good, but has no negative effect on others, meditate, watch the sun rise % set. etc, etc. Do these things and you will live a good life, the life of the human being.

 

[sameandnot]

lots of looking. little reading.
lots of talking. little saying of anything.

 

[JonahHex]

In short, never, ever use another human being as a means to an end. But you must decide this is how you will live your life, each and every day--you can never let up, never stop thinking about how you treat other people in your life. So this is the moral code for how to interact with others, that is, never follow the root of all evil. But, what about yourself--how should you interact with yourself ? Always use self (and only self, never others) as a means to an end. Take a walk in the woods because it makes you feel good, but has no negative effect on others, meditate, watch the sun rise % set. etc, etc. Do these things and you will live a good life, the life of the human being.

http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/biology/abpi/history/history9.html"

Kill or cure
Edward Jenner is credited with the development of vaccination but in fact it was first introduced into England by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu in 1721. She tried a method that was used in Turkey where people deliberately infected themselves with a mild form of smallpox. This was the first form of innoculation. Sadly, many people died from the smallpox they were using to protect themselves. Clearly something different needed to be done.

Observation and vaccination
Jenner was a doctor who worked in Gloucestershire and the great advance he made was to notice that individuals who had contracted cowpox (the cow's equivalent of smallpox) rarely caught the deadly human version. In 1796 he deliberately infected an eight year old boy called James Phipps with the pus from a cowpox sore. The boy became ill with cowpox but recovered. He then infected him with the normally deadly smallpox. As Jenner had predicted the earlier infection with the cowpox actually protected the boy who never caught smallpox. The practice of modern vaccination was born.

So Lady Montagu and Edward Jenner were evil?

They should have experimented upon themselves only? ...and if they happened to die from a failed experiment, leaving no one to carry on the work, that's ok?

What is this facination that people have with "absolute morality?" The human eye can discern 16 million+ colors. Why do you want to see it only in black and white?

BTW Rade, do you drive a car? Why are you polluting my atmosphere? Warming my planet? Consuming my dwindling petroleum reserves? ...should I go on?

 

[Rade]

So Lady Montagu and Edward Jenner were evil?
They should have experimented upon themselves only? ...and if they happened to die from a failed experiment, leaving no one to carry on the work, that's ok?

Neither used other as a means to their own end, thus no evil--this is an example of helping the sick, the poor, which can only result when one does not use others as a means to their own end. And, if they had injected themself you then conclude that that event must be evil--completely illogical. Of course many others would be able to continue the work they started.

BTW Rade, do you drive a car? Why are you polluting my atmosphere? Warming my planet? Consuming my dwindling petroleum reserves? ...should I go on?

I drive a car to go from A to B, a means to my own end. You drive a car to go from point C to D, a means to your own end. In the process I may kill you, you may kill me (let alone pollute), yet no evil committed if I kill you by accident or you me. You have no argument of evil here, yes, please try again.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Defining 'evil' as meaning the same as 'using someone other than one's self as a means to an end' commits the naturalistic fallacy. You can't define moral predicates using nonmoral terms.

Besides, there are lots of times when people use other people where there is no reason to suppose there is evil going on. Hitchhikers use other people for their own ends, but most hitchhikers aren't evil.

 

[Rade]

Defining 'evil' as meaning the same as 'using someone other than one's self as a means to an end' commits the naturalistic fallacy. You can't define moral predicates using nonmoral terms. Besides, there are lots of times when people use other people where there is no reason to suppose there is evil going on. Hitchhikers use other people for their own ends, but most hitchhikers aren't evil.

Good point. However, would not the hitchhiker that forces one self into the car be evil ? Thus your post indicates important moral relevance to the term "uses" as relates to evil--that is, using other as a means to end is the root of all evil when the "use" is forced without the permission of the other (and the use must be volitional such that the prime motive for the action is to effect the other, not self).
I appreciate the few recent answers to the OP since as suggested by many absolute moral laws may be a condradiction in terms. Recall from my post above, I look to a dynamic between the root of all evil as I suggest it, and the root of all good. In any situation between 2 people (A,B), the total outcomes of the dynamics A <----> B I would think needs to be evaluated.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

[to qualify as evil] the "use" is forced without the permission of the other (and the use must be volitional such that the prime motive for the action is to effect the other, not self).

