Is anyone really evil?

[Bill Paxton]

I got to thinking the other day about if there is a hell, who goes there? And then the obvious "well, probably murders, rapists, child molesters, etc"

But then I started to think about how most, or a good deal of "evil" people have a background that lead to their "evil ways"

Most child molesters were molested when they were younger. Most sociapaths and murders were brought up in a violent atmosphere.

Of course there are exceptions to this, and there are sometimes people that do evil that had a relatively good child hood and upbringing. So, and this can be looked at from a religious or non-religious standpoint, can we really blame "evil" people for being "evil" when their behavior is a direct result of their upbringing? I mean, if we had been in the same situation, wouldn't we be evil ourselves?

I mean if some poor kid is beaten, chained up, and tortured as a child and they turn into a monster as an adult, can they really be blamed or held accountable?

If there is a hell, how could it not be taken into consideration that a kid raised in a loving household and lead a good life obviously had a huge advantage over someone who grew up in some war torn shithole in Africa?

[Kerjack]

I think Tara might be. She has that black widow I'mgonnaripoffyourdongafterIgetmyjollysthenkillyou withit vibe.

[Kerjack]

But you know, otherwise she seems nice.

[UNC]

http://www.canpages.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dr-evil.jpg

[Stax]

In an immediate sense, of course. Evil is just whatever that particular society defines it as. Whoever performs those acts/has those characteristics is evil.

As for universal evil, probably not. Even some of our most basic "principles" don't hold true in some societies. Since good and evil only really exist as definitions by the societies evaluating them, you'll have to wait until you meet God to know what he thinks is good and evil.

[Pike Bishop]

To me it's a moot point. It is not possible to know what another person's motivations are with absolute certainty. Such knowledge would be necessary in order to ascribe a characteristic like "good" or "evil" to a person. I believe that the value of a person can only be judged with respect to the results of their actions. For example, if a person intended to cure cancer but succeeded only in killing millions of people, to me they would be no more valuable than Hitler. Likewise, if a person set out with the intention of killing millions of people but failed to kill anyone and inadvertently discovered a cure for cancer, they would be no less valuable a person than if they had intended to cure cancer all along.

The best I could do in terms of assessing a person's intentions would be to observe the consequences of their actions and speculate as to whether or not they are sufficiently competent so that I could believe that they intended for their actions to have the results that they did. But to me such an assessment could not be used as proof of anything, it would only guide my actions in my personal dealings with that person.

As far as hell goes, if it exists I think it's full of people who were absolutely certain that they were doing what was best for everyone. That seems to be what sets the great villains of history apart from everyone else. They were so certain that they knew what to do that they decided to force their ideas upon everyone else (whether by force or by guile) with one common thought in their minds: "the ends will justify the means". And of course they were wrong. I don't think that anyone who has ever had that thought has been correct.

[Septic_Porpoise]

true evil is probably pretty rare, but i'd imagine that hitler would fall into that category. probably other folks that have done seriously heinous crimes. also 50 cent.

[Pax Britannia]

This guy is pretty evil
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/vv2dw9h6z2rxilal860-1.jpg

[freegood]

^Hot damn

I got to thinking the other day about if there is a hell, who goes there? And then the obvious "well, probably murders, rapists, child molesters, etc"

But then I started to think about how most, or a good deal of "evil" people have a background that lead to their "evil ways"

Most child molesters were molested when they were younger. Most sociapaths and murders were brought up in a violent atmosphere.

Of course there are exceptions to this, and there are sometimes people that do evil that had a relatively good child hood and upbringing. So, and this can be looked at from a religious or non-religious standpoint, can we really blame "evil" people for being "evil" when their behavior is a direct result of their upbringing? I mean, if we had been in the same situation, wouldn't we be evil ourselves?

I mean if some poor kid is beaten, chained up, and tortured as a child and they turn into a monster as an adult, can they really be blamed or held accountable?

If there is a hell, how could it not be taken into consideration that a kid raised in a loving household and lead a good life obviously had a huge advantage over someone who grew up in some war torn shithole in Africa?

I want to say that there isn't really good or evil, rather people doing their thing. I wish that was it.

The great questions you ask could provoke a long response without answering much. Dunno if you want a gmf response or a long one.

I don't know if there's a hell in the afterlife or not. The standards set forth in the New Testament are pretty high up there, and it was given by everyone's main man, Jesus Christ. What is the Lake o' Fire...who deserves to be in it...who doesn't deserve to go to hell but are still going. But if everyone gets a free pass, then it'd be hard for a person to see how just God is or how senseless deaths have meaning. And like you said, if society corrupted a kid into a psychopath, who's blamed for the injustice? Or maybe justice and injustice itself is as solid as concepts of good and evil.

