Dictionary of Meaning

<<Back
Please select a letter:
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0-9

Evil

*** Shopping-Tip: Evil
:''For other uses of "evil", see Evil (disambiguation).'' '''Evil''' is a term describing that which is regarded as morality morally bad, intrinsically political corruption corrupt, wantonly wikt:destructive destructive, wikt:inhumane inhumane, or wickedness wicked. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about affliction and death — the opposite of life. However, the definition of what counts as evil differs widely from culture to culture and from individual to individual. Some philosophers reject the idea of evil. Plato, for example, argued that that which we call evil is merely ignorance, and that which we call good is merely that which everyone desires. For those who accept the existence of evil, there are two main beliefs about evil {{citation needed}}. In some belief systems, evil consists of a willful deviation from a code of laws (written or unwritten) or moral standard, usually proscribed by a holy deity. According to this definition, people who, for example, reject a certain belief or engage in sexual practices against this code are engaged in evil acts. According to other belief systems, evil consists of intentionally doing harm, and so-called "victimless crimes" should not be considered evil. It is important to note, however, that followers of the first definition believe that these "victimless crimes" do indeed have victims, usually the moral soul of the person committing the act. The duality of 'Goodness and value theory good versus evil' is expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures. This concept describes a hierarchy of moral standards applied to human behaviour. In more casual or derogatory use, the word "evil" can characterize people and behaviours that are hurtful, ruinous, or disastrous. Those who believe in the duality theory of evil believe that evil cannot exist without good, nor good without evil, as they are both objective states and opposite ends of the same scale. A similar term, malice, (from the Latin ''malus'' meaning "bad") describes the deliberate human intent to harm and be harmful. "Evil", by contrast, tends to represent a more elemental concept; a disembodied spirit that is natural and yet abominable. Whereas "malice" is specifically concerned with the act itself, "evil" is the cause of a malicious act. True evil is sometimes motivated by malicious greed and/or sadism. {{wikiquote}}

Etymology
The modern English word 'Evil' (Old English ''Yfel'') and its current living cognates such as the German 'Übel' are widely considered to come from a Proto-Germanic reconstructed form ''*Ubilaz'', comparable to the Hittite ''huwapp-'' ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European language Proto-Indo-European form ''*wap-'' and suffixed zero-grade form ''*up-elo-''. Other later Germanic forms include Middle English ''evel'', ''ifel'', ''ufel'' Old Frisian ''evel'' (adjective & noun), Old Saxon ''ubil'', Old High German ''ubil'', and Gothic language Gothic ''ubils''. The root meaning is of obscure origin though shown to be akin to modern English 'over' (OE ''ofer'') and 'up' (OE ''up'', ''upp'') with the basic idea of "transgressing".

Evil as a religious concept
Most ancient polytheist cultures lacked a concept of evil as a human quality or as a quality of human actions, or if they had such a concept, they did not place as much importance on it as have their monotheist successors. In the world of the Odyssey and Iliad epic poems, for example, there are acknowledged human virtues such as honor, faithfulness, and vengeance (which became a sin in Christian thought) but no direct corollary to the modern concept of evil. Likewise, Homeric characters are subject to judgement by the gods, but that judgement is often questionable as the gods themselves have imperfect, human-like characters. In a number of religious traditions, human beings are considered to be "governed" by an innate bent towards selfishness and pride, actions that are considered evil. In others, humans may be considered naturally good, and evil to be a 'force' that tempts them away from their natural state. Evil may be personified in the form of a figure of evil, such as Satan.

Ayyavazhi
As per Akilattirattu Ammanai the scripture of Ayyavazhi. According to the mythology, Kroni was termed as a primordial manifesteation of evil. He was sliced into six. And each of the fragments took birth in the world in the successive six yugas. At the present Kali Yukam the sixth fragment and the most serious source of evil manifested as Kaliyan in the world. At the end of this yuga he will be judged and destroyed completely. After that Vaikundar will rule the world as a indisputable king in the upcomming Dharma Yukam.

Zoroastrianism
In the originally Persians Persian religion of Zoroastrianism, the world is a battle ground between the god of good, Ahura Mazda, and the god of evil, Ahriman. This dualistic belief system had a heavy influence on the Abrahamic religions.

Judaeo-Christian religions
In the Hebrew Scriptures, evil is related to the concept of sin — "sin" translated in Hebrew is ''chata'' which means "missing the mark" (a term from archery). Evil is defined in Thomistic metaphysics as the absence of a "good" which could and should be present; it is a lack of something that should be present. The evil of gluttony, for example, is marked by the results of obesity. The goodness that is missing in the glutton is self discipline and temperance. The results of evil are usually experienced as evil over the long term but may be experienced as short term "goods". The cultivation of the good requires the long view. In Judaism and Christianity, evil refers to those aspects of human behaviour that are contrary to the Ten Commandments. Evil is thus directly correlated to disobedience: the Commandments are a guideline for "what not to do". In the forms of malice and selfishness, evil represents the socially weakening and destructive behaviors that lead directly to a ''fruitless life'' and death. On a more abstract level, "Evil" refers to the lack of faith in God, the end result of which is separation from Him. In many Abrahamic faiths, evil is personified as Satan, a challenger of the law or will of God. Satan is defined in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings collectively as the devil, the adversary, false accuser, slanderer, the counterfeit, a liar, a murderer, one with no truth, the serpent, the evil one, the tempter, and a lion prowling around looking for someone to devour. These faiths also teach that spiritual being spirits or demons may possession possess humans or animals and tempt them to do evil. Some forms of Christianity do not personify evil in Satan, but instead consider the human heart to be inherently bent toward deceit, although human beings are responsible for their choices. Note that "self" does not necessarily have to mean "one's self," but also to the various units, groups, and demographics to which one belongs (for example: family, school, team, generation, nationality, race, or religion). The Israelites asked for national repentance of sin while the Christians focus on individual sins. Jewish beliefs and Christian teachings say each person will give an account of all their actions, including faith and obedience. Some cultures or philosophies believe that evil can arise without meaning or reason (in neo-Platonic philosophy this is called surd evil. Christianity in general does not adhere to this belief, but the prophet Isaiah implied that God is ultimately responsible for everything including evil ''(Isa.45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.")'' In the Bible, the story of Job is a bold example of how evil exists and seems at times to be victorious, although Christianity teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the perfection of God and the wages of that missing the mark of that perfection (sin) is death. Christians believe that the crucifixion of Jesus defeated sin and merited the resurrection-victory over death for himself and all in communion with him. For the French philosopher Michel Henry, God is the invisible Phenomenological life Life that never stops to generate us and to give us to ourselves in its pathetic self-revelation. God is Love because Love itself in an infinite love ''is'' Life. By consequence life is good in itself. The evil corresponds to all what denies or attacks life, it finds its origin in death which is the negation of life. This death is an inner and spiritual death which is the separation with God, and which consists simply in not loving, in living selfishly as if God didn't exist, as if he was not our Father of us all and as if we were not all its beloved Sons, as if we were not all Brothers generated by a same Life. The evil peaks in the violence of hatred that is at the origin of all the crimes, of all the wars and of all the genocides. But the evil is also the common origin of all those blind processes and of all those false abstractions that lead so many people to misery and exclusion.

Is evil universal?
A fundamental question is whether there is a universal, transcendent definition of evil, or whether evil is determined by one's social or cultural background. C. S. Lewis, in ''The Abolition of Man'', maintained that there are certain acts that are universally considered evil, such as rape and murder. On the other hand, it is hard to find any act that was not acceptable in some society. The Ancient Rome Romans celebrated the Rape of the Sabine women. The Ancient Greek Greeks wrote favorably about child sexual abuse sex between adults and children. The fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter is given many admirable qualities. The Nazism Nazis, during World War II, found genocide acceptable, as did the Imperial Japanese Army with the Nanking Massacre. Today, there is strong disagreement as to whether homosexuality and abortion are perfectly acceptable or ultimate evils. Views on the nature of evil tend to fall into one of two opposed camps. One, moral absolutism, holds that good and evil are fixed concepts established by God, nature, or some other authority. The other, moral relativism, holds that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice. Moral universalism is a recent humanist term to find a compromise between the unattainable absolutist sense of morality, and the relativist view. A looser definition of evil describes it as death and suffering, whether it results from human or from other natural causes (e.g., earthquakes and famine). In other words, it is not merely the intention to do evil, but the end result, namely, harm to others, that is evil. This is sometimes referred to as "natural evil," and some philosophers hold the position that this is an inappropriate use of the word "evil," as it is without intent. As Plato observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil, which can therefore have a much greater impact on our lives, and the lives of other beings capable of suffering. For this reason, some philosophers (e.g. Bernard Gert) maintain that preventing evil is more important than promoting good in formulating moral rules and in conduct. Some people define evil as not only a person who inflicts pain and suffering but does so for either solely selfish reasons (i.e. power or wealth) or because they are sadistic (which would mean they gain pleasure from it, placing it again entirely selfish). Under their definition of evil, a person who commits morally wrong acts but does so truly believing the ends justifies the means would not be evil, even if most people disagreed the ends justified the means. Even when they agree that the ends in and of themselves are morally wrong, so long as the person believes they are doing right regardless of how misguided they may be, they would not classify them as evil. This does not mean they do not view their actions as morally wrong, just that they do not see an evil intent in them. The intent of the actions is a key factor for them. Thus, for example Osama Bin Laden would not be evil as his motives are based on his belief that western culture is corrupt and evil. Regardless of the source of their definitions, most human cultures have a set of beliefs about what things, actions, and ideas are undesirable. Undesirable circumstances are often categorized as evil within some cultures. Natural evils generally include accidental death, disease, and other misfortunes, although some cultures see these occurrences instead as a healthy part of the natural order. Moral evils generally include violence, deceit or other destructive behavior toward others, although the same behavior toward "outsiders" of the group may be considered "good." War provides many examples, and "God is always on the winning side." Many cultures recognize many levels of immoral behaviour, from minor vices to major crimes. These beliefs are often encoded into the laws of a society, with methods of judgment and punishment for offenses.

