Evil - or is that too simple?

[Chaos]

This one stems from the discussions at "Politics, Current Events and History", but I think it is a general enough issue to put it here instead.

Certain people in this forum (you know who I mean) have been generously applying the label "evil" to the people that in their opinion should be fought by whatever means at hand.
I was accused of being "evil blind" for not agreeing with the "whatever means at hand" part.

So I started thinking...what is "evil", actually? (You´ll notice I put the word in " " because I don´t like it)

Objectively, "evil" means something like " acting against the moral standards of the one using the word ´evil´".
However, I think that just calling anyone who disagrees violently enough "evil" is a too simple solution for moral problems.

Once someone is deemed "evil", he´s irredeemably wrong and criminal and dangerous and whatever. Nothing that he does can possibly be right. On the other hand, anyone who is presumably fighting that "evil one" is automatically considered "morally good", and everything he does is unquestionably good and right. Anything this "good one" does, no matter if it really relates to fighting "evil", no matter it his approach to fighting "evil" really works, is justified.

What is even more, once someone has become "evil", no one ever asks the question why this someone is doing what he does. It does no longer matter if he had reasons for it, if he might have been provoked, or he is really adressing injustices that actually exist. He is "evil", he needs no motivation beyond being "evil", so why waste time trying to find out his motivation? Incidentally, this happens to benefit those who happen to have had a hand in causing that motivation - and sometimes these are also the ones who happen to be calling the "evil one" that.



I hope I have made clear that (in my opinion) using categories such as "good" and "evil" does not help really resolve something. It can only fuel hatred, since no one likes being called "evil" and treated as such, and increase violence, since as long you are called "evil", or call your enemy "evil", any interaction except by violence is impossible.

I would greatly appreciate it if those who answer to this post would limit themselves to answering in a rational, objective way, not with rants like I have seen elsewhere.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Evil is essentially that which a society deems to be against its own interests, whatever those may be. It is a useful concept, though the actual term 'evil' has been tainted, I think, by too close an association with theistic morality, but that's another point.

The problem with evil arises when it is used to label a person or a group of people, rather than the actions they commit. Thus, for example, we go from believing that drug use is against our society's interest and therefore evil, on to the belief that the drug user is an evil person. This has the effect of dehumanising the individual(s) concerned, which is where the danger lies. Once someone is considered other than human, they no longer receive the same considerations by society as the humans do. This allows the use of "whatever means at hand" to deal with them.

Rather ironically, it seems that fundies may have hit upon this first, in theory, if not in practice, as noted by the adage "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Anyway, to summarise:
Evil: good concept, may need a new word to dissociate it from some of its connotations
Evil people: bad idea, leads to much suffering

(And if you happen to be from a society that has no problem with recreational drug use, feel free to substitute some suitable example from your own culture. We all have our evils.)

 

[Bentspoon]

Evil is a four letter word

I have said it before on this forum. EVIL is a word that should go the way of the other 4 letter words - not for polite society.

It is a word only conjured to derride or to unjustly label. It has great inciteful power like the word "ni**er". It polarizes and does not do one positive thing. Not even when terrorists are labelled evil does the word have any productive use.

I have never heard the word used in any sense except to unjustly derride this group or another.

Particularly atheists.

In short Evil is Evil.


I wish people would let it go.

Bentspoon

 

[hammegk]

Presumably then no one can think of any behavior, not the person, the behavior of itself, "evil"?

Another minor quirk for those who believe "all is relative".

 

[Bikewer]

I listen to "Talk of the Nation" on NPR a lot, usually fairly intelligent discussions of current events.

They must have been short of speakers, cause' a couple of weeks ago they had an author (senility-can't remember the guy's name) who had just written a book on "Evil".

The guy naturally insisted that evil was a "real force", and that it was responsible for all sorts of things, and seemed to "infect" various people or groups at various times.

I got the impression he wanted to say the big "S" word, but couldn't quite bring himself to do it with the NPR audience.

Havn't heard such tripe on NPR in a while.

 

[a_unique_person]

Evil is the lazy persons way of explaining something.

There was a serial killer in my area a few years ago. What he did to young women was absolutely revolting. But I don't believe he was evil. Whatever it is in our brain that gives us a sense of social responsibility was just missing or distorted. People are born with other parts of their bodies not functioning correctly. Some are born without arms or legs. The idea that the brain will not have some flaw, either from birth or upbringing, is crazy. His family, who have produced no other homicidal siblings, said he was dropped on his head when he was young. Who knows. He apparently liked to kill young animals as a child. Not just the pulling wings of flies business, but genuinely gruesome acts on pets.

As was pointed out before, if you are going to believe in 'Evil', then it opens up a whole can of worms, such as where is this evil coming from.

 

[c4ts]

Evil is a quality, not a cause for anything. Evil doesn't make you do things, you do things that are evil.

These people are confused. Objects don't belong to a quality, the quality belongs to the object! How many times can I repeat myself? Gaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh! (foams at mouth)

 

[Yahweh]

Sometimes you just come across a bad apple in the bunch...

 

[Yahzi]

Evil is hypocrisy - doing to others what you would not done to you.

It exists and is real, just as good is. But it's not a "force." C4ts is right.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Evil is a name given to actions or particular things that are harshly looked down upon by society.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Evil is simply a concept... Best way to define true evil would be concious decision to commit acts of cruelty or deprevation of other's rights for no apparent reason.

In that sense, an insane person is not evil, since they lack the mechanism to make a decision to harm people. Harming someone in self defense is not evil. Harming someone for the hell of it is.

