Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sbcs!debray From: debray@sbcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: what IS evil Message-ID: <390@sbcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16-Jun-83 14:59:39 EDT Article-I.D.: sbcs.390 Posted: Thu Jun 16 14:59:39 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jun-83 05:42:59 EDT Lines: 33 Here's a question that arose in a discussion with a friend over lunch the other afternoon, and I thought I'd toss it onto the net. The question is, What is evil? Consider, for example, the construction of a torture device. My friend contends that this act, of itself, is evil. *My* opinion is that the evil is in the actual use of the device for torture. In this case, the act of constructing the torture device might be labelled evil because the intention in constructing it was evil (I'm being a little loose here: we really haven't defined "evil" yet - but that's what the question is about! For the time being, let's begin with some intuitive notion of "evil" and try to refine the idea.), but what about actions where the intentions are not clearly defined, or whose consequences can have either good or bad implications? Consider, for example, nuclear fission. Was Fermi's act of constructing a self-sustaining chain reaction good, or evil? It seems to me that the consequence of that act - atomic power - was not, of itself, necessarily good or bad; it's good if used for a "good" purpose, e.g. generating power, as a power source for space vehicles like Pioneer-10, and bad if used for "bad" purposes, e.g. for killing people. I myself believe in a "relative value system" (as opposed to an "absolute value system"), where things (objects, actions) are not good or evil of themselves, but become so only when evaluated in a context. I'm interested in hearing what others think about this. Saumya Debray ...philabs!sbcs!debray