NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear NSGers talking about evil and it's definition a lot, but I haven't seen a thread on it yet, strangly enough. I personally define evil as someone who has total disdain for all of humanity, and dedicates their lives to making the world a worse place. Intentionally! Idiots don't count. So I'd say someone like Joseph Stalin. *Runs before AP comes*

So what do you NSGers define as evil?

Interesting topic, evil.

If said this on here before, but I'd define evil as 'a complete lack of morally good motivation or action' (which is in keeping, I believe, with how evil characters appear in fiction), and as such, I do not believe it exists in humanity beyond those unfortunate psychopaths and sociopaths.

http://thephoenix.com/OutsideTheFrame/content/binary/55_cheney.jpg

Interesting topic, evil.

If said this on here before, but I'd define evil as 'a complete lack of morally good motivation or action' (which is in keeping, I believe, with how evil characters appear in fiction), and as such, I do not believe it exists in humanity beyond those unfortunate psychopaths and sociopaths.

I'd agree. I can't really think of a safe way to label people as evil, because I believe morality is based on intent (which is difficult to know for certain). But my idea of evil matches your definition.

There is no evil nor there is any good... just infinite grayness and unlucky souls wandering in it. How's that for a definiton?

http://www.foiacentre.com/FOIACentreads/DFT_Alistair_Darling_cropped.jpg

I think the concept of Evil is valuable for dehumanizing people so you can mercilessly slaughter them with much cheerleading of the general population. Replace Evil with Terrorism or Sin for the same effect.

http://www.foiacentre.com/FOIACentreads/DFT_Alistair_Darling_cropped.jpg

My picture is better. This guy looks like he just got away with something, but Cheney looks like he's about to lunge. *nod*

My picture is better. This guy looks like he just got away with something, but Cheney looks like he's about to lunge. *nod*

Got away with something? Maybe, but I was thinking more, "I'm not wearing anything below my neck." Sort of a smug, comfortable smile.

Anything which contradicts natural morality.

<piccy snip>
Och, Darling's not evil, he's just a bit bemused. And who wouldn't be with those eyebrows?

(For those not in the know, that's Alistair Darling, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

My picture is better. This guy looks like he just got away with something, but Cheney looks like he's about to lunge. *nod*

Alistair is at best a day or two away from announcing a policy that'll totally rape the British public .

Then he may get fired but will come back stronger, faster, less explodie than before due to the unique British electoral system.

I'd say he is evil.

Och, Darling's not evil, he's just a bit bemused. And who wouldn't be with those eyebrows?

(For those not in the know, that's Alistair Darling, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

He's the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His job is to be evil.

The Dutch.

Sociopathy and psychopathy etc are illnesses. Breaking the rules of morality is (depending on the basis of the code) commonly subjective - certainly virtue and vice are culturally subjective. To be truely evil there has to be an objective Evil, and the evil person works to the ends (whatever that may be) of the Evil. If that means being nice for your entire life, so be it. Evil is in the intentions and the ends.

If you don't believe in an objective Evil (which I don't) what we call evil is generally behaviour (actions) that breaks the community/connectivity between people (actual antisocial behaviour, not teenage hijinks). Intentions are irrelevant - "the road to Hell..." We percieve severity based on scale (a holocaust is more "evil" than a single murder) but in the end the difference is probably only one of opportunity.

What is an NSGer?

Alistair is at best a day or two away from announcing a policy that'll totally rape the British public .

Then he may get fired but will come back stronger, faster, less explodie than before due to the unique British electoral system.

I'd say he is evil.

Never trust anyone who's eyebrows are a different color from his hair.

Never trust anyone who's eyebrows are a different color from his hair.
*Sniffs* You don't trust me? My red hair does not include my eyebrows (Which are brown). *Cries for lack of trust between us*:D

Sociopathy and psychopathy etc are illnesses. Breaking the rules of morality is (depending on the basis of the code) commonly subjective - certainly virtue and vice are culturally subjective. To be truely evil there has to be an objective Evil, and the evil person works to the ends (whatever that may be) of the Evil. If that means being nice for your entire life, so be it. Evil is in the intentions and the ends.

If you don't believe in an objective Evil (which I don't) what we call evil is generally behaviour (actions) that breaks the community/connectivity between people (actual antisocial behaviour, not teenage hijinks). Intentions are irrelevant - "the road to Hell..." We percieve severity based on scale (a holocaust is more "evil" than a single murder) but in the end the difference is probably only one of opportunity.

What is an NSGer?

