Do you believe that evil exists?

[LA Ute]

Why not answer with your own opinion rather than quoting doctrine? Everyone here knows the doctrine. He asked what WE think.

I'm just saying that I buy the doctrine. That's my opinion.

(EDIT: wuap's post does not ask for our individual opinions, by the way, it simply asks the question.) Stating it a little differently, "Do you believe that evil exists?" is an inherently religious-philosophical question, so I turned to my religious beliefs to state my opinion. Make sense?

[Tim]

I'm just saying that I buy the doctrine. That's my opinion. Make sense?

Sure.

EDIT: LA, in hindsight, my initial comment might have been overly snarky. My apologies -- I didn't intend to be rude.

[LA Ute]

Sure.

EDIT: LA, in hindsight, my initial comment might have been overly snarky. My apologies -- I didn't intend to be rude.

No worries. At least you didn't call me a rude name, like wuap does.

[il Padrino Ute]

If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good.

[taekwondave]

If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good.

Yeah, I would agree with this. But I would suggest that since neither of them "exist" but are merely constructs of our minds used to help wrap them around other concepts, that we take a look at whether we truly need to accept one simply because we have accepted the other. I would be just fine with a world full of good absent the evil. "And God looked upon all that he had created and saw that it was GOOD." I'm fine with that viewpoint. You already see Mormonism trying to do this to some degree. Take their view of the fall. "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy." They seem to already be accepting the idea that the fall was good, despite the rest of the christian world thinking of it as a bad thing. They've constructed that idea to help solve several theological questions that inevitably arise when we accept the idea of the fall as a literal, historical event. I don't look at the fall that way but if you're going to, I would agree with taking that decidedly more positive approach to it. Looking at the fall as a good thing, as something that was "All part of the plan" (homage to Heath Ledger), is on this same road and I think it merits support to some degree. I think tossing aside the fall as a literal event is even more beneficial still, but this is a step in a more positive direction and I like that. If we can't eliminate good and evil (bad) from our vocabulary, I would settle for just eliminating bad.

[Non Sequitur]

If evil doesn't exist, then neither does good.

Why?

[KillerDog]

I've consistently found that my gut instinct regarding whether someone is dangerous or not has been incredibly accurate in my life. The only time it was wrong was when I was an over hormoned punk kid causing trouble in my local mall in Jersey and my friends and I got our asses kicked by one dude.

[il Padrino Ute]

Why?

If only one exists, we wouldn't know what it was. IOW, if evil didn't exist, we wouldn't know what good was, as we would not be able to note what differences there are between both.

[LA Ute]

If only one exists, we wouldn't know what it was. IOW, if evil didn't exist, we wouldn't know what good was, as we would not be able to note what differences there are between both.

Reminds me of something I once heard about opposition in all things....

[taekwondave]

Saying that good and evil exist is like saying that one and three exist. One and three what? Good and evil what? You call things evil like you call things hairy or smelly. But there must be something you are calling that, because hairy does not exist independent of hair. And good and evil do not exist independent of action, thought, will, or as some of you believe, being. Large does not exist by itself but is used to describe the relation of one noun to another. Good and evil are descriptive words and not nouns existing independent of other nouns. The devil may well exist and you may CALL him evil to distinguish him from those you would call good, and God may well exist, and you may CALL Him good, to distinguish him from those you would call evil, but good and evil do not exist independent of some noun that we are trying to describe. You may call someone evil, a thought evil, an action evil, a word evil, if you wish, but to say that evil exists is like saying that hairy or tall or wide or empty or sweaty exist without using them to make reference to some THING. It just doesn't work.

[wuapinmon]

Saying that good and evil exist is like saying that one and three exist. One and three what? Good and evil what? You call things evil like you call things hairy or smelly. But there must be something you are calling that, because hairy does not exist independent of hair. And good and evil do not exist independent of action, thought, will, or as some of you believe, being. Large does not exist by itself but is used to describe the relation of one noun to another. Good and evil are descriptive words and not nouns existing independent of other nouns. The devil may well exist and you may CALL him evil to distinguish him from those you would call good, and God may well exist, and you may CALL Him good, to distinguish him from those you would call evil, but good and evil do not exist independent of some noun that we are trying to describe. You may call someone evil, a thought evil, an action evil, a word evil, if you wish, but to say that evil exists is like saying that hairy or tall or wide or empty or sweaty exist without using them to make reference to some THING. It just doesn't work.

You're not really arguing whether or not evil does exist, you're taking issue with the idea of evil as something substantive in and of itself. I admire your ability to argue your point, but thing about the difference, however subtle, between the question and your point. Does the question presuppose a substantive evil, or is it used as a sort of understood adjectival pronoun?

I leave it to you to argue your point some more, but I just thought I'd interject.

[taekwondave]

You're not really arguing whether or not evil does exist, you're taking issue with the idea of evil as something substantive in and of itself....Does the question presuppose a substantive evil, or is it used as a sort of understood adjectival pronoun?

But you see, that bolded statement is actually an excellent definition of "existence." Something substantive in and of itself. Or in other words, a noun: a person, place, thing, or idea. But good and evil aren't really any of those, even though so many have moved in that direction regarding their understanding of it. Hence the results of this poll. People think that good and evil are nouns. But in the beginning, they were adjectives. "And God looked at ALL he had created and saw that it was GOOD." He didn't see good itself, he saw that his creations were good. He DESCRIBED them as good. Good is an adjective and doesn't exist in and of itself. God didn't say, "I looked upon the earth I created and the good and the evil that I created thereon." He simply said that ALL that he created was "good."

[wuapinmon]

But you see, that bolded statement is actually an excellent definition of "existence." Something substantive in and of itself. Or in other words, a noun: a person, place, thing, or idea. But good and evil aren't really any of those, even though so many have moved in that direction regarding their understanding of it. Hence the results of this poll. People think that good and evil are nouns. But in the beginning, they were adjectives. "And God looked at ALL he had created and saw that it was GOOD." He didn't see good itself, he saw that his creations were good. He DESCRIBED them as good. Good is an adjective and doesn't exist in and of itself. God didn't say, "I looked upon the earth I created and the good and the evil that I created thereon." He simply said that ALL that he created was "good."

Do you speak a Romance language?

Think about what "lo bueno" or "o bono" mean. That which is good, is good. Goodness is a thing. That quality of being good. I think you're splitting hairs. We can call "evil" evil and "good" good, because it's understood that, of course, they refer to things possessed of those qualities. However, I was making reference to the idea that there is an evil "force" or "spirit" or "condition" that exists that we can sense. I'm not sure that it's as simple as I want it to be, but I do believe that I felt the presence of those men before my eyes saw them or my ears heard them.

[Non Sequitur]

If only one exists, we wouldn't know what it was. IOW, if evil didn't exist, we wouldn't know what good was, as we would not be able to note what differences there are between both.

I know lots of good people but no evil people. So, how do I know that the good people are good? Good and evil are not necessarily opposite sides of the coin, especially evil in the religious sense.

[il Padrino Ute]

I know lots of good people but no evil people. So, how do I know that the good people are good? Good and evil are not necessarily opposite sides of the coin, especially evil in the religious sense.

How do you know the people you know are good, if you don't know any evil people? Could you expound a bit more on why good and evil aren't necessarily opposite sides of the same coin?

Also, it's generally accepted that Hitler was an evil man. But how do we know he was evil if good isn't the opposite side of that coin?