I don't agree - there's a big difference between someone who is self-centered, greedy, arrogant, and inconsiderate of others (ie lacking common human decency and goodness) and someone who actively goes out to harm others, is cruel, purposely inflicts pain on others, etc. IMO "evil" is active (involves doing, or causing to be done, heinous acts such as rape, murder, torture, etc.)
Ah, let's look at each of your characteristics here.
Self-centeredness - What makes this wrong (however you define the word)? You must answer this question with some form of "Well, because you ought to be x instead." For example, it is wrong because denies generosity (to use only one example). Again, we see that this is in fact a lack.
Greed - What makes this wrong? Same as above, because it is actually a lack of something that is right, namely, empathy for others. Lack of empathy is what we call greed.
Arrogance - What makes this wrong? Same as above, because it is actually of lack of something that is right, namely, humility. A lack of humility is what we call arrogance.
Inconsiderateness - What makes this wrong? Same as above, because it is actually a lack of something that is right, namely, kindness and respect. We call a person who lacks kindness and respect for others inconsiderate.
What about a murderer then? Clearly, they are "evil." I have no problem with that, but what makes it evil? Is it a thing in itself? I don't see how. Why is murder wrong? Give me all the reasons you want. Especially from your teleological ethics, you'll be forced to talk about effects. It is wrong because it takes away another person's life--it is, in essence, theft. But what makes that wrong? Ultimately, theft goes back to greed, which we say is actually a lack of empathy. If you go through the exercise of listing all the things that make up the wrongness of murder, you will actually find that all of them are privations of something that ought to be the case. In other words, it is not the
presence of something that makes it wrong, but the action is wrong because it's nature is that it
lacks something.
To prove the point, what, in the case of murder, is
present in the action that cannot be reduced to a lack of a good attribute?
Yes, a long time ago in college philosophy. Probably no surprise to you, I lean toward the teleological.
No, it doesn't surprise me. It's the most common position taken today, I think. The problem is that no teleologist is really willing to accept it, I don't think. For example, I can justify American slavery under a teleological ethic. The action brought about a greater good for society as a whole, even though a few people had to suffer. But surely you would still say that it is wrong.
In short, teleology believes, ultimately, that the end justifies the means. If the means brings about pleasure, then it is good; if it brings about pain, then it is wrong. But we all can think of instances in which "wrong" things bring about apparently good results, but we still call them wrong. And we can all think of instances in which doing the right thing brings out negative consequences. So, if the end doesn't justify the means in ALL cases, then teleology cannot be a proper system of ethics.
That's why I support virtue ethics. In the end, that's what ALL of us appeal to anyway. We say a person ought to be a certain
kind of person, even if being that kind of person doesn't bring out any particular good. You ought to be a generous, humble, courageous, respectful, loving, etc. person. It is true, of course, that if all of us behaved that way, then the end result would be pretty good! But it doesn't follow from that that the
reason those traits are good is because of what they bring about in the end. I think we've already seen that is the case. So, we have to believe that those traits are good in and of themselves, regardless of what they do or don't bring about. But once we adopt that view, then everything I've been saying above comes fully back into focus. Murder is wrong because it lacks the virtues. Further, a virtuous person is not the kind of person who commits murder
by definition.
It is sad, I think, that we've lost virtue ethics in our culture. That system is the only one, I think, that can solve most of the social problems we see in the world today. And better still, you don't have to be religious to adopt it. Aristotle was hardly a theist, and he was a virtue ethicist.
So, you have two challenges before you to maintain your argument that evil is a thing in itself that God (must have) created:
1. Using the example of murder, list any attribute
present in the action itself that cannot be reduced to a lack of an
ought;
2. Explain how a non-virtuous ethic (i.e., teleology) can consistently account for attributes that are desirable in and of amd for themselves.
