Evil People

nyarlothothep

Are the worlds ruling elites really evil? Most people are born with human characteristics. Do you think G. Bush et al really are inhumane monsters without consideration for the people "they are elected to serve"??? Are all of the top Wallstreet financiers really a bunch of sociopaths, or do they have human feelings of empathy and so forth. Or is there an evolutionary flaw in the structure of human societies, is it the case that most people are responsible, empathetic individuals and that the 1% lacking in human traits invariably rise to the top by virtue of their ruthlessness to rule over them like kings?

Evening Herald

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Are the worlds ruling elites really evil? Most people are born with human characteristics. Do you think G. Bush et al really are inhumane monsters without consideration for the people "they are elected to serve"??? Are all of the top Wallstreet financiers really a bunch of sociopaths, or do they have human feelings of empathy and so forth. Or is there an evolutionary flaw in the structure of human societies, is it the case that most people are responsible, empathetic individuals and that the 1% lacking in human traits invariably rise to the top by virtue of their ruthlessness to rule over them like kings?

Lets take Mr. Bush. Is he really evil or is that something that we all tell ourselves? Have you ever met him and had a conversation with him? How do you know Mr Bush? Through the media and word of mouth? Hard to know if he is evil to be honest. Or just geting by day to day like the rest of us.

nyarlothothep

Evening Herald wrote: »

Lets take Mr. Bush. Is he really evil or is that something that we all tell ourselves? Have you ever met him and had a conversation with him? How do you know Mr Bush? Through the media and word of mouth? Hard to know if he is evil to be honest. Or just geting by day to day like the rest of us.

Judging by his actions and those in his administration, would they not emerge as fundamentally irresponsible sociopaths?

Affable

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Are the worlds ruling elites really evil? Most people are born with human characteristics. Do you think G. Bush et al really are inhumane monsters without consideration for the people "they are elected to serve"??? Are all of the top Wallstreet financiers really a bunch of sociopaths, or do they have human feelings of empathy and so forth. Or is there an evolutionary flaw in the structure of human societies, is it the case that most people are responsible, empathetic individuals and that the 1% lacking in human traits invariably rise to the top by virtue of their ruthlessness to rule over them like kings?

Hmmm. Interesting question. I guess we all have those thoughts about what it is that it takes for power. I think you maybe on track that it's a kind of hollowness and insouciance that equates to ruthlessness.

Thirdfox

As Mr. John Bolton annnounced to the UN; he is merely here to preserve America's national self-interest. Similarly for President Bush, I believe he wants to do good - but at the expense of other people.

There are not many people in this world that I would regard as evil (bleeding heart liberal that I am) - this applies to criminals (murderers, paedophiles etc.) but most of the examples you've mentioned (Bush, CEOs etc.) are merely more selfish - an inherent human characteristic.

nyarlothothep

Thirdfox wrote: »

As Mr. John Bolton annnounced to the UN; he is merely here to preserve America's national self-interest. Similarly for President Bush, I believe he wants to do good - but at the expense of other people.

There are not many people in this world that I would regard as evil (bleeding heart liberal that I am) - this applies to criminals (murderers, paedophiles etc.) but most of the examples you've mentioned (Bush, CEOs etc.) are merely more selfish - an inherent human characteristic.

We would need to define evil, but I would posit that selfishness on the scale wielded by the world elites is a form of evil, as it pertains to us. On the one hand you can say that no one is evil, they act in accordance with pre defined genetic traits and environmental factors. On the other hand, their actions are evil in terms of their consequences to other people. I think there are certain patterns to be identified here. Stealing, murder etc are unacceptable in any society you come across but certain forms of these actions become permissible. This doesn't lessen their negative values, it distorts them. So a fair and just society for all is logically the answer. Its what everyone should strive for, a culture of this sort should developed by chipping away at the inadequacies of authoritarian structures.

Thirdfox

But that just goes to the problem of what is "fair" and "equal" - do we literally treat everyone the same? That would be ridiculous, men are not women, children are not adults, people's needs are different etc. etc.

I think the problem as you pointed out lies in the fact that everyone's definition is different. Sure we all want "freedom" but what does that entail? These kind of fundametnal questions really have to be answered first before we can move on to tackling "evil" ala President Bush's "axis of evil"?

nyarlothothep

Thirdfox wrote: »

But that just goes to the problem of what is "fair" and "equal" - do we literally treat everyone the same? That would be ridiculous, men are not women, children are not adults, people's needs are different etc. etc.

I think the problem as you pointed out lies in the fact that everyone's definition is different. Sure we all want "freedom" but what does that entail? These kind of fundametnal questions really have to be answered first before we can move on to tackling "evil" ala President Bush's "axis of evil"?

Fairness doesn't necessarily equate to equal. I don't believe in treating everyone the same but at the same time I believe that everyone should prosper and shouldn't be penalized for being different, or for not fitting into a particular cultural/economic mindset. Everyone has a contribution to make in their own way.

I believe where authority isn't justified it should be identified on a case by case basis, where there is a negative social overspill which outweighs any socially beneficial outcomes.

Thirdfox

Going a bit off-topic but does that mean you believe in the "greater good" - some kind of utilitarianism? Or does individual rights trump society benefit in most cases (or as some others view it - serving the individual good also serves societal interests)?

