Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:42 pm
After all, lies can be told impulsively, and theft committed with as little forethought; but abduction and murder take planning, strategy and time. This implies that somebody who commits such a crime isn't really acting on "impulse," but by
intention.
And intending, scheming, strategizing, planning and executing evil is quite another level than merely doing evil impulsively.
Those who do have the desire may or may not be able to resist acting upon it, but they don't have the free will not to experience it.
Yes, they can resist. If they can plan, rationalize, excuse, cover up, dissemble, conceal and so forth, they are voluntarily applying their intellection to the task. It would only be those who cannot premeditate, plan, conceal, rationalize, excuse, hide, and otherwise avoid punishment for their crime that we could even fairly imagine "couldn't help it."
We need not make extra excuses for people who should, and do, know better.
I find the term "natural evil" inexplicable. Why do we need to call, or think of, floods and earthquakes as anything other than natural disasters?
That's what some people say. But others ask, "How can you not see a flood that kills a hundred children as an 'evil'? And I grant them the point. Even if we don't use the word "evil," I think it still has to make up some part of our explanation of the order of things that such things happen, and are not good.
So I also would concede your point: there's an absence of malice that applies to "natural evils," so maybe they deserve their own classification.
No problem either way.
I'm not sure what you're getting at when you suggest that people need an explanation for such things, unless you mean they want a scientific explanation in order to satisfy their curiosity, but I don't think you do mean that.
Well, I'm pretty sure THEY don't mean that, and I'm just willing to recognize their concern; that's all.
So I'm not "getting at" anything, really.
You have given examples of what you call Human Evils, but not a definition. What is the difference between something that is bad, and something that is evil?
I don't know if I can parse that for you in a way that fits common usage. I would make, first, a distinction of degree, and I concede your point that I would be more likely to use the word "evil" if malice and premeditation were involved. And I might call something "bad" if it was merely "unhealthy" or "harmful," but not malevolent.
However, the distinction is not a clear one: there are things that might be actually evil that seem, from a mere human perspective, merely "unhealthy." And there are things that might seem blackly sinful, such as, say "adultery," but which are not more so than seemingly-respectable sins like "pride," "slander" or "hatefulness." One would have to look at something like the Sermon on the Mount to grasp just how much the human assessment of what is evil can fall short of the Divine standard.
But I'm not confident to say that my personal feelings about each matter much. What does matter to me is what God calls "evil" or "sin." And I'm prepared to agree with Him, since He knows much more about that question than my mere feelings can tell me.
Malice is central to my definition, and if we think of maliciousness as a scale, evil would simply be the point at the extreme end of it. I do not sense that is your conception of what evil is.
I would say that malice certainly is a "part" of my definition, but not the "sum" of it, and not the
sine qua non of it.
So maybe we start talking about the part on which we agree, yes? You are thinking about
human evils, and about
malice. What are you thinking about them?