When someone shoplifts from WalMart, no use of force is involved, and when someone commits murder for $1,000,000 the prime motive for the action is to better the life of the murderer--he doesn't care about his victim except to the extent that the victim makes him better. If he kidnapped the victim instead and could get a $2,000,000 ransom, that would be even better.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

perhaps, rade, the root would be more simply understood as "the idea that entities are seperate, in Reality and experience, at all." this idea of seperateness (in-dependence of things), appears to be the "root" of one's "taking advantage of others."

If a person were to not see themselves and others as individuals but a whole then the idea of "taking advantage of others" becomes a moot point. They are no longer "others".

 

[enlil]

I agree with WarrenPlatts.There are hips of examples where is needed for someone to use another human being, evin for the good cause. It doesn't mean they are evil.

Look at thje hendicap people, for example. They use other people's help and time all their life. Is that their fault and can you call them evil for it?!

Personal question Rade:Where are you from? I'm very curios cause your name is very commen in my country-Serbia.:shy:

 

[sameandnot]

perhaps, rade, the root would be more simply understood as "the idea that entities are seperate, in Reality and experience, at all." this idea of seperateness (in-dependence of things), appears to be the "root" of one's "taking advantage of others."

If a person were to not see themselves and others as individuals but a whole then the idea of "taking advantage of others" becomes a moot point. They are no longer "others".

well reasoned. but what does it take for one to perceive the One whole, absolutely? dissolution into it?

 

[Rade]

When someone shoplifts from WalMart, no use of force is involved, and when someone commits murder for $1,000,000 the prime motive for the action is to better the life of the murderer--he doesn't care about his victim except to the extent that the victim makes him better. If he kidnapped the victim instead and could get a $2,000,000 ransom, that would be even better.

In your first example, the root of all evil is demonstrated--the property of others is used without permission of owner (WalMart) as a means to an end (no need to extend "force" action all such evil uses of others without permission). And clearly, the second action of murder is an example of evil derived from using others without permission as a means to end. And, of course he does not care about the other (e.g., the victum)--that is my point--that is why the action is an example of the root of all evil as I have presented it here with some modification based on comments. I find no falsification of the root of all evil axiom that I suggest in any of your examples (so far ).

 

[Rade]

Look at the handicap people, for example. They use other people's help and time all their life. Is that their fault and can you call them evil for it?!Personal question Rade:Where are you from? I'm very curios cause your name is very common in my country-Serbia.:shy:

Of course a handicap person never commits evil when others help them--in fact there is no "use" at all in this example. You do not "use" me if I agree to help you, and do not many that are handicap try hard to do for them self ? Why ? I hold because they attempt to maximize the moral code of the "root of all good" [only use self as a means to end]. However, should you as a moral rule help a handicap person if they hold you hostage ? -- no, not unless it is to follow the "root of all good" rule (that is, help only until one can escape). Recall from posts above that I hold there to be a neutral monism between two moral dynamics that form what "may" be a moral code of action:
[never use others as a means to end]<-> [always use self as a means to end]--of course with correct understanding of the terms "use", "other", and "means to end". Thus, the "self" and "other" cannot be separated--they are like the heads and tails of the coin--no such concept of pure self or pure other for the human being--each individual is part of a species and needs others for their existence. I do not know if this results in an "absolute morality", perhaps not, that is why I look for examples that logically show it to be false. Fire away. And, yes my name is the name of my grandfather, from Serbia, my spiritual home.

 

[Rade]

well reasoned. but what does it take for one to perceive the One whole, absolutely? dissolution into it?

I would suggest that we do not perceive the One, we "reason" into it, thus not a process of dissolution, the exact opposite, a process of integration. And, can we not reduce the term "One whole" to just "the One", e.g., if it is the whole there can only be one of it.

 

[L Tetris Block]

Rade, I think I understand your idea of the root of evil: parasitism. If one uses another (and it hinders them) to achieve a goal, then it is evil. I am basing this off your later posts.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

well reasoned. but what does it take for one to perceive the One whole, absolutely? dissolution into it?

As I thought about this I considered the idea of telepathy. If all people were truly of a single mind then the idea of personhood could become obsolete. As things are though all persons have individual and unique minds and I find it important to recognize and respect this as "personhood".

 

[Rade]

Rade, I think I understand your idea of the root of evil: parasitism. If one uses another (and it hinders them) to achieve a goal, then it is evil. I am basing this off your later posts.

