Trigger words: evil
Indicator sentences: But what is evil? Where does it come from? Was there a demon acting vicariously through Hitler that was literally putting an invisible force called "evil" directly into his head? Was Hitler motivated by what he believed to be a noble cause? Does his actions alone make the man himself a force of "evil"?
Negotiation parts: I agree that abusing positions of power, especially in ways that result in mass deaths and terror is very unfavorable behavior to the extreme. But the "why" these people did these things is very relevant when questioning whether they, or their actions were "evil". Your treating evil as a thing, not a description. There actions were evil and those monsters were labeled as such. [STA-CITE]> But the "why" these people did these things is very relevant when questioning whether they, or their actions were "evil". [END-CITE]Is it? If we're evaluating his actions on a moral level, his intention behind them is not strictly necessary for the evaluation. A drunk driver who kills another person still did something immoral regardless of *why* they did it. So let me ask you, what is it about the "why" of an action that can absolve someone from the evil label? Google defined evil for me as, "profoundly immoral and malevolent" and attempted genocide seems to fall under that category in my opinion. [STA-CITE]> If we're evaluating his actions on a moral level, his intention behind them is not strictly necessary for the evaluation. A drunk driver who kills another person still did something immoral regardless of why they did it. [END-CITE]A drunk driver is not evil on any level. I would assume in a majority of circumstances a drunk driver has no desire to kill anyone - so even one that would muse the legitimacy of the word evil would probably not label a drunk driver as such. The "why" is *absolutely* necessary when evaluating one's actions on a moral level. [STA-CITE]> what is it about the "why" of an action that can absolve someone from the evil label? [END-CITE]Well, of course I am defending the position that the "evil" label is illegitimate as a whole... But to humor your question with an example... If a man slaughters a family... it is easy to call this person evil on the surface. If the man had a terrible car accident 5 years before... and it materializes in him becoming suddenly very mentally ill and violent... while it makes his actions no less right or easy to deal with... it may effect ones judgement on calling him "evil". Additionally, (though quite a bit bit more far-fetched)... lets say the family were the sole carriers of a terrible plague that could wrought havoc on the population. This man was the only person with this knowledge and had no proof because he had to completely destroy the bodies. It is easy to see this person as evil from the outside looking in. My examples may be a bit lacking, but I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to convey. [STA-CITE]> Google defined evil for me as, "profoundly immoral and malevolent" and attempted genocide seems to fall under that category in my opinion. [END-CITE]This is still the definition of a very abstract concept, and I am defending the position that the concept as a whole is inadequate in representing a person or their actions. > A drunk driver is not evil on any level. I would assume in a majority of circumstances a drunk driver has no desire to kill anyone - so even one that would muse the legitimacy of the word evil would probably not label a drunk driver as such. [STA-CITE]>The "why" is absolutely necessary when evaluating one's actions on a moral level. [END-CITE]Perhaps I was unclear, I wasn't saying the drunk driver's actions were evil. I was saying they were immoral. Morality isn't just "evil" and "not evil." That drunk driver's actions are *morally wrong* regardless of the why, making the why not absolutely necessary when evaluating actions on a moral level. [STA-CITE]> If a man slaughters a family... it is easy to call this person evil on the surface. If the man had a terrible car accident 5 years before... and it materializes in him becoming suddenly very mentally ill and violent... while it makes his actions no less right or easy to deal with... it may effect ones judgement on calling him "evil". [END-CITE]I'm not saying that the why must always be discounted or that it never matters, rather I am positing that there are some actions so immoral that they can be considered evil without regarding the why. We might reevaluate in light of new information, sure, but I can't see any kind of justification for attempted genocide that would make me think I needed to not use the evil label. [STA-CITE]> This is still the definition of a very abstract concept, and I am defending the position that the concept as a whole is inadequate in representing a person or their actions. [END-CITE]Morality itself is an abstract concept, and unless you're saying that we can't evaluate any actions on a moral level at all I don't see any issue with the word evil describing something "very immoral." It's always going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary (unless you believe in absolute morality). [STA-CITE]>But the "why" these people did these things is very relevant when questioning whether they, or their actions were "evil". [END-CITE]I wholeheartedly disagree, and this goes back onto your desire to avoid a religious discussion. People do countless terrible things in the name of religion and believe that they're in the right. If you want to talk about why the things THEY do are "evil", you can't view what they've done through the goggles of a religious set of beliefs and moral codes. You have to take a look at their actions from an **OBJECTIVE** point of view. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. He perpetuated a mindset that bred prejudice and hate. If you look at this from an objective standpoint, just in the cost of human life, Hitler is absolutely terrible. What he did was wrong. What he did was detrimental to human life. He is evil by definition, and that's why we call him evil. We call him a bad man and a terrible person as well, but evil fits in with the book of adjectives we could use to negatively describe such a horrible person. .... To readdress your statement of the "why" being important: If we look at the "why" of why everyone did something bad, nobody would be in the wrong. Everybody has a reason for doing wrong. They might believe they're right in what they do. Maybe they're just psychopaths, in which case the reason for their actions is rooted in a deep mental issue they could not control. No person does things because they WANT to be "evil" or "bad" or "wrong". People do things for other reasons. Being evil isn't the chief concern. Evil is what people perceive you as BECAUSE of your actions, NOT because of how you perceived them. I think youre saying that seeking to understand why someone does something, and understanding why someone does something somehow absolves them from blame or punishment. This is however, not the case. People still have to answer for the consequences of their actions... but drawing a line in the sand and saying "this is evil" and "this is not evil" is making no progress towards understanding why people do such destructive things.. being as that evil, I retain as a literal concept does not exist. Evil is an abstract concept, not inexorably linked to the metaphysical or to something tangible. It's inherently a social construct, and is essentially equivalent to "an action or series of actions or policy that the vast majority of a population would find reprehensible or criminal". In that manner, it is subjective, but there are some things that almost all humans seem to find in common; murdering innocents is one, cannibalism is another. Pedophilia is one that hasn't always been counted but is common in the 21st century. Just because it is a social construct, though, doesn't mean that it isn't real. Stealing a car is seen as reprehensible and criminal but pretty much everyone, but few would describe it as *evil* So there's a magnitude point of the definition as typically used, but the point still stands.
Trigger words: evil (6)
Indicator sentences: Evil is relative to society. It's not necessary for something to have no readily apparent motivation for it to be evil. Evil is just a word. It describes an act that is both immoral *and* heinous. Using an experimental drug on someone without their consent is immoral, even if you think it will cure them. That's not evil. Killing someone because you were driving drunk is heinous, but it was unintentional, and therefore not evil. Raping someone is both heinous and intentionally immoral. That is evil. Again, it's just a word, regardless of it's use in various religious contexts. I contend that an act that is intentional, heinous, and immoral is called "evil" for linguistic convenience.
Trigger words: toxic
Indicator sentences: Common connotation of the word "toxic" usually lines up with "bad." In your case, I think you more mean it to mean "unproductive," but the implication is that it is still an undesirable concept.
Trigger words: Evil
Indicator sentences: Here's the thing: you've constructed a definition for the word that can't really be logically refuted, since people are not purely one thing. You accept that people have different definitions for evil, but you insist an applying a single connotation wherein the word is used in its most extreme, unrealistic sense.
Negotiation parts: With these standards, of course there is no literal evil in the world - just people who perform actions, some of which are so terrible that people are impelled to apply the only word they deem suitable. If "evil" is used to describe certain people or actions, then functionally, it does exist. It exists in the way it which it is applied. If most people would agree that a person or event is evil, then that's what evil is equated with: a person or event deemed bad/harmful/negative to that given extent. What's the point of insisting that evil *must* be some metaphysical, pure source outside the realm of human capability? Or, if you are only defining it as such for the purpose of this argument, why? I think most people (and certainly most people here) would agree that humans are not purely good or evil, so what's the point in strawmanning such an argument? It seems like a more suitable CMV would be something akin to "I believe there are no supernatural forces behind our actions" or "I do not believe in the devil" or "I believe every person in history has some redeeming qualities" - all claims that could be more precisely argued in relation to the idea of evil. But you're arguing the validity of an abstract concept, and you're arguing against a meaning that is not necessarily how it is used or received by a significant portion of people. I agree, that in the format of CMV - I should have chosen a more focused topic. I will absolutely take your council into account in any future topics I create. Thank-you for bringing this to mind.