NationStates Jolt Archive

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!

Satan is

Satan is
obviously ;)

http://www.thamike.com/fn_images/satan_saddam.jpg

:eek:

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!

I vote for "causing others harm".

I'll tell you what's evil. These sorry sons of peaches that create viruses and worms!!!

I just spent the last 2 hours documenting this new worm :headbang:

How about causing others harm without a good reason. I can see how sometimes it's good to cause others harm. For instance, it would be great to cause Osama bin Laden and all his palls a great deal of harm for a long, long time until they are finally, mercifully allowed to die.

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!
Whatever society decides it is.

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!


yes

obviously ;)

http://www.thamike.com/fn_images/satan_saddam.jpg

:eek:


no...that's just wrong :D

notice the poster of Skeet Whatever-his-name is?

Whatever society decides it is.
so there is no such thing as 'natural evil'? evil is abstract without common maxims or unalienable truths between cultures?
there is no 'form' of evil (a la Plato)?


How about causing others harm without a good reason. I can see how sometimes it's good to cause others harm. For instance, it would be great to cause Osama bin Laden and all his palls a great deal of harm for a long, long time until they are finally, mercifully allowed to die.
so some evil can be justified? at what level? mudering a man (the death sentence) for robbery is not justified, while murder is - is that right?

of course many pacifists would disagree with this whole stance, i'm sure



sorry, i'm just in a questioning mood... and trying to avoid work ;)

Something made up to make it easier to blame some abstract concept for harmful actions rather than the people who commit then.

and another thing. If I ever catch one of these goofy virus coders, I'm sooooo gonna go-can-you-smell-what-the-rock-is-cooking style on him.

Now THAT'S evil :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!

disregarding definition, and going solely on the word use in common practice, evil is anything that doesnt agree with you. To the Mid East America is evil, to US the Mid East is. To christianity, polytheistic and philosophical religions are evil.......... the list goes on

<snip>

so some evil can be justified? at what level? mudering a man (the death sentence) for robbery is not justified, while murder is - is that right?

of course many pacifists would disagree with this whole stance, i'm sure



sorry, i'm just in a questioning mood... and trying to avoid work ;)
If it's justified it's not evil. Sometimes harming someone is justified because it accomplishes something greater. In my example I used Bin Laden. Making an example of him may deter others from following in his footsteps, and thus save many lives in the future.

I'm against the death penalty for ordinary crimes. I think it serves no purpose in most cases. In the case of someone who has actively tried to recruit others to commit mass murder, however, public torture and execution may reduce the number of people willing to volunteer for his organization. They may not want to spend the last few weeks of their lives shrieking in agony while their torture and humiliation is broadcast to the world.

Evil is when you leave mashed potatoes out too long before eating them, and they get all cold and slimy, and then there's a power outage and you can't rewarm them. Now that's pure evil.

Evil is when you leave mashed potatoes out too long before eating them, and they get all cold and slimy, and then there's a power outage and you can't rewarm them. Now that's pure evil.

I eat cold mashed potatoes. They're great for a 3am snack.

Evil is in the intention of the person doing it. If they want to cause someone else harm through their action, then it is an evil act.

Evil is in the intention of the person doing it. If they want to cause someone else harm through their action, then it is an evil act.
Definitions needed:

"to cause"

"harm"

"action"

I eat cold mashed potatoes. They're great for a 3am snack.
There's a little restaurant chain in Trenton called Cluck U chicken. In addition to buffalo wings, chicken fingers, and burgers they make mashed potato sandwiches. Warm mashed potato between two slices of white bread with mayonaise, lettuce, and tomato. Now that's evil.

How about causing others harm without a good reason. I can see how sometimes it's good to cause others harm. For instance, it would be great to cause Osama bin Laden and all his palls a great deal of harm for a long, long time until they are finally, mercifully allowed to die.


Or Kenneth Lay, Ayn Raynd (oh wait, she's dead, I'll just go poo on her grave) and Mr. Bush!

Don't hurt me!!! I'm not really Die Capitalist Pig, I don't know why my login is acting up, but I can't log in as Mods, and it keeps going back to pig!