Well, as long as we do not take the biological meaning of the term too far--yes, one could say that being a human parasite on another human being is in essence the concept of the root of all evil that I propose. It is an example of using another human without permission for personal gain--which also results in negative effect on the one being used (which is the meaning of the term parasitism). But, a tapeworm that invades your body is not evil, nor a human that eats a chicken for dinner--morality as a concept only applies to cause effect actions between two or more humans, not animal vs animal, nor human vs animal. Since you raise a biological concept, it is of interest that two forms of species interactions (mutualism, protocooperation) represent examples of the root of all good when applied to human vs human interactions, that is, both actors benefit from being involved in the play, and both agree to be part of the play. And, a third example, commensalism, allows for one species to benefit while the other is not effected in any way (this would be the hitchhiker example cited above). Now, an interesting case of commensalism between two humans would be where one uses another for personal gain without permission but does not in any way harm the person being used. Would this be an example of the root of all evil ? I would hold that the answer is yes.

 

[jimmie]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) is when a human uses another human as a means to an end, even if those being used agree. Comments -- other roots for the tree of evil ?

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) was want for any particular thing thought of outside the wanter's human body. It was the 'thought' of something that prevents the wanter to be in the present. The 'dragon' that the wanter wants demands a "pursuit".

The "root of all evil" was planted in soil from the past. Individuals will always have relationships based upon the perceived 'gain' of one or the other.

The problem was when one individual intended to forcibly or not forcibly 'enlist' the support of an other individual to assist, somehow, in achieving a particular goal-action or set of actions either mental or physical.

One individual chasing the dragon can lead many individuals on a 'wild goose chase', and thus, prevent them to be in the present also.

Using an other human being is/was but a branch of the root.

Chasing the dragon, knowingly or not, always ends by death of the wanter.

 

[e-realmz]

Those are all good explanations of "evil". Evil being the extreme or highest of an opposite to a united agreement towards the advancement pertaining to a positive entity.
Should such an entity loose the rank given to it by the perceivers of its advancement, its advancement would hault and reverse toward its counterpart which in effect would cause the counterpart to advance toward it until the two meet and cancel each other out.
Those who would fear such an event would continue to perceive the entity in an advancing state to "ease" such fears and keep its counterpart as far from it as possible.
This being said, the root of evil would have to be the selfish feeling of holding on to our own existence.
With such a feeling, one would refrain from "using another human as a means to an end, even the if human being used agreed" in attempt to keep such a united agreement towards the advancement pertaining to a positive entity in its advanced state and far from its counterpart.
Should one commit an act of using another human as a means to an end, even the if human being used agreed, the human who was used might disagree with the advancement pertaining to the positive entity thus causing it to give in and ultimatly destroy the human race.

 

[Rade]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) was want for any particular thing thought of outside the wanter's human body. It was the 'thought' of something that prevents the wanter to be in the present. The 'dragon' that the wanter wants demands a "pursuit".
The "root of all evil" was planted in soil from the past. Individuals will always have relationships based upon the perceived 'gain' of one or the other.The problem was when one individual intended to forcibly or not forcibly 'enlist' the support of an other individual to assist, somehow, in achieving a particular goal-action or set of actions either mental or physical.One individual chasing the dragon can lead many individuals on a 'wild goose chase', and thus, prevent them to be in the present also. Using an other human being is/was but a branch of the root.Chasing the dragon, knowingly or not, always ends by death of the wanter.

Thank you for your thoughts. But I do not understand how pure conscious "want" of a "thought of something outside" must result in evil. For example, suppose I have a thought of wanting an apple on a tree--how do we then conclude evil ? Or, are you saying that the object of the thought must be wanting something from another human being ? But, even then, can it be an act of evil if I have a pure thought (no action) of wanting the love of a parent ?

 

[quantumcarl]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) is when a human uses another human as a means to an end, even if those being used agree. Comments -- other roots for the tree of evil ?

I'd say the root of all evil is the perception that something is evil. Beyond that twist of perception its all pure unadulterated energy.

 

[jimmie]

can it be an act of evil if I have a pure thought (no action)

Thought is/was action.

how do we then conclude evil ?

Either that action was right or it was not right, needed or not needed, and accordingly, the sole mass-producer of those thoughts is either right or not right, needed or not needed.

It's about establishing order in your head between not-action, observer's point of reference, and action, thought about that which was observed.

The only "evil" there was, was an individual over-stepping the boundary of being, so as to do a particular action or set of actions either for the sake of doing a particular action or set of actions or to learn from the intended particular action or set of actions.

