I thought long and hard for years on this and I came up with my own definition for evil. I think it's accurate and want to know if anyone disagrees or has a better blanket definition.
I believe true evil is the choice of one's own WANTS at the expense of the NEEDS of others.
Anyone?
2006-07-26 11:51:07 · 12 answers · asked by jsblakemore 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I thought long and hard for years on this and I came up with my own definition for evil. I think it's accurate and want to know if anyone disagrees or has a better blanket definition.
I believe true evil is the choice of one's own WANTS at the expense of the NEEDS of others.
Anyone?
Good answers so far. I admire the though and effort MOST of you have put into this. MOST of your answers are enlightening and thought provoking. Do I have to choose a "best" answer? It seems unfair.
2006-07-26 12:18:29 · update #1
Good answers so far. I admire the thought and effort MOST of you have put into this. MOST of your answers are enlightening and thought provoking. Do I have to choose a "best" answer? It seems unfair.
2006-07-26 12:19:33 · update #2
true evil is the act performed by someone who's taken into account the consequences of their actions as well as their impact, and dismisses them completely.
2006-07-26 12:06:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
What if someone wanted to kill you, but you wanted to live?
Would it be evil for you to choose to defend yourself at the possible expense of that other person's life?
Though I generally agree with the spirit behind your definition, it needs more refinement in order to be workable no matter what context.
Here's a link to a reference on how life can be divided into various
dynamics: http://www.earthorganization.org/Dynamics.aspx
After reading this, you might consider a definition of evil to be any action which threatens the survival of the greatest number of dynamics. Check it out. There are only 8 dynamics represented.
2006-07-26 19:05:59 · answer #2 · answered by Bizthin 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but your answer does not describe true evil. For example, what if the person fulfilling his wants doesn't know about the other person's needs. Let's say I open the last bag of frozen peas because I want peas for dinner, and then I find out my wife needs frozen peas for a twisted ankle. Is that really what you mean by true evil?
2006-07-26 19:02:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certainly. Great definition.
Sounds like the Catholic Church.....chooses its own WANTS (power, wealth, control) at the expense of the NEEDS of its own believers (truth, comfort, real answers) and others (right to choose own beliefs, right to life, etc.)
2006-07-26 18:58:45 · answer #4 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religion
2006-07-26 19:12:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good answer. How about morally reprehensible? But then we would have to ask from where the morals arose. That then leads to origins of humanity. And that's where people begin to argue.
2006-07-26 18:58:07 · answer #6 · answered by nobody 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evil is in the eye of the beholder the same that beauty is. Learn not to label.
2006-07-26 18:55:09 · answer #7 · answered by American Spirit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Excellent! May I suggest...
"Evil is when WE redefine good and evil" --as in the situation of Adam and Eve. The snake redefined evil by saying "Did God really say that?"
2006-07-26 19:29:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your definition is too broad. It sounds like you are defining "selfish" not evil.
Webster's definition is better: morally reprehensible
2006-07-26 18:58:52 · answer #9 · answered by senorfrisk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice way to put it.
2006-07-26 18:54:06 · answer #10 · answered by sweetie_baby 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