Is evil still evil if the person committing the evil act firmly believes it is right?
Discuss.

Evil is always evil in God's sight, but sometimes we have unclear vision. If a person is truly doing something evil, though they are fully deceived into thinking it is right, it is still evil. Their perception simply needs enlightening.

However, there are some things that are not evil, yet people would still be sinning by doing. For example, for some people, different manners of dress would be sinful for them, yet not for others. Some things come down to a person's relationship with God, and other things are clearly defined by God as evil.

Good can be bad, but bad can never be good. It's a bit exclusive.

Ah, yes, but here's one for you.
If a child had never been taught not to do something-steal, for instance-so had no inkling that it was wrong, and took an apple off a stand without being noticed and without feeling shame or knowing it was wrong, is it considered sin?

Yes.

( That was a positively Varon-ish thing to say...)

Everyone has a conscience that had to be seared in order for them to become that way, so I would say it's sin but they have blinded/desensitized themselves to it.

I also agree with everything else posted here so far.

Here you come to the question of subjective-versus-objective worldview.

The question is that if a person does something evil but does't know it's evil is it still evil?

Now, if we were to say no, it is only evil to those who know it is evil, we are using a subjective worldview. Right and wrong are subject to individuals and the knowledge given to them.

However, if we were to say yes, we affirm that evil is evil no matter what. Why? Because it is defined as evil by an objective code of morality. Our world functions on this principle. (At least it should. )

Our laws are objective. The law says that it is illegal to murder someone. Homicide will get you arrested, imprisoned and possibly executed. This is an objective code of conduct.

However, if the law was subjective, then while murder was wrong for someone, it might be okay for someone else, because they either don't believe it to be wrong or they believe that it is completely justified. This is clearly an obvious problem!

The question is this: is wrong wrong? Ultimately, this leads to the question, what defines what is wrong?

As Christians, we hold to the objective moral code from God's Word. The Bible clearly shows how God feels about such things as lying, immorality, and murder. Based on the Scripture we know what is wrong, God has also, by an act of common grace, given to men a conscience to testify that their deeds are evil, (Rom 2:14-15) which is given to them by God. God has testified through His creation that their deeds are evil, based on His own objective moral code. Men corrupt it, they deny it, and they sear their consciences to these most basic rules of right and wrong, but the standards God has set are right and wrong regardless of what men think, because God has defined it and He is the only One with the right to define it.

Being Christian, shouldn't we reflect this worldview? In our fiction we should strive to present the objective moral code of Scripture, which clearly defines right and wrong. So, yes, if a person does and evil thing, regardless of what he wants to think of it as, it is still evil, because right is right and wrong is wrong.

So, sorry for the long rambling post. Thanks for reading if you made it this far.

Sorry for two posts, but I think this question is answered by Bush Maid in her last sentence of this quote:



They just need to be enlightened.

*whole-heartedly agrees with everyone else *

Actually, this is a very cool concept to show in books. I don't really deal with it in my trilogy, but I do show you how twisted the villain’s mind is. He believes he is purging the land in an effort to restore things and build things strong, truths imparted to him by his beloved father. We all know this is wrong, but Dunndar is completely convinced he is "helping" and making things "better", you see?

Yes. I'm not struggling over the question myself, I just wanted to see what other people had to say on the subject.
Very interesting so far.

*has played devil's advocate many times, so totally understands that *

*grins* I thought that was the case. It ish a good way to get answers.

@Airi - Your villain sounds really interesting.

These villains are reminding me of people like the terrorists today-they believe they're doing the right thing, too...

Thanks, wolf. In an eerie kind of way, I am fond of Dunndar....

You're welcome. Yeah...I know the feeling.

I would more or less agree with what has been stated here. I'd just like to add:

While the moral nature of an act (good, evil, or indifferent) does not depend on the knowledge of the actor, such knowledge or ignorance can affect his culpability.

For instance, if a person threatens me with a fake gun in order to take my money, it would probably be wrong to use deadly force in my own defense (the robber, after all, represents no genuine threat to my life). However, if I reasonably believe the gun to be real, I would contend that I am not culpable for the act of murder when I kill him, even though objectively, yes, that was wrong.

Good point, Sam.

I have an interesting story for you. When I was young before I was old enough to understand life and death I was playing with a small animal however I played a bit too rough with the animal and it died. I did not mean the animal any harm I was just playing with it. I thought it was having fun too but there it was laying lifeless before me. Remember this was before I even knew what death was. I could tell something was wrong as it wouldn't wake up and I could tell that I was the one who had caused it. Know without being told whether it was right or wrong I realized that I had done wrong. I felt shame. I did not understand it but I had senselessly taken life.