Either way, that individual caused chaos the moment they thought they are doing or did or was about to do a particular action or set of actions.

So long as the "thought" of something outside of you takes priority over that which is you, you will be subject to that wrongly-perceived thing.

Either there is and shall be order always or there was not order ever.

 

[e-realmz]

I'd say the root of all evil is the perception that something is evil. Beyond that twist of perception its all pure unadulterated energy.

Thats what the hell I just said. Anyways, if it needs this many opinions, then apparently it really is what quantumcarl and I just said.

 

[Rade]

Those are all good explanations of "evil". Evil being the extreme or highest of an opposite to a united agreement toward the advancement pertaining to a positive entity. Should such an entity loose the rank given to it by the perceivers of its advancement, its advancement would hault and reverse toward its counterpart which in effect would cause the counterpart to advance toward it until the two meet and cancel each other out. Those who would fear such an event would continue to perceive the entity in an advancing state to "ease" such fears and keep its counterpart as far from it as possible.
This being said, the root of evil would have to be the selfish feeling of holding on to our own existence. With such a feeling, one would refrain from "using another human as a means to an end, even the if human being used agreed" in attempt to keep such a united agreement toward the advancement pertaining to a positive entity in its advanced state and far from its counterpart. Should one commit an act of using another human as a means to an end, even the if human being used agreed, the human who was used might disagree with the advancement pertaining to the positive entity thus causing it to give in and ultimately destroy the human race.

Your comments are very abstract (e.g., positive entity vs counterpart), but if I read you correct, you do appear to reach a similar conclusion as I, in that you hold "good" to be a united agreement toward advancement of a "union" of a positive entity (P) and its counterpart (C)--thus, "good" = [P+C], and thus "evil" = [P] + [C] separate. I hold "good" to be a neutral monism between self and other [O], thus "good" = [S+O] where neither nor [O] use each other as a means to an end.


Now, as a result of comments since the OP, I no longer believe that the qualifier I presented in the OP "even if the other agrees" can be justified. So, when this is removed, the root of all evil then is reduced to: "use of others as a means to end" (with "use" taken to mean by force, and "means to end" taken to mean to the ends of the user). To this point in the thread no modification to the root of all good: "use of self as a means to end". So, perhaps this modification demands modification of your argument ?


But where I disagree with you, is your statement that [P] and [C] alone must each represent the root of all evil (because they disagree with advancement toward union). But, this is not logical because before we can reach the advanced state of [P+C] that you desire, "first" must in fact "exist" [P] and [C] alone. Thus I find that your conclusion: This being said, the root of evil would have to be the selfish feeling of holding on to our own existence. cannot logically hold, for the simple reason that a "self" that does not hold on to its existence, then by definition must strive to advance to a state of nonexistence (=death) thus making impossible the union of [P+C] that you desire. Thus the reason that I propose that the "good" must be a neutral monism between:
POSITIVE ADVANCE of [root of all good=using self as means to end] +
NEGATIVE ADVANCE of [root of all evil = using other as means to end], that is, the "good" united agreement is obtained when the positive thought and negative thought attract within each entity, and such good thoughts are the motives of actions in both self and other.

 

[Rade]

Thought is/was action.

OK, the mental process of "thought" is clearly an electro-chemical "action" across neurons within self. But, as I stated, you have not explained how pure thought (with such internal "action") is an example of "evil" -- that is, how can pure thought of eating apple from a tree that I planted to feed my family be an example of "evil"

Either that action was right or it was not right, needed or not needed, and accordingly, the sole mass-producer of those thoughts is either right or not right, needed or not needed. It's about establishing order in your head between not-action, observer's point of reference, and action, thought about that which was observed.

OK, but again, how is mental "action" of thought of eating apple "not right" or "not needed"--suppose I need apple to feed me and family.

The only "evil" there was, was an individual over-stepping the boundary of being, so as to do a particular action or set of actions either for the sake of doing a particular action or set of actions or to learn from the intended particular action or set of actions.

But how can this statement hold logically--over step boundary of being ? The only alternative is to then step into "good" of non-being, which is a logical contradiction is it not. Thus I cannot agree with your philosophy that my "particular action"...of thought of eating apple..."for sake of doing a particular action" (that is, to eat apple)...is logically an example of "root of evil", or any shade of evil.

