These questions draw on the accounts of evil developed to this point in THEE investigations. Links back to relevant pages are provided. Of course you may not agree: make comments below.and
No. Attempting to do so is invariably evil because it is a lesser good in comparison to alternatives. If you focus people on an impossible thing, then you reduce their energies for practical matters. Attacks on evil as embodied by some persons or group (e.g. criminals, terrorists, drug-dealers) violate the
Yes. These are highly egocentric individuals who have willingly made sociopathic choices. They appear wicked, malevolent, sadistic, insane, criminal or charming.
Not outside Hollywood. Most so-called «evil dictators» do not fall in this category, but rather are highly power-centred, egotistic and group-focused.
Yes—if you are mindless when you could.
No—assuming it is a genuine accident.
Not usually. Thinking and doing are not identical and evil is about choosing and doing. The human mind generates every possible wish and becoming aware of a wish (which is only possible by «having» it) ought to be valued as good. The issue with awareness of an emerging wish is what to do with that experience. There is no reason why a black-hearted wish cannot be a source of further good, provided it is noted so that awareness,, ensures it is not acted upon.
However, if the wish becomes a focus of concentration and meditation, then you are making a choice, valuing the black-hearted wish rather than de-valuing it, and doing that would be evil.
Yes—if you are reading this: you should know better.
No—if your spiritual development and your culture is such that you cannot conceive that the seasons will return without fertilization by human blood.
No—if the breaking of the promise was to prevent a greater bad. If the other party does not agree with you then it will be socially unpleasant and you may be called unethical.
Yes—if it was simply broken for your convenience. Keeping promises is a fundamental good in society because it strengthens trust.
It depends on context. In all cases, harassment is bad. However, it might be a perverse form of attention that, in a dysfunctional family, is better than neglect or abandonment. Bullying elsewhere—at school, in the workplace, in the military, in prison—does not have that merit, because being left alone is better.
Yes. It is an example of splitting and projection that violates the recipient.
Not in the abstract, but almost certainly in practice. If you lack these personal inner guides for handling moral challenges then you will find yourself making choices that reflect a lesser good.
Yes. Individuals who set and lead openly amoral policies of organizations and governments. However, at a personal level, it is often necessary to know the motivation and situation before attempting to judge.
Yes. But wilful ignorance is not.
Yes. Because human beings are moral beings and they are part of the Universe.
Yes. It is common because there are three frames of reference for ethics in any developed society: the custom, the law and the morality. Beyond this, there are issues of humaneness. Example: Slavery. Slavery was ethically permissible in the West according to the custom and the law until relatively recently. Even while slavery was accepted as valuable, many people (e.g. Quakers) were able to see that a person should never be regarded as a chattel i.e. slavery was an evil choice in terms of a humane ethical teaching.
Not knowable in abstract. Following custom is ethically right and contravening is ethically wrong when using «the custom» as a frame of reference. However, the same act may be legal or illegal under the law, and either right or wrong under the culture's custom or ethical teaching. Whether the adherence or contravention reflected a lesser good would be a matter for judgement in the situation.
No. However, money is often a lesser good chosen in preference to a greater good (in accord with the original quote: "the love of money is ..."). In this case it is a factor in evil. But who makes that judgement?
No. But that is our imaginative experience in the Plane of Cosmic Forces.
Yes: as part of the injunction to Divine Oneness, the Plane of the Universal Spirit. It also occurs on some .
Not intrinsically. We may value them negatively if we so choose. That would make them bad. However, it is self-evident that they are a way to( ) and so they can be used to keep evil at bay.
«Sex» is part of the triad, «sex, drugs & rock 'n' roll», which is the focus of natural moral institution that emerges in all societies to deal with controlling bodily urges by defining some manifestations as .and endless newspaper stories. is a
Sexual urges can be misused to generate an excitement that blots out awareness. With violence, this enables rape: which meets the criteria of evil.
Sin is a concept in theology. Catholic theology identifies a category of moral evil, which is intrinsic to the notion of sin. "When the intelligent creature, knowing God and His law, deliberately refuses to obey, moral evil results." Because sin relates directly to the will in Catholic theology and to obedience, it is evidently in the same category as THEE's evil. The main difference is that «knowing God and His law» cannot be entrusted to any religious authority, given their long record of ghastly violations of humane behaviour.
Originally posted: 7-Dec-2012