Evil, Does It Exist?
 

So, is there such a thing as true evil, or can it all be explained away with a combination of ignorance, insanity, and good intentions gone awry? Discuss, bitches.

I am of the opinion that "Evil" is nothing more than a construct of humans to rationalize ideas or actions that seem incomprehensible to some. There are only choices that we make.

That being said, I've had trouble rationalizing the existence and success of Michael Bay's career. Hell, most of Hollywood.

Well, just like time, good and evil are man-made concepts.
So if you want to think in those circles; no, there is no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong, distance, or time.

I could go on a helluva tangent on this topic, but I wont. It's already been covered a thousand and one times by existentialists, philosophers, and intoxicated teenagers.

Do I believe in evil? That's a different matter. No, I don't believe anything is inherently evil. Even if someone is a murderous pedophile sociopath, their behavior can be traced to a source. Even if someone is born a fiend, it's not because they're evil, its because their genes are just so that they turn out thus.

Nobody's evil, but plenty of people are assholes.

Yes, but all words are constructs of humans to help us better understand our surrounding world.

Do you subscribe to the amoralist idea that there is neither good nor evil, and to strive for either is a fruitless endeavor?

Because the concept of 'good and evil' and 'right and wrong' have become so ingrained into our society, not choosing to follow the path the rest of us have decided is 'right' or 'good' earns you the title of sociopath.

In the grand scheme of things, it is a fruitless endeavor, but not if you want to live a peaceful life with everyone else. Whether or not you believe in good and evil, there are far too many others that do, and this will make life difficult for you if you choose not to be shackled by such concepts.

When you say shackled, do you mean the constraints that society has put on murder? Or do you mean more like the constraints that society puts on homosexuality?

Constraints on anything.
The idea of what is moralized and what isn't.
Everyone has differing opinions on whats right and what isn't. If your opinion conflicts with the majority, chances are you'll end up in jail or dead. Take Charles Manson for example, by our definition the things he did were absolutely despicable, but he doesn't believe in the same sense of "right and wrong" as the majority and that's where the conflict lies.

In general, we our conditioned to follow rules that benefit society as a whole. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, etc. These things are "wrong". Now, if you went back a few centuries, you would find things were alot different. We are constantly re-calibrating the machine that is our society so that it's comfortable for the mainstream. If, for example, mainstream consisted of morbidly obese people (and some may argue that in the US, it does), then the idea of eating tons and tons of fattening food wouldn't have such a negative connotation. The term "fat" would be a compliment.
Compare us to the ancient Romans. They lived extremely decadent lifestyles, and it was considered attractive to be fat and pasty because this indicated you were part of the upper rung of society. As we advance, we discovered the connection between overeating and poor health, and it's just one more thing we integrated out of our ever evolving concept of an ideal society.

I subscribe to the idea that there are actions that are directly beneficial ourselves and to the society we take part in and share, and some that negatively effect our lives and others, and that if I wish to cohabit in the society I live in without excessive turmoil, I should emulate the actions that are more beneficial to myself and everyone else.






http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6605/doctor2.jpg
BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY

Let's change the form of the question a bit. Can an action be evil? If that action is evil, does this necessarily mean that the person who committed the act is evil?

I think, good and evil do not exist as set things, but exist as matters of opinion.

If I consider something to be "Evil" And another person considers it to be good, what makes me right and them wrong? Nothing, nothing makes either of us right. it's all just down to what you yourself consider to be evil.

OP: In short: Only in a certain respects.

In even shorter: No.

EDIT: Props to Chris.

A woman and her child are taken from their home by force in the dead of night. They are taken to a shack in the woods nearby, where the child is slowly disemboweled as the mother is forced to watch. Is there any society that wouldn't have seen that as evil? What do you call this act? Are our words not up to the task?

Sure. Go back a few centuries, and things were different. They didn't have cars. The fashions were different. However, no society has ever seen the murder or rape of innocents as being acceptable. We aren't discussing wrong. We are discussing the "great evils" of our society. Let's not fall into the "everything is subjective" trap on this.

An action can carry negative consequences, and it can be perceived as being an evil deed. The person is another matter; they could view the act as positive or negative. If you want to get psychological, it boils down to perception being what makes a deed good or evil.

Oh, I think most advanced societies would view this as an "evil" deed, but that's just because it's so ingrained in our language. However, there are older societies whose rituals can actually be pretty brutal, but they were acted out in what was seen as a gesture of good faith, whether it to please their gods or in a debt of vengeance.

I would call it pretty fucked up, but again, this is only based on my cultural perception of such a thing.