Coming from law school and analysing our socio-political ideology I find it really interesting what fundamental basis people ground themselves on - even within "full" democracies the opinions of what constitutes the building blocks of civilised society is so varied. Human dignity? Equality? Freedom of speech?

studiorat

Does there need to be intent for something to be evil? If for example GWB believes he is doing good can it be said the is doing evil even if he is.

Are good and evil fixed values established by, nature, morality or common sense or god perhaps? Or is good and evil a product of custom and tradition?

Personally, I think it can be said that evil is a relative value, without evil we couldn't have good! I also think there needs to be a negative intent for something to be evil.

On the subject of "freedom" I'd agree that there are two types, positive and negative liberty. Negative liberty; freedom from restraint, to do as one pleases as it were, and positive liberty; the opportunity and ability to fulfill one's potential. Positive liberty acts within part of the collective whereas negative liberty refers to the individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Berlin#.22Two_Concepts_of_Liberty.22

nyarlothothep

Thirdfox wrote: »

Going a bit off-topic but does that mean you believe in the "greater good" - some kind of utilitarianism? Or does individual rights trump society benefit in most cases (or as some others view it - serving the individual good also serves societal interests)?

Coming from law school and analysing our socio-political ideology I find it really interesting what fundamental basis people ground themselves on - even within "full" democracies the opinions of what constitutes the building blocks of civilised society is so varied. Human dignity? Equality? Freedom of speech?

There are trade-offs, balancing individual needs with the greater good...the underpinning motive of utilitarianism is positive though misguided.

What I am fundamentally against is self interest causing unjustified harm. I don't believe there is an obvious definition, just contextual examples which need to be scrutinized to ascertain whether they fall into this category.

I find designing an architecture for society is almost fruitless because ultimately it gets muddled and ends up a strong imposition of values on people. Evolution seems best across aeons (if humans survive that long). The ideal or close to ideal form of human organization cannot be arrived at in centuries. The only constant as I see it is to act towards others in a way you would like them to act towards you.

Dignity, equality, freedom of speech, all of these things and more constitute the building blocks of the ideal society.

Portia 27

Perhaps psychopath is an ever better label for these people, as psychopaths have no feelings for others.

They are totally selfish, to the exclusion of all others, human, animal, plant, etc.

Their delight is in watching others suffer.

Evil is a term we use to describe those who hurt others.

Most of the psychopaths are not born evil, but are created in childhood experiences.

So, if we trace back to the childhood of Hitler- we see how he was treated by the Jews and why he grew to hate them.

Use of drugs and alcahol can also affect the brain and numb it to the feelings of others.

Just an opinion of course.!

Capt'n Midnight

google for psychopath business

the scary thing is that these people get bonuses for short term goals and golden handshakes mean there is little downside

nyarlothothep

that imo is my main problem with the human race, lack of long term rational thinking!

JohnGalt

Evil is a very outdated concept, with its roots in primitive religious thinking. There is no difference between Matrin Luther King Jnr and Jeffrey Dahmer, they both acted in the way their circumstances (I use the word in the broadest sense) dictated.

K4t

Re: Bush - People who come to power purely because of wealth cannot be expected to relate to or provide for the poorest in society. Plato even foresaw the Bush era when he said "a ruling class which is devoted to to its wealth, and which owes its position and power to wealth, will substitute exploitation for government". This basically explains the real and obvious reason for the war in Iraq (OIL), why the US health service is a shambles (No Universal health care. Yet, The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care), why millions of ordinary, hard-working Americans cannot afford to send their children to college.

And just to show that he's as ignorant now as when he walked into the White House 8 years ago, he's trying to bring in environmental policy that will do even more harm to the environment that he has already done.

George Bush is an ignorant man and I do not think good ethics and morality are his strong point. Having said that, evil is too strong of a word to use.

Let's just hope Obama can undo everything GW Bush has done.

metrovelvet

Don't you have to agree to what consitiutes an evil deed before you can determine if someone's character is essentially evil? How many evil things do you have to do before you are considered evil? For all your waffle about president bush, he also brought in the partial birth abortion ban and toppled Sadham Hussein. Some people think these are good deeds.

Capt'n Midnight

metrovelvet wrote:

he also brought in the partial birth abortion ban and toppled Sadham Hussein. Some people think these are good deeds.

abortion ? people are so polarised on that one that almost any law pro or anti will be welcomed by many

Saddam ? the average Iraqi is far worse off than before when they had a corrupt regieme with a health care system limited mostly by embargos that resulted in maybe 300,000 extra child deaths.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I think the ruling classes (the right wing elite) are just raised in a bubble, where they consider themselves above ordinary people to such an extent that they really don't care what happens to them.

furrylemmings

Evil is fundamentally a point of view, not exactly a real quantifyable property. I doubt hitler believed he was evil, yet a lot of you do, and i dont care. Evil isnt something that bothers me.

starchild

it really comes down to how you as an individual percieve or view the world

i agree with previous poster in that i too would doubt that hitler considered himself evil

In my perception of the world commiting acts of persecution against my fellow humans would be unthinkable

In Hitlers it wasnt that is to say his perception of the world was different from the majority & thus it allowed him to act in that way