NationStates Jolt Archive

Watching the thread about the "evil pedophile", and remembering how many people here are atheists, I was wondering...

Do you believe in evil? It's really an emotional term, fraught with imagery from every religion. Can you really be objective, and never use the term? Or do you have a scientific definition like this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#The_scale_of_evil

BTW, I am 04 on the scale.

Is evil really a term for subjective morality? And what place does subjective morality have in a completely objective, totally scientific world?

Why, in the thread about "evil pedophile", do people get so emotionally heated about the "evil" nature of the person being discussed?

Watching the thread about the "evil pedophile", and remembering how many people here are atheists, I was wondering...

Do you believe in evil? It's really an emotional term, fraught with imagery from every religion. Can you really be objective, and never use the term? Or do you have a scientific definition like this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#The_scale_of_evil

BTW, I am 04 on the scale.

Is evil really a term for subjective morality? And what place does subjective morality have in a completely objective, totally scientific world?

Why, in the thread about "evil pedophile", do people get so emotionally heated about the "evil" nature of the person being discussed?

I don't really believe in evil since its a matter of opinion.

Evil has no place in any discussion outside of religious ones. Evil is an absolute, and there are very few absolutes.

I haven't made up my mind. Evil cannot be objectively measured, and therefore it does not exist in the scientific sense, but there are things which I cannot divorce mentally from the category of evil. I'm going with the time honored tradition of, "Myrth is evil."

Evil exists whether you believe in it or not.. and there's a lot of it in this world.

Can't say I understand fully the rest of your post though.

Evil exists whether you believe in it or not.. and there's a lot of it in this world.

Can't say I understand fully the rest of your post though.

A very superstitious view of the world.

It depends on the definition of evil.

The most practical and usable one equals "evil" with egoism, "good" with altruism. In this form, evil most surely exists.

I think it is possible to be evil. I know it might be kind of a cliche to name Hitler but I think he'd qualify. After all, he tried to wipe an entire racial / religious group off of the earth and plently of others, not just Jews, ended up in the death camps.

Stalin did some terrible things but I don't think he qualifies as truly "evil". He killed political dissidents because they disagreed with him, a nasty guy but not necessarily evil. Hitler killed Jews simply because he hated them.

BTW According to some documentaries I've seen about WW2, some of Hitler's staff said that he had a literal "presence" and you knew whether he was around or not. Perhaps not scientific, but it would still have been creepy to have been around him.

I believe in the duality of man. I believe that everyone has the capacity for good or evil. I believe in free will. I believe everyone has the chance and opportunity to choose what they do with their lives.

I believe in the duality of man. I believe that everyone has the capacity for good or evil. I believe in free will. I believe everyone has the chance and opportunity to choose what they do with their lives.

Pogue Colonel: Now answer my question or you'll be standing tall before the man.
Private Joker: I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir.
Pogue Colonel: The what?
Private Joker: The duality of man. The Jungian thing, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Whose side are you on, son?
Private Joker: Our side, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

I don't believe in "evil" as a palpable thing, or even as a concept that makes any sense outside of the context of good.

I need only look at the following image to affirm my belief.

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

Evil is a human concept invented to teach behaviour that is beneficial to the society through the medium of religion and ethics.

Good is what is accepted by society, and Evil is the opposite. That's it. You travel the world, or through history, you will find thousands of different views on "good" and "evil". No one is right, no one is wrong.

Good is what is accepted by society, and Evil is the opposite. That's it. You travel the world, or through history, you will find thousands of different views on "good" and "evil". No one is right, no one is wrong.
Some things are clearly evil and not disputed by rational people.

I need only look at the following image to affirm my belief.



I know what you mean.

http://media.modbee.com/smedia/2007/08/13/06/201-Rove.standalone.prod_affiliate.11.JPG

Some things are clearly evil and not disputed by rational people.


like?

Good is what is accepted by society, and Evil is the opposite. That's it. You travel the world, or through history, you will find thousands of different views on "good" and "evil". No one is right, no one is wrong.

Your statement is self refuting.

Your statement is self refuting.

how so?

like?
Tried to find the link but couldn't.. good example was a news story recently of mother and her boyfriend who tortured their own daughter to death. What's that if it not evil?

Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Do you believe in evil?
Yes, in the sense that there are particular things I would apply the word "evil" to.


Is evil really a term for subjective morality?

"Evil" is subjective, just like "good" or "beautiful." All moral judgments are subjective.


And what place does subjective morality have in a completely objective, totally scientific world?

Science doesn't address morality that way. Science can't tell you what you "should" do, it can only tell you what your options are and what the consequences of those actions will be. If you state a desired outcome, science can help you figure out the best way to obtain that outcome...but science can't tell you what outcome you are supposed to want in the first place.

how so?

if there is no absolute right or wrong then you are unable to make a statement like "nobody was right or wrong" because you are making an absolute statement.

You believe in relative morality (I assume) so you believe that everyone has their own moral code and nobody is wrong, which is self refuting in that you can't say that nobody is wrong if there isn't an absolute by which to measure wrong.

Further, if you are to say that nothing is truly wrong, you can't balk at things like the holocaust or child sacrifice because they may be right in the culture, nor could you have an opinion on my political or religious ideas because saying I am wrong is a lie since there is no absolute.

It depends on the definition of evil.

The most practical and usable one equals "evil" with egoism, "good" with altruism. In this form, evil most surely exists.
I agree with this guy.

I need only look at the following image to affirm my belief.

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg
Man, you won't see that picture on the front page of the New York Times.

I'll have nightmares for a week.

Yes, in the sense that there are particular things I would apply the word "evil" to.


"Evil" is subjective, just like "good" or "beautiful." All moral judgments are subjective.


Science doesn't address morality that way. Science can't tell you what you "should" do, it can only tell you what your options are and what the consequences of those actions will be. If you state a desired outcome, science can help you figure out the best way to obtain that outcome...but science can't tell you what outcome you are supposed to want in the first place.

