What is evil? Why is evil rewarded? Should we be more evil, and if so, how do we know if we've gone too far?

I think, definitionally speaking, evil is what we should not be. There may be vast and wide differences of opinion as to what exactly that is, but the question of 'should we be more evil' is tautalogically "no". If we start thinking we should be more 'evil' then it is time to reconsider what our parameters of evil are.

The houngans of the voodoo religion believe that they must practice both good and evil, as they're two sides of the same coin, and both necessary aspects of life.

But yes, I do wonder, what it is we're considering evil.

Is it suffering or destruction?
Is selfishness?
Is it imbalance or extremism?

I wonder if this is something that is really viewed as evil or if that term has just been borrowed from teh west and the division is more like the Tjapakai fire shamans and water shamans- fire shamans are healers while water shamans specialize in harm- they create 'houses' by cursing stones so that anyone who crosses the stones other than the legitimate owner or one who has been invited will take on the curse, then setting the stones in a circle. They also act as enforcers for the tribe, casting curses on those who have broken it's laws. As such their power might be described as dark or banefull but within that community and with constraint of use it is not considered evil.

Silveroak, I assume you're responding to my comment regarding houngans? From what I've read that is correct - they learn to use dark arts as a form of social control, for community-based justice (my research being the book, the Serpent and the Rainbow).

However, since we don't have a solid definition of 'evil', I don't see any reason why they or we can't apply it. I consider prison evil, but I think it's a necessary evil.

Short and semi-snarky answer: Evil is putting your own desires before those of others.

But what about the saying, "Save yourself before you save others?"

Then there are other sayings like....

"Nice guys finish last."
"Kill or be killed."
*Women play games that is why men should be players."

I really do not know if I should believe in these so-called truisms. I do not know how much people believe in these as well. There are people who say that these things are bad, immoral and unethical but in practice they think it is necessary for survival.

Remember Enron? Right now the people who blew the whistle on them are having a hard time getting a job. Why? It is because the other people who lost their jobs in Enron are now working for other companies. The people who blew the whistle on Enron did the right thing and they deserve to be rewarded. But where is their reward?

I also face similar dilemmas in the workplace. I am starting to believe that it doe snot matter if an act is good or bad. What matters is that actions have rewards and consequences. Some have more rewards and some have more consequences.

Is there such a thing as being too good? Is being too good no longer good but holier-than-thou vanity?
This message was last edited by the player at 11:12, Wed 19 May 2010.

I would have to grossly disagree with GMC's definition of evil. After all anything we do is for our own benefit, whether physically spiritually or emotionally, and in keeping with our own desires. If Mother Theresa put her own desire to help the poor above the desire of church leaders to exploit her name for publc relations is that evil? If Bush put the the desire of bank executives to get filthy rich above his own desire to have a strong presidential legacy is that good? I'm not saying that these are teh exact motivations of either person or those arround them but it clearly illustrates how this model breaks down.

I'd also have to disagree with GMC's definition. Even on the most basic level, my desire to have a sandwich drives up the price of sandwich makings overall, and permanently uses resources which could be used for other purposes. Yet, I really would like a sandwich. Is eating a sandwich evil? What about those darn uppity slaves, who put their selfish desire for freedom above the desires of their owners to make a nice profit? Evil slaves...




I don't think anyone would call them truisms. They're philosophies. Some philosophies are constructive and ultimately drive us forward, others are destructive. Philosophies should be judged on their factual and logical basis, and on the basis of the consequences of following it.



Here's the thing, some evil things ARE necessary for survival. I kill animals and plants that I might live. I take a job when there is a shortage for the same reason. Those are indeed minor evils, as they are causing harm to others. However, they contribute to a greater good - my success, and the success of everyone I serve or who depends on me. Again, prison is an evil - but the good that prison serves clearly outweighs that evil.



It sounds like perhaps you're not struggling so much with the idea of good and evil, but rather the basic application of justice in your normal life - why are good actions not rewarded, why justice isn't applied evenly and everywhere. But the truth is, justice is just something we understand as good, ideal - it isn't a naturally existing state. Natural life is intrisically unjust. Some humans profit from injustice, and seek to expand it.

The problem is, our civilization is built upon the assumption of some level of justice (as all complex civilizations are). We expect we can do business without being excessively predated upon, that we can live reasonably safely. As soon as you lift those limits, our complex and productive form of civilization begins to break down. If I think I can profit more from selling my employer's work to their competitors, no company can afford to be productive. The entire weight of focus shifts from being genuinely constructive to being predatory, parastic, or defensive - none of which ultimately further us as a species.

Perhaps it helps you to know that in the case of those Enron whistleblowers, there really was a heavy reward for their work - it's just that reward went to those they served - the general public, the investors, the people depending on retirement funds, not only at Enron, but all similar companies as well. To properly serve justice does require, to a degree, a willingness to suffer injustice.




I think this is, again, where the ideas of good and evil break down (because they're poorly defined).

Let me turn around and ask you, what is it you wish from life? To die the most stuff? To suffer and challenge yourself the least? Do you wish to leave a better world for your children? To grow into a mature, whole person? To properly experience life in all its fullness? You can't buy or cheat your way to being a full, mature man.