Now I know not everyone has a story like this, and maybe I am just weird, but I feel that we all know what is right and wrong inside of ourselves. We know that there is a God. We know it is wrong to lie. We know that it is wrong to steal. We know it is wrong to kill. We know that it is wrong to lust. We know that it is wrong to hate. God's word is written in each of us that is why the Bible has such power. Because it resounds with what we know to be right. In our hearts no questions asked.

Why then do evil men claim to be doing what is right? Because they are making excuses for the wrong they have done and know to be wrong in their hearts they are lying to themselves that is all.

Or at least that's what I believe on the subject.

P.S. If you're wondering what small animal it was I did not mention it simply because if I did you would feel no sympathy for it.

(A naked mole rat?)
Good thoughts, Dawn, thanks.

Those are interesting thoughts, Dawn....

Thank you.

Yes, quite interesting, Dawn. You also could say that it is every person's conscience that tells them what is right or wrong, if it has been developed enough to be listened to.

Or hasn't been squashed, because that's another thing. (Which I think has been pointed out already?) You can "kill" your conscience, mute it, ignore it, and eventually, you don't notice it anymore. The law may be written on our hearts, but if you shroud your heart in enough darkness, you can't read it anymore. (Maybe not the best or most exact metaphor, but you get the point.)

Conscience can also be rewritten.

You both make a good point however I already made that point by saying that people make excuses. These excuses like stealing isn't as bad as murder are slippery slopes. That in (Extreme) circumstances can even warp into "At least I don't go out of my way to kill someone they were just in my way". I can not stress to you how much that this is just an extreme example however surprising it occurs rather often in modern society.

I hope I didn't kill this thread. It's a good subject.

Doing something evil in the name of doing good, and even believing that you're in the right, doesn't excuse the act. Was Hitler evil or good? After all, he truly believed (or else he was demented, which is a definite possibility) that it was his God-appointed mission to exterminate Jews. Yet that didn't make his actions any more worthy or considered to be good. Even the warped sense of "good" in the world's view grasped this.

But I think we have to define evil, and the only way to do that is from God's standpoint. He ultimately decides what is evil and and what is good, so if we don't begin from that understanding, our conclusions will be skewed.

Divine Command Theory?

That's a misconception Hitler did not like Christians and especially hated Catholics which many claim he was. Hitler believed that Jews were an inferior race and were weakening Germany and the world's gene pool.

Hitler was a secular Occultist. He believed in God and the supernatural but didn't worship anything though he did try to get himself worshiped.

Where are you two getting your information?
Just a reminder, please back up your history with proof. Don't argue over what you think was true.
Thanks!

Anti-Christian:

http://www.answers.org/apologetics/Hitquote.html

http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html

Occultism:

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/thenewage.html

These are not my original sources however I could not post them. As they are at my local library and I can not remember their names though one of them is the book mentioned in the first two. I have also taken a lot in from the History channel.

Sin is sin regardless of context.

Yes and no.

Trivially, what you've said here is a tautology and thus automatically true. Anything is always itself.

However, in determining whether a particular action is a sin, we do need context. Is it a sin for a woman to tell her husband she's going to her mother's house? Depends. Is she going to her mother's house? That's a question of context.

I think Whackem was trying to point out that doing things like killing someone is always wrong, even if you were told your whole life that it was fine, per the title of the thread...

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Murder, Stealing, any of these things regardless of the situation are wrong.

Agreed. Your intentions can be righteous, but that doesn't make actions so. Sin is still sin.

Well, I agree, but keep in mind that those examples already include part of the situation. Murder, for instance, requires a certain set of circumstances, but killing doesn't necessarily, and isn't automatically wrong.

Agreed, Killing isn't always murder, but murder is always killing.

Just as taking something is not always theft but theft is always taking something.

Sorry if I implied that Hitler was favorable toward Christians, which he obviously wasn't. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I meant that he felt it was his duty (and I think he thought God had called him to do it, though I can't remember for sure) to eradicate weaker races. The point is that perceived duty doesn't imply morality.


I'm not sure what you mean by that.


It was a memory stuck in my mind from I'm not sure where, like a lot of things unfortunately. I'll say that that's the way I remember it, but can't offer proof, so I'll leave it at that.