Yes. For example the reason we feel emotions like sympathy and empathy may be because we have evolved as pack animals. Humans have an instictual need to associate with other humans and this may have led to the evolution of these kinds of bonding emotions. Humans also have the need to compete for survival when resources are scarce and this may have led to the evolution of emotions like anger.

if there is no absolute right or wrong then you are unable to make a statement like "nobody was right or wrong" because you are making an absolute statement.
No, "No one is right or wrong" is not an absolute statement,

You believe in relative morality (I assume) so you believe that everyone has their own moral code and nobody is wrong, which is self refuting in that you can't say that nobody is wrong if there isn't an absolute by which to measure wrong.

exactly, you can't tell who's "wrong", so no one is "right" or "wrong"



Further, if you are to say that nothing is truly wrong, you can't balk at things like the holocaust or child sacrifice
because they may be right in the culture, nor could you have an opinion on my political or religious ideas because saying I am wrong is a lie since there is no absolute.

Nothing is truly wrong, but I am still able to find things abhorrent, however, that is based on my own personal moral compass. Hitler had a different moral compass, who is anyone to say who is a "right?"

Tried to find the link but couldn't.. good example was a news story recently of mother and her boyfriend who tortured their own daughter to death. What's that if it not evil?

That is considered "evil" by society today, but in a few thousand years, it may become the norm. Who is better, and why?

Evil is suffering of the people in the entire world and good their wellbeing. Moral actions seek to optimize the status.

No, "No one is right or wrong" is not an absolute statement,

to say that nobody can be right or wrong and say it in a way that leaves us to believe you have authority in the decision of "nobody" being right or wrong is absolutely and absolute.

If I were to say that some people were right and some were wrong then that refutes your statement and you would tell me that I am wrong, and for you to say that I am wrong after you said nobody is right or wrong is......well, wrong, according to your own moral standard of saying that nobody is wrong.

exactly, you can't tell who's "wrong", so no one is "right" or "wrong"




You discount society's right to decide what is right or worng. Society decides it there is absolute right and wrong within the cultural context that we live in. In the West, we have decided that stealing wrong. If you live in Western society, therefore, stealing is wrong. I realize there is grey in there, for example many would sya that if you need to feed yoru children and need to steal to do it then you should be forgiven, but if you break into my house to steal my PS3 it's pretty black and white.

If I were to say that some people were right and some were wrong then that refutes your statement and you would tell me that I am wrong, and for you to say that I am wrong after you said nobody is right or wrong is......well, wrong, according to your own moral standard of saying that nobody is wrong.

No, I would say I disagree with you.

You discount society's right to decide what is right or worng. Society decides it there is absolute right and wrong within the cultural context that we live in. In the West, we have decided that stealing wrong. If you live in Western society, therefore, stealing is wrong. I realize there is grey in there, for example many would sya that if you need to feed yoru children and need to steal to do it then you should be forgiven, but if you break into my house to steal my PS3 it's pretty black and white.

There are still things cross culture that you would probably say are wrong though, like FGM, it's culturally accepted in the places it is practiced and yet most people would say it's wrong. It's hypocritical for a moral relativist to comment on it at all though, because they say "nobody is right or wrong" and so to have an opinion on the "rightness" or the "wrongness" of mutilating little girls is well......wrong again.

No, I would say I disagree with you.

why would you disagree with me? isn't it intolerant to disagree?

You discount society's right to decide what is right or worng. Society decides it there is absolute right and wrong within the cultural context that we live in. In the West, we have decided that stealing wrong. If you live in Western society, therefore, stealing is wrong. I realize there is grey in there, for example many would sya that if you need to feed yoru children and need to steal to do it then you should be forgiven, but if you break into my house to steal my PS3 it's pretty black and white.

Tis would mean that a society like Saudi Arabia might think exposing skin if you are a woman is evil and punlish people according to it... without being evil themselves?

There are still things cross culture that you would probably say are wrong though, like FGM, it's culturally accepted in the places it is practiced and yet most people would say it's wrong. It's hypocritical for a moral relativist to comment on it at all though, because they say "nobody is right or wrong" and so to have an opinion on the "rightness" or the "wrongness" of mutilating little girls is well......wrong again.

Sure, but that's because they have all decided on the same rule independantly. Murder is wrong in all cultures, but different cultures disagree on what murder is. When they murdered that teenager in the streets in Kurdistan a few months ago for dating outside her religion we in the West felt that that was murder. There they thought of fit as an honor killing.

why would you disagree with me? isn't it intolerant to disagree?

'Intolerant' suggests there is a absolute right thing that disagreement with is always wrong. 'Disagree' suggests they do not agree with you but accept it is a subjective call and either could be right.

I need only look at the following image to affirm my belief.

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

Yep, face of pure evil:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Buddy_Christ.jpg

Tis would mean that a society like Saudi Arabia might think exposing skin if you are a woman is evil and punlish people according to it... without being evil themselves?

Yes. Within Saudi culture it is evil for a woman to show too much skin. Within our cultural framework we disagree on the amount of skin a woman can show. Here, at the beach, pretty much a woman can expose everything but her nipples and her vulva, but were she to do that we would consider it wrong.


Well, I wouldn't, but you get the point. Hell, I'd ask her if she'd like to have a drink, but that's just me. :)

That's where the grey comes in. We'd probably all agree it would be wrong for Rosie O'Donnel to expose her nipples and vulva in public, but if it were Jessica Alba you could sell tickets.

why would you disagree with me? isn't it intolerant to disagree?

No, disagreeing is not intolerant; it's holding a belief different than someone else’s.

I need only look at the following image to affirm my belief.

http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

that was evil- a person capable of compassion would have warned people before they clicked on that image.

I'm an atheist and believe strongly that evil exists in mankind. I don't believe evil is something supernatural, but that only highly intelligent creatures can be evil. The ability to know what you're doing is wrong is an important part of evil.
Someone who is seriously mentally ill might not be able to distiguish right from wrong, and I absolve them from any evil.