[Archetype]

We're defined by our appearances. Not by our childhood, not by our social condition, not by our government, but by how we appear, after the fact. Or during. We're defined by our output, because nobody knows exactly what that input is. Sodomites are people who sodomize, liars are people who lie, a thief only has to steal once to be a thief. Assuming said actions were deemed evil, I suppose people can be evil, sure. But the paradox comes when you find out that every one of those people has done at least one good thing in their life, and in effect, also good.

And further, as has been pointed out, good and evil are not simple concepts. Or rather, they are simple concepts that people try to attach to a complex world. And when you try to further define what those concepts are, you end up dividing it specifically for a set time and condition. Then they become ethics, which is odd to think that good and evil are ethical concepts, rather than moral ones. Because of morality's universal assertion, it becomes very hard to define just what evil is in relation to it.

If selfless altruism for instance, were considered the universal moral principle of "good," can we really say that the universal moral principle of "bad" is selfish pragmatism? While that may have a degree of evil to it, it also by definition would need good to function. Which, when you consider it, could very well be why Satan is called the Prince of Darkness, rather than the King or Lord. A further interesting factor of this could be that his opposite is not God, but rather, Jesus, the Son, a man with a strong disposition towards good, but still, a man. Hell, one one considers Judaism, at least in it's biblical form, Satan is not an opposite but rather a soldier of God.

As well, when one considers that a moral person is said to be a good person, then a universal morality may in fact disregard evil as universal, but a purely ethical diversion. Then again, to say someone is ethical is to say that they are good with regards to the function they're operating under, so maybe that's a moot point. In both cases the evil would be the absent of the good, but so would be the neutral.

In either case, I find the position of good and evil being totally subjective to the society to be totally ridiculous. Yes, a society separated from Western ideals does not ipso facto make them wrong or evil, but just because a society condones rape, torture, and slavery (at least in it's worse forms) as a part of their culture, does not mean that one can say that the definitions of evil simply changed for their society. It's a cop-out. There are elements of every functioning society that can be said to go against universal ideas of morality. Society doesn't function under morality, they just function.

More-so, I reject the idea that there cannot be a "true" morality. Maybe not one that will exist in an empirical fashion, but if it did, time would cease to exist (fully understanding that as I say this, time itself is relative). Heterogeny is necessary to change, and hopefully, for progression. That the change is not always "good," is not a testament that The Good does not exist, but that we're not perfect. Again, if we were, we'd stop.

Hell, maybe The Good is in a moral universal, that we continue to exist, rather than just exist. In any case, I do believe that there is a universal morality. If there weren't, all discussions on the subject would be rendered moot, even the ones that disregard it. The truth is out there.

[Insomniac]

In regards to Fritzl:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/21/josef-fritzl-pyschiatrist-interview


Kastner says he never considered himself "a monster", and says it is dangerous to label people as such. "He is human. The worst things that happen to people are done by other people. Evil is human." British newspapers, particularly, haven't been able to resist the idea that Fritzl is the product of some warped Austrian psyche. "That is nonsense,"
...
Does she feel sorry for Fritzl? "Sorry?" she repeats to herself. There's a long pause. "A small part of me feels sorry for him because he didn't choose to have that kind of upbringing and that kind of disturbance. He chose to exercise it and for that he is guilty, but what he is inside, he didn't choose."

Maybe we're just a domino that's finally falling down after someone started the chain 16 billion years ago. But in a purely materialistic universe, there's no good or evil anyway.

Explanation isn't excuse. We can explain why a certain person was incredibly successful in business or art by looking back at their past and seeing where some of their positive attributes came from, but nothing in that guaranteed their success. They had to choose where they wanted to be and work hard at it. So too at the other end of the spectrum.

The harder thing is that almost everyone, even the worst of people, are good and bad inconsistently, from the greatest to worst. We all have the capacity for good and bad, and express it at different times. We have free will but not a pure nature, so why should it be any other way?

[Okie Medicvet]

I don't know if there is a hell but I do know there is evil. But a place of permanent torture? That's kinda harsh.

[Archangel]

Yay me. (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=61388)

[Das Kahlua]

It's safe to say that the action in and of itself is not the definition of 'evil,' since every action is relative.

If a lion brutally kills and eats another animal, it's just part of nature. If a human brutally kills and eats another animal, it could be anything from a normal hamburger to cannibalism. Everything is relative.

The only thing that separates humans from animals is consciousness, and with that the ability to think and reason. If a human plans out a murder it's a different crime than a spontaneous murder. Everything is relative.

[Archangel]

No it isn't. That's why manslaughter and murder are two different things.

[Das Kahlua]

No it isn't. That's why manslaughter and murder are two different things.

You need to reread what I wrote.

[Archangel]

I did get it the first time, and I stand by the fact that things are not relative.

[Bill Paxton]

I guess my point was, are any of us really completely responsible for what we do? I mean its easy to point out that we have choices and that murderers, serial kilelrs, etc ultimately make that choice to kill. However, if any one of us were raised, and went through all the exact same experiences as some psychopath, who is to say we would not be psycho ourselves and make the same choice? Its easy to sit back and say "thats wrong, and they had the choice to not do that" which is true, but we're really only saying that because we will never see life through their eyes.