There's a little restaurant chain in Trenton called Cluck U chicken. In addition to buffalo wings, chicken fingers, and burgers they make mashed potato sandwiches. Warm mashed potato between two slices of white bread with mayonaise, lettuce, and tomato. Now that's evil.

That's the second nastiest thing I've ever seen.

Or Kenneth Lay, Ayn Raynd (oh wait, she's dead, I'll just go poo on her grave) and Mr. Bush!

Don't hurt me!!! I'm not really Die Capitalist Pig, I don't know why my login is acting up, but I can't log in as Mods, and it keeps going back to pig!
Lay and Bush can just rot in a super maximum security penitentiary for 15 or 20 years for all I care.

Evil is in the intention of the person doing it. If they want to cause someone else harm through their action, then it is an evil act.


But what about when harm is deserved? Is it evil to desire to cause pain and suffering to the man who ordered the Iraqi war? Considering thousands of people have died from this, I personally think it is a good aspiration. This raises many questions really. What is evil? Is evil only found in the eye of the beholder?

And no, Bush as a legitimate president is not a viable reason to not will him pain. Many of us, in America and otherwise believe him to be illegitimate. Legitimacy, and evil thus are in the eye of the beholder.

Now, just to play around with things a bit, what do you think of the aspiration to cause justice/pain/evil to this man? I am playing devil's advocate here, not looking to legitimize pain, suffering, or death to Mr. Bush. So don't ban me. Oh, and also don't ban me for my name being Die Capitalist Pig. Jolt is acting up and for some reason is making me log in as my deleted nation, as opposed to Stop Banning Me Mods. So please don't hurt me Mr. Myrth! I can't control a screwed up internet!

Conversely, is it evil to desire to cause pain and suffering to, say, Hitler? Or Osama Bin Laden? Who deserves justice? Is democratic election a requirement for legitimacy (Hitler was elected too)?

If it's justified it's not evil. Sometimes harming someone is justified because it accomplishes something greater. In my example I used Bin Laden. Making an example of him may deter others from following in his footsteps, and thus save many lives in the future.

I'm against the death penalty for ordinary crimes. I think it serves no purpose in most cases. In the case of someone who has actively tried to recruit others to commit mass murder, however, public torture and execution may reduce the number of people willing to volunteer for his organization. They may not want to spend the last few weeks of their lives shrieking in agony while their torture and humiliation is broadcast to the world.
so yours is the utilitarian approach - you disregard the moral 'right' over the practical good in applicable situations. morality can be ignored when necessary, when a 'better' result can be obtained from 'immoral' actions. right?

so evil is subjective to the situation?

Definitions needed:

"to cause"

"harm"

"action"

I mean that they do something that they intend to have consequences that will mean that someone else suffers.

But what about when harm is deserved? Is it evil to desire to cause pain and suffering to the man who ordered the Iraqi war? Considering thousands of people have died from this, I personally think it is a good aspiration. This raises many questions really. What is evil? Is evil only found in the eye of the beholder?

And no, Bush as a legitimate president is not a viable reason to not will him pain. Many of us, in America and otherwise believe him to be illegitimate. Legitimacy, and evil thus are in the eye of the beholder.

Now, just to play around with things a bit, what do you think of the aspiration to cause justice/pain/evil to this man? I am playing devil's advocate here, not looking to legitimize pain, suffering, or death to Mr. Bush. So don't ban me. Oh, and also don't ban me for my name being Die Capitalist Pig. Jolt is acting up and for some reason is making me log in as my deleted nation, as opposed to Stop Banning Me Mods. So please don't hurt me Mr. Myrth! I can't control a screwed up internet!

In my opinion it is evil to inflict pain on someone simply for the reason that you want them to suffer. If you were to kill someone like Bush for the reason of preventing him from doing evil, then it is not evil.

so yours is the utilitarian approach - you disregard the moral 'right' over the practical good in applicable situations. morality can be ignored when necessary, when a 'better' result can be obtained from 'immoral' actions. right?

so evil is subjective to the situation?
Ok

What's evil? Officially, the absence of God.

Cold is the absence of heat, darkness is the absence of light, a vaccuum is the absence of matter.