Either way, that individual caused chaos the moment they thought they are doing or did or was about to do a particular action or set of actions

But in what sense do I cause "chaos" if I eat an apple from a tree I planted ? Do I not help maintain stability of my body ? Do I not maintain stability of apple tree population by carefully planting new trees each year ? Not all action leads to "chaos", in some conditions (e.g., open systems) action can lead to order and stability (even if only for a short period of time).

So long as the "thought" of something outside of you takes priority over that which is you, you will be subject to that wrongly-perceived thing.

Here you raise a new term "priority", what should be given higher value, self or other ? You seem to suggest that thought of self should have priority over thought of other. My philosophy is that thoughts of self and other do not exist separate for humans, only a neutral monism [S+O], thus the only priority I find is to insure that the monism [S+O] continue over time, and not thought of "you" = self.

 

[jimmie]

You seem to suggest that thought of self should have priority over thought of other.

Almost the exact opposite of that statement was what I intended to convey.

Basically, the thought of anything and the dwelling upon the thought of anything, prevents an individual from being free from their self.

While it was true that the thought of making other beings the priority existed, it was accepted and not maintained.

Nor was any thought of anything maintained.

The only way to successfully preserve that which I thought should be preserved was to not maintain thoughts about that which I thought should be preserved.

Billions of individuals have become extinct intending to preserve that which was not them.

pure thought

I recommend that you provide your defintion of "pure thought" prior to your next insightful statement within your next post.

"Thought" must be put in its place.

 

[Rade]

To jimmie: As to thought: To hold as you do that thinking = evil, then we must hold that non-thinking = good. Now, since the root of all evil requires thinking about how to use others as a means to end, and thinking is evil, it follows that the root of all evil is, well, evil. Thank you for clarifying the relationship of thinking to evil.

 

[jimmie]

To jimmie: As to thought: To hold as you do that thinking = evil,

No. That is not right. You do not understand.

Now, since the root of all evil requires thinking about how to use others as a means to end, and thinking is evil, it follows that the root of all evil is, well, evil.

I do not believe that definition of "evil". You presume that 'thinking is evil'. I clearly presented my definition of "evil" earlier, and yet you insist that I "hold" that 'thinking is evil'.

I recommend you re-read and re-contemplate my earlier posts, so as to understand correctly what I understand and know.

Thank you for clarifying the relationship of thinking to evil.

Clearly, the relationship of 'thinking to evil' is not fully understood by you, yet. Don't thank me, yet.

 

[Rade]

No. That is not right. You do not understand...Clearly, the relationship of 'thinking to evil' is not fully understood by you, yet.

You are correct, I did not with my last post understand "your" relationship of thinking to evil. And it is good that you do not hold the root of all evil to be thinking in general, as such an axiom leads to very strange conclusions for humans--since rationality is what separates humans from the other primates, and if thinking in general is evil, then Homo sapiens as a species is evil from day one. So, I agree with you, only specific types of "thinking" (thoughts) are evil. Here are the quotes you provided so far on the topic:

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) was want for any particular thing thought of outside the wanter's human body

So here, in your initial post, it seems clear that you hold "thinking of things outside body" and "want of things outside self" as causes of the "root of all evil" (for humans).

But then in another post you also conclude:

..The only "evil" there was, was an individual over-stepping the boundary of being, so as to do a particular action or set of actions either for the sake of doing a particular action or set of actions or to learn from the intended particular action or set of actions

And here we find a logical contradiction in your argument, e.g. first you equate evil with "thinking and wanting" of very specific things--those things that exist outside the self. But then, in the second statement, you equate evil (in fact, the "only evil") as taking "action(s)" in general (either within self or outside self) and even go so far as to equate "learning" (an internal action to the self) as being evil, which is very strange indeed.

Now it is clear that you directly equate thinking with action:

Thought is/was action

And you find a duality between non-action vs action, where you directly equate action being thought:

It's about establishing order in your head between not-action...and action, thought about that which was observed.

Now, since you equate action as also "the only evil there was", and not just any action, but any set of actions, and since by your definition above "thinking is/was action", then logically you hold that "thinking is the "only evil there was", and not just any thinking, but all sets of thinkings based on all sets of actions. And now then we see the basis of my misunderstanding, as you state, you do not hold that "all thinking is evil" but that "thinking is the only evil there was". But, since you agree that this final statement is logically false

...I do not believe that definition of "evil". You presume that 'thinking is evil'...

it would appear that we reach a point in the discussion where your definition of the root of all evil is logically falsified by your attempt to justify it. But I look forward to your clarification.

