SITTING IN THE ABANDONED BRAIN

It's not hard to understand moral evil, it being an inextricable part of all of us; not any harder than to understand moral good, anyway.

From:

Our brains and our consciousness are likewise inextricable part of us, and yet we cannot yet say that they are easy to understand. Why presume the opposite about good or evil?

From:

Are we talking about evil in some presumed scientifically measurable sense?

From:

No, evil in its many various senses: ontological, moral, etc. My point is that just because evil seems to be an irreducible component of human nature, understanding it is not easy at all. Unless, of course, one doesn't burden oneself with such trifling nuisances as doubt or critical thought.

From:

What's there to doubt about evil?

From:

Is zoophilia immoral? Last time this came up, you and I disagreed about it.

From:

Is immorality tantamount to evil?

From:

See? And yet you say "what's there to doubt about evil?". Is it?

From:

I don't think so. Immorality can be caused by evil, or by ignorance, but it's neither. What do you think?

From:

I think that evil often comes from disdain for the limitations of the human condition.

From:

The short answer is: plenty. The long answer is, well ... : Is evil real AND absolute (or metaphysical, if you will), or is it real, but not absolute? Martin Buber thought the latter (and I tend to agree). Is it an act of evil to lie to an assasin in order to prevent murder? Whence comes evil? Why are there those who think themselves warriors in the name of good, and yet it is often they who are inherently evil? Etc.

From:

I.e., real but relative? What's it relative to?

Is lying de facto evil? Who says so?

I don't know whence comes evil. It's programmed into us, and whether it's by God or evolution depends on which you believe in (if you believe in either, or maybe both...)

From:

No, saying that evil is real but not absolute means that there is no 'elemental,' irreducible Evil, no Satan. It has nothing to do with 'moral relativism.'

As for whether evil is programmed into us, perhaps. But therein lies one of the problems that the book tries to address: if evil had been programmed into us by God, how can this be reconciled with the idea of God as the source of good? If evil had been programmed into us by evolution, was it a bona fide evolutionary adaptation, or a side product of something else, and how can we overcome it?

From:

Okay, a better question: what relevant questions can we ask about evil that will help us personally avoid it as much as possible?

As far as the idea that God as the source of good can't be the source of evil (or what seems evil to us,) it's addressed pretty thoroughly in God's monologue at the end of the book of Job.

From:

What's there to doubt about evil?

http://www.ashtray.ru/main/texts/2/brodsky_pessimism.htm

«Slave, come to my service!» «Yes, my master. Yes?»

«I feel like doing some evil, eh?»

«Do that, my master. By all means, do some evil.

For how otherwise can you stuff your belly?

How, without doing evil, can you dress yourself warmly?»

«No, slave. I shall do no evil!»

«Evildoers are either killed, or flayed alive and blinded,

or blinded and flayed alive and thrown into a dungeon».

From:

That's a good one. His slave is his heart, right?

From:

The way I see it, the master is passions and the slave is reason. However, nobody knows for sure.

From:

flayed alive and blinded,

or blinded and flayed alive and thrown into a dungeon

Хуясе нравы у шумеров были! Прямо как у Саддама.

From:

Вообще-то поэма вавилонская; Бродский ошибся. Но да.

From:

This is nice. How did you come across it?

From:

I own a short book of Russian translations of some ancient Mesopotamian texts, including the Dialogue of Pessimism, and I know Joseph Brodsky's oeuvre well enough to be aware that it contains an English translation of same.

From:

I wonder what they say about the relation of "evil" and "harm". As far as I am concerned, harmless actions cannot be evil.

From:

We'll see. On the other hand, can there be an abstract definition of harm (or harmlessness), detached from concrete circumstances? I don't think so.

From:

Unlike "evil", to claim that an action causes harm, one has to show the object of that harm and to demonstrate at least an effect on the object. No object, no harm. No effect, no harm.

From:

Your proposed definition equates effect with direct causation. However in complex systems, which human societies necessarily are, effects often propagate indirectly and with delays. Certain kinds of harm (such as psychological or emotional) are not easy to spot at first, but may have significant effects later on.

From:

If the objective nature of the harm can be proved, then I'm OK with it. Otherwise I tend to consider such kinds of harm self-inflicted.

From:

harmless to others, or harmless to the doer?

From:

To others.

From:

Then you believe that every man belongs in entirety to himself?

From:

I don't think I understand the question. Define "belongs".

From:

In other words, is his own final and ultimate master and property, and alone bears responsibility for and passes judgement on his personal state. I.e., if I quit work, purposely take up crack as a hobby and quickly die homeless, is this not an evil thing I'm doing to myself?

From: