Is Evil Necessary ?

[Loreena]

Apologize for my idiosyncrasies. Sometimes I think evil is attractive. It's necessary in this world or else we won't be able to appreciate good. Can evil be used as an agent to do good things and protect the ones who are weak and innocent.  Just a thought that ran through my mind.  We try to destroy evil by punishing it.  How fair is it for society to play God. Evil ones are generally strong, dominant and aggressive. By gradually weeding them out ,  are we creating a society of Cu*ks and puss**s(sorry for those words but couldn't find a better alternative ). 

I mean even a criminal could be very intelligent and smart. And his potential gets lost when he is put to death. Of course we end up saving many lives in exchange. But rehabilitation can be an alternative solution if found to be effective. 

We say bullies are bad. What if you're caught in a situation where you wanna fight against an unjust system but you feel too weak or passive to speak out. And that bully you hated so much comes around, has a change of heart and decides to fight for you and protects you. Your mind then begins to look at the whole thing in a different way. I know it sounds odd but why do we get stuck with the idea that an evil person never changes. They too have some potential that could be put to good use. There are certain qualities /traits that make such persons formidable. These traits are important in war, fights, combat and protection. We're complex creatures and we're a combination of both good and bad. I imagine the devil having a change of heart and going back and protecting the innocent instead of harming especially when the devil is shown some love. Maybe I'm fantasizing strange things. (aka Stockholm syndrome ) But Is it entirely impossible for evil to change. Is evil excessively used as a scapegoat by a society too hellbent on being righteous and sanctimonious. Is evil sensationalized and exaggerated to feed our morally superior egos. Or is our outrage for evil acts justified. Sometimes I even think that our strong vilification and resistance to evil actually causes people to find it even more appealing. It's like you resist fear and fear grows so maybe when we resist evil too much,  we allow those forces to grow.  

Not sure. Maybe I'm being crazy here.  But I felt like good and evil are two sides of the same coin and there could be a possibility that the outrage we experience is a result of deep social conditioning. And if we weren't conditioned that way,  evil would have been diluted and never existed the way it does. Reformation would then be easier. But Who knows..... . Food for thought. 

Are we losing more through punishment. Is there a way to retain some of the good or transform evil into something protective, strong and formidable but not harmful. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by Loreena
Added we

[Loreena]

Can this topic be moved to self actualization. 

[Prabhaker]

@Loreena

One difficulty is that we cannot accept the evil, although it is inevitably there for some good. Our difficulty is that we place ourselves in the centre of the universe and consider that to be good which is in our favour and that to be evil which is not in our favour. It is just our way of looking at things. It is purely and simply a question of our vision. He who implants his viewpoint on existence is an ignorant person, because existence does not care about your viewpoint. 

Existence is a mystery. What is good? What is bad? It is not as easy as we think and say. When we give our decisions, we only betray our ignorance. Even in small things we at once pass our judgment: this is good, this is bad. What is good and what is bad has never been decided and it never will be. This does not mean that you should do as and how it pleases you. It does not mean that you should go and kill a few people because it is undecided whether this act is good or bad. This I do not mean at all.

If this understanding goes deep within you and you develop the attitude that “I am no judge,” it is impossible for you to commit a crime. Killing is only possible if we decide that a certain person is bad and is not fit to live. Therefore, the more evil we take a person to be, the easier it becomes to kill him. This is why the courts find it very easy to pass a death sentence. The courts gather all the evidence for and against a person and take a decision.

No killer kills as easily as a magistrate. It is now clear to the magistrate that this man must die, though God the creator was still keeping him alive, as yet He has taken no decision regarding him. The magistrate wears a black cloak and gathers a few ignorant people like him around himself and they get together and pass a sentence against this man. What was his crime? Perhaps he has killed a man. Now this is great! This man has killed someone, so he is a bad man. And therefore, we decide to kill him! Courts pass death-sentences very easily, because the law has great power in its hand. The magistrate passes the order, goes home and sleeps leisurely. He in no way considers himself responsible for the death of this man.

In the absence of responsibility man tends to be irresponsible. And irresponsibility is the greatest disaster. A magistrate is an absolutely irresponsible person. He refers to his books, he hears statements, he examines the witnesses and arrives at his judgment: this man must die! He keeps himself absolutely aloof from the whole happening. He considers himself only the medium of justice and law – the law is all written down in books. So he is free to go home and enjoy his evening. He will tune in his radio, or play cards, or call friends to dinner, and sleep happily with his wife. He is in no way concerned about this man’s life and in no way holds himself responsible for his death.