Though what about someone unable to feel empathy? They might realize killing someone is against the law, but if they are unable to see others as anything but objects they lack one of the controls on behavior the rest of us have. And if they are one of the many people (a large percentage of violent prisoners are such) who have damaged impulse control areas in there brain?

How much resposibility does someone have if they realize something is not acceptable to society at large but have a seriously diminished capacity to follow the rules?

While not being super-realistic in general, AD&D did quite a good development on this. 1D characterization as good and evil is insufficient. A better way is the 2D scheme: law-chaos, good-evil.

Evil is most certainly very closely related to egoism. One who is evil is the one who prioritizes personal gain over total gain. Own wealth over country's or humanity's future, et cetera.

But, then, it can be in different ways. Lawful evil would be a corporation, machine for increasing profit, which is living in rules and creating rules. Yes, capitalism is a structure promoting evil, in form of egoism, but lawful evil, due to the system.
On the other side, chaotic evil follows no rules - e.g. someone killing children just for fun, easily betraying anyone, is chaotic evil. Neutral evil is perhaps harder to explain, but easier to show: the criminal world, with some of own rules, but not too bound by them.


There's something in between, though - group gain, with groups ranging from almost oneself, e.g. family, to entire nation. That makes the distinction harder. However, I think, group gain falls much closer to personal gain. A man embezzling money so his entire family can live in luxury is no better than one doing it for himself only. On the large scale, Hitler might have wanted good for his nation, but at expense of others; and we can clearly agree he was evil. Lawful evil, for that matter.
Introduction of law-chaos scale allows to closely relate different kinds of good or evil, which seem dissimilar at first.



The terms of "acceptable in society" are related to the concept of evil/good, but not equal. They determine what common gain is.
If the society thinks that every life is sacred, then taking a baby's life is evil. However, if the society belief is that only strong may live (Sparta), then saving own baby for your family becomes evil: family gain over society gain.

Good and evil applies to motivations, not actions. The same person with different beliefs will do different things, but it doesn't change who he is. So I think the following will strike quite close to the point:

Good is doing what (as far as you know) is better for everyone, or for the wider group.

Evil is consciously doing what is worse for the wider group, for personal gain, or gain of a smaller group.

Personal or smaller group gain here can range from profit to just enjoyment, sometimes just self-satisfaction from killing, of course. Beliefs in what the common gain is may vary, but only motivations can be good or evil, not actions.

Evil has no place in any discussion outside of religious ones. Evil is an absolute, and there are very few absolutes.

Indeed. It's a matter of perspective. Humankind looks at everything with its own perspective and judges.

Evil and good do not exist. There are only actions.

Is evil really a term for subjective morality? And what place does subjective morality have in a completely objective, totally scientific world?

a completely objective totally scientific world? where?

Why, in the thread about "evil pedophile", do people get so emotionally heated about the "evil" nature of the person being discussed?

I didn't follow that discussion but it was kind of unnecessary in the OP which was kind of trollish and most discussion about pedophiles get emotionally heated.

Tried to find the link but couldn't.. good example was a news story recently of mother and her boyfriend who tortured their own daughter to death. What's that if it not evil?

maybe they didn't know what they were doing? Is it still evil then?
(btw: I'm not trying to defend them, It's one of the most horrible things imaginable)

no, i don't. that would require an acceptance of the existance of moral absolutes, which i don't have.

There are rights and wrongs but good vs evil sounds simplistic....

I think "good-evil", if understood correctly, as personal moral value, is better than "right-wrong". "Wrong" applies equally to mistakes and intentional harm, and says nothing of a person.


As for the pedos, I think "evil pedophile" just sounds funny. Like an "evil murderer" would, it's simply funny in a serious source.

I think "good-evil", if understood correctly, as personal moral value, is better than "right-wrong". "Wrong" applies equally to mistakes and intentional harm, and says nothing of a person.


As for the pedos, I think "evil pedophile" just sounds funny. Like an "evil murderer" would, it's simply funny in a serious source.

Ot homicide bomber. I think that's among the stupidest things Fox News has ever done - trying to change the popular venaculer from suicide bomber to homicide bomber. All bombers are homicide bombers. Ted Kazinsky was a homicide bomber. What makes many attacks different is that some perps intentionally kill themselves when they do it. Suicide bomber sets this kind of attack apart from Timothy McVeigh.

Some things are clearly evil and not disputed by rational people.

Why did you say that? Why?!

Now we have to define rational.

I have always had a different conceptualization of 'evil' from everybody else. It's been, primarily, an adjective to describe something that is uniquely bad. Like Hitler. Hitler was evil.

Watching the thread about the "evil pedophile", and remembering how many people here are atheists, I was wondering...

Do you believe in evil? It's really an emotional term, fraught with imagery from every religion. Can you really be objective, and never use the term? Or do you have a scientific definition like this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#The_scale_of_evil

BTW, I am 04 on the scale.

Is evil really a term for subjective morality? And what place does subjective morality have in a completely objective, totally scientific world?

Why, in the thread about "evil pedophile", do people get so emotionally heated about the "evil" nature of the person being discussed?
I don't know about anyone else here, but I am NOT an atheist. I believe that there is such a thing as "evil", and I believe that what the Bible says is evil is evil, and what the Bible says is good is good. Furthermore, the Bible says "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil", and there are many people nowadays that do just exactly that.

I would say that to describe an act as "good" or "evil" you would have to look at the one committing it. For example, if I felt that killing children was wrong, and felt that I had no reason to kill children, then killing children is (for me) an evil act. If, though, my brother Ted doesn't think killing children is wrong, then he is not evil (in my view) because I believe that if you're talking about Good/Evil intent is paramount. If you do what you feel is wrong when you don't feel that it needs to be done, the action you have taken is evil. If, in the converse, you feel that stealing is wrong, but you steal for a reason you feel is needed and thusly justified (say stealing to feed your family), then the act is not an evil one, but rather a necessary one. I feel it's all about personal perspective. If I think that it's right to kill children, and feel that it's not needed to prevent the killing of children, then if I choose to prevent the killing of children I am thusly committing an evil act, not a good one. Because I believe the views of the one doing the act determine whether the act is good, or evil. So, yes, by my scale, Hitler is not evil (using this scale remember), because I believe he felt what he was doing was not only right but was needed. But hell, just what I think.