Excellent point.


Okay, here's a thought that just occured to me in light of this statement. What if you have to choose between one or the other? Pick any two sins, say murder and stealing. If a person steals food to save a dying friend, is that wrong? Without the food, his friend would die. If he knew this and didn't steal, and his friend died, would that make him guilty of murder, because he could have prevented it but didn't? I know it's not a perfect example, but how would you handle a more complicated situation like that?

Divine Command Theory is the meta-ethical theory that "what is morally right" or perhaps "the good" is defined as "what God commands." This is not to be confused with the belief that all God's commands are good and morally right, because God is all-good and all-knowing, nor even with the belief that the good and the morally right are rooted in the nature of God Himself. Rather, this is the belief that what is right is what is commanded by God, and moreover, it is right because and only because He commanded it. God could just as easily, under Divine Command Theory, have said "Thou shalt commit adultery," and if He had, it would have been the right thing to do.

There is in my mind no such thing as two options. You always have a choice. at times choices other than those presented may be hard to make out but there is always a third choice.

Which in many situations is the right choice.
You cannot be restricted by the choices others have set before you, survival is constantly adapting to your environment. There is always a way.

Ah, now I understand.


So is that applicable by way of inference, such as God didn't directly command something, but it can be reasonable deduced as falling under the umbrella of His commands?

I'm not sure this works for the negative, namely, if God didn't command such-and-such, it is automatically evil. After all, he didn't order that we use electronics, but that doesn't make using computers and televisions and phones morally wrong (unless of course you use them for evil reasons).

Maybe I could answer this better with an example.



I don't think the theory works even in the positive. But you're right, it doesn't work in the negative, and I doubt there are many who'd try to apply it that way. Divine command theorists are as capable as anyone of recognizing moral neutrality.

If someone is holding my five year old sister hostage, and I shoot a round directly into his cranial ocular cavity, he's dead instantly. Many people would say that that was evil. I killed him. But here is the thing. I didn't murder him. I preserved the life of my baby sister.

Some people say it is a sin for me to take that shot (we won't even talk about shoot to wound, because in a hostage situation, you're a fool to think that that will work)-- even Christians will tell me it is-- but the Bible says it isn't. So, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

But if I shoot someone with the intent to murder, it is a sin. Thus evil is no longer in the eye of the beholder. It's sin. Period.

*grins at gunslinger Kaitlyn* My thoughts exactly. If I were in a situation like that and I had a gun, I would shoot to kill. And I don't consider that evil.

Here's my opinion: Evil is evil, no matter what the intention. Is it wrong to lie? Yes. Is it wrong to lie to save someone else's life? I would still say yes. It is against God's law, and therefore wrong. However, if a third way is nonexistent, then I think we are forgiven for that action even though it was still a sin to commit it.

Divine Command Theory, as useful as it is, is not really self-consistent.

I ask the Divine Command Theorist why God makes the commands that He does?

Clearly, it is because of His Will, which is intrinsically tied to His Nature.

God's Nature is perfect. It is perfect because good is defined by His Nature, which dictates His commands.

If God commanded us to do something "evil", say, to commit adultery, that would contradict His Nature, so He wouldn't command it to begin with. If, on the other hand, His Nature allowed for adultery, His Nature would be completely different than we know it to be. A God with a nature that is different from our own is inconceivable.

But Divine Command Theory demands that, if God were to command adultery, that would either contradict His Nature, or make Him inconceivably different than He actually is.

When taken to a valid, logical extreme, the idea outlives its usefulness.

It is simpler to say that good is derived from God's Nature, and the evil is the absence of good. God is good doesn't mean that God's attributes are good but rather than good is an attribute of God. This supposition makes Divine Command Theory unnecessary and also better aligns with the plain sense of scripture.

What is God's law? And is morality essentially legal in nature?

Lying: Right or Wrong?

*chuckles over Noty's comment *

God's law is the law which he puts forward in the scriptures. Now, this is where it gets complicated, for not all that is in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) is reinstated by Jesus. A lot of the commands in the Hebrew Scriptures were either political commands (commands for the Jewish Government to enforce) or hygiene laws. The moral laws are the ones that are God's main laws, and those are the ones which the New Testament reinforces (though not all are stated by name). Also, Jesus spoke other commands which combined or raised the standard of the Jewish laws.

As for your second question, could you reword it so as to make it easier to understand? I think you are asking if all that the commandments of God are also commanded by the state, but I'm not positive.