Can evil exist?

A month or so back in my English class, we got into this big heated debate of what evil truly is. There was pretty much common agreeing among all of the people in the class except for me. My theory was greatly varying, and by the end of the 42 minute period, the majority of the class had agreed with me.

Here before you I present my essay on "Evil". My entire theory presented in a six page essay. Why post it here? Because it's interesting. Because I want opinions... and to slap Jesse's silly religion in the face. ENJOY!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Evil: The Intricacies of a Hypocritical Concept
A broad look at things by: Dan *last name*


Evil. The word is without a doubt familiar. Since the dawn of recorded history, this word has made its way into common dialog. However, how can this word truly have a definition? The word can have a variety of meanings, but how does one define evil? Is it the culmination of all that is bad in the world? Is it an act of horrendous atrocity by a single individual? Is it a pure outlook on the vicissitudes of mankind’s behavior? An act performed by one religion, one culture, one creed, one gender or any other variant of human distinction? Is it all of these things or none of them? And if it’s not any of them… then what is it?
Evil is Evil. It’s as simple as that. It can be a noun, an adjective, or with the addition of the words “an act of”, a verb. Evil can be everything, and evil can be nothing. Who can truly define it? No one. No one, not a single person on this planet could accurately describe evil in a way that would appeal to everyone. Why? Because everybody has a different definition for it. You could walk up to any patriotic American on the street and ask them to describe, in their own words, what evil truly is. Chances are their answer would be something along the lines of “people like those Muslim guys that destroyed the World Trade Centers”. That’s understandable, and for most Americans, agreeable. So how is that not a concrete definition? Flip around the perspective. Have a chat with the Islamic extremist that committed the act of “evil” in question. Does he think he committed evil? No. Actually, it’s the complete opposite. There’s a good (and understandable) chance that he will say that he was fighting against infidels. He will say that it is not he who is evil, but the non-Muslim Americans that threaten their religion with their own. Are they wrong to say that we are the evil ones? Chances are that a member of high class Christian America would call such things “blasphemy”, but hey! Who’s right here? Is it fair at all to claim that their interpretation of evil is untrue, inaccurate, or ill-portrayed, when we make the same claims, just from a different perspective?

The beginnings of Evil:
The earliest examples of the presence of a concept of evil can be easily followed back to early religion. The earliest forms of religion were the first to make a distinction between good and evil. These religions made a point of showing certain things to be ill advised, or evil. An accompaniment to the early concept of evil, was the early form of moral values. Yes, you read that right. Evil, as a concept, is directly responsible for the existence of morals. If not for the avoidance of evil, one would have no reason to not walk around killing people at random. Those morals come from the early religions, and have been reflected into every aspect of modern society.
As the time wore on, so did the intricacies of what exactly evil was. Well sure, they knew from the start that you could not commit acts of evil. But why is that? What motive would you have to not commit acts of evil? In walks the rest of religion. As it seems, religion can be directly responsible for evil, but in the same way evil can be directly responsible for religion. Along with the earliest signs of religion, came the belief in gods. These gods would do all sorts of wondrous things. But what was equally as important as the gods themselves, was the homes of the gods. The afterlife. The afterlife was a concept widely accepted by pretty much every religion. Since the dawns of religion, it was common knowledge that life does not end at life. Why? Because then you have something to live for. But it was too easy to just say there’s an afterlife, have fun. There had to be a reason to get there, and so evil was born. If you commit evil, you can’t go to the afterlife. It’s as simple as that. As religion grew, so did the concept of evil, and by the time modern religions came about, evil was as commonly accepted as truth as saying “the sky is blue”, or “the grass is green”. People didn’t question evil, because it was true. Why wouldn’t it be? After all, that’s what they had been told by their parents, and their parent’s parents. Evil in religion was adopted and adapted by essentially every modern culture. In cultures that believe in the Hindu religion, it is common knowledge that committing acts of evil would cause you to reincarnate as something lower than a human. In cultures that believe in Christianity, the consequences of committing evil were amplified greater still with the concept of Hell. Why not commit evil? Because if you do, you will spend the rest of eternity in torment. That sounds like a good bargain for anyone. With all of these things considered, evil sounds like a concrete concept, right? But that brings us to the part with the most disputes. What, exactly, evil is.

A Concept of Human Invention:
Evil doesn’t sound like an out of place word to anybody. From an early age, any child on Earth hears that word in some variation. And when they do, it would be considered normal for said child to ask what “evil” was. The parent would sit there fumbling for a minute, and then they would decide on how to describe it. “You know in the story of Adam and Eve, when the snake told Eve to eat from the forbidden tree? That was evil.” And the child would understand, because that’s what they know. That’s what they learned. They would finally know the definition of evil, and it would change their lives forever. From that point forward they would have a clear cut idea of what evil was. A serial killer? Without a doubt, evil. What about a corrupted clergyman? Evil. Someone who speaks out against their own religion? Evil. Someone of a different religion trying to preach against yours? Evil. And so the chain would follow. But what of the people that don’t learn it that way? Are they not right too? They have their own ideas of evil, and yet they are wrong? How could that be? Even if their “evil” isn’t the same as yours, it’s still evil, is it not? So what of the extremist Muslim child who learns that all non-Muslims are evil. Is he wrong? And if so, why? The concept of evil is rapidly changing, nondescript, non-concrete, and inconclusive. So why is it that everyone is so certain that evil is real?
Evil is hypocritical. It’s as simple as that. It’s illogical, and it’s hypocritical. Why? Well let’s put it this way. If a man goes and murders thirty people, is he evil? Well sure. After all, that’s what your parents told you. But look at things from his perspective. When he killed those people, he had a motive. He had a purpose. Did he think he was doing evil? Most definitely not. However twisted it may be, his definition of evil is greatly varying, and to him, he’s doing a deed. So is he wrong? You’ll probably say yes, but how can he be? He has every right to say that you’re wrong if you have the same right to say he is. Who is wrong then? Is it you? Is it him? It’s everyone.
Evil cannot exist as a single concept as a whole. Every person has a varying view of what evil is. Without a clear-cut definition, it cannot have a true meaning, and without a meaning, a purpose, and without a purpose, existence. The entire concept of evil is overused and flat out illogical. A Christian missionary who goes to a foreign country to convert people is doing the greatest deed there is, right? Not to the people of that country. No. The people there see the missionary as the greatest evil of all. From their perspective, they have the right religion. They have the right beliefs. They have the right ideas, and anyone who dares to oppose it is wrong. Wrong, and evil. So who is evil in this scenario? Anyone who grows up with Christian teachings would easily say the people who aren’t Christian, but the natives of the country would see the missionary trying to disrupt their proper religion as the evil. In this case, both are evil, and both are right. Both have the same right to accuse the other of evil. Both have the same right to say that they are the correct ones. Neither is right, and neither is wrong, and as long as this counterbalance exists, no conclusion is drawn. Without an agreeable compromise, there can be no true definition of who is evil. Evil is a good concept, but until everybody in the world believes the exact same thing, the concept remains purely that. A concept.