Is evil a useful term?
The definition of evil has engendered some debate, much as the term terrorism has. It has been said that evil is subjective, that one person's idea of evil can be another person's idea of good, much like one person's terrorist is a freedom fighter of another. The term is often used by people or groups against their enemies, largely to evoke a strong emotional response against the person or group. For example, this claim has been made by some critics of the U.S. President George W. Bush with regard to his labeling North Korea, Iraq, and Iran as part of an "Axis of Evil". Many critics reject the current common usage of the term evil, suggesting that motivation must be taken into account. Thus, they feel it is inappropriate to apply the term to just anyone committing significant acts of violence such as terrorism and mass murder. Only those people motivated by sadism, lust for power or greed of wealth (in many forms) should qualify as evil. That does not mean they think violent acts like terrorism and murder are acceptable, just that perpetrators of those acts should not automatically be labeled evil. Under such applications of the term evil, malicious juveniles and sadistic minors are classified as evil despite their misguided purposes. There is a school of thought that holds that no ''person'' is evil, that only ''acts'' may be properly considered evil. Some critics also feel the term evil is too closely linked with religion, particularly Christianity and Islam. Because of this, they think the term should be avoided in political discussion, especially in reference to members of other religions or leaders. They might be also add that since use of the term evil to describe one's enemies is so comfortable that it removes all possibility of empathy and necessity for self-examination, its use usually indicates an absolutist or extremist attitude on the part of the user, regardless of his or her belief-system. Psychologist and mediator Marshall Rosenberg claims that the root of violence is the very concept of "evil" or "badness." When we label someone as bad or evil Rosenberg claims, it invokes the desire to punish or inflict pain. It also makes it easy for us to turn off our feelings towards the person we are harming. He cites the use of language in Nazi Germany as being a key to how the German people were able to do things to other human beings that they normally wouldn't do. He links the concept of evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment — "punitive justice" — punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong. He contrasts this approach with what he found in cultures where the idea of evil was non-existent. In such cultures, when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out of harmony with themselves and their community, they are seen as sick or ill and measures are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and others, as opposed to punishing them. Psychologist Albert Ellis makes a similar claim, in his school of psychology called Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy or REBT. He says the root of anger, and the desire to harm someone, is almost always one of these beliefs: # That they should/shouldn't have done certain things # That someone is awful/bad/horrible person for doing what they did # That they deserve to be punished for what they did He claims that without one of the preceding thoughts, violence is next to impossible. Peter Singer's book, ''The President of Good and Evil'' uses the case of George W. Bush to illustrate how 'evil' can become a dangerous reification.

