Posted 30 July 2008 - 09:58 PM
I think that before we state whether evil exists or not, is absolute or relative, and fling examples of "evil", we should all define what is evil.
With respect to the perspective of humans, evil is the nature of any intent that induces malicious actions for the purpose of serving to one or more base desires. By base desires, I refer to any selfish wants, especially ones that are secular AND do not support a group's cause (that is not evil). It is up to society to collectively determine what actions are evil.
One caveat to the definition above. What is evil should not be confused with what is "wrong". One who committed "wrong" actions is not necessarily evil because he or she did not carry malicious intent; however, evil actions are unequivocally wrong. For example, Manslaughter is wrong (at least in the USA), but not evil.
To clarify my point, a perfect example of an evil person is Joseph Stallin, the dictator of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1953. In short, he was responsible for ruining the economy, thus creating wide-spread famine and, without providing any relief, killed millions of Russians. He imprisoned opposing writers, professors, and officials to the Gulag labor camps. Furthermore, he ordered assassinations on his closest comrades, who served him during the Russian Civil War, and even murdered his 2nd wife. Worse yet, he ushered propaganda to condemn the innocent of his own crimes so that he appeared innocent before his Russian citizens. All of this was done for one reason only - to keep himself in authority of the Soviet Union. That is, in my definition, evil.
A lot has been said about power, but there wasn't a clear connection between power and evil. From the posts, it seems that people are implying that power is evil. Or that the one with more "power" is evil. In either case, both are incorrect. But, before delving into this inaccuracy, it is imperative that power has a definition. From what I see, I am interpreting that the power we are talking about is authoritative power, or the power that is vested in a position to influence those under that authority.
If that definition is agreeable, then one cannot absolutely correlate power with evil (Again the evil defined above). Leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, President FDR, and so forth had demonstrated peaceful and benevolent exercise of their power. However, Stallin, Hitler, Mussolini, Nero, and other similar dictators/rulers abused their authority and caused millions to suffer. Without going into too much detail about each leader, one can observe that the use of power, and for what purposes, dictates whether or not evil was committed.
Furthermore, I am very skeptical of what avant-garde stated (sorry to point you out). I don't believe that you can prove most of what you say. Is it really true that people are striving towards justice and equality? If so, I would love to live in that sort of world, because what I see is not as idealistic; there is a wide spectrum of goals that people stride forward to, some of which are benevolent, others more selfish, and still more that are apathetic, and the few (I hope just a few) that are purely malicious. I could tell you of many examples, but its best to turn on the news, or read books and articles about human history.
I'm also doubtful about the following , "It is a myth that democracy allows people to impartially divide power and make more effective decisions than people have done in the past. In democratic societies, conflicts still exist wherever one looks. The majority uses its powers to tilt the law in favor of itself. The same applies to a monarch who uses martial law to exert his influence. Whether it be in the form of the populace or the military, power always allows one party to win while leaving the other dissatisfied.
First, it has no application to the definition of evil, or the nature of democracy. You're simply stating that the majority enjoys its political influence, while the minority is subject to the former's political power. Whether its evil or not depends on what the majority decides; Cruelly enslaving the minority for petty whims would be evil, but providing funds to public schools instead of public hospitals is not necessarily evil.
Second, I can agree that democracy doesn't impartially divides power (whether it was a myth or not that can be contended in another soompi forum). But, in comparison to communism or dictatorship, democracy is a boon, since people, not a person, are more effectively able to make decisions. Because of democracy, the people are generally represented better in making decisions compared to oligarchies and monarchies. Futhermore, in the US, checks and balances are installed into the government. So, even if the majority has power over the populace, there are balances that help prevent abuse of the majority's power. Now, it may be true that not everyone is "satisfied", but it works better than Communism. If you don't agree, name me one existing country that is purely communist. Dictatorships can be either a hit-or-miss, depending on the leader. Usually though, from what I've read, its a miss because it only takes one mad man to devastate a country.
Wow. Okay I'm done talking