I do believe in evil, and I do believe that there are actions, or events, or people that can be called evil. However, I believe that most religion misused evil as a scare tactics to get people to join their religion.

I believe in "evil" in its original sense.

"Evil" is related to such words as "over" and "above." It's original sense referred to actions or endeavors that were excessively disproportionate to the ends, that stretched outside the bounds of reason.

In this sense, the end itself is almost immaterial. Any ideal whatsoever can be subverted to evil, when a person takes that ideal as so all-encompassing as to justify violating every other reasonable ideal of human existence.

In other words, someone can intend to do great good only to succeed in accomplishing great evil... evil being the perverted means through which they may seek their end. Perverted in the sense that from a certain point of view they undermine and contradict the original intended end.

Thus even benevolent tyranny is evil.

Yes. I believe that certain actions (mostly killing people or doing things that make people's lives significantly harder) are evil. I am a moral Objectivist, and always have been. When a man tortures a young girl to death, that's evil. When someone steals from an orphanage to build himself a yacht, that's evil. Perhaps it's too grandiose a term "And for many actions I prefer simply "Wrong") but it does, in fact, exist.

I would say that to describe an act as "good" or "evil" you would have to look at the one committing it. For example, if I felt that killing children was wrong, and felt that I had no reason to kill children, then killing children is (for me) an evil act. If, though, my brother Ted doesn't think killing children is wrong, then he is not evil (in my view) because I believe that if you're talking about Good/Evil intent is paramount. So your brother stabs a kid for standing on his lawn. Is this somehow "ok" because he thinks it is?

If you do what you feel is wrong when you don't feel that it needs to be done, the action you have taken is evil. If, in the converse, you feel that stealing is wrong, but you steal for a reason you feel is needed and thusly justified (say stealing to feed your family), then the act is not an evil one, but rather a necessary one. I feel it's all about personal perspective. If I think that it's right to kill children, and feel that it's not needed to prevent the killing of children, then if I choose to prevent the killing of children I am thusly committing an evil act, not a good one. Because I believe the views of the one doing the act determine whether the act is good, or evil. So, yes, by my scale, Hitler is not evil (using this scale remember), because I believe he felt what he was doing was not only right but was needed. But hell, just what I think.

So it's only evil when you know it's wrong, but you do it anyway?

I don't believe in Evil. There are only differing aims.

So your brother stabs a kid for standing on his lawn. Is this somehow "ok" because he thinks it is?

While your use of the word "ok" skews the meaning (as "ok" generally means acceptable, and the action he is taking is not acceptable in most societies, and certainly not mine) I would say that his act is not evil; because he felt it was not wrong. So yes, because he does not believe the act to be one that is wrong in his own mind (though of course many would disagree) it is not an evil act.

So it's only evil when you know it's wrong, but you do it anyway?

It's only evil if you feel (not know, I would say you cannot know whether something is right or wrong, I feel it's far more objective than that) and (you missed this part-- it's important!) you feel that this evil act was not necessary, if on the other hand you felt the act was wrong but also felt it was needed, I would say that it is a non-evil act (as I said before; stealing to feed your family if you feel stealing is wrong).

Yes. I believe that certain actions (mostly killing people or doing things that make people's lives significantly harder) are evil. I am a moral Objectivist, and always have been. When a man tortures a young girl to death, that's evil. When someone steals from an orphanage to build himself a yacht, that's evil. Perhaps it's too grandiose a term "And for many actions I prefer simply "Wrong") but it does, in fact, exist.

Ohh moral objectivists I love them.

So is the killing of one human by another human not in self defense evil?

Evil exists. Maybe it's hard to pin a definition onto it, but to modify a famous quote:
I can't define evil, but I know it when I see it.

Evil exists. Maybe it's hard to pin a definition onto it, but to modify a famous quote:
I can't define evil, but I know it when I see it.


Ohhhh now I want to know what the original quote was? Was it yoda?

You know like, I can't define Yoda, but I know it when I see it.

All men are capable of great evil and great good. All it takes is the perfect situation to bring it out.

Sometimes it seems as though evil is not so much a force as it is an absence of self-control in a situation that requires it.

A kid who sees money on a table and takes it, though it isn't theirs -- is that kid necessarily evil? The kid barbecuing ants with a magnifying glass, is he evil? Are the people charged with dogfighting (such as Michael Vick) evil?

In short, is evil something that exists in and of itself, or is it merely the absence of responsibility, consideration and enlightenment or information?

Evil exists. Maybe it's hard to pin a definition onto it, but to modify a famous quote:
I can't define evil, but I know it when I see it.

Wasn't that quote originally about obscenity? Or was the obscenity quote parapheased from one about evil?

While your use of the word "ok" skews the meaning (as "ok" generally means acceptable, and the action he is taking is not acceptable in most societies, and certainly not mine) I would say that his act is not evil; because he felt it was not wrong. So yes, because he does not believe the act to be one that is wrong in his own mind (though of course many would disagree) it is not an evil act.

It's only evil if you feel (not know, I would say you cannot know whether something is right or wrong, I feel it's far more objective than that) and (you missed this part-- it's important!) you feel that this evil act was not necessary, if on the other hand you felt the act was wrong but also felt it was needed, I would say that it is a non-evil act (as I said before; stealing to feed your family if you feel stealing is wrong).

