Evil

[piscator]

Evil = anti-social behaviour, ie any action that the social consensus considers to be damaging to that society.

At the moment most people think beheading heretics/aid workers/people of the wrong religion does not lead to a successful society so its evil , but if society suddenly decides it does result in a better society (which it did in the past ) then that suddenly becomes a very good thing

An extremely dangerous position to take, which almost gives me some sympathy for Seth's anti-state rants.

This way leads to the passive acceptance of the gas ovens in the camp next door...

The theists of the world have been trying to tell us that for years, Jim: "Without the objective morality provided by The Good Book, you're all lost. Tsk tsk, snicker snicker."
ISIS just trying to save us all by bringing about God's Ummah*.









*More like, "Save the Good Ones and purge the rest", but you get the point.

[klr]

Seems to me that the people listed above and their like break through a barrier - a moral one perhaps - that most of us would not be capable of. In the first instance they seem to take a 'ends justified the means' approach but as the collateral damage mounts and mounts they perhaps become insensitive to the mass casualties they are inflicting in the name of their goal or destination. Perhaps in the end the goal stops mattering at all and they are themselves trapped into their 'evil' behaviour. It is hard to imagine the likes of Hitler or Stalin suddenly deciding their aims were not worth the cost.

Hitler and Stalin probably didn't even think that all the death and destruction they were causing was "cost", so yes, I certainly couldn't ever see either of them ever doing this, not even theoretically.

[Hermit]

The question is : Does evil exist, and what is its nature?

Now, I know, as others on this forum know, that there is no personification of evil. No Satan. No devils. No demons, or anything else like that. I view evil as a quality of the human brain, and possessed by only some humans.

My opinion is that, yes, evil exists. There are people who behave in ways that can only be described as evil. Those people have to be called evil.

So what is evil? My view is that it is a willingness to do things that cause terrible harm to others. The reason for doing those horrible things may be selfishness, hunger for power, political ideology, religious, or simple unwillingness to actually think about what they are doing.

I would regard those in ISIS to be evil. Josef Stalin was evil. Even Alexander the Great was evil, because he carried out actions that killed and did great harm to thousands of people, out of his desire for power.

So what are your thoughts? Do you agree with me? Do you have a different idea of what evil is, or who is evil? What do you consider to be the greatest examples of true evil in the world today?

Evil is one of the most useless, primitive "concepts" going. I placed quote marks around concept, because the notion of evil does not even rise to that level. Individuals and societies do things that are can only be described as horrifically inhumane, but sticking the label called evil on those actions explains nothing whatsoever in regard to why they happened.

Take Hitler, for instance. Can we say that the holocaust and the second world war happened because Hitler was evil? To begin with, in his own estimation and that of millions of others he was not even evil - he was saving civilisation from the twin mortal dangers of Zionism and communism. To himself and his supporters, some pretty prominent ones outside of Germany among them, he was a good man. A similar case can be made for Pol Pot and for that matter ISIS, and to say that the millions of their supporters must therefore also be evil is equally useless because those supporters are not setting out to do evil deeds, nor do they regard the causes they support as evil. If you want to explain why evil actions occur you have to look at societies and their histories and ideologies.

And yes, as Piscator mentions, anyone can turn out to be "evil", given particular circumstances. It happens with alarming ease and does not rely on some sort of personality trait. Don't believe me? I suggest you read up on the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment. Both demonstrate how easy it is to turn ordinary members of ordinary societies into apparently "evil" ogres at the drop of a hat.

Hannah Arendt published a book in 1963 subtitled The Banality of Evil. She argued that Eichmann committed "evil" deeds for no better reason than that he was profoundly stupid.

Of course there are serial killers and random mass murderers. What good does it do to explain their actions simply as "evil"? Would it not be more useful to enquire why and how they became so mentally unhinged that they finished up doing their horrendous killings?

"Evil" deeds occur for a variety of reasons. Labelling them as such does nothing for understanding why they occur, and obviously the label is therefore just as useless for trying to figure out what to do in order to prevent them from happening.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Of course there are serial killers and random mass murderers. What good does it do to explain their actions simply as "evil"? Would it not be more useful to enquire why and how they became so mentally unhinged that they finished up doing their horrendous killings?

"Evil" deeds occur for a variety of reasons. Labelling them as such does nothing for understanding why they occur, and obviously the label is therefore just as useless for trying to figure out what to do in order to prevent them from happening.

I note that you describe certain deed (mass murders, torture, genocide etc.) as "horrendous". Now, I wouldn't disagree with the use of the word, in the sense that I would definitely use it myself, but it too is not explanatory, just like "evil" Both terms involve emotional reactions to actions by human agents against other sentient beings that go far beyond the norm in terms of harm being caused.

[Seth]

Somebody shoots my kid burning is just one possibility.

I like the idea of dumping them into the Gulf 40 miles offshore then keeping the boat just 10 feet ahead of them. Swim, mofo, swim! Maybe dump a bit of chum, just to liven things up.

I favor compassionate releasing and repatriating of all terrorists, over the Afghan Kush, from 30,000 feet, with what they had when they were taken prisoner, a Koran, and nothing else.