[BIG PIZZLE]

Work allows me to do some pretty horrible things to people on a regular basis.

[halfabubbleoff]

I guess my point was, are any of us really completely responsible for what we do? I mean its easy to point out that we have choices and that murderers, serial kilelrs, etc ultimately make that choice to kill. However, if any one of us were raised, and went through all the exact same experiences as some psychopath, who is to say we would not be psycho ourselves and make the same choice? Its easy to sit back and say "thats wrong, and they had the choice to not do that" which is true, but we're really only saying that because we will never see life through their eyes.

That sounds all well and good, but I have to disagree. That is a whole Nature/Nurture battle, there. Sure a person is affected by environment and upbringing. However, that is not all that determines who and what they become. In many cases of socio- and psyco-pathic behavior, they have found biological factors as well.

You could make the same argument with the whole video games as "murder simulators" issue. If you want to take it to an extreme, you could say that the Internet is just as culpable for these actions because it grants ready access to information and pornography. I have heard similar arguments made for the existence of homosexuality as well. I don't buy it.

I have to believe that there is some matter of choice in who a person becomes. Otherwise, it would be far too easy to eliminate crime and "aberrant behavior". No, some of it does come down to a person believing that there is no harm in their actions, for whatever reason.

Take the example given above. Hitler fully believed in the idea that he was improving humanity and trying to lead the world to a better existence. His view was twisted, for whatever reason, but he did believe it. Other famous killers were the same way, Bundy, Manson, etc..... They all had what they considered to be valid reasons for their actions.

I don't see an easy answer to "is anyone really evil?" for the sole reason that no one can really agree what evil really is. Is it in the action, the result, or the intent? If you intend harm, but greater good comes out of it, are you evil? If you intend good and great harm is the result, does that make you evil? (the question that plagued Einstein to his grave, BTW).

So, my answer would be a definite maybe. I personally believe that it is very possible to have a genuinely evil person. I just can't give an empirical reason for the statement.

[Okie Medicvet]

When you see evil being committed, you KNOW it. I don't know that many people that would argue that the millions of Jews slaughtered among many millions of others was not an evil act. If someone sets a bomb to blow people up, that is an evil act. If someone kills someone just because they are different than the majority, that is an evil act. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know what evil is. If there are body parts lying all over the place, it was caused by evil.

[fuzzystuff]

http://www.canpages.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dr-evil.jpg
yes but scotty is more :)

[kid_vidrio]

I mean if some poor kid is beaten, chained up, and tortured as a child and they turn into a monster as an adult, can they really be blamed or held accountable?

If there is a hell, how could it not be taken into consideration that a kid raised in a loving household and lead a good life obviously had a huge advantage over someone who grew up in some war torn shithole in Africa?
There is a point where in theory you take control of your actions.
Whether you are broken when you get there has to do with many factors.
Many people live in shit and turn out well.
The most common denominator of a serial killer is that of someone from a home where they had relative abundance.
So with where you come from out of it, you are either an inherent shit head, or you are not.
Inherent shit heads need to be wiped away.
I hope this helps?

[gillkonam]

Is not "evil" simply short hand for an exercise in freewill? To me, evil is not relative, but rather a simplified categorization. Human consciousness is finite, so it seeks cognitive conservation and "evil" is a mere conservation of a chromatic series of acts that occur at different levels of enactment. Destruction, rapine and subjectation are acts that could be classified under the threshold of "evil." I am not saying the idea of evil is merely a symptom of semantics, but rather that evil connotes a lack of willful understanding that is the norm of much of human discourse.

Also, I kind of dislike evil but for its connection to values, as it hits on the moralisms of faith. The paradox of relativisms are that relativisms are tied to the very values that would deny their influence should they be taken to the ultimate extreme. Evil is traditionally tied to a dualistic understanding of the universe, abstracting those acts that are very real and laden with causality.

[Septic_Porpoise]

Is not "evil" simply short hand for an exercise in freewill? To me, evil is not relative, but rather a simplified categorization. Human consciousness is finite, so it seeks cognitive conservation and "evil" is a mere conservation of a chromatic series of acts that occur at different levels of enactment. Destruction, rapine and subjectation are acts that could be classified under the threshold of "evil." I am not saying the idea of evil is merely a symptom of semantics, but rather that evil connotes a lack of willful understanding that is the norm of much of human discourse.

Also, I kind of dislike evil but for its connection to values, as it hits on the moralisms of faith. The paradox of relativisms are that relativisms are tied to the very values that would deny their influence should they be taken to the ultimate extreme. Evil is traditionally tied to a dualistic understanding of the universe, abstracting those acts that are very real and laden with causality.

maybe, but children were still raped while you typed that.