EVIL

Tragedies and moral wrongs are committed by people every day, but I can't believe in evil. It just seems like a gross oversimplification of conflicts that arise from differences in agendas between groups of people that are really striving for the same thing: success. All of the "evil" figures I can think of throughout history merely thought that they represented some universal force of "good" or truth and therefore didn't feel inhibited in anything they did, resulting in the most "evil" acts. IMO those are the ones we should worry about.

Murderers, child molesters and such? They're extremely defective human beings (so insulated, selfish, mentally ill, or consumed with their own impulses that they don't care about anything else), but they aren't tainted with some evil energy. I mean, come on.

post=123484
Tragedies and moral wrongs are committed by people every day, but I can't believe in evil. It just seems like a gross oversimplification of conflicts that arise from differences in agendas between groups of people that are really striving for the same thing: success. All of the "evil" figures I can think of throughout history merely thought that they represented some universal force of "good" or truth and therefore didn't feel inhibited in anything they did, resulting in the most "evil" acts. IMO those are the ones we should worry about.

Murderers, child molesters and such? They're extremely defective human beings (so insulated, selfish, mentally ill, or consumed with their own impulses that they don't care about anything else), but they aren't tainted with some evil energy. I mean, come on.

Couldn't you consider all of that the definition of evil, though?

Evil is defined by the current societal norms in our world, what could be evil now may not be considered evil in the past or present. Also having a definition that works for everyone is not likely since people have different values and ideas. Example: Slavery is basically considered to be bad in America but some time in the past that was not the idea and was used often in the southern states. Also in other parts of the world slavery still exists. Now back to the question at hand.

1) Laughed at a mentally challenged basketball game when I was little.
2) Punched in the face.
3) The creation of evil.

1) What was the most evil thing you have ever done?

I played a Molebox game. :-X

2) What was the most evil thing ever done to you?

Someone forced me to play that Molebox game. D-:

3) What was the most evil thing ever done?

Inventing Molebox.

3. human beings exist

post=123495

boobledeeboo
Hitler wasn't a saint either

what are you talking about hitler was an artist

hitler was a whiny art school reject

and sort of a bum(oh yeah i said it)

post=123492

Couldn't you consider all of that the definition of evil, though?

I'm glad you brought this up, because without a concrete definition of evil we're really left to create one of our own. The way people talk, philosophize, and write about "good" and "evil" makes it sound like "evil" is a term used to describe people who always and consciously make "wrong" or "bad" choices over "good" or "right" ones with the aim of destroying all the happiness in the world. I don't believe this makes sense. Another popular perspective on evil is as applied to people or deeds that are destructive or cause strife to those who use the term. As a strong believer that winners can't exist without losers, this also doesn't ring true for me (although it does make more sense in that good and evil can potentially be applied to either side of a conflict, showing the flaws in such overly black-and-white viewpoints)

People who commit horrendous acts, if any attempt is made to understand them at all, should be understood for their own motives rather than lumping them into one all-inclusive "bad guy" definition.

edit: I'm not trying to spout relativist "live and let live" bullcrap, I do believe in a diametrically opposed "us" and "them" and that "they" should be vanquished for the good of "us".

Aha, so you are saying that no one person is concretely, unequivocally evil (assuming that such a thing objectively exists)? Yes! I believe that as well, there is no one person that is purely good or evil. Even the best person has some bad traits, and even the most evil person has redeeming traits, because if that wasn't the case, you could argue that the concept of free will doesn't exist for such people, because their purely 'good' or 'evil' nature forces them to be just that.

In that sense, I do believe that everyone exists in a shade of gray, and some people are darker and lighter on that spectrum than others. However, instead of purely evil and good people, there are evil, or good acts and choices that people choose. The determination of whether someone is considered good or evil depends individually on the total sum of their actions, choices, and intent.

Just like you said, understanding why commit acts that are considered bad are important. If for example, Hitler orchestrated the Holocaust because he believed that the Jews were a legitimate threat to the well being of the people and their very existence compromised the free world (or thought that they were a bunch of space aliens in disguise to destroy us, whatever) paints an observational vision to his character just as much as the possibility (or rather looking at it in hindsight, historical certainty) that he committed his acts and just used the Jews as a scapegoat to further his own vision of a German and Aryan hegemony for selfish reasons.

Both possibilities are still fucked up, but one makes Hitler look like a crazy, yet still pretty bad guy, and the latter paints him as most people see him today, the epitome of evil in one person in modern history.

post=123504

Mog
Aha, so you are saying that no one person is concretely, unequivocally evil (assuming that such a thing objectively exists)?

Sort of, well yes, well sort of. It's hard to describe. "Evil" the way I hear it described is less like human behavior and more like the shark in Jaws. Mindless destruction of everything you know and love no matter what. Closer to psychosis than anything. "Evil" just has a lot of extra baggage tied to it that makes it a very unrealistic description of anything imo, and people who are influenced by the possible presence/threat of "evil" are just being manipulated the same way a child is when they're told that the boogeyman goes out prowling for kids that don't eat their brussels sprouts.

That's the thing, though. It can be argued that there's a difference between an 'evil' act and mindless psychosis. In order to be capable of 'evil' (or good) acts, you have to be able to lucidly tell the difference between right and wrong. Right and wrong can of course, be relative, but for the sake of example and simplicity I guess it's universal that a 'wrong' act is pretty much standard sociological no-nos like hurting the innocent, mass murder, stomping out babies, child molestation, etc, etc.

A person who has the mentality of the shark from Jaws wouldn't be considered 'evil' because he's mentally unfit. He cannot tell the difference. However, take someone like you and me, and if one of us thought one day 'Hey, I want to stomp a baby today', CONSCIOUSLY knowing the implications and consequences of such an action, isn't that a 'bad' action? Conversely, this applies to altruistic actions as well.

post=123506
but seriously, evil acts? like what? Can you describe in detail what an evil act is?

read the other replies? : D