Well said, reallity is a lot more complex than fantasy.
As per NS, Evil is difined here, as "anything that ticks me off."

Never trust anyone who's eyebrows are a different color from his hair.
I learned that the hard way from Dawson's Creek...

*is ashamed*

evil doesn't exist in people because it would be absurd to think that we live in an episode of the power rangers :p

however I'd say that for instance certain foods are evil and Jellyfish come close (http://www.meatsandfishes.com/apology/index.php?date=2006-02-23)

So I'd say someone like Joseph Stalin. *Runs before AP comes*

but he only wanted a communist utopia :confused:

Och, Darling's not evil, he's just a bit bemused. And who wouldn't be with those eyebrows?

(For those not in the know, that's Alistair Darling, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

Chancellor of the Exchequer? Even his title sounds evil.

but he only wanted a communist utopia
Indeed. As everyone knows, people LOVE Concentration camps, they're the perfect habitat. Starvation, purge after purge, I'd say this guy KNEW what he was doing. He was evil. Unless you like starving to death, and before that living in constant fear of the police accusing you of a crime you didn't do, comrade. :)

I hear NSGers talking about evil and it's definition a lot, but I haven't seen a thread on it yet, strangly enough. I personally define evil as someone who has total disdain for all of humanity, and dedicates their lives to making the world a worse place. Intentionally! Idiots don't count. So I'd say someone like Joseph Stalin. *Runs before AP comes*

So what do you NSGers define as evil?

Evil, in a large sense, may be described as the sum of the opposition, which experience shows to exist in the universe, to the desires and needs of individuals; whence arises, among humans beings at least, the sufferings in which life abounds. Thus evil, from the point of view of human welfare, is what ought not to exist.

Nevertheless, there is no department of human life in which its presence is not felt; and the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be has always called for explanation in the account which mankind has sought to give of itself and its surroundings. For this purpose it is necessary (1) to define the precise nature of the principle that imparts the character of evil to so great a variety of circumstances, and (2) to ascertain, as far as may be possible, to source from which it arises.


According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil): In many cultures, evil is used to describe acts or thoughts which are contrary to some particular religion. In some religions, evil is an active force, often personified as an entity such as Satan or Ahriman.

Chancellor of the Exchequer? Even his title sounds evil.

hes head of the sociaty of bad cheque's ;)

Indeed. As everyone knows, people LOVE Concentration camps, they're the perfect habitat. Starvation, purge after purge, I'd say this guy KNEW what he was doing. He was evil. Unless you like starving to death, and before that living in constant fear of the police accusing you of a crime you didn't do, comrade. :)

however he did these things to protect the revolution (paranoid as it was) which was the correct thing to do in his world view

He was evil. Unless you like starving to death, and before that living in constant fear of the police accusing you of a crime you didn't do, comrade. :)
He was bad, sure, but if we take the definition of evil that I mentioned above, 'a complete lack of morally good motivation or action', then Stalin wasn't evil. Some of his actions had morally good motivations, even if his actions were fucked up.

Chancellor of the Exchequer? Even his title sounds evil.
I heard a really cool story about how the title came into being, one that I hope is true:

Back in the day, early financial institutions such as counting houses calculated the amount of money they had in their possession by dividing the coins into piles of ten, then placing each pile on one square of a chequered cloth. That way, they could quickly do fairly large calculations by seeing how many rows and columns of coins there were. The head honcho of these financial institutions was called the Chancellor of 'the Chequers', those who counted using the chequered cloth.

Thus, when folk stopped using the method, he became the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer.

EDIT: Seems WikiP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchequer) and the Treasury agrees with me (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/about/about_history/about_history_history.cfm) in some regards:

"The Exchequer is an oblong board measuring about 10 feet by 5…with a rim around it about four finger breadths in height, to prevent anything set on it from falling off. Over it is spread a cloth, bought in Easter term, with a special pattern, black, ruled with lines a foot, or a full span, apart. In the spaces between them are placed the counters, in their ranks.

The accountant sits in the middle of his side of the table, so that everybody can see him, and so that his hand can move freely at its work. In the lowest space on the right, he places the heap of the pence; in the second the shillings; in the third the pounds…As he reckons, he must put out the counters and state the numbers simultaneously, lest there should be a mistake in the number. When the sum demanded of the sheriff has been set out in heaps of counters, the payments made into the Treasury or otherwise are similarly set out in heaps underneath. The lower line is simply subtracted from the upper. The Dialogue on the Exchequer, 1177."

I learned that the hard way from Dawson's Creek...

*is ashamed*

Dawson's Creek is evil.