God is good. Therefore, we can say that evil is merely the absence of God.

Ebeda jus well shit.

Evil is defiend by society as anything that threatens that societie's stability and growth. Evil is defeined by a person as that which 'threatens' him or her in some way shape or form, either through physical means or some other less substantial means. Whether or not it will or even CAN cause harm does not matter, it is the preception of the individual taht matters in this case.

Everything is evil. And since everything is nothing, nothing is evil. Excuse me, I have to go change my bong water.

you know what's evil? Three threads on the first page with the same topic.

That is f*in evil! :p

seriously though, evil is defined by each individual. There's no such thing as pure evil or pure good.

Ebeda jus well shit.

Evil is defiend by society as anything that threatens that societie's stability and growth. Evil is defeined by a person as that which 'threatens' him or her in some way shape or form, either through physical means or some other less substantial means. Whether or not it will or even CAN cause harm does not matter, it is the preception of the individual taht matters in this case.

Everything is evil. And since everything is nothing, nothing is evil. Excuse me, I have to go change my bong water.

Two questions, one, what is ebeda?
Two, you know that the word 'that' is spelled T-H-A-T, right, not T-A-H-T.

Apart from that, you are quite odd. Sounds like trancendentalism to me.

Oh yes, and you just stated, like, three opinions there. Which one is yours?

Ebeda jus well shit.

Evil is defiend by society as anything that threatens that societie's stability and growth. Evil is defeined by a person as that which 'threatens' him or her in some way shape or form, either through physical means or some other less substantial means. Whether or not it will or even CAN cause harm does not matter, it is the preception of the individual taht matters in this case.

Everything is evil. And since everything is nothing, nothing is evil. Excuse me, I have to go change my bong water.


But bong water is inherently good. No matter how you look at it.

1. It filters and cools smoke, making it a tad bit safer and less likely to cause Bronchitis. And it is more comfortable on the lungs.
2. It helps to ensure a maximum amount of smoke inhaled, so it works better
3. It makes a cool gurgling sound, that is highly entertaining when highly high.
4. When I'm stoned I like to look at my bubbler and just watch the ash float around in my bong water.
5. Bongs aren't officially *supposed* to be used for marijuana, meaning they are good for just cooling off tobacco, which is legal.

maybe you should go to the ask occy thread.... she'll answer you *nodds*

you know what's evil? Three threads on the first page with the same topic.

That is f*in evil! :p

seriously though, evil is defined by each individual. There's no such thing as pure evil or pure good.

OI! Not true.
If I were to say, "I want to murder fifteen people and then go rape an innocent bystander," and I sincerely thought it was not evil, does that mean I have a chance in front of court? Does that mean that it is actally not evil?

Of course not. We all have our moral scruples, and, although many of ours have been dulled by the quite negative influences of the society around us, they tell even the most uneducated person the difference between right and wrong.


But do you know who put them there, who created the guilt that we get every time we do something 'wrong?'

God.

OI! Not true.
If I were to say, "I want to murder fifteen people and then go rape an innocent bystander," and I sincerely thought it was not evil, does that mean I have a chance in front of court? Does that mean that it is actally not evil?

Of course not. We all have our moral scruples, and, although many of ours have been dulled by the quite negative influences of the society around us, they tell even the most uneducated person the difference between right and wrong.


But do you know who put them there, who created the guilt that we get every time we do something 'wrong?'

God.


Just for the sake of preserving my shredded christianity, I'll agree with you.

But I have to ask, what about sociopaths who can't envision negative consequences or think all their actions are good?

Or what about me? Most of my fellow christians view marijuana as evil (despite it being a plant gifted by god to man for a specific reason, being the only plant that has THC) but when I smoked pot, even for the first time, I didn't feel guilt. (This during a time when my faith was at it's very peak, I was indeed a strong christian).
I have heard that for some, alcohol is a sin. It is a sin because it will hurt them and cause their loved ones pain. So what about marijuana use? If I have never felt guilty using marijuana, and I don't hurt myself or others, does that mean that for me, toking isn't a sin?

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!

Evil is anything that runs contrary to Loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself.

Just for the sake of preserving my shredded christianity, I'll agree with you.

But I have to ask, what about sociopaths who can't envision negative consequences or think all their actions are good?

Or what about me? Most of my fellow christians view marijuana as evil (despite it being a plant gifted by god to man for a specific reason, being the only plant that has THC) but when I smoked pot, even for the first time, I didn't feel guilt. (This during a time when my faith was at it's very peak, I was indeed a strong christian).
I have heard that for some, alcohol is a sin. It is a sin because it will hurt them and cause their loved ones pain. So what about marijuana use? If I have never felt guilty using marijuana, and I don't hurt myself or others, does that mean that for me, toking isn't a sin?

God says that disobeying the law is a sin (somewhere in Leviticus, I think), and, even if you managed to, um, 'hold your marijuana well,' it would still be a sin.

But, apart from that, the Bible says that what we do while intoxicated is entirely our responsibility. So, although it is okay to drink, it probably isn't okay to get plastered and have sex at a bar, conveniently forgetting to tell your wife.

"die capitalist pig"
Hmm...
Unique name, shows a passion. That's all I'm going to say.

In the natural world, there is no such thing as evil. In man's world...even still that is tricky. What is considered evil by one is a godsend to another.

In the end, "good" and "evil" are all relative.

In the natural world, there is no such thing as evil. In man's world...even still that is tricky. What is considered evil by one is a godsend to another.

In the end, "good" and "evil" are all relative.

AAAAGGH!
I knew I would encounter this, though. When I came on the internet expecting a bunch of atheist opinions, it is exactly what I got.
Didn't quite expect so many "New Age" (pardon the term) views on such an important subject, though.

Looking back, maybe the trancendentalist idea of evil could also be adopted by naturalism. I mean, without a God, how else do you explain the term 'evil,' and 'good?'

In the natural world, there is no such thing as evil. In man's world...even still that is tricky. What is considered evil by one is a godsend to another.

In the end, "good" and "evil" are all relative.

Actually, on the more argumentative side, you are wrong.
I said it already, and it can't hurt to say it again: evil is the absence of God, good is the presence of God. It's that simple.

Man, this music is good.

"die capitalist pig"
Hmm...
Unique name, shows a passion. That's all I'm going to say.


You idiot. Trying to get me banned? I couldn't log on as this nation, and that one was my old one. If you will have read my other posts on this thread, I notified people that for some weird reason my real nation wouldn't log on, and instead my deleted nation was brought up. Thanks a ton if you get me banned. :mad:

You idiot. Trying to get me banned? I couldn't log on as this nation, and that one was my old one. If you will have read my other posts on this thread, I notified people that for some weird reason my real nation wouldn't log on, and instead my deleted nation was brought up. Thanks a ton if you get me banned. :mad:
Sorry...
Did you try-
Never mind.

:(
What'd I do...

Actually, on the more argumentative side, you are wrong.
I said it already, and it can't hurt to say it again: evil is the absence of God, good is the presence of God. It's that simple.

Man, this music is good.

...Um...I'm not certain of that, could you explain that for me? Why must one believe in God to be "good"?

...Um...I'm not certain of that, could you explain that for me? Why must one believe in God to be "good"?

Of course you need not believe in God to be good, but goodness, in a sense, is the presence of God.
Wherever a good deed is committed, God is there, all happy like. When something evil is done, then God isn't there. Plain and simple.

The music, by the way, is Mozart. Symphony 35, currently.

God says that disobeying the law is a sin (somewhere in Leviticus, I think), and, even if you managed to, um, 'hold your marijuana well,' it would still be a sin.

But, apart from that, the Bible says that what we do while intoxicated is entirely our responsibility. So, although it is okay to drink, it probably isn't okay to get plastered and have sex at a bar, conveniently forgetting to tell your wife.


Jesus left us free from the laws of Leviticus. He established with us a new covenant.

And if you continue to argue that point, then you are also arguing for abortion, and for speeding. Abortion right now, is legal in the eyes of men. Is it evil to oppose abortion? Of course not! And speeding, right now, in California, all of the cars (even the police) drive faster than the speed limit (which is the established law). Cars that go slower are pulled over for obstructing traffic! So is it evil, or is it not to disobey the law?

