"Not good" is not at all the same thing as "evil". Sparks completely fails to account for neutral or indifferent acts.
Evil, like good, requires intentionality. If I get distracted while driving and hit you I'm not evil, just careless. If I see you and decide to run you down, that's evil.
As for "what God wants is good; all else is evil", that postulates a pretty limited and petty God. Personally, I think there are many things that God neither wants nor doesn't want. At the risk of sounding like I'm trivializing this, God doesn't care which grocery store I go to, y'know?
Christianity (as far as I can tell, not being of that persuasion) teaches that people are born evil. I believe that people are born neutral, with the capacity for both good and evil acts. It is very, very rare for a person to be good or evil, because that would imply a level of consistency in behavior that I believe is beyond human ability. Actions (in their contexts) are good or evil or neutral; most people aren't. (Yeah, when the balance is so far in one direction I'm willing to make a declaration about a person, even if he has some contrary acts. But we're talking about Hitler and the like here, not your next-door neighbor.)
Clearly, his point-of-view was Christian. Like the other few non-Christian responders to this, I also found the logic of "evil is a lack of goodness like cold is a lack of heat" quite wanting.
Intention is being ignored in his argument and it seems to me that this is typically Christian as well. Freud's theories, despite coming from a Jew who should have known better, reflected this same notion of humans as inherently evil. As a Jew by birth and a Jewddhist by inner guidance, I find that evil requires intentional behaviors. Yes, there is evil-by-omission, a sort of passivity or non-action that decreases "good" but the BIG EVIL that he seems to mean requires effort. If we continue with Hitler as an example, he certainly had to put much effort and resources into all that was required to make The Final Solution at all workable, and in the end he still failed.
Both good and bad [behaviors] are choices, choices of action or inaction depending upon the specific circumstances, at least as I see it. Having been raised without the concept of original sin and the inherent badness/evil of humans has been one of the greatest gifts of my life. I generally look at people behaving 'badly' and without judgment feel that inaction is what is causing them the most harm or having them creating a detriment to their surroundings. [Yes, I realize that I've had quite a bit of what others might deem "evil" in my life. I think the inaction, the choice to remain insane and not deal with the burden of the insanity and the social ramifications, is the prevalent force at work with The Worm. I'm not saying that I forgive and forget the "evil" actions that were caused by the insanity but I am much more troubled by the choice to remain the same and not deal with the obvious problems than by the fact that problems were present. Growing up outside the concept of EVIL has given me a perspective that is at odds with American [read: Christian] society. How unusual for me!]]
Overall, I think "evil" is a religious monotheistic [mostly Christian and post- Christian] experience and construct. It is certainly not a natural nor measurable on the way temperature is.
My question: Why the need to define a subjective term in an objective manner? Is this foundation for judgmentality to become synonymous with something that is objectively measurable? My personal experience is that that is the nature of American Protestantism. I'm highly uncomfortable with it.
Yes, he fails to account for neutral or indifferent acts. I don't think that's a fundamental flaw in his model, because all he'd have to do is tack on another paragraph saying, "Of course, this only pertains to acts with moral weight to them; some acts are of indifferent value." Whoops ... hmm ... I'm not sure whether he can account for neutral though.
Okay, come to think of it, without that hypothetical extra paragraph, I guess one could interpret any "not specifically 'good' (towards-God)" act as being absolutely evil simply by its lack of goodness; if that's what he meant then that's a BIG problem, but I doubt that's what he meant.
"At the risk of sounding like I'm trivializing this, God doesn't care which grocery store I go to, y'know?"
No, that doesn't sound like you're trivializing the discussion; it sounds like you're pointing out that within the scope of the discussion there exist some things which are trivial.
"Christianity (as far as I can tell, not being of that persuasion) teaches that people are born evil."
Depends on the sect. For some, oh yes. For others a better adjective would be "imperfect", rather than "evil". (Personally, I believe that people are basically good in the sense of wanting to do good, but are just often kind of bad at it. Don't we call someone with no desire to do right and/or no concept of right and wrong, a "monster" or a "[psycho|socio]path"? So even the folks who stake out a philosophical stance that humankind is essentially evil don't act as though they entirely believe that.)