Evil and the law:
A major error in definition often occurs between evil, and the law. The law is clear-cut. There are no gray regions. There is nothing there but line after line of what you can and cannot do. However, the law is not a moral code. The law is a large-scale culmination of all of the ideas put together that establish a safe and functional society. The law is there as a way to maintain order, and it does so quite successfully. However, what the law does not define is “evil”. It is often misconstrued that someone who breaks a law is evil. A murderer for example, is without a doubt infringing the legal boundaries of society. However, whether or not this murderer is evil cannot be truly defined. As was stated before, the man who commits the crime does not see himself as evil. Look at a man like Adolph Hitler. It can be greatly agreed that this man committed vast and severe crimes against humanity. However, is he evil? It is pretty much unanimously agreed that he was indeed evil. But what of him? Does he view himself as evil? No, of course not. He thought that everything he was doing was fantastic. He thought the deaths were essential sacrifices to make the world a better place, and in his mind, everything he was doing was right. As long as he thought he was doing good, no one can truly say he was evil. He was though, without a doubt a criminal. That much is fact. In every country worldwide, what he did was very illegal. It is that common agreeability that is mistaken for the grounds to accuse someone of evil, when he truly was not.
If the laws don’t define evil, then what are they based on? Well take a look back in history. When the United States Constitution was founded, the laws of governing were based on those established by British Parliament. Look back in the history of British Parliament, and what do you find? Christianity. The entire fundamentals of law were founded upon those established by the Church. It is for that reason, that the common ground between religious teachings, and law are so similar that they are often mistaken for one another. For that reason, law can never truly define the concept of evil.

In conclusion:
Evil is a concept, and nothing more. It can never be anything more than a concept because for evil to exist as a true thing, it would require universal agreement of all people everywhere in the world. Multiply a common belief by seven billion people, and what do you get? Impossibility. It doesn’t take much speculation to realize that the goal of universal agreement can never happen. There are too many people here, too many beliefs, and too many years of history to undo.

 

Even if all the world's people agree on what evil is, it doesn't really exist. For evil to exist, right and wrong have to exist, and they do not.

 

I don't think you read my essay, because you just posted my exact point in a way that would infer you're contradicting me.

 

Shredder is right. Ex. in greek mythology gods could rape mortals the humans living during that time period believed it was ok to do. looking at it wouldnt this seem evil? the agreement of the people to words like good evil right and wrong mean nothing

 

Dude... that's my point entirely. The whole point of that essay is me saying that evil cannot exist.

 

Good try, but no, I read it. Your point, from what I gathered, was that good and evil do exist, but vary from culture to culture. My point is that NOTHING is good or evil, not even such things as torture, murder, pedophilia, etc.

 

No, that's my point as well. I meant since each culture has their own idea of what religion is, no common ground can be drawn. I am also saying that religion cannot exist at all.

 

In "Evolutionary science" No
In "Religion and the truth" Yes

In evolution nothing is bad you should not give a shit for what you do don't feel bad because there are no absolutes and there is no reason for it.Have fun go kill people because in the end all you do is rot right? No consequences for your wrong doing because there is no such thing. All of this is true if "A GOD" does not exist. let you figure out the rest.

 

Another person that didn't read my essay. You literally just read the title.

I offer substantial evidence of why it CAN NOT exist. Even in religion.

PS: I like how you couple "religion" with "truth". Oxymoron?

 

Oxymoron? Let's try a little harder next time when trying to intelligently insult someone.

What he was saying, if I can elaborate a little more, and maybe a little off topic. He is saying that in the worldly world, in the where science is the only true thing to believe world, there really isn't a right or wrong, lately, even morals have fell aside to science, but that is of another topic and another time.

Truly, evil, happiness, anything defined by the human race, is always going to be nonexistent, it's simply something of our own perceptions.

 

saying religion does not exist is stupid. religion is based on belief unless you are saying people do not have beliefs i do not understand how you could possibly think of this

 

Gah! evil is nonexistent within itself, merely the lack of good, and being that nor does good exist. confusing, maybe. true, yes.

 

I believe in nothing.

For morality to exist, religion doesn't necessarily need to exist.

 

Then tell me, please, why an action is either moral or immoral.

 

dude i gotta say but i have seen supernaturals

 

Moral actions contribute to the welfare of the whole, at the expense of the individual. Immoral actions contribute to the welfare of the individual, at the expensive of the whole.

Moral societies evolved because the whole is collectively stronger.