You've used the word "feel" a lot here. I have difficulty accepting that evilness is only legitimate if the perpetrator "feels" that what they're doing is, in fact, evil. Also, the bold/underline statement you made is tautological -- why is there a need to account for necessity if the act, as described in the underlined statement, is already evil (your words)? Sorry, but brutal dictators (long after the end of feudalism) probably believed -- nope, sorry, "felt" -- that enhancing their own lives and the lives of their friends at the hands of the oppressed was not evil, and it was certainly necessary for them to have what they wanted (power and wealth)...but they sure as fuck WERE evil. Many of them saw themselves as champions! Idi Amin, that jackass Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, and many more. I'm certain they didn't FEEL that they were evil and even more certain that they saw their horrid regimes as quite necessary.

That said, where is the burden of proof for evilness?

I believe in "evil" in its original sense.

"Evil" is related to such words as "over" and "above." It's original sense referred to actions or endeavors that were excessively disproportionate to the ends, that stretched outside the bounds of reason.

In this sense, the end itself is almost immaterial. Any ideal whatsoever can be subverted to evil, when a person takes that ideal as so all-encompassing as to justify violating every other reasonable ideal of human existence.

In other words, someone can intend to do great good only to succeed in accomplishing great evil... evil being the perverted means through which they may seek their end. Perverted in the sense that from a certain point of view they undermine and contradict the original intended end.

Thus even benevolent tyranny is evil.

Even if nobody is suffering despite being free to complain is suffering is happening?

I don't believe in 'evil' but I believe in negative and positive on a scale where the negative thing can also be positive and vice versa. I can't be bothered to explain it beyond that though.

It depends on the definition of evil.

The most practical and usable one equals "evil" with egoism, "good" with altruism. In this form, evil most surely exists.
...But good may not exist :D

I don't believe in 'evil' but I believe in negative and positive on a scale where the negative thing can also be positive and vice versa. I can't be bothered to explain it beyond that though.

Heh thats quite funny.

Evil is only a label we use to describe subjective 'bad'. So of course it exsists. Even if we choose not to use that label and use a differant one instead, as long as others still use it, then there is is.

Yes, of course evil exsists just as goodness exsists.

Do you believe in evil? It's really an emotional term, fraught with imagery from every religion. Can you really be objective, and never use the term? Or do you have a scientific definition like this man:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#The_scale_of_evil


I saw this scale, and disagree with it. The most evil people are psychopaths, people who are mentally unbalanced. I think someone who showed psychopathic tendencies but was mentally stable would top the chart.

Yes. There are always shades of gray, but there is some stuff that is pretty damn dark.

Heh thats quite funny.

Evil is only a label we use to describe subjective 'bad'. So of course it exsists. Even if we choose not to use that label and use a differant one instead, as long as others still use it, then there is is.

So if someone sodomized a five-year old, decapitated him, and chopped the body up and fed the parts to the pet dog, it's not evil so long as some collective "we" decides that evil is the wrong label to apply to the situation? In what sense could you possibly say that "we" have a proper grasp of labeling in such a circumstance?

I'm being vulgar in no small part because I'm trying to cut to the quick: the only way you could propose such a thing is to suppose the five year-old and the murderer lived in a society of sociopaths, or to suggest the five year-old somehow volunteered for such a crime to be committed against him. In both cases, however, the facts of the matter are by and large irrelevant. If a child asked to be raped, murdered and dismembered, it would be an indication that the child is irrational, because no rational person would ever volunteer for such a thing. In the larger scale, if a society allows such a thing, society is irrational. As such, they are fundamentally incapable of rendering a properly-reasoned definition of good and evil.

If that be hubristic and/or culturally imperialistic, then I can't see how you've made anything other than a damn fine argument for hubris and cultural imperialism.

Evil is just a term for actions we deem to be wholly unacceptable. Evil exists as much as beauty exists, i.e. only in our minds.

Yes, I believe in humanity.

Yes, I believe in humanity.

Meh. Most humans are too stupid to be evil.

I believe that if you rearrange the letters in 'evil', you get 'veil' which clearly means that covering one's face is a possible act of aggression/a threat to society.
:p

You've used the word "feel" a lot here. I have difficulty accepting that evilness is only legitimate if the perpetrator "feels" that what they're doing is, in fact, evil. Also, the bold/underline statement you made is tautological -- why is there a need to account for necessity if the act, as described in the underlined statement, is already evil (your words)? Sorry, but brutal dictators (long after the end of feudalism) probably believed -- nope, sorry, "felt" -- that enhancing their own lives and the lives of their friends at the hands of the oppressed was not evil, and it was certainly necessary for them to have what they wanted (power and wealth)...but they sure as fuck WERE evil. Many of them saw themselves as champions! Idi Amin, that jackass Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Slobodan Milosevic, Augusto Pinochet, and many more. I'm certain they didn't FEEL that they were evil and even more certain that they saw their horrid regimes as quite necessary.

That said, where is the burden of proof for evilness?

As a quick note, whenever I said feel, the intended definition was "believe" not an emotional feeling.

The point of this is, though, that doing something is only evil if you believe it to be wrong. It's doing what you (in your own mind) know to be wrong, but not caring. That is evil. Intentional disregard of personal ethics, not accidental disregard of another person's.

As per the statement of necessity, as I said, if you believe an act to be evil, but a needed one, then it's not an evil act.

And why would there need to be a burden of proof for evilness? To what end? We do not punish people for being evil (unless you're an overly-fanatic member of some religious organization, I suppose), we punish people for breaking the law.

I understand that you disagree with my choice of definition of evil, and that's fine, what's yours?

(Mine would be something like what I said before; Intentional disregard to one's own personal ethics of ones own volition.)

I believe that if you rearrange the letters in 'evil', you get 'veil' which clearly means that covering one's face is a possible act of aggression/a threat to society.
:p

Wasn't that in some work of fiction? I'm sure I've read something about it before... Also, you can rearrange it to live, oddly enough. :p

Evil has no place in any discussion outside of religious ones. Evil is an absolute, and there are very few absolutes.

Is intent an absolute?
It's a focus, an attitude, a directive ... how absolute or solute is it?