:(
What'd I do...


Poor little Vespucii, I forgive you. But, if you wanted to, you could appeal to the mods for me? I would be appreciative. (Assuming you notified them of my mean nation name)

OI! Not true.
If I were to say, "I want to murder fifteen people and then go rape an innocent bystander," and I sincerely thought it was not evil, does that mean I have a chance in front of court? Does that mean that it is actally not evil?


What does court have to do with whether or not something is evil? There is no "actuality" in good and evil. They're matters of opinion. If raping and killing is ok to you, then to you it's actually not evil...

[/QUOTE]

Jesus left us free from the laws of Leviticus. He established with us a new covenant.

And if you continue to argue that point, then you are also arguing for abortion, and for speeding. Abortion right now, is legal in the eyes of men. Is it evil to oppose abortion? Of course not! And speeding, right now, in California, all of the cars (even the police) drive faster than the speed limit (which is the established law). Cars that go slower are pulled over for obstructing traffic! So is it evil, or is it not to disobey the law?

I didn't say that laws determined what wasn't sin. I am just saying that what is against the law is a sin, provided that it is not against God's word.
God says against murder, thus, it is a sin. God does not say too much about speeding at 70 MPH down I-14, so that is up to men weather that is wrong or not.

God says against murder, thus, it is a sin. God does not say too much about speeding at 70 MPH down I-14, so that is up to men weather that is wrong or not.

But whay I don't understand is why God uses such inflexible definitions of morality. Surely a complex, adaptive system is better than one where a certain act is always a sin, and no other acts that aren't mentioned are sins.

There is no such thing as good or evil.

Of course you need not believe in God to be good, but goodness, in a sense, is the presence of God.
Wherever a good deed is committed, God is there, all happy like. When something evil is done, then God isn't there. Plain and simple.


What do you mean by 'God is there'? Do you mean He has some part to play in the deed or is HE simply an observer?

There is no such thing as good or evil.

Care to elaborate?

AAAAGGH!
I knew I would encounter this, though. When I came on the internet expecting a bunch of atheist opinions, it is exactly what I got.
Didn't quite expect so many "New Age" (pardon the term) views on such an important subject, though.

Looking back, maybe the trancendentalist idea of evil could also be adopted by naturalism. I mean, without a God, how else do you explain the term 'evil,' and 'good?'

Evil is where someone intends to harm someone else and good is where someone intends to help someone else. No God required.

What is evil?
Me.

Evil is something that only highly advanced minds (such as the minds of humans) can create. We are one of the few species (if not the only species on this Earth who will kill out of pure malice. Most species only kill for reasons of survival but we kill out of greed, malice, hatre and a huge variety of advanced emotions. Evil is intrisically human and as such cannot be claimed to be an external force. In my view most religious portrayals of evil are really just metaphors for what we humans have in our own minds.

We all have the potential for great evil, every single one of us. Get a person angry enough over certain issues and they can be transformed to such an extent where they will conduct an evil such as murder or rape. We note for example that soldiers often rape, murder and pillage directly after large scale battles because the stress/horror of war removes the weight that society imposes on the mind and so that potential is simply goes riot.

Evil is simply what happens when one chooses to live backwards.

Evil is whatever you think it is. Nothing has any value in itself, neither positive nor negative. In other words nothing is good/bad, good/evil, etc. in itself. Things become good/bad, good/evil, etc. entirely according to your perspective.

For example, I could see things from a certain point of view and see silver-painted carrots as the most evil thing in existance, and mass-murdering, as long as it's done while giggling at the same time, as something very good, if I wanted. If I did that, then those things would, for me, be good and evil respectively.

There is no true 'evil', there is only two sides that believe two completely different things. We will never know what 'true evil' is until we experience it, and in a world with constantly varying memories that at any time could be influence, changed or forgotten, then there is no answer for that question you asked.

Sorry.

I'm going to use cartoons in my examples because thats what I feel like doing right now.

