Evil implies a root causation beyond the control of the person. I ask you, where does evil always come from in your methodological understanding? To use evil as an emphasized form of bad behavior is common and effective, but to adopt evil as some possessive ether from satan is stepping into a box of religious dichotomies I don’t believe exist in the natural environment, conscious or physical that we exist in.
Discussion
I disagree with that first premise; I don't think evil implies some root causation outside the control of the individual. I view evil as a privation of some good. What is good is perfectly natural, and easy to discern: life, health, well-being, and so on. If any of these things are lacking to the individual, that is an evil, generally speaking. Intentionally bringing about such an act in oneself or another is a moral evil.
I think you may be misunderstanding my position on what exactly evil is. Describing it as a "possessive ether from satan" gives evil a positive existence in its own right, and that's simply not how I conceive of it. Evil is lack. It's not the antithesis to good or holiness, because the antithesis of something is itself a thing. Evil isn't a thing, but instead it is the lack of thingness, or some aspect thereof.
So would you consider siege, blockading, or sanctioning a belligerent country in a time of war an evil since that deprives combatants and noncombatants of resources?
Yes I would. If sanctions or blockades are used, they should be as targeted as possible. Destroying a belligerent government's ability to produce weapons or other war materiel would be an effective and moral use of siege tactics, but robbing the population of necessary food supplies, for instance, would be immoral.
Well, the Bible says in rough paraphrasing that all that is good comes from god. If we’re going to wrestle with these concepts in that box, we better follow the rules of engagement, lack of good in a dichotomy would be nothing, the antithesis of good is nothing if we are going to give Lucifer a fair shake here…it follows that evil has to come from Satan, because Satans’s influence is the opposite of God’s influence. No? Happy thanksgiving btw! 🦃 I’m not sure you’re American, so no insinuation intended!
Happy Thanksgiving! I am American, and (usually) proudly so! 🇺🇸
Thinking of a different conversation with nostr:npub16llpfttm85ltrqc5ggyu5snfq38x6vwhanyrhrddpn43ylt3wdxqa99rf5—Satan is the ultimate critical theorist; all he does is critique and tear down, he doesn't build up. Saying evil came from Satan as good comes from God is giving evil too much credit. To that extent, you don't need the devil to have evil. Taking evil to be privation—privation doesn't require a source. One who tears down without setting up an alternative is not offering the opposite in a dichotomy, he is just destroying. Both natural and moral evil are possibilities, with or without the devil, whenever you are dealing with things that exist.