Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 20 Woe unto them that call evil good. Rashness was called courage, and prudence timidity, and treachery cleverness, and honesty stupidity. That deliberate perversion is in all ages the ultimate outcome of the spirit that knows not God, and therefore neither fears nor loves Him, whether it shows itself in the licence of profligacy, or the diplomacy of Machiavellian statesmen, or the speculations of the worshippers of Mammon. Pulpit Commentary Verse
On this view we can more accurately, and less perniciously, understand and describe morally despicable actions, characters, and events using more pedestrian moral concepts such as Good to evil and wrongdoing.
By contrast, evil-revivalists believe that the concept of evil has a place in our moral and political thinking and discourse. On this view, the concept of evil should be revived, not abandoned see Russell and Someone who believes that we should do away with moral discourse altogether could be called a moral-skeptic or a moral nihilist.
Evil-skepticism is not as broad. Evil-skeptics believe the concept of evil is particularly problematic and should be abandoned while other moral concepts, such as right, wrong, good, and bad, are worth keeping.
Evil-skeptics give three main reasons to abandon the concept of evil: The monsters of fictions, such as vampires, witches, and werewolves, are thought to be paradigms of evil.
These creatures possess powers and abilities that defy scientific explanation, and perhaps human understanding. Many popular horror films also depict evil as the result of dark forces or Satanic possession.
Some evil-skeptics believe that the concept of evil necessarily makes reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or creatures. Evil-revivalists respond that the concept of evil need not make reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or monsters.
The concept of evil would have explanatory power, or be explanatorily useful, if it were able to explain why certain actions were performed or why these actions were performed by certain agents rather than by others. Evil-skeptics such as Inga Clendinnen and Philip Cole argue that the concept of evil cannot provide explanations of this sort and thus should be abandoned.
According to Clendinnen the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification.
To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible see Clendinnen81; see also, Pocock Joel Feinberg also believes that evil actions are essentially incomprehensible.
But he does not think that we should abandon the concept of evil for this reason. Similarly, Cole believes that the concept of evil is often employed when we lack a complete explanation for why an action was performed.
For instance, we might wonder why two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venerables, tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger while other ten-year-old boys with similar genetic characteristics and upbringings cause little harm?
Cole believes that the concept of evil is employed in these cases to provide the missing explanation.
However, Cole argues that the concept of evil does not provide a genuine explanation in these cases because to say that an action is evil is just to say either that the action resulted from supernatural forces or that the action is a mystery.
To say that an event resulted from supernatural forces is not to give a genuine explanation of the event because these forces do not exist.Violence and evil are no strangers to our world, and they are never going away. However, if we learn to recognize the sources of derelict behavior, we may be able to intervene and prevent good.
In religion, ethics, philosophy, and psychology "good and evil" is a very common dichotomy. In cultures with Manichaean and Abrahamic religious influence, evil is usually perceived as the dualistic antagonistic opposite of good, in which good should prevail and evil should be defeated.
Good and evil are not actually real, they are made up in the human brain. People see them differently, because everything involving good and evil are moral dilemmas.
Let's use Star Wars as an example. Apr 11, · This feature is not available right now.
Please try again later. 1. Evil-Skepticism Versus Evil-Revivalism. Evil-skeptics believe we should abandon the concept of evil. On this view we can more accurately, and less perniciously, understand and describe morally despicable actions, characters, and events using more pedestrian moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing.
From evil—physical, moral, and political—it is not our claim to be exempt. But the evil has come with the good, and much fine gold has been corroded. Be it considered, also, that men often overestimate their capacity for evil.