The two cartoons that illustrate my point are Captain Planet and He-Man. For the sake of cave-dwellers/people outside of my market I will summarize (but not correct spellings). Captain Planet was a collection of five teens from across the globe who where given rings that controled one of the five elements (the fifth being 'heart') by Gaia to defend the earth against gross polluters-a pig faced guy, a woman burned by toxic waste, etc.

He-Man was a fantasy/sci-fi cartoon where the prince was given half a sword that would turn him into a barbarian hero who fought Skeletor-who wanted to take over the land of Eternia.

I might mention G.I.Joe. But I'm not summarizing that.


My problem with evil, and how we view it is personified in the cartoons. While I will grant that half-hour childrens cartoons are naturally going to over-simplify a situation, I argue that it is this base simplification where we can find the base of how good and evil are regarded and thus it is the best place to look for a critique.

The problem with Captain Planet didn't lie in the intent, but in the portrayal. The villians in Captain Planet polluted indescrimanetly. One of the 'evil plans' was for a villian to make refigerators soley for the sake of smashing them. While the intent of the cartoon was to make kids aware of what happens to 'disposable appliances', the idea of 'evil' was personified in a man who just did that one act for no other reason than to be a dick.

The act and motivation are seperated and the agent of the action is de-humanized. What this allows for is an easy look at yourself to absolve yourself from evil. I do not look like a pig. I don't cackle for no reason. I do not make refridgerators simply to destroy them. I have a reason for what I do, so I cannot be evil.

I'm going to introduce something else, the movie Downfall which covers the last days of Hitler. The film has been criticized by people for 'humanizing' Hitler.

I think that this is an important act, a counterbalance to the Captian Planet problem. It is humans, regular humans, who do 'evil' acts. They are nice to thier dogs. Polite to their secretaries. Tip thier paper boys. They don't ooze slim. A friend has been on something he's run across recently and it fits in with what I've felt-it's that 'evil' is not a noun. (the first person that quotes dictionary.com to refute this gets the "Silly Rabbit" award) It is something that is possible, not is.

The perception of what is, however, is dependant on angle of view. In a discussion it became clear that Eternia, He-Mans land, is a crap hole. It's barren. There doesn't appear to be a clear infrastructure. it's a mess. The question became, then, why does Skeletor want to take control of Eternia so badly, then? Surely he can't do worse than He-Man. In a crag-ridden area does he build bridges, so farmers and merchants can transport thier goods? No, he builds 'Dragonwalkers' so he can cross those crags.

So what is Skeletor after? The only conclusion I can come up with is that Skeletor has a better plan for Eternia. Looking at who he surrounds himself with, Beastman. Moss Man, that underwater guy. He really appears to have a collection that has a vested intrest in the health of the land itself, and thus of Eternia. But Skeletor is the bad guy. Because this is the story as told by He-Man. But by an outside measure, I could argue that it is He-Man who is causing the most harm by focusing on Skeletor and not the conditions that 'create' the Skeletors.

The point there, which I may have lost, is that both feel they are doing good-they are good people (not so much in the cartoon, but remember, you're getting He-Mans story, not Skeletors). But it is the actions, how they go about it. That will determine the evil, and how it's viewed. Inversely, how it is viewed will also determine if what was done was evil.

So we can't simplify it in to 'he is evil, he is good'.

So to the social. It's not media so much that disconnects us, but the size. We are only hard-wired to concieve of @150 people. Everything past that is an abstract, and the more and more people there are the easier it is to dismiss them. That is the capacity that I argue breeds evil. To think of consiquence, effect to people outside of your '150,' as nothing. Dismissing them, knowingly. Not caring. Because they are not people you can concieve of, for your own gain. That, to me, is evil. To know you are going to cause undo harm and not care for the consiquence.

I sort of drifted around there. I'm not sure if any of that was clear...

Evil is basically when your mind has a need which goes internally unchecked except by human nature pretty much, unless this need involves only itself. Because evil involves other people, other things, or even another state of consciousness, evil is entirely created by those who have to put up with the evil, not by the evil person him/herself because the evil person doesn't know, oftentimes, that what s/he is doing is evil, but I will try to generalize it.

