Do evil people exist or are there only people who do evil things?

Ruffledpuff

Hi, I'm new so I'm really sorry if I do anyting wrong.
Anyway, I was wondering, what do you think? Can people be evil or do they just do evil things? Is it the action or the judgement of the action? Also why do you think that?

Personally I believe that people start off as people, and once they start doing evil things consciously they become evil as they are causing suffering thoughtfully. But still, they are just a person, an evil person may not exist and he is just a person doing evil things which he believes are right so in his world...he's not evil.

kev_s88

id have to agree with you.

ive always seen it as....people are people.people can become evil by doing evil things, but no-one is pre-determined to be and evil person. it is all down to how you act throughout your life and what you do

Ruffledpuff

But is he an evil person or a person doing evil things? What counts as an evil action?

sink

The more pertinent question for me anyway is whether evil actually exists. For evil to exist there has to be objective morality such as that which religion provides. I however am an atheist/humanist and believe morality is subjective and is built upon what works best for society and that what society considers to be evil changes with the needs of society. Evil also requires freedom of will but I don't believe humans have 100% free will. I believe in bio-social-environmental determinism and that humans are essential thinking self-aware machines whose actions are dictated by their biological make-up and input from their environment and social interactions.

nyarlothothep

In a practical sense I think we can perceive evil to exist which is valid in its own context. If someone steals your bike, are you realistically going to say, well it was neither right or wrong, it just happened, or are you going to think, that was very selfish and unfair? Also there may be certain universal moral patterns across society. For example, killing is possibly right or wrong, depending on the culture, however it seems murder is condemned across all cultures.

Seloth

Idiocy is true evil,Not those who are simple or have mental handicaps but those that do not think ahead and believe they are always right,Those that do harmful actions without regret or thought.

I know people who've had great upbringings,similar to mine in much ways yet they would do things without consideration to others,I dont mean little old things I mean things can can deeply effect someone.

Wheter evil is the result of a cosmicforce or the left overs from human evolution I dont think we will be able to awnser this anytime soon.It could be both as some will become hatefull or evil which ever you wish to call it for something which happened in their past yet others seem to be it from a young age.

hivizman

Can we actually come up with a criterion that would distinguish an evil person from a person who does evil things? Presumably, an evil person must be someone who does evil things, but not everyone who does evil things can be an evil person (or else there is no real distinction). So is an evil person someone who does nothing but evil things, or is an evil person someone who does mainly evil things but some good things? In the second case, where does the borderline lie - what proportion of evil things must be done for someone to qualify as an evil person? And is the status of being an evil person something that, once acquired, cannot be lost? For example, if a person is classified as evil if over 50% of their actions are evil, then someone who starts off with a preponderance of evil actions would be stuck as an evil person even if they reformed and undertook nothing but good actions. But this argument must also apply even if the requirement to be classified as an evil person is that 100% of one's actions are evil, because the possibility of reformation is always there, at least logically. So, if evil is assessed entirely in terms of the quality of actions, there is no logical way of distinguishing an evil person from someone who does evil things.

Hence, if there is a distinction, it must lie elsewhere. But then how can we assess someone as inherently evil irrespective of that person's actions? If someone has nothing but evil thoughts but their actions are all good, are they really evil? Or must we suspect the actions of an inherently evil person? Maybe someone who is inherently evil can see beyond the immediate effects and consequences of actions and can thus perform actions that, on the surface, appear to be good but are, in the long term, evil? But in that case, how can we distinguish an evil action from a good action, since we are not in possession of insight into the long-term effects and consequences of any action?

Ruffledpuff

Generally, I would say that evil is something that causes suffering, to what extent is another question. But if a person thinks evil thoughts, I would not think them wholey evil as they have not carried out evil actions and caused suffering. Evil would be to cause suffering and there must be something in them which has stopped them from doing the deed.

hivizman

How far is intention important in deciding that a person has done an evil thing? Certainly acts that lead to suffering may be described as evil, but do we need some sort of intention to cause suffering? My dictionary is ambivalent about this -"evil" is defined as "something that produces unhappiness or misfortune; harm; wickedness or depravity; sin; illness, disease or curse." This seems to cover a range from bad luck at one end to suffering caused by the malevolence of another at the other end. I would tend to limit "evil" to actions undertaken intentionally to do something that would cause suffering (or perhaps I would stretch it to take into account actions carried out by someone who was reckless as to whether they would cause suffering where this was a consequence that could be reasonably anticipated), but is this being too lawyer-like?

Latchy

I am sure Joe Staln and Adolf hitler never ment to grow up and become monsters responsibe drirectly and indirectly for the slaughter of millions but they did .

They existed . Were they Evil ? Absolutley !

Ruffledpuff

Also it depends on how much evil can be accepted as part of being human. As obviously there are the sins, but say giving way to selfishness, I'm sure plenty of us do it and sometimes it may even cause suffering to others. But we're not evil. I mean, Stalin and Hitler killed millions and that is obviously judged as evil evil. But when they did it, I doubt they did all the killings out of evil intent, they did it as they thought that was