Or just awful. Either way.

I hear NSGers talking about evil and it's definition a lot, but I haven't seen a thread on it yet, strangly enough. I personally define evil as someone who has total disdain for all of humanity, and dedicates their lives to making the world a worse place. Intentionally! Idiots don't count. So I'd say someone like Joseph Stalin. *Runs before AP comes*

So what do you NSGers define as evil?

Evil is subjective to the environment and individual experiences of people. So, for example, Stalin was evil to the bourgeois because he liquidated them, but he was good to the vast working majority, whom he liberated.

I have no time for your abstract liberalism and petite-bourgeois moralism.

Evil is subjective to the environment and individual experiences of people. So, for example, Stalin was evil to the bourgeois because he liquidated them, but he was good to the vast working majority, whom he liberated.
So you'd say 'evil' is just equivalent to 'bad' or 'very bad'?

but I'd define evil as 'a complete lack of morally good motivation or action'

are you talking about lacking both good motivations and actions, or are the separate paths to evil? suppose someone who had bad intentions accidentally engaged in good actions - evil or not? (i think most would agree that somebody who tried to do good but constantly failed would be tragic rather than evil)

are you talking about lacking both good motivations and actions, or are the separate paths to evil?
Both.

suppose someone who had bad intentions accidentally engaged in good actions - evil or not?
Hrmmmm. I would say they were evil if they never had any good motivations, or at least never had any good motivations or intentions for an extremely long time. However, outside of fiction, and ignoring psycopaths and sociopaths, I don't think any human falls under the above category.

I'd concede that we might describe certain actions as 'evil', i.e., those actions which are completely devoid of any moral worth, and are motivated on purely morally bad reasons. But which human(s) act in this way all of the time?

i think most would agree that somebody who tried to do good but constantly failed would be tragic rather than evil
I'd quite agree.

I think the concept of Evil is valuable for dehumanizing people so you can mercilessly slaughter them with much cheerleading of the general population. Replace Evil with Terrorism or Sin for the same effect.

^ this.


If said this on here before, but I'd define evil as 'a complete lack of morally good motivation or action' (which is in keeping, I believe, with how evil characters appear in fiction), and as such, I do not believe it exists in humanity beyond those unfortunate psychopaths and sociopaths.


Psychological illness/disability can't really be indicative of "evil," can it? In order to be truly "evil" in any sort of objective sense, one's "complete lack of morally good motiviation or action" must be chosen, yes? Presumably one is not psycho/sociopathic by choice.

He was bad, sure, but if we take the definition of evil that I mentioned above, 'a complete lack of morally good motivation or action', then Stalin wasn't evil. Some of his actions had morally good motivations, even if his actions were fucked up.

I believe that Stalin had the worst for the world in mind, and lacked any kind of concience. At least when he became dictator of the USSR. I don't know about him before that. With all truth, I believe the man has no moral compass, and had "A complete lack of morally good motivation", although some of his actions had good endings, in my opinon, the ends do NOT justify the means. Once again, it's my opinon, others will hold that Stalin really did believe that Communism was great, and some *Cough* Andaras*Cough cough* will argue that everything Stalin did was for the good of mankind as a whole.

It seems like "good intentions" is just as vague as "not evil". What makes someone's intentions good or bad? Is attempting to better oneself at the known expense of others bad? If the harm to others isn't known, is selfishness still bad?

Someone like Hitler may well believe that he or she acts rightly. But this belief is probably founded on bad reasons--reasons likely accepted because of prejudice or selfish convenience rather than honest analysis.

A sort of integrity is at the heart of moral goodness, not just broad "good intent": the willingness to seek "right" in itself and for itself, not so that it might conform to a preconception accepted on arbitrary bases.

And plenty of people do evil things, even gravely evil things, despite viewing them in those terms. Not necessarily people like Hitler, whose very ideology are evil... but it seems a massive stretch to say that, for instance, every murderer simply doesn't share the dominant assumption within conventional morality that murder is wrong.

I believe that Stalin had the worst for the world in mind, and lacked any kind of concience. At least when he became dictator of the USSR. I don't know about him before that. With all truth, I believe the man has no moral compass, and had "A complete lack of morally good motivation", although some of his actions had good endings, in my opinon, the ends do NOT justify the means. Once again, it's my opinon, others will hold that Stalin really did believe that Communism was great, and some *Cough* Andaras*Cough cough* will argue that everything Stalin did was for the good of mankind as a whole.
Not for the good of mankind as a whole, just the working class.