Voltaire says: “When a man commits a sin with the firm intention of doing good, it is the biggest sin he can commit.” So if you want to do evil, you just have to get hold of some concrete moral reason to do so and then you can indulge in your act without any qualms of conscience. All battles in life are fought on this principle; all politics in this world works on this formula. You first have to prove that what you are going to do is not bad, is not wrong. Then it is easy to start the battle. Once you start, the opponent also feels it is his moral duty to kill you.

But I tell you that a religious man never makes a decision. He says, “We are helpless; we are steeped in ignorance. The world is so gigantic, so vast, how can we decide what is good and what is bad?” He never, never makes a decision. Such a man attains to a profoundly deep sainthood. Such a man never condemns, never praises.

“Such a person,” Lao Tzu says, “becomes a veritable child, as sweet as he is tender. He becomes artless, like a child.”

Osho, The Way of Tao, Vol 2, Ch 7

22 minutes ago, Loreena said:

Evil ones are generally strong, dominant and aggressive. By gradually weeding them out ,  are we creating a society of Cu*ks and puss**s(sorry for those words but couldn't find a better alternative ). 

Now I understand why girls love bad boys !

[Prabhaker]

32 minutes ago, Loreena said:

Evil ones are generally strong, dominant and aggressive. By gradually weeding them out ,  are we creating a society of Cu*ks and puss**s(sorry for those words but couldn't find a better alternative ). 

Our morality is politics to adjust in society. If someone is really innocent , he will become a Buddha.

All meditation, prayer, spiritual journey is meant for sinners. But so called good persons are cunning, they pretend to be good, if you can read all their thoughts and emotions, you will be surprised, they are not as good as they pretend.

 Evil ones can be considered as honest , because they do not pretend to be good, and certainly they are stronger because they have courage to go against society. 

[Prabhaker]

1 hour ago, Loreena said:

Maybe I'm being crazy here.  But I felt like good and evil are two sides of the same coin and there could be a possibility that the outrage we experience is a result of deep social conditioning. And if we weren't conditioned that way,  evil would have been diluted and never existed the way it does.

There is no way to decide what is good and what is bad. If there were no human beings on earth, would there be anything good or bad? There would be no good and no bad because goodness and badness are human distinctions, mental distinctions. If there were no human beings on earth would there be any flower that was ugly or any flower that was beautiful? There would only be flowers flowering; the distinction would not be there.

You say “this is evil” and “that is good.” But if, for example, Adolf Hitler’s mother had killed him during his childhood, would it have been good or bad? She would have been a criminal and they would have punished her for it. But now, looking back, we can say that it would have been a most moral act: by killing her child she could have saved the whole world.

Words such as good and bad are just expedient, utilitarian; they are not existential. We cannot exist without classifying things as either good or bad because otherwise society would be impossible.

This must be clearly understood. Definitions are not ultimate truths, they are relative. There is not a single act that cannot be considered good in some context. A good deed can be bad in one context and a bad deed may be good in another. If you are to make any final judgment you will have to know everything from the very beginning to the very end – everything in the whole of existence. But of course, this is impossible.

All our statements about good and bad, beauty and ugliness are nothing more than traffic regulations. We have to make them, but they are not ultimate truths. “Keep left” or “keep right” – it makes no difference. But no society can do both: either you have to keep right or you have to keep left. The rule is utilitarian; it is neither natural nor ultimate.

The road is absolutely unconcerned with whether you keep to the right or to the left, but traffic does require certain rules. When there is less traffic you do not have to make any rules; but the more confusing the traffic, the more rules will be needed. In a village there is no need for traffic rules, but in a big city rules are needed.

As society develops in a more complex way, a more clearly defined morality is needed; otherwise you will not be able to live. But these moralities, these conceptions of good and bad, are human expediencies.

[Bob84]

@Loreena good and evil are both illusions and only based on your beliefs and opinions. And ofcourse this also aplys to larger groups.

Most of what we would generaly agree on are evil people dont believe they are evil or are doing evil.

So in a sense you could say that good and evil is just a agreement or disagreement 

[Bob84]

5 minutes ago, Nichols Harvey said:

..... considered bad by the rest of us.

 

 Thats the point im trying to make. 

Not so long ago. Burning people alive that had a certain belief was considerd good by that same rest.