 

[jimmie]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) was want for any particular thing thought of outside the wanter's human body.

My original definition.

Let it be known: want is/was not thought.

Want motivated the body to do actions that the head knew were not right and were right, but never, only right.

To do actions that are only right required destruction of 'want' within the individual, that which was responsible for the development of the self.

Now then, Rade, the "root of all evil" being 'want'-the particular force inside each individual to do a particular action-for things that are outside the individual, do you understand that 'want' was prior to thought?

I am not against thought.

I am for only right thought, and only after it has been put in place by the point-of-reference.

"Want' provided a false point-of-reference for the observer.

 

[Rade]

Now then, Rade, the "root of all evil" being 'want'-the particular force inside each individual to do a particular action-for things that are outside the individual, do you understand that 'want' was prior to thought?

No jimmie, I do not understand how "want" as an action of the mind, takes primacy to "thought" (= thinking). You define "want" as "the particular force...to do a particular action". But what is this force -- it can only be conceived as being "thinking" (thought). There are of course many types of thoughts that humans have, and "wanting some thing" is a particular form of thinking, thus thinking is prior to wanting. To help me, please give one example of the force called "wanting" to do a particular action, that occurs outside "thinking" of the action. I would also like to know if such a force is part of the conscious or unconscious or both.

 

[metric]

This topic needs a fresh perspective:

First, I don't believe evil exists in the sense that it is a fundamental property of humanity or the universe for that matter, just as I don't believe in good.

We've stamped the word "evil" onto actions that put one's self and/or one's society at a disadvantage in life. Stealing is an easy example. The underlying reason we commit "evil" acts is to put ourselves at an advantage. I don't think it always has to involve "using others". Suicide, for instance, could be understood as a decision that it's more advantageous not to live, than to live in extreme pain. But I'm fairly certain it could be said that committing suicide is putting one's self at a disadvantage in life.

We've stamped the word "good" onto actions that put one's self AND one's society at an advantage. Learning and using a skill to increase your value to an organization and to increase that organizations value to society is an example. Public service is also a good example. Society values the firefighter and the police officer because they help lower risk for everyone, even the firefighters and policemen themselves. The skills necessary to perform those jobs are valuable to the individual because they get paid to do it. Life contains a certain amount of risk, and to avoid risks completely wouldn't leave a person many options in life. A beggar, in my opinion, could be construed as evil. Any kind of "leach" in society could be construed as evil, though society's reaction to such a person will not usually be very extreme.

Evil and good are subjective and measurable and I think that the values we hold today will, for the most part, be incomplete or invalid in the future. Actions in the short term are fairly easy to judge, but not always judged correctly. Long term effects must be considered in order for society to make better decisions and improve their thoughts and actions. Benefiting society is the key to self preservation.

So, in closing, I think that a society works to prevent itself from being put at any kind of perceived disadvantage. Likewise, it will always work to improve its position to a more advantageous state. I'm also aware that this issue isn't so black and white, that there are situations where people are put at a disadvantage while the rest of society seemingly benefits, like war, but this is a start at least.

 

[quantumcarl]

What does evil find evil?

 

[Rade]

This topic needs a fresh perspective

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

The underlying reason we commit "evil" acts is to put ourselves at an advantage.

But can we not also say that the underlying reason we commit "good" acts is to put ourself at an advantage--thus the pleasure I derive from a walk in the woods, to meditate, etc ? If so, then "putting self at advantage" cannot be used to differentiate the two acts of good and evil. Instead, I would suggest that the underlying reason we commit evil acts is because we decide to not put others at the same advantage as to life that we put ourselves.

So, in closing, I think that a society works to prevent itself from being put at any kind of perceived disadvantage. Likewise, it will always work to improve its position to a more advantageous state.

This is not clear to me at all--such logic applies to the bee hive, not the human hive. The Soviet Union was a society by any definition, and by adoption of Marxism, a logically and morally false form of economic government, most clearly did not work to prevent itself from being at a kind of perceived disadvantage as compared to other economic systems. Thus I hold that even a society (a human society) needs to conform to actions that negate the root of all evil, that is, society cannot use the other (e.g. individual human beings), by force, as a means to its (society) own ends. Therefore, the root of all good for a society is when it uses self (e.g., all individuals equally) as a means to its (society) own end.

