Talk:Natural evil

untitled
I don't agree with this statement of Natural Evil. Good and Evil require intent. A thing cannot be intrinsically Evil for its cause of destruction or havoc. An earthquake bears no malice, nor a personality to harbor evil thought. It's a natural disaster without responsibility, so I suggest that Natural Evil refer to something else, someone closer to, say, natural talent for dark deeds than anything else. 204.215.201.128 03:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)The Lord Massacre
 * Are you stating your opinion as something by which the rest of us should redefine our vocabulary? Ventifax 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Context?
This article makes no explanation of in what context Natural Evil is a term with this accepted meaning. Presumably it is in Philosophy and that at least should be stated. Better still it should be stated who / when first introduced this term, and, if an equivalent concept was discussed earlier under other terms (or with no agreed on term).--Ericjs (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Natural Evil
I think the first comment in this thread is more profound than suggested by the dismissive comment which follows it. I offer without proof that most philosophers would agree that concepts of good and evil imply intent. Possibly the very definitions of those words hinge upon circumstances surrounding the occurrence of an act. The killing of a human being may be evil if performed with malicious intent, or good if done in defense of the innocent. Natural disasters, that is, events which were not directly caused by a sentient, reasoning human being, are without moral content. (Something else I offer without proof). From the tone of this article, one may infer that a "natural" event is called "evil" because human beings, seeing the ensuing suffering, offer up some manner of anthropomorphic intent behind a neutral process of nature. Perhaps it may afford some solace to the survivors if evil intent is implicit, as it may lend meaning to suffering. After all, suffering and death for no reason at all is much more difficult to accept than the suffering as victim of evil, which may lend some nobility to death.98.170.196.173 (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the event has a non-human cause, such as an Act of god, would its evilness depend upon the indeterminate sentience of the cause? Drf5n (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this ought to be treated as part of the issue of lack of context? After all, it assumes that the concept of natural evil--that anything that causes suffering is ipso facto evil--is accepted universally. 75.177.89.14 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

untitled2
In my opinion, if an event has a non-human cause, it is meaningless to speak of it's "evilness." The question of evil intent necessarily implies not only a sentient being, but a reasoning one (any animal, such as a vole or even a cockroach, can be sentient, but their actions cannot be ascribed to evil or benevolent intent). Therefore, we may question the evilness of human actions, but events not caused by humans are without moral content. I know this may seem somewhat restrictive, but, once again in my opinion, ascribing evilness or benevolence to natural events is pure projection on our part.Cd195 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should be merged
into Problem of evil 72.228.177.92 (talk)
 * Agree. See Talk:Problem_of_evil and feel free to support. Best Caleb Crabb  09:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)