\

Why, in the thread about "evil pedophile", do people get so emotionally heated about the "evil" nature of the person being discussed?

Hmmm. Perhaps there should be a balanced representation, like the "good pedophile" percentage.

depends on how you use the word.

i consider the only legitimate use of it to be an extreme of the thoughtlessness that causes suffering.

i don't believe there's such a thing as BEING evil, even of BEING 'good' or 'bad'.

murderes arn't in prison for being bad people, the're there because they killed someone!

there are of course extremes of caussing suffering, i think that's where, the word has any real usefulness or meaning.

but it isn't a thing that exists in the same way with the cold and heat thing discribed by einstien. it isn't a form of energy or anything that has an intrinsic existence in and of itself, rather it is the abscence of common sense decency. and why do i say 'common sense' decency? because we live in a statistical universe, and the more suffering there is the more likely each of us is to experience it, and the more we cause, whether individually or togather, the more of it there is.

=^^=
.../\...

As a quick note, whenever I said feel, the intended definition was "believe" not an emotional feeling.

The point of this is, though, that doing something is only evil if you believe it to be wrong. It's doing what you (in your own mind) know to be wrong, but not caring. That is evil. Intentional disregard of personal ethics, not accidental disregard of another person's.

As per the statement of necessity, as I said, if you believe an act to be evil, but a needed one, then it's not an evil act.

And why would there need to be a burden of proof for evilness? To what end? We do not punish people for being evil (unless you're an overly-fanatic member of some religious organization, I suppose), we punish people for breaking the law.

I understand that you disagree with my choice of definition of evil, and that's fine, what's yours?

(Mine would be something like what I said before; Intentional disregard to one's own personal ethics of ones own volition.)

The burden of proof is needed because evil is subjective. Kids think that predatory animals are evil because they kill cute animals for food. The burden of proof for the kid to see evil is that something less cute than something more cute is killing and eating the more cute thing. As we age, we come to understand the predator-prey relationship and that particular standard for evil is rescinded and re-examined.

I don't disagree with your definition of evil that much, but rather your presentation. "One's own personal ethics" leaves much wiggle room. If one's personal ethics include premeditated murder of people who whistle, or people who say "supposably" instead of "supposedly", or even random strangers, does that make the act somehow not evil? And even if those murders are legitimate to the killer, surely the perception of those related to the victims is going to scream "evil" (as well as sell lots of books and TV-movie rights...is greed evil?).

My problem with your definition is that it's very subjective. If "evil" is going to be bandied about by, say, the President of the United States, then there better be a non-personal, concrete, observable, objective definition of that term, or we might just find our nation's armed forces doing things which could be perceived as "evil" by other people.

Judas said "I have done evil [or "sinned" in some versions], in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." (Matthew 27:4)

But wasn't Judas' act of betrayal necessary for Jesus to sacrifice himself? Isn't that very sacrifice perceived by many to be the redemption of humanity -- and ergo, a good thing? Judas "did evil" because he was Judas, and could only do what Judas had to do, whether he understood that or not (I'm leaning toward not, what with him going for the hemp necktie without even spending his 30 large). I'm sure the Romans didn't see Judas' act as evil...he was an informant for them...an assistant. The pharisees and sadducees were probably pretty happy about it, too (those conniving bearded pricks).

So is there an absolute, objective "evil"? Probably. But how and when is it differentiated from self-centeredness, carelessness, inconsideration, lack of intuition, arrogance, or any of the other things in which it might masquerade?

Meh. Most humans are too stupid to be evil.

Evil is a part of everyone.

Evil is a part of everyone.

If you can explain that without using the Bible, I'll give you a cookie.

So if someone sodomized a five-year old, decapitated him, and chopped the body up and fed the parts to the pet dog, it's not evil so long as some collective "we" decides that evil is the wrong label to apply to the situation? In what sense could you possibly say that "we" have a proper grasp of labeling in such a circumstance?

I'm being vulgar in no small part because I'm trying to cut to the quick: the only way you could propose such a thing is to suppose the five year-old and the murderer lived in a society of sociopaths, or to suggest the five year-old somehow volunteered for such a crime to be committed against him. In both cases, however, the facts of the matter are by and large irrelevant. If a child asked to be raped, murdered and dismembered, it would be an indication that the child is irrational, because no rational person would ever volunteer for such a thing. In the larger scale, if a society allows such a thing, society is irrational. As such, they are fundamentally incapable of rendering a properly-reasoned definition of good and evil.

If that be hubristic and/or culturally imperialistic, then I can't see how you've made anything other than a damn fine argument for hubris and cultural imperialism.

Damn me! Did you even read what I was replying to?

Sumamba Buwhan Said:

'I don't believe in 'evil' but I believe in negative and positive on a scale where the negative thing can also be positive and vice versa. I can't be bothered to explain it beyond that though.'

My reply was just to say evil is a word we use to describe what you have just said, merely by calling it by a differant word does not make it not exist.

The point was in this case, what he/she calls negative can also be called evil. It is just a label, and changeing the label does not change the 'thing' the label represents.

If you can explain that without using the Bible, I'll give you a cookie.

Couldn't use the bible if I wanted too, I haven't read it enough.

One of the things that actually annoyed me about Christianity and one of the reasons I left that religion was the whole "devil made me do it" thing. That is, that it was satan tempting us to do cruel, selfish things.

Seemed like a cop-out to me. Everyone I think has the capacity to do good or evil or neither. One doesn't have evil ideas implanted into their head by some fallen angel bogeyman. The choices we make are between options that already exist in our minds, for the most part they're not put there by someone trying to tempt us. At least, not in my opinion. The blame for evil deeds should not be shifted from humans to some monster we can't see. That's what I think, anyway.

The burden of proof is needed because evil is subjective. Kids think that predatory animals are evil because they kill cute animals for food. The burden of proof for the kid to see evil is that something less cute than something more cute is killing and eating the more cute thing. As we age, we come to understand the predator-prey relationship and that particular standard for evil is rescinded and re-examined.

