Although I don't dispute the purity of geeorgee's intentions this kind of subject, just in itself, still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's the reason why I hated studying philosophy in college. The common thread throughout the history of philosophy has been the refusal to acknowledge the difference between questioning everything and just pretending not to know everyday facts--usually the meanings of everyday words.

Here's the thing: there are *tons* of words we understand the concept of very well in an intuitive, or at least non-verbal, way and yet still couldn't adequately define for the purposes of a dictionary if our lives depended on it. How would you define "existence"? Not by synonym, I mean, and not with any sort of circularity? But you still know when something is there and when it is not. If I ask you whether there's a rock in my path you don't ask what it means to be "there" in the first place, you just glance down and say "yes" or "no". That's not to say that you'd know how to articulate the concept of "there" if I asked you to. Another example would be time. What is time? We don't even really know, and to the extent that we do it's awfully hard to express, as it's difficult to define the term without reference to change and then define change without reference to time. Nonetheless, we can still answer questions *about* the time just fine. I don't have to wax philosophical about the meaning of time itself to know the meaning of my computer clock when it says "9:36", as it does now. In the same way we know evil when we see it. That's all we really need. It is the defiance of conscience or specific virtues. No reason to pick that apart. It's not about the semantics. It's about the *idea*. Comprehension and articulation are two very different things.

These things can be fun to ponder idly but there really is no point to extended discussion about them. Where can it lead you?

Izzaiah, a man can very easily do actual wrong while *consciously* believing that he's doing right. It happens all the time. The two questions you have to ask are:
 
1. Does he believe that deep down in his heart or is it just what he's telling himself to excuse or rationalize his actions? (Self-deception is the fuel on which all vice burns.)

2. Is the reason for his being convinced that he's doing the right thing that he hasn't properly thought the matter through, and not because he has carefully weighed it mentally and ended up committing an honest intellectual mistake in the process? Killing may not always be murder, but it can be manslaughter.

Evil to me is somebody doing wrong doings to hurt somebody or sombody's feelings.
I guess you can say doing the devils work.
And its also live backwards. lol, i find that interesting to know

Evil is an absence of good. And what is Good is determined by what society believes is good (if society believes that helping out the less fortunate, then that is good. If they believe that murder is good, then murder is good...I guess.) This is my belief and yes I'm somewhat of a Sophists.