 

[quantumcarl]

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

But can we not also say that the underlying reason we commit "good" acts is to put ourself at an advantage--thus the pleasure I derive from a walk in the woods, to meditate, etc ? If so, then "putting self at advantage" cannot be used to differentiate the two acts of good and evil. Instead, I would suggest that the underlying reason we commit evil acts is because we decide to not put others at the same advantage as to life that we put ourselves.

This is not clear to me at all--such logic applies to the bee hive, not the human hive. The Soviet Union was a society by any definition, and by adoption of Marxism, a logically and morally false form of economic government, most clearly did not work to prevent itself from being at a kind of perceived disadvantage as compared to other economic systems. Thus I hold that even a society (a human society) needs to conform to actions that negate the root of all evil, that is, society cannot use the other (e.g. individual human beings), by force, as a means to its (society) own ends. Therefore, the root of all good for a society is when it uses self (e.g., all individuals equally) as a means to its (society) own end.

So, by human standards and human perspective, evil is the person who believes that "All for one and all for one" is a good ethic... whereas good is the person who believes " all for one and one for all" is a good ethic.

You'll note that evil people have a concept of good... in fact they rely on the good things in life (good tires, good workmanship, good food, good cooking, good etc...) in fact they cannot exist without good, balanced mechanisms... evil mechanisms are weak, emotional, unstable and incapable of opening a can of breakfast drink.

I would guess that the evil person finds the idea of equal rights...evil. (To answer my own question.)

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Evil is contempt for life, that which makes it possible and worthwhile. In the case of humanity this includes contempt for reason.

The root of evil is the person who has contempt for their own life. Such a person does not seek answers; they despise questions. They do not desire to know why; their desires are the only justification they require. They do not take responsibility for their own life and actions; they blame it/them on some one/thing else. The concept of good serves only one purpose for them, it is to prove that it (good) does not exist.

When an individual finds no joy or meaning in their existence, that is unfortunate. When they attempt to impose a lack of desire for life upon others and condemn them for seeking to obtain a justified happiness, whether by words or deeds, that is evil, pure and simple.

 

[metric]

Thank you for adding to the discussion.

But can we not also say that the underlying reason we commit "good" acts is to put ourself at an advantage--thus the pleasure I derive from a walk in the woods, to meditate, etc ? If so, then "putting self at advantage" cannot be used to differentiate the two acts of good and evil. Instead, I would suggest that the underlying reason we commit evil acts is because we decide to not put others at the same advantage as to life that we put ourselves.

Thanks for challenging me, Rade. Tell me if you think the following logic is an improvement: Advantage is always sought by humans, good or evil (assuming insanity and health aren't issues). The differentiation is that the acts of "good" will benefit self and usually society. Acts of "evil" are egocentric in nature and are detrimental to self and/or society.

This is not clear to me at all--such logic applies to the bee hive, not the human hive. The Soviet Union was a society by any definition, and by adoption of Marxism, a logically and morally false form of economic government, most clearly did not work to prevent itself from being at a kind of perceived disadvantage as compared to other economic systems. Thus I hold that even a society (a human society) needs to conform to actions that negate the root of all evil, that is, society cannot use the other (e.g. individual human beings), by force, as a means to its (society) own ends. Therefore, the root of all good for a society is when it uses self (e.g., all individuals equally) as a means to its (society) own end.

I agree with everything you say here, Rade, and I don't believe it conflicts with my beliefs at all. I probably haven't explained myself well enough. Instead of describing what we perceive as acts of evil and good, let me get back to the initial point of this discussion thread:

I believe that the root of all evil is egocentrism. An egocentric society is doomed to failure. The Roman Empire is the first thing that comes to mind. Is the U.S. egocentric?

 

[Rade]

Tell me if you think the following logic is an improvement: Advantage is always sought by humans, good or evil (assuming insanity and health aren't issues). The differentiation is that the acts of "good" will benefit self and usually society. Acts of "evil" are egocentric in nature and are detrimental to self and/or society.....I believe that the root of all evil is egocentrism. An egocentric society is doomed to failure. The Roman Empire is the first thing that comes to mind. Is the U.S. egocentric?