I don't disagree with your definition of evil that much, but rather your presentation. "One's own personal ethics" leaves much wiggle room. If one's personal ethics include premeditated murder of people who whistle, or people who say "supposably" instead of "supposedly", or even random strangers, does that make the act somehow not evil? And even if those murders are legitimate to the killer, surely the perception of those related to the victims is going to scream "evil" (as well as sell lots of books and TV-movie rights...is greed evil?).

My problem with your definition is that it's very subjective. If "evil" is going to be bandied about by, say, the President of the United States, then there better be a non-personal, concrete, observable, objective definition of that term, or we might just find our nation's armed forces doing things which could be perceived as "evil" by other people.

Judas said "I have done evil [or "sinned" in some versions], in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." (Matthew 27:4)

But wasn't Judas' act of betrayal necessary for Jesus to sacrifice himself? Isn't that very sacrifice perceived by many to be the redemption of humanity -- and ergo, a good thing? Judas "did evil" because he was Judas, and could only do what Judas had to do, whether he understood that or not (I'm leaning toward not, what with him going for the hemp necktie without even spending his 30 large). I'm sure the Romans didn't see Judas' act as evil...he was an informant for them...an assistant. The pharisees and sadducees were probably pretty happy about it, too (those conniving bearded pricks).

So is there an absolute, objective "evil"? Probably. But how and when is it differentiated from self-centeredness, carelessness, inconsideration, lack of intuition, arrogance, or any of the other things in which it might masquerade?

While I appreciate your intelligent disagreement with my chosen definition, I've still a quibble: What's yours? If mine doesn't work (and clearly in your mind it doesn't), what would you say does?

I think that any definition of a completely subjective thing-- needs to be a definition based on subjectivity, and in my opinion morals, ethics, right/wrong or what have you are completely subjective, 'tis why I've defined it as I have. :cool:

Damn me! Did you even read what I was replying to?

Sumamba Buwhan Said:

'I don't believe in 'evil' but I believe in negative and positive on a scale where the negative thing can also be positive and vice versa. I can't be bothered to explain it beyond that though.'

My reply was just to say evil is a word we use to describe what you have just said, merely by calling it by a differant word does not make it not exist.

The point was in this case, what he/she calls negative can also be called evil. It is just a label, and changeing the label does not change the 'thing' the label represents.

It's the "subjective 'bad'" part I was objecting to, in that it implies a "wrong for me" outlook on what defines evil. The point of my post was to say that if anyone differed from that "wrong for me" approach with respect to child rape and dismemberment, we wouldn't take it as evidence that child rape and dismemberment are only evil subjectively, but rather that the guy or society disagreeing with us is insane and in no position to offer substantive critiques of our morality.

Not anymore, the whole stunt motorcycle jumping over things is just so over.

It's the "subjective 'bad'" part I was objecting to, in that it implies a "wrong for me" outlook on what defines evil. The point of my post was to say that if anyone differed from that "wrong for me" approach with respect to child rape and dismemberment, we wouldn't take it as evidence that child rape and dismemberment are only evil subjectively, but rather that the guy or society disagreeing with us is insane and in no position to offer substantive critiques of our morality.

Ohhh I see, that just indicates my belife that morality is subjective. I refrerance what I call the 'moral majority' when I talk of socicial morality. What the majority deem is good is so, and what the majority deem is bad is so.

Indeed given the scenerio that you outline, if this majority activly engaged in this sort of child abuse, then within that place, time and culture it would be not be deemed evil.

Ohhh I see, that just indicates my belife that morality is subjective. I refrerance what I call the 'moral majority' when I talk of socicial morality. What the majority deem is good is so, and what the majority deem is bad is so.

Indeed given the scenerio that you outline, if this majority activly engaged in this sort of child abuse, then within that place, time and culture it would be not be deemed evil.
The majority of the US is Christian, the majority of them are pro-life. Is abortion then evil?

The majority of the US is Christian, the majority of them are pro-life. Is abortion then evil?

The 'moral majority' is not the same as the majority population. Are you really telling me that the majority of all residants of the USA are opposed to abortion?

If that was the case, then wouldn't it be illeagal by now?

The 'moral majority' is not the same as the majority population. Are you really telling me that the majority of all residants of the USA are opposed to abortion?
define this moral majority, and btw who are you to judge the moral majority?

If that was the case, then wouldn't it be illeagal by now?
not necessarily. The majority of Americans don't want to be in Iraq and yet, we send more troops.

define this moral majority, and btw who are you to judge the moral majority?


not necessarily. The majority of Americans don't want to be in Iraq and yet, we send more troops.

I don't even pretend to judge the moral majority, I only say that a culture, or time, or geographic location, gets it group morality(not personal, although obviously personal morality can be based around group morality) from what I term the moral majority.

An example: Amongst the Muslim population of Pakistan, drugs and alchol are deemed bad. However Western born Muslims are more likely to do both, exactly because the western culture(the moral majority) have not deemed it to be that much of an issue.

That is the morality of the culture. Which dictates what is wrong and what is right. It is very hard to have grownup within a particular culture and have a personal morality that goes against the cultural morality.


As to the troops, if you are correct then the people should band together to get the current goverment out of there.

It's the "subjective 'bad'" part I was objecting to, in that it implies a "wrong for me" outlook on what defines evil. The point of my post was to say that if anyone differed from that "wrong for me" approach with respect to child rape and dismemberment, we wouldn't take it as evidence that child rape and dismemberment are only evil subjectively, but rather that the guy or society disagreeing with us is insane and in no position to offer substantive critiques of our morality.
We would?

I wouldn't.

Rape, and child rape, have been regarded as acceptable and/or good by many societies throughout history. My own culture regards certain kinds of rape as acceptable right now.

The "evilness" of rape or child abuse is, indeed, subjective. As is the evilness of anything else.