Normally, in my opinion, evil involves a situation when the part of the mind that detects the nature of things (or, the intrinsic part of the mind) greatly overrrules the part of the mind that questions the nature of things. When this takes place at a grand scale and involves just one ounce of emotion (the ounce is relative also, as it depends on the evil person), evil takes place.

For example, lets say a potential murderer wants to murder someone he doesn't like because this person wronged him by, let's say, humiliating him at an important meeting by accident. The potential murderer would probably become irrational and judge the nature of this person as evil, bad, against everything this potential murderer stands for. However, the target of this potential murderer did not know what he did wrong at all, and is therefore not evil per-say, but careless. However, the intrinsic part of the potential murderer's brain is telling him, in addition that he may have lost his job, that the man who wronged him is by nature vile, treacherous, and evil that he could have done such a thing, while the part of his brain that questions this is overpowered by this judgement. Apparently, this man also didn't question the nature of the meeting in general, and felt that the meeting would most definitely fall in his favor because of his mood, and his judgement onthe overall nature of the meeting in general, that it was "good" because it would help him.

The most prime example of all is Adolf Hitler. Hitler, as you probably know, aspired to be an artist in his earlier years, but was rejected. Artistry is completely based on finding and judging the intrinsic nature of things and portraying them according to this finding. Hitler's whole life was centered around this aesthetic drive and led to his monstrosity, as he believed that the world, because of art, was with him every step of the way because of its nature and how it made sense in his head the way he wished it to be. However, when these hopes were dashed, Hitler came to resent the way the nature of the world as "impure" because in his mind as an artist, things were either pure or not pure. He took this idea to his relations with people and became a racist, believeing that the "pure" white Aryan race, white, by nature of course, being a pure color, would bring happiness and order (note the word: order) to the whole world, while the impure "Semitic" race would bring chaos through the world. Hitler, judging the intrinsic nature of people by simply how they looked, led him to become a dictator and introduce Fascism: using brute force and extermination to accomplish one's political goals. This form of government was suitable to Hitler because he could physically kill intrinsic impurity in intrinsic Nature, and take over an intrinsic world, substituting it with a single, intrinsically pure, intrinsic culture based on the intrinsically pure color white, as in the white race.

Judging the nature of things is a particularly human trait formed by our highly developed brains (you were right, British Glory). Purely judging the nature of things can also be good, but only if it is used for puposes of answering a question one has about life and nothing else, unless there is indisputable logic to support it (logic doesn't involve making fast generalizations).

The amount of "intrinsics" involved and the actions taken because of it is what judges the weight of good and bad. Pickpocketing, for instance is evil but not as evil as mass murder, and you can surely guess why based on what I have been talking about (theft involves judging the nature of the object stolen and how it relates to the self-need, i.e. stealing jewelry for simply the purpose of money, while mass murder I explained above).

I hope my explanation answers your "what is evil" question. If you need help understanding it please let me know on this thread, because it means I have missed something in explaining.

I'm going to use cartoons in my examples because thats what I feel like doing right now.

The two cartoons that illustrate my point are Captain Planet and He-Man. For the sake of cave-dwellers/people outside of my market I will summarize (but not correct spellings). Captain Planet was a collection of five teens from across the globe who where given rings that controled one of the five elements (the fifth being 'heart') by Gaia to defend the earth against gross polluters-a pig faced guy, a woman burned by toxic waste, etc.

He-Man was a fantasy/sci-fi cartoon where the prince was given half a sword that would turn him into a barbarian hero who fought Skeletor-who wanted to take over the land of Eternia.

I might mention G.I.Joe. But I'm not summarizing that.


My problem with evil, and how we view it is personified in the cartoons. While I will grant that half-hour childrens cartoons are naturally going to over-simplify a situation, I argue that it is this base simplification where we can find the base of how good and evil are regarded and thus it is the best place to look for a critique.

The problem with Captain Planet didn't lie in the intent, but in the portrayal. The villians in Captain Planet polluted indescrimanetly. One of the 'evil plans' was for a villian to make refigerators soley for the sake of smashing them. While the intent of the cartoon was to make kids aware of what happens to 'disposable appliances', the idea of 'evil' was personified in a man who just did that one act for no other reason than to be a dick.

