What is evil?

[Barry the Sprout]

This has arisen from a number of other threads, in here and the war forum. It is something that has been bugging me for an while. Do we have a definition of an evil person or an evil action? I don't think we do personally, which is a little worrying. Is it entirely subjective or is there a line over which a person only crosses if they are "evil"?

Is someone who is born psychotic (sp?) evil?

Is someone fighting for a cause you don't agree with evil? (Not referring to specifics here, however much it might seem like I am. Please trust me on that. Would I be evil if I lead a communist revolution for example)

I hope we can conduct this without flaming, so if people are going to get angry or this is going to get sidetracked into another "Criminals" tread then lets just call it quits. But hopefully we should be able to discuss this quietly and calmly. It is a deep philosophical question, so lets see what people make of it.

[norompanlasolas]

interesting thread barry.

i dont have an opinion set on stone on this one. not being a religious person, i tend to believe less in evil as such than in morality. its a very difficult subject, though.

perhaps people do things that are perceived as good or bad depending on the morality and set standards of behavior of the society they are living in. if the action is within the boundaries of what society accepts, its fine but any transgression may be viewed as evil.

an example may be that in lots of societys would be considered evil and cruel if you abandoned your grandfather in the street to die of starvation and cold. however, in some esquimos communities, it is acceptable and encouraged to do that when they are no longer productive members of society.

of course, some actions like murder, rape, and such could be inherently evil, and against the very nature of human beings. but, again, maybe they are actions so deviated from our nature that could be considered the product of a deranged person, with their mental faculties twisted in some way, so the definition of evil would not be aplicable, since evil is the person that does things for the pure pleasure of them, not for the outcome, but for the action or evil itself. i dont know if i was very clear, but its my english sometimes gets in the way of my argumentations. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[AzureWolf]

I believe that experiences in life can make a person lose moral values, like how traumatic their childhood was. But I dont believe that people are born evil or have inherently evil souls etc.
Plus some people with mental impairments can often do morally bad things which classifies them as "evil" by a lot of people, when they often do not even realise what they are doing.
Some people have no conscience, and feel no moral wrongness from doing harm to another or even take a perverse pleasure from it. But still I would state these people as lacking in moral values and the better half of human emotions.
But to lump them all under a label of "evil" is wrong.
And to call you a evil man if you lead a communist revolution is total BS. If after the revolution or during it you commited grevious acts of violence and oppression against others I would call you a sadistic bastard without a conscience. But I believe evil is an outdated term used in context to bring out emotions in others.

[Wulfere]

I would have to agree with the two previous posts. Evil seems to me more a religious term. Used to denote the Devil or some act so grievous as to go beyond anything you could imagion. It encompasses all those things we are taught are wrong, but also things we can not conceive. I have worked in a maximum security federal prison. Many inmates don't see that they have done anything wrong. Except maybe getting caught. Some of them commited acts you might lable as evil. Patients at the State Hospital where my girlfriend works, are severely impaired. She has told me some of the things that they have done. The stories would chill your bones. But, since they are mentally deranged or have organic impairments to their brains you can't really classify them as evil.

So... I don't see where you can point at an action and say irrevokably
"That is Evil incarnate!" and have everyone in the world agree.
What someone from one culture might call evil is not seen as such by those from another culture. So in that respect, it will remain a debateable subject till this world ends or we pass from it.

[Barry the Sprout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by AzureWolf:
And to call you a evil man if you lead a communist revolution is total BS. If after the revolution or during it you commited grevious acts of violence and oppression against others I would call you a sadistic bastard without a conscience. But I believe evil is an outdated term used in context to bring out emotions in others.

---

It was just an example of how actions might be justified by beliefs. If I justified killing a few people in order to enact my beliefs would I be considered evil? Or is the justification of faith or principle enough? When is it not enough? What line do I have to cross? Is it entirely subjective? Too many questions? I think so.

