Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

"Embodiment of Evil and where it arises"

Posted for Ramzey Sidani
# 6

The idea of evil being an entity that manages to corrupt man is a belief that flows

through many religions and while some individuals belief on evil is that of how an people gauge

their own world views. Evil to some is simply a common day practice for some. However, there

is a strong sense on where we as humans create our own view of how we interpret evil in the

real world.

Epicurus would see that all the things that are arise from our own sensations of the

world. If we sense that something is pleasurable then we sense that it is good. If we sense that

something is painful we sense that is is evil. If our sense of morality is based on good and evil

then our gauge of good and evil was that focused on pain and pleasure. While simple in many

aspects this way of viewing how the way views evil is simple, but it is almost total black and

white. There is no grey area to determine the focus on things such as abortion. Abortion for

many people is robbing an individual the right to their own life. This, in some people’s eyes, is

true evil. Whilst for some abortion is a viable option for certain individuals. The focus is that the

pregnancy is almost a hindrance on the parents of the unborn child to the point the child will be

within a home that is unable to maintain a certain level of stability. So in order to protect the

child and the parents maybe abortion is a viable option.

What if no matter the decision your conscience is the one that will be overall being the

one to make the decision. Freud argued this statement. Consciously your decision are believed

to be decided, but our subconscious is your primary gauge on your conscience. If a decision

bothers you your conscience will seek reprimands, mixed emotions, manifest in your dreams

and everything you do, but if your conscience tells you that it was ok then it won't affect you.

Going back to the abortion example there is a hormone named oxytocin. Which is released

within a mother, this hormone willl have a psychological effect upon the mother if she is

determining on whether or not she should keep her child. Negatively when she sees it seeing as

her offspring, but Freud would also say it is a matter of upbringing because his focus was that

all implications of the conscious self can be brought back to one's childhood self and the

implications it had on their personality.

Evil between these two Philosophers is unique that one would say that everything that

is solely off of one’s sensations, while the other would state it matters solely on the that

individuals focus on how they were raised and what implications of moral judgement were

passed on to them from their childhood. Maybe evil is simply the act of harming another living

thing with the intention of actually wishing harm upon them.


  1. Katie Perry
    April 26, 2016
    Section 4

    Hume on the Existence of God

    There are many questions in philosophy to which no satisfactory answer has yet been given. But the question of the nature of the gods is the darkest and most difficult of all…. So various and so contradictory are the opinions of the most learned men on this matter as to persuade one of the truth of the saying that philosophy is the child of ignorance…
    — Cicero, The Nature of the Gods

    Many philosophers would consider themselves theists: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, and many more. Each had his own reasons for believing in an Almighty God. For example, Aquinas believed in the “uncaused-cause” argument, which explained that there must be a cause to the universe or else the alternative is that nothing caused it, which makes no sense. However, a popular belief during the time of these prominent philosophers and even today is that God must exist because we exist. We are complex beings, and there is no way that we are simply here by chance because everything has a purpose. Take a watch for example: the watch did not simply appear on it’s own. Something – or someone – put it together for a specific purpose, which is to tell time. Take any object for that matter: cars, houses, cell phones. Someone designed these things and put them together in order for them to serve a purpose.

    Now think of human beings – or any living organism for that matter. How much more complex are we then a watch? This line of thinking has allowed many people to come to the conclusion that God – or at least a Creator – exists. This was not enough evidence to convince David Hume. He strongly contradicted this line of thinking – commonly known as the Design Argument - by arguing that just because something simply looked designed doesn’t mean that it is. He thought that making assumptions based on “logic” was not wise, for we can only perceive truth by what we see. In fact, he expresses his thoughts through one of his famous quotes:

    “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”
    — David Hume

    Hume did admit that the Design Argument was most likely the most convincing one to prove the existence of a God; however, it was his intention throughout his works to play the skeptic and disprove this theory – because that is all this argument is. In Part II of his work The Dialogues, he presents an interesting thought that challenges what we perceive as God:

    “But surely, where reasonable men treat these subjects, the question can never be concerning the being, but only the nature of the Deity. The former truth, as you well observe, is unquestionable and self-evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call GOD; and piously ascribe to him every species of perfection. … But as all perfection is entirely relative, we ought never to imagine, that we comprehend the attributes of this divine Being, or to suppose, that his perfections have any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature. (D,2.3/142)”

    So do you agree with the Design Argument or do you take the side of David Hume?

  2. "Maybe evil is simply the act of harming another living
    thing with the intention of actually wishing harm upon them." Sounds about right.