And please, stop with your petite-bourgeios moralism, it makes me feel ill.

Not for the good of mankind as a whole, just the working class.

And please, stop with your petite-bourgeios moralism, it makes me feel ill.
Please stop worshipping a man who murdered in cold blood, millions of innocents, it makes me ill.

Please stop worshipping a man who murdered in cold blood, millions of innocents, it makes me ill.

If you want to condemn the peasants who in self-defense killed the feudal kulaks who were attacking them, burning their grain, slaughtering their cattle, then your welcome to do so.

You have naivety seeping from every part of you, you are petty and weak and do not understand the reality of class warfare.

If you want to condemn the peasants who in self-defense killed the feudal kulaks who were attacking them, burning their grain, slaughtering their cattle, then your welcome to do so.

You have naivety seeping from every part of you, you are petty and weak and do not understand the reality of class warfare.
If you want to condemn the brave soldiers of the USSR who fought and escaped from Nazi camps only to be imprisoned for political crimes they never committed, then you're welcome to do so.

Just becasue you like to see soldiers who serve their country bravely, only to be arrested when they show anything resembling leadership skills or mild competence, dosen't mean everyone else does.

Evil is ultimate selfishness, to the point that it has the mentality that if it cannot have or get what it wants, no one should have it. It will destroy anything and everyone in pursuit of its own goals, even the very thing that it professes to want in the first place.

I was raised on my grandfather's ranch, and i think he should have been a lawyer instead of a cowboy. He had a very frustrating definition of evil:

Evil is that which causes harm.

Natural evil is that which causes harm because you were to stupid to get out of its way/harms way, or protect yourself from it.

Moral evil was that which causes harm by volition or failure thereof regardless of how good your intentions (if indeed you had any good intent) whether actively or passively, by commission or omission.

The other thing he said about evil in general and moral evil in particular was that it stemmed from selfishness and immaturity; and that he had failed as a parent if i lived to become a selfish and immature adult.

Now i am frustrating the next generation into thinking of the consequences of their actions before acting on fuzzy feelings or stinking thinking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/slink/images/200x200/clown.jpg

:)

Evil is anything that causes fear and pain, either without the intent to help the person or people, or without their permission.

Good intentions+Evil actions=morally Neutral

Vice versa is also true.

Evil is anything that causes fear and pain, either without the intent to help the person or people, or without their permission.

Good intentions+Evil actions=morally Neutral

Vice versa is also true.

i don't agree with this last part.


bad intentions=ethically negative

bad actions=morally negative


lack of intention=ethically neutral

lack of (conscious) action(/inaction)=morally neutral


good intentions=ethically positive

good actions=morally negative


good intentions+bad actions=ethically positive but morally negative!

but HUMANLY neutral.

etc, etc.

good intentions+good actions=ethically positive and morally positive=humanly positive=HUMAN!

negative intentions+negative actions=ethically negative and morally negative=humanly negative=EVIL!

i define as evil whatever intentionally causes suffering.

it's that simple, for me.

i define whatever causes suffering (for anyone) as "bad".

when what is "bad" is caused by conscious intention to effect that suffering, i define that as "evil".


i define whatever magnifies happiness as "good".

when what is "good" is initiated by conscious intention to magnify that happiness, i define that as "human".


therefore---just as i define "good" as the opposite of "bad", i define "human" as the opposite of "evil".

(i---for one---never speak of "good" and "evil" as opposites.)


by the by:
i define as "Divine" whatever intrinsically transcends the spectrum of human-good-neutral-bad-evil.


peace.

Evil is when the mind is devoid of conscientious hesitation in the action of a "wrong" or "bad" deed. Evil is a word to describe the personification of rape, murder, infliction of pain for the sake of inflicting pain, and many other sins that could be given the label of "Evil." Evil is when a human puts himself above his fellow human in the inane belief that by doing so he is gaining something righteous or understanding some inconceivable truth that only he/she could understand through the perverse acts of debasement, all in the name of the end justifying the means.

All of that is what I think Evil is.

Evil is highly reletive and cultural in its definition. As such, I dont believe evil can be defined.

Psychological illness/disability can't really be indicative of "evil," can it? In order to be truly "evil" in any sort of objective sense, one's "complete lack of morally good motiviation or action" must be chosen, yes? Presumably one is not psycho/sociopathic by choice.
My bad; the wording in my post was all wrong.

I certainly don't think psychological illness/disability can be indicative of 'evil', I was meaning that the only people I can think of who consistently act with bad intentions towards others are certain sociopaths and psychopaths.