I agree with you about evil being an excuse. My personal view is that evil is often used as a gainsay "no word" of society. it allows us to scapegoat in order to avoid the real problems. You could say that the kids involved in the Columbine High School shooting were evil, from their actions they were at least very cold. But were they just young and confused? Often people sexually abused as children abuse others when older. At what age would they stop being a victim and start being evil? Was Hitler evil? If so why? These are just random thoughts that pop into my head now, I am posting from the University library so I will stop. Any thoughts on the above, guys?

[Jorath Calar]

Flowers pretty, fire bad...

//* Jorath steps back into his cube of ignorant bliss

[Garnet FalconDance]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:


It was just an example of how actions might be justified by beliefs. If I justified killing a few people in order to enact my beliefs would I be considered evil? Or is the justification of faith or principle enough? When is it not enough? What line do I have to cross? Is it entirely subjective? Too many questions? I think so.

I agree with you about evil being an excuse. My personal view is that evil is often used as a gainsay "no word" of society. it allows us to scapegoat in order to avoid the real problems.

---

First, I would agree with you in that the word 'evil' has become a scapegoat term to describe anything we do not want to face. And I also would agree that the concept of 'evil' is mainly a religious one in its origin.

Now, having said that, as I stated in another thread, I teach my children that *people* are not evil--their *actions* are 'evil' in that they are reprehensible to a civilized society. To further clarify, in most of western society, two of the acts which might fall under the umbrella 'evil' would be murder and heinous crimes against children. If viewed under an umbrella of religion, homosexuality or women in the pulpit might be considered 'evil'.

But evil, like sanity, tends to be a societally defined word. Americans, among other nationalities, consider the actions of religious zealots to be evil. Yet those same religious individuals consider themselves to be justified under their belief system to whatever action they take and the rest of the world is 'evil'.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Basically, my idea is that now when people say evil they are actually describing antisocial behaviour.
For example, murdering someone would often be said as evil, but if you think about it, it's just an extreme form of being antisocial, or in other words, things which are found unacceptable by society.
I challenge anyone who disagrees to find an example of an action that is considered perfectly social yet evil.

(It doesn't count if it's being classed by different people, e.g the people who did the crime might think it's right but the victims wouldn't.)

[Thoran]

Talthyr Malkaviel you've posted a trick challenge... it's impossible to refute given the frame of reference trick you've played. (clever [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I could say that many Americans feel Abortion is Evil yet it is socially acceptable (based on the Law). But that statement doesn't satisfy the strict interpretation of your limiting statement "it doesn't count if being classified by different people". Of course, I would submit that NO statement can satisfy that requirement...
You're trying to limit the acceptable frame of reference to a single person (by saying that you can't look at an issue from different people's points of view), yet when you're discussing what is "socially acceptable" (which you are... "antisocial" is a socially scoped term) you're by default introducing social norms... which are a much broader frame of reference (standards introduced by MANY people). It would be impossible to refute a statement with "social scope" using a single persons point of view, different frames of reference.

However... given the social norm that Abortion is acceptable (using a legitimate metric for social norms... the law), from many peoples points of view, Socially acceptable Abortions are Evil.

I would submit that "Evil", like all moral positions, is striclty from the frame of reference of the individual. An Eskimo who abandons his father to the arctic winter does not feel he is "Evil". He has made the decision that his family will have a higher probability of surviving the harsh winter with one fewer mouth to feed. Which would be "more evil"... his father starving or his whole family starving? Many "outsiders" might JUDGE him evil based on their moral framework... but does another persons judgement make that Eskimo Evil?

I think when people say that "people aren't evil, but they can do evil things", it is a roundabout way of affirming the above paragraph. Most people are willing to admit to themselves that they sometimes do evil things (things that don't align with their morality), but are unwilling to believe that they are evil people.

As for myself, I disagree with any public "absolute" judgement of morality... given that we are living in a secular society. I think it's inappropriate for a public official to make "evil empire" statements, as they smack of propeganda. I think we CAN however say that given the social standards of our society the actions of others are unacceptable (or even threatening... 9/11), and we feel motivated to act on our beliefs.

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe]

Evil is defined in a person, as someone who revels in the misery of all others. Someone who maliciously tries to wreck havock and cause panic wherever they go, and in whatever they do. Ive never really seen someone who is "pure" evil, and by golly I dont want to.