Your point about actions vs. people is a good one.
(no subject)
Evil, like good, requires intentionality. If I get distracted while driving and hit you I'm not evil, just careless. If I see you and decide to run you down, that's evil.
As for "what God wants is good; all else is evil", that postulates a pretty limited and petty God. Personally, I think there are many things that God neither wants nor doesn't want. At the risk of sounding like I'm trivializing this, God doesn't care which grocery store I go to, y'know?
Christianity (as far as I can tell, not being of that persuasion) teaches that people are born evil. I believe that people are born neutral, with the capacity for both good and evil acts. It is very, very rare for a person to be good or evil, because that would imply a level of consistency in behavior that I believe is beyond human ability. Actions (in their contexts) are good or evil or neutral; most people aren't. (Yeah, when the balance is so far in one direction I'm willing to make a declaration about a person, even if he has some contrary acts. But we're talking about Hitler and the like here, not your next-door neighbor.)
Sure he does...
They are room temperature.
[/snark]
Concepts of Neutrality and Intention are missing
Intention is being ignored in his argument and it seems to me that this is typically Christian as well. Freud's theories, despite coming from a Jew who should have known better, reflected this same notion of humans as inherently evil. As a Jew by birth and a Jewddhist by inner guidance, I find that evil requires intentional behaviors. Yes, there is evil-by-omission, a sort of passivity or non-action that decreases "good" but the BIG EVIL that he seems to mean requires effort. If we continue with Hitler as an example, he certainly had to put much effort and resources into all that was required to make The Final Solution at all workable, and in the end he still failed.
Both good and bad [behaviors] are choices, choices of action or inaction depending upon the specific circumstances, at least as I see it. Having been raised without the concept of original sin and the inherent badness/evil of humans has been one of the greatest gifts of my life. I generally look at people behaving 'badly' and without judgment feel that inaction is what is causing them the most harm or having them creating a detriment to their surroundings.
[Yes, I realize that I've had quite a bit of what others might deem "evil" in my life. I think the inaction, the choice to remain insane and not deal with the burden of the insanity and the social ramifications, is the prevalent force at work with The Worm. I'm not saying that I forgive and forget the "evil" actions that were caused by the insanity but I am much more troubled by the choice to remain the same and not deal with the obvious problems than by the fact that problems were present.
Growing up outside the concept of EVIL has given me a perspective that is at odds with American [read: Christian] society. How unusual for me!]]
Overall, I think "evil" is a
religiousmonotheistic [mostly Christian and post- Christian] experience and construct. It is certainly not a natural nor measurable on the way temperature is.My question: Why the need to define a subjective term in an objective manner? Is this foundation for judgmentality to become synonymous with something that is objectively measurable? My personal experience is that that is the nature of American Protestantism. I'm highly uncomfortable with it.
(no subject)
Okay, come to think of it, without that hypothetical extra paragraph, I guess one could interpret any "not specifically 'good' (towards-God)" act as being absolutely evil simply by its lack of goodness; if that's what he meant then that's a BIG problem, but I doubt that's what he meant.
"At the risk of sounding like I'm trivializing this, God doesn't care which grocery store I go to, y'know?"
No, that doesn't sound like you're trivializing the discussion; it sounds like you're pointing out that within the scope of the discussion there exist some things which are trivial.
"Christianity (as far as I can tell, not being of that persuasion) teaches that people are born evil."
Depends on the sect. For some, oh yes. For others a better adjective would be "imperfect", rather than "evil". (Personally, I believe that people are basically good in the sense of wanting to do good, but are just often kind of bad at it. Don't we call someone with no desire to do right and/or no concept of right and wrong, a "monster" or a "[psycho|socio]path"? So even the folks who stake out a philosophical stance that humankind is essentially evil don't act as though they entirely believe that.)
Your point about actions vs. people is a good one.