As to your first question, yes, I can agree with your statement, for it does appear that the good human does what ought to be done, and such acts are of advantage to both self and others, where the evil (or bad) human does what ought not to be done, perhaps to self advantage (but not always) and never to the advantage of others. Now, to your second question, you bring forth a new term to this thread "ecocentric", and you make the interesting statement that "the root of all evil is egocentrism". But of course I would need you to "define" (that is, in the context of this discussion) what you mean by egocentrism for me to understand how it differs from my current thinking that "the root of all evil is using others (by force) as a means to an end". Now, I can see where our concepts may be identical if we view the egocentric as dwelling on self to the exclusion of other (e.g., act to exclude other by choice). However, I also hold that one should not confuse this concept with the concept of self-love, because if all humans seeked actions that were of advantage to self, and such actions were at the same time "fine" actions and "pleasant", others would also view such actions as fine and pleasant and of advantage, and thus such actions would benefit both self and others. Now, since the term "ego" is also defined as the "self", and if we hold as argued above that self-love of the kind that is also fine and pleasant can be of advantage to both self and other equally, then I must conclude that your statement that "the root of all evil is egocentrism" cannot hold if the prefex term "ego" = "self", and by self you mean self-love that leads to actions that are fine, advantagous, and pleasant to self, and do not cause pain to others.


Finally, is it possible that a just and good human in fact gains no advantage from self-love actions that are good, if no share of gains is greater than the share received by any other ? And, further, if gains to all are proportional to effort of one, do not all benefit from self-love efforts of one if such effort is 100 X more than any other, and is not then such a person the "pure egoist", the person that seeks advantage to self first, but in the process also benefits the other ? Thus I find no evil in the "pure egoist", only good.

 

[quantumcarl]

Thats what the hell I just said. Anyways, if it needs this many opinions, then apparently it really is what quantumcarl and I just said.

Sorry, e-realmz dude. I did't see your post. Our opinion on it here seems to have matched up but it doesn't mean we're right. It is a logical conclusion, mind you, to say that the root of all evil is the concept of evil.

To say that an empire that didn't collapse for over 500 years, like Rome, is evil is a broad generalization. I'd say Rome went through good and evil incarnations (according to how these conditions are defined by homosapiens) during its reign of the middle east and northern parts.

You can tell where Rome reached a saturation of a critical pecentage of evil by the fact that it collapsed and was overrun by the very slaves and outcasts it created out of humanity. This only holds true if you subscribe to the idea that a state of evil = instability, imbalance and the inability to integrate, efficiently, with the rest of humanity.

 

[|Orion's Thought|]

Which is worse- One aggrovating another knowing the consequences, or the one who reacts to the other, also knowing the consequences of his/her actions?

 

[jimmie]

Which is worse- One aggrovating another knowing the consequences, or the one who reacts to the other, also knowing the consequences of his/her actions?

Neither.

The absolute worst was one always feeling compelled to do action so as to reciprocate the others' action within the co-dependant relationship that was based upon the thought that the relationship should be given priority.

Forget any thought about building any relationship with any thing at any point.

Develop the right you first, then only right relationships with all shall follow.

 

[Intuitive]

I hold that the "root of all evil" (for humans) is when a human uses another human as a means to an end, even if those being used agree. Comments -- other roots for the tree of evil ?

The Root of Evil is a Genetic disorder.

 

[Intuitive]

To eliminate all Evil one would have to elimate the entire Universe or all its Genetic disorders.

 

[clouded.perception]

The existence of 'evil' is an interesting concept in itself.
Taking advantage of others is a natural part of living in a society. A child (especially a very young one) has little choice but to take advantage of their parent's nurturing instincts (the parents, of course, agree to this, but by your defenition, Rade, this is still wrong). I take advantage of my friends' knowledge and experience all the time; in fact, I have been known to seek out people just because they have better qualities than me and I want to learn from them. They, of course, do the same to me.
Any degree of co-operation is, when you get down to it, mulually agreed-upon taking advantage of someone, to the benefit of one or more parties (or someone entirely different,i.e. charity.
I believe that it is perfectly okay to take advantage of someone, except in the following situations:

-They do not consent
-They do not have enough information to make an educated decision over their own consent
-They are forced into consent by unusual and desperate circumstances (eg, blackmail, or offering a person deeply in debt an extremely low price for something simply because they are desperate for the cash)
-They have somehow been tricked or forced into a spur-of-the-moment decision, even if they have all the information (eg, very good salespeople).

In short, I believe that if the person you are taking advantage of knows what you want of them, and isn't being pushed or forced into unreasonable decisions, there is no harm in taking advantage of them (if they don't mind). It's how our society functions.
If anyone thinks of anything I've left off my list, please post it for me.

 

[clouded.perception]

Intuitive,
Say goodbye to Earth. I'm preparing the doomsday weapon now...