"Hey, when we threw them out of the plane they were alive, it's hardly our fault that they didn't know how to keep their feet together and bend their knees as they land..."

[Seth]

I think to define evil one must first define not-evil.

Biologically speaking, is the male lion "evil" when it kills the young of a competing male's pride? Is the monkey troop "evil" when it kills the green monkey? Is the Tetracycline "evil" when it kills the bacteria?

I'm not sure that simple life and death behaviors, by any creature, can be defined as inherently evil.

The concept seems to require at the very least sufficient intelligence that raises the actions above instinct, either predatory or defensive.

This implies cognitive abilities which allow the perpetrator to make a reasoned choice of actions, again at a minimum, to cause harm or not cause harm.

And this is where it gets sticky, because it implies that the choice to cause harm must not only be deliberate, but "gratutious" or "unnecessary."

And at that point we bump up against moral relativism and subjectivity that makes further definition quite complex.

So, if torturing someone for no better reason than to inflict pain and harm is "evil," (a subjective moral declaration) does that mean that torturing someone to avoid a greater harm, such as torturing a terrorist in order to extract information to prevent widespread harm to innocent persons, is "not-evil?"

[Hermit]

Hermit wrote:

Of course there are serial killers and random mass murderers. What good does it do to explain their actions simply as "evil"? Would it not be more useful to enquire why and how they became so mentally unhinged that they finished up doing their horrendous killings?

"Evil" deeds occur for a variety of reasons. Labelling them as such does nothing for understanding why they occur, and obviously the label is therefore just as useless for trying to figure out what to do in order to prevent them from happening.

I note that you describe certain deed (mass murders, torture, genocide etc.) as "horrendous". Now, I wouldn't disagree with the use of the word, in the sense that I would definitely use it myself, but it too is not explanatory, just like "evil" Both terms involve emotional reactions to actions by human agents against other sentient beings that go far beyond the norm in terms of harm being caused.

"Horrendous" is not meant to be an explanation. It's an adjective describing certain deeds, just like "evil". I think you may have missed the point of my post.

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

Of course there are serial killers and random mass murderers. What good does it do to explain their actions simply as "evil"? Would it not be more useful to enquire why and how they became so mentally unhinged that they finished up doing their horrendous killings?

"Evil" deeds occur for a variety of reasons. Labelling them as such does nothing for understanding why they occur, and obviously the label is therefore just as useless for trying to figure out what to do in order to prevent them from happening.

I note that you describe certain deed (mass murders, torture, genocide etc.) as "horrendous". Now, I wouldn't disagree with the use of the word, in the sense that I would definitely use it myself, but it too is not explanatory, just like "evil" Both terms involve emotional reactions to actions by human agents against other sentient beings that go far beyond the norm in terms of harm being caused.

"Horrendous" is not meant to be an explanation. It's an adjective describing certain deeds, just like "evil". I think you may have missed the point of my post.

No, I saw the point, and broadly agreed, but I was simply noting that humans seem to need some term to denote acts which are right off the scale in terms of harm done; evil, for all its faults and religious implications, has been used to denote such extremes, and your use of horrendous was simply another such term...

[Seth]

"Evil" deeds occur for a variety of reasons. Labelling them as such does nothing for understanding why they occur, and obviously the label is therefore just as useless for trying to figure out what to do in order to prevent them from happening.

I'm not sure that we can understand the motivations involved well enough to prevent them from happening, but we can do something to prevent one individual from doing it more than once: kill them.

[Hermit]

I was simply noting that humans seem to need some term to denote acts which are right off the scale in terms of harm done; evil, for all its faults and religious implications, has been used to denote such extremes, and your use of horrendous was simply another such term...

Horrendous is preferable to me precisely, as you noted, because it lacks the religious baggage that evil has.

[Blind groper]

I like the word 'evil', in spite of the baggage associated, because it is a powerful word, and everyone knows what it means. In other words, it enhances clear communication. If I describe a deed as 'evil', then no one will think I approve of that deed. Admittedly, in fine detail, there is some ambiguity, but that is pretty much true of the whole English language.

[Rum]

It is loaded though. Just as one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, so one evil deed can be a 'good' deed to another.

[Blind groper]

To Rum

While that is true, normally time makes it clear. Stalin's cohorts might have thought killing millions of people was not evil, but history is pretty damn unanimous on that point.

[Brian Peacock]

To Rum

While that is true, normally time makes it clear. Stalin's cohorts might have thought killing millions of people was not evil, but history is pretty damn unanimous on that point.

If Stalin's cohorts thought that filling mass graves wasn't necessarily a bad thing, and yet we think it is, what does that say about evil?

[Blind groper]

Brian

I suggested a definition of evil a long time back, saying it was the kind of behaviour that resulted in doing terrible harm to people.

While this definition is necessarily loose, and there will be exceptions, it does help to avoid parochial justifications.

For example, it makes clear that Seth's suggestion of throwing terrorists out of a plane with no parachute is an evil suggestion. It makes clear that the death penalty is evil. Ditto torture, slavery, mutilation and so on.