 

[Shroud of Akron]

Presumably then no one can think of any behavior, not the person, the behavior of itself, "evil"?

Another minor quirk for those who believe "all is relative".

there is no evil, just a relativistic view of what seems "good" to you. as a matter of fact, it's all relative.

 

[gentlehorse]

there is no evil, just a relativistic view of what seems "good" to you. as a matter of fact, it's all relative.

So, the only thing wrong with wanton cruelty to children is the fact that I don't like it. I have seen the light.

 

[hammegk]

there is no evil, just a relativistic view of what seems "good" to you. as a matter of fact, it's all relative.

Damn right. How (relatively) lucky for you at least your mama chose "life". Are the rest of homo sap also (relatively) lucky that that was her choice?

 

[hgc]

Presumably then no one can think of any behavior, not the person, the behavior of itself, "evil"?

Another minor quirk for those who believe "all is relative".

You've been asked before, but alway demur: What is the source of your absolute morals?

 

[Prospero]

Inapplicable "Evil"

The interesting thing about "evil" is that an person is incapcable of committing an act that they would truly consider "evil". Consider Hitler, for example, whom millions wouldn't hesitate to apply the term "evil". Yet, did he consider his actions? Of course not! He saw his actions as a means of achieving glory for Germany and setting himself in the rather cushy position of Ruler of Everything Worth Ruling.

Or, how about another character of infamous noteriety: John Wayne Gacy. Now, here we have a serial killer that drugged, kidnapped, raped and murdered over 30 boys. And yet, he was well liked by almost everyone who knew him. He was naturally charismatic and volunteered almost all of his time in efforts to help the community. So, how do you classify an individual that obviously wanted to do good, but due to self-loathing because of his homosexuality, he developed an antisocial personality disorder and sociopathic tendencies. He dressed as a clown, "Jojo" to entertain kids at a children's hospital, even, then would pick up a teenage boy, handcuff him and choke him to death while raping him. Would he be comsidered evil? He didn't consider his actions evil, merely the only way he knew of dealing with the incalculable stress of having his life continually upset by his homosexuality. So, he took his frustration out on his object of desire.

So, would the insane be classified as "evil" when they obviously don't have enough self-control over their own actions to limit themselves from doing that which all of society would claim as morally reprehensible or do we leave them as exceptions to the rule because their perceptions of "evil" doesn't consist of killing, for example.

But if killing is still considered "evil", what do we say about the executioner? It is all well and good that he is society's representative to carry out the collective's decision in regards to justice, but he's still terminating a human's existence, which falls squarely within the limits of what most would consider "evil".

I would posit that "evil" cannot exist in any human. "Evil" is that which the observer finds himself incapable of perpetrating due to conscience. No being considers himself "evil", though there are those that claim as much, even if they are clearly deluded in so thinking and actually just enjoy scoffing at societal norms of acceptable behavior. Due, additionally, to the transient nature of "evil", therefore, I find it impossible to see a correct application of the word as more than a concept. As a label, it is impossibly, incorrectly applied.

So, just going back to the post that referred to "evil" as a four letter word which should remained unused in common conversation, I'm inclined to agree, though on the grounds that there is no correct application of the term except as a concept akin to "perfect", which could be another post in and of itself.

 

[Shroud of Akron]

So, the only thing wrong with wanton cruelty to children is the fact that I don't like it. I have seen the light.

glad i have made a convert of you . i'm sure that we both dislike "wanton cruelty to children", but i'm also sure that the person perpetrating it derives some pleasure or "good" from it. i'm not saying i condone it, i'm just saying that you can't say things are just the way they are arbitrarily.

 

[Shroud of Akron]

Damn right. How (relatively) lucky for you at least your mama chose "life". Are the rest of homo sap also (relatively) lucky that that was her choice?

yeah that is relatively lucky for me, although sometimes i wish i were never born. as for the rest of you homo sapiens, i guess the answer is relative to whether you like me or not. do you lke me? gimme kisses!

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Inapplicable "Evil"

The interesting thing about "evil" is that an person is incapcable of committing an act that they would truly consider "evil".

This is just false. False. People are capable of it. Many times they feel badly afterwards, and try to justify it, but sometimes they don't bother.

So, how do you classify an individual that obviously wanted to do good, but due to self-loathing because of his homosexuality, he developed an antisocial personality disorder and sociopathic tendencies.

You classify them as a sociopath. What's the difficulty here?

You seem to be under the impression that people are either slavering demons wholly given over to evil at every turn, or angles incapable of doing what they know to be wrong. The simple fact is, everyone - including you, yourself - is capable of the most horrific indifference and cruelty. Whether or not you excersize that capacity is an entirely different matter, but I assure you it is there.

The Nazis shoved Jews into ovens all day long, and then went home to their wives and children. Hitler loved dogs, and was an exemplary dog owner. If I had met Hilter, and all we talked about was dogs, I would have liked him. So would you.

Evil is when you let your desires overwhelm your conscience: when you do something to someone that you would not want done to you. People do this all the time, like when they cut someone off in traffic. That's a very small evil, but it is still evil. We don't normally call it that, because we prefer the sanitized, unrealistic pretense that we are Good and thus incapable of Evil. This pretense is not only false, it is likely to leave you unprepared and vulnerable. The rod that bends is stronger than the rod that shatters.

Your conception of evil is naive, unrealistic, and simple-minded.

 

[Yahzi]

You've been asked before, but alway demur: What is the source of your absolute morals?

I can't answer for Hammy, but the source of my absolute morals is biology and mathematics.