IT ALSO MAKES ME KINDA HUNGRY

However, as I pointed out, there are several primitive societies who viewed killing a child or murdering as ritualistic or spiritual in nature, and most often in a positive way. Some would raid other tribes' villages and kill everyone, or even select some to be killed. To the tribe they assaulted, this was negative. To the tribe doing the assaulting, this was very good for them.

It's comforting to tell ourselves that there are strictly good and strictly evil people or deeds, but it really does boil down to who you ask.

If you ask me to site examples, I won't be able to. I only remember reading about this, not specifically who it was about.

Now, that is definitely the topic at hand.

Here is the heart of the question. These societies thought that their actions were for the greater good. They sacrifice a child to their god so that their society may survive. They kill all the boy children of another tribe so that they may not grow to become a threat. Hitler killed the jews because he believed they were a drain on his superior race.

Let's for the sake of argument say that these acts are evil. Are those that committed them insane or just ignorant? Is ignorance a valid argument to keep these people from being considered evil?

This pretty much hit the nail on the head. When discussing good and evil, we must not fall prey to the way an entire society thinks, we must also focus on the perceptions of individuals.

Pretty much how I think everyone needs to discuss any topic.

But if those people actually are evil, then their point of view is pretty much moot, no?

And let's not be ridiculous about it. Should we start asking murderers if they think what they did is wrong? If they say no, should we release them?

I've half written my answer to this thread five times now, and I've scrapped and revised it once I think of something new.

Currently I'm despairing over the vagueness of language over morality. To say 'X is evil' is to give X the property of evlness, as seperate and distinct from goodness, then I remembered that Good and Evil are also nouns, and I had a Wittgensteinian breakdown.

At the moment I am inclined to agree with philosophers like Russel and Wittgenstein in saying that the terms Good and Evil are nonsensical in an abstract non-moral definition, they only make sense once they are linked to situations.

So, raping a child is evil, there is no 'Satan particle/gene/person/neural state' that makes the act evil, just that the act itself is arbitarily evil.

If "evil" is just an abstract concept, wouldn't it make more sense to say that they just made poor choices?

That is a very ridiculous thing to suggest, unless that was the point. Simply stating that evil is an abstract concept doesn't make anyone exempt from being held responsible for their actions and doesn't mean that no one should be punished for committing a crime or transgression against another person.

I'm Chaotic Neutral.


But seriously, I have no idea how to answer this. It's just something where I cling to the human concepts instead of bringing out some sort of reality to it.

It was definitely the point.

I'm not saying that true evil exists (although I feel pretty safe in classifying certain acts as evil, even if I won't go so far as to call the actor evil). I merely dislike the 'I am what I dream myself' argument. I find the counter culture approach of 'Just because society deems it to be wrong' a moot point in this sort of conversation where we are discussing the truly despicable, and not moral ambiguities.

The thought experiment is that if you took two simple cultures and transported them both to seperate places of everlasting plenty, where they both had perfect conditions for growth and prosperity, and then came back in one thousand years they would both have the same opinion on actions that were right and actions that were wrong (Fundamentally speaking, the values of life, freedom etc).

If they don't then any idea of objective Good and Evil (As either an abstract concept or an ascription) goes out the pan, and we have to, urgh, consider postmodern subjective/relativism.

OK

people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadism

/thread

Someone who is compelled to cause pain, beyond their control, cannot be evil.

[Thread again]

At any rate, the thread did it's job. People actually started posting.

http://www.draculas.info/_img/galler..._impaler_2.jpg

he was a good dude, i kicked back with him a few times

I don't quite get your point, are you saying that Vlad was a sadist or that he wasn't?

Evil denotes absolute freedom of choice, if you're affected from birth with a desire to cause pain then you cannot be said to have that. The crimes you commit are wrong, but you cannot be 'evil'. the human condition is far too complex to just stick such a deterministic diagnosis on.

Also, he was almost certainly raped repeatedly by the Turks as a child.

lol you're taking Leto seriously.
No matter what the situation, you automatically lose by doing that.

This topic has run it's course. I await for one of the people who weren't here in time to touch the topic while it was hot to post their recycled opinions, and with luck, it will branch off into a similar conversation and then into a two-pager. :3

One of the largest moral brainteasers of all time is trying to decide whether or not unstable people are "Guilty" of their crimes or not. I was under the impression for the longest time that diminished responsibility made a person more innocent than they may seem at first.

But I've heard of several scenarios where people who are classified as having certain conditions who are still Technically guilty becuase they have "Just enough" free will. I really don't know enough about the subject to take a side. But it's still a pretty big mindfuck.

A reason is not an excuse, just because I get a hardon when I hear a woman cry does not mean I go out and make them cry for me.