Is evil good?
Anton LaVey is one of many who assert that evil is actually good (an often-used slogan is, "evil is live spelled backwards"). This belief is usually a reaction to religious definitions of evil, which some think oppose the natural pleasures of life or the natural instincts of men and women. In the more extreme cases, however, this belief can extend to the claim that hurting others is acceptable if you can get away with it. In modern slang, "bad" has become a synonym for "good", as in "Man, that's a bad piece of music." In the tabletop role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons, players may choose to play as a character whose alignment is evil, although this is not encouraged for normal play. The ability to choose between good and evil is also a major theme of a number of video games, including Fable (video game), and Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones. The play ''The Rocky Horror Show'' and the motion picture based on the play can be seen as a celebration of evil. In politics, the acceptance of evil is often called, "playing hardball," or, in the words of US Vice President Dick Cheney, making a reference to Star Wars in a speech given September 11, 2001, "we also have to work ... sort of the dark side ...". It is not uncommon to find people in power who are indifferent to good or evil, taking actions based solely on self-interest; this approach to politics was championed by Niccolò Machiavelli, a sixteenth century Florentine writer and politician who declared in ''The Prince'', "the ends justifies the means... The world consists mainly of vulgar people and the few who are honorable can safely be ignored when so many vulgar rally around the prince." The international relations theories of Realism in international relations realism and neorealism, sometimes called ''realpolitik'', about which Machiavelli wrote, explicitly disavow absolute moral and ethical considerations in international politics in favor of a focus on self-interest, political survival, and power politics, which they hold to be more accurate in explaining a world they view as explicitly amoral and dangerous. It should be noted that political realists, including Machiavelli, usually justify their perspectives by laying claim to a "higher moral duty" specific to political leaders, under which the greatest evil is seen to be the failure of the state to protect itself and its citizens. Machiavelli explicitly states : "[A prince] need not worry about incurring the disgrace of those vices without which it would be difficult for him to save the state, for if everything is carefully considered, it will be found that something which seems a virtue would, if practiced, become his ruin, and some other thing, which seems a vice, would, if practiced, result in his security and well-being."

Sociological views on evil
Some sociology sociologists, psychology psychologists, psychiatry psychiatrists and neuroscience neuroscientists have attempted to construct scientific explanations for the development of specific characteristics of an "antisocial" personality type, called the sociopath. The sociopath is typified by extreme self-serving behavior, and a lack of conscience, or inability to empathy empathize with others, to restrain self from, or to feel remorse for, harm personally caused to others. However, a diagnosis of antisocial or sociopath personality disorder (formerly called psychopathic mental disorder), is sometimes criticized as being, at the present time, no more scientific than calling a person "evil". What critics perceive to be a morality moral determination is disguised, they argue, with a scientific-sounding name, but no complete description of a mechanism by which the abnormality can be identified is provided. In other words, critics argue, "sociopaths" are called such, because they are first thought to be "evil" - a determination which itself is not derived by a scientific method. Research into sociopathology has also investigated biological, rather than moral underpinnings of behaviors that societies reject as sociopathic. Most neurological research into sociopathology has focused on regions of the neocortex involved in impulse control. Some other research seems to indicate that sociopathy may at least partially be related to a lack of ability to realize the true consequences of one's actions.

Hacker jargon
As used by computer hackers, the jargon term ''evil'' implies that some system, program, person, or institution is sufficiently maldesigned as to be not worth the bother of dealing with. Unlike the adjectives in the cretinous/losing/brain damaged series, ''evil'' does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's, and often acts as a synonym for the word ''difficult''. This usage is more an aesthetic and engineering judgment than a moral one in the mainstream sense. ''"We thought about adding a Blue Glue interface but decided it was too evil to deal with,"'' or ''"Text Editor and Corrector TECO is neat, but it can be pretty evil if you're prone to typos."'' Often pronounced with the first syllable lengthened, as {{Unicode|/'i:::vɪl/.}} Compare to evil and rude. The usage of evil as a prefix for usernames or email addresses on the Internet can be traced back to "evilsteven", a founding member of the noend listservs in San Francisco and New York.

See also
{{selfref|In , see :Voting is evil.}} * Axis of Evil * Bad * Evil empire * Goodness and value theory * Law * Philosophy * Religion * Problem of evil

References
* Shermer, M. (2004). ''The Science of Good & Evil.'' New York: Time Books. [ISBN 080507520] *Peter Singer, (2004). ''The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush'', New York: Granta. [ISBN 0525948139] * Thims, L. (2005). "[http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/JHT-evil-types.html Evil, Stability, and Predisposed Movements]", ''Journal of Human Thermodynamics'', Vol. 1., Issue 1, pgs: 1-12. (ISSN ISSN 1559-386X) * Wilson, William McF., and Julian N. Hartt. "Farrer's Theodicy." In David Hein and Edward Hugh Henderson (eds), ''Captured by the Crucified: The Practical Theology of Austin Farrer''. New York and London: T & T Clark / Continuum, 2004.

External links

- Original Sin: The Origin of Evil
- Good and Evil in Judaism chabad.org {{Philosophy navigation}} Category:Core issues in ethics Category:Social philosophy da:Ondskab de:Das Böse et:Kuri es:Maldad fi:Pahuus fr:Mal he:רוע it:Male ja:悪 pl:Zło ru:Зло sv:Ondska

*** Shopping-Tip: Evil