When we pass judgment on somebody for violating our shared concept of "goodness," we don't have to be saying a single damn thing about objective morality. We're simply saying that they are behaving in a way that is unacceptable to us, and they now get to face the consequences of that choice. Our society, as a whole, requires the enforcing of certain laws in order to function. We benefit from the upholding of those laws. So we enforce them. No "objective morality" is required.

Do you believe in evil?

Yes.

It's really an emotional term

In that it is a term that inspires emotion, yes.

In that it is a term that need necessarily have emotional foundation... I am not so sure.

Can you really be objective, and never use the term?

I think rational objectivity will always recognize selfishness--at least of a certain sort--as evil.

But, then, I suppose I am using "objectivity" in a different way from you.

Is evil really a term for subjective morality?

Not exclusively, no.

Why, in the thread about "evil pedophile", do people get so emotionally heated about the "evil" nature of the person being discussed?

Because our society has a strong cultural hatred of pedophilia.

Meh. Most humans are too stupid to be evil.

With the obvious exception of the Bush administration and a good portion of its cronies and supporters, who are stupid AND evil.

You don't have to be successful to be "evil", just focused.

....and most of the rest are too apathetic to be evil.

....and most of the rest are too apathetic to be evil.

Painfully, woefully true.

While I appreciate your intelligent disagreement with my chosen definition, I've still a quibble: What's yours? If mine doesn't work (and clearly in your mind it doesn't), what would you say does?

I think that any definition of a completely subjective thing-- needs to be a definition based on subjectivity, and in my opinion morals, ethics, right/wrong or what have you are completely subjective, 'tis why I've defined it as I have. :cool:

I am of the opinion that it doesn't need defining because it is so different according to each individual. Evil to one is a necessity to another. I think evil, as a concept, was invented in order to throw "goodness" into sharp relief. Otherwise, "goodness" would have to oppose itself to "selfishness", which is something internal and personal and much harder to part with than some external, scaly-skinned, brimstone-huffing demon. A fairly Freudian transferrence. Does that help?

The 'moral majority' is not the same as the majority population. Are you really telling me that the majority of all residants of the USA are opposed to abortion?

If that was the case, then wouldn't it be illeagal by now?

The moral majority is neither.

We've all seen evil - Stalin, Hitler, Hussein's older son. Still, that's at a remove and, even though it lived, it still seems a little abstract. But I've seen evil in person - a woman who killed her four-year-old daughter for $5000.00 in insurance and then did a creditable job of acting the bereaved mother. She almost fooled us all. I imagine we've all seen it in our day-to-day lives - the serial killer, the child molester, the serial rapist, the teenagers who torture animals - whether you believe or not, these personify evil.

"Thou based devil, this foul creed, before our eyes do forever see."

Evil. It need not religion to display itself nor ethics to reveal some shoddy definition upon which a man may stand and say "this is evil". A primordial emotion, a feeling of hatred in its purest uncontrolled form, or perhaps a dis-function of certain chemicals within the brain. Either description or manner of words which you would put it to does not help any of us come closer to the understanding of something that is so against our natures.

The very reason the word exists is to describe that which we as human beings found beyond our scope of acceptance, an act so foul, so evil, that it required a word to describe it.

Whether your evil wears horns, calls itself a devil, and fire or a sports jacket and knife whilst proclaiming itself a rapist and murderer...evil is evil. It is a spectrum of human behavior that is unacceptable to us. For, paradoxically, to accept it is to become that evil.

"Thou based devil, this foul creed, before our eyes do forever see."

Evil. It need not religion to display itself nor ethics to reveal some shoddy definition upon which a man may stand and say "this is evil". A primordial emotion, a feeling of hatred in its purest uncontrolled form, or perhaps a dis-function of certain chemicals within the brain. Either description or manner of words which you would put it to does not help any of us come closer to the understanding of something that is so against our natures.

The very reason the word exists is to describe that which we as human beings found beyond our scope of acceptance, an act so foul, so evil, that it required a word to describe it.

Whether your evil wears horns, calls itself a devil, and fire or a sports jacket and knife whilst proclaiming itself a rapist and murderer...evil is evil. It is a spectrum of human behavior that is unacceptable to us. For, paradoxically, to accept it is to become that evil.


You win, and beautifuly put too.:D

Evil is that which pushes you away from the final end. Murder and rape push you away from said final end, so they are evil.

Evil has no place in any discussion outside of religious ones. Evil is an absolute, and there are very few absolutes.

I agree, though only in end result. Evil is indeed an absolute; but it is incomprehensible to us, just as Good is its opposite. Certainly, there is relative evil as opposed to what is good; what is light without darkness? Opposite forces are in equal proportion in the universe, but the Truth remains cloaked to our perception, thus it does not belong in discussion, because it cannot be discussed. So go forth and multiply, and care not for the greater scheme of things that cannot be changed!

"Thou based devil, this foul creed, before our eyes do forever see."

Evil. It need not religion to display itself nor ethics to reveal some shoddy definition upon which a man may stand and say "this is evil". A primordial emotion, a feeling of hatred in its purest uncontrolled form, or perhaps a dis-function of certain chemicals within the brain. Either description or manner of words which you would put it to does not help any of us come closer to the understanding of something that is so against our natures.

The very reason the word exists is to describe that which we as human beings found beyond our scope of acceptance, an act so foul, so evil, that it required a word to describe it.

Whether your evil wears horns, calls itself a devil, and fire or a sports jacket and knife whilst proclaiming itself a rapist and murderer...evil is evil. It is a spectrum of human behavior that is unacceptable to us. For, paradoxically, to accept it is to become that evil.
Whereas, to deny it, well ... we all know what to think when that situation comes up.

Whereas, to deny it, well ... we all know what to think when that situation comes up.

"Evil enough is at its worse, but greater evil is when good stands and does nothing in it's presence."

A common theme you point out, that when good allows evil to go along its merry path it furthers that evil and makes the deed all the worse.