The act and motivation are seperated and the agent of the action is de-humanized. What this allows for is an easy look at yourself to absolve yourself from evil. I do not look like a pig. I don't cackle for no reason. I do not make refridgerators simply to destroy them. I have a reason for what I do, so I cannot be evil.

I'm going to introduce something else, the movie Downfall which covers the last days of Hitler. The film has been criticized by people for 'humanizing' Hitler.

I think that this is an important act, a counterbalance to the Captian Planet problem. It is humans, regular humans, who do 'evil' acts. They are nice to thier dogs. Polite to their secretaries. Tip thier paper boys. They don't ooze slim. A friend has been on something he's run across recently and it fits in with what I've felt-it's that 'evil' is not a noun. (the first person that quotes dictionary.com to refute this gets the "Silly Rabbit" award) It is something that is possible, not is.

The perception of what is, however, is dependant on angle of view. In a discussion it became clear that Eternia, He-Mans land, is a crap hole. It's barren. There doesn't appear to be a clear infrastructure. it's a mess. The question became, then, why does Skeletor want to take control of Eternia so badly, then? Surely he can't do worse than He-Man. In a crag-ridden area does he build bridges, so farmers and merchants can transport thier goods? No, he builds 'Dragonwalkers' so he can cross those crags.

So what is Skeletor after? The only conclusion I can come up with is that Skeletor has a better plan for Eternia. Looking at who he surrounds himself with, Beastman. Moss Man, that underwater guy. He really appears to have a collection that has a vested intrest in the health of the land itself, and thus of Eternia. But Skeletor is the bad guy. Because this is the story as told by He-Man. But by an outside measure, I could argue that it is He-Man who is causing the most harm by focusing on Skeletor and not the conditions that 'create' the Skeletors.

The point there, which I may have lost, is that both feel they are doing good-they are good people (not so much in the cartoon, but remember, you're getting He-Mans story, not Skeletors). But it is the actions, how they go about it. That will determine the evil, and how it's viewed. Inversely, how it is viewed will also determine if what was done was evil.

So we can't simplify it in to 'he is evil, he is good'.

So to the social. It's not media so much that disconnects us, but the size. We are only hard-wired to concieve of @150 people. Everything past that is an abstract, and the more and more people there are the easier it is to dismiss them. That is the capacity that I argue breeds evil. To think of consiquence, effect to people outside of your '150,' as nothing. Dismissing them, knowingly. Not caring. Because they are not people you can concieve of, for your own gain. That, to me, is evil. To know you are going to cause undo harm and not care for the consiquence.

I sort of drifted around there. I'm not sure if any of that was clear...


You are incredibly right! Don't worry, you were very clear. We're getting eviler by the day with our generalizations! (Read my post, now, in this context)

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!


you are evil

well you and your metal

you and your pure metal are evil

everything else is roses

is it immorality, is it causing others harm? is it a real force, a state of mind, or just a simple word used to describe a variety of things? what is it?

tell me!

anything against or not natural.

anything against or not natural.
Wow, your computer must be pretty close to the epitome of evil then. Nothing anything like a computer occurs in nature.

I sort of drifted around there. I'm not sure if any of that was clear...
I was going to say something similar to that, but there's no need to now that you did.
Good job with that, you simplified it a lot better than I could.

Someone answer my post!!!

If you don't understand it, please send me a PM and I will modify it for you.

If it's justified it's not evil. Sometimes harming someone is justified because it accomplishes something greater. In my example I used Bin Laden....
Was 9-11 justified?

Was 9-11 justified?


Somewhat. I don't think it was an attack on the 3,000 people who died. It was an attack on the building itself. On the symbol of capitalism. In that sense it was justified. But the 3,000 people dying were not.

Now, had all of them been Executive Officers, I think 9-11 would have been justified. Probably worth it too.

Now, had all of them been Executive Officers, I think 9-11 would have been justified. Probably worth it too.
If you destroy the Pentagon...you are not going to kill only Generals.

and I do agree...the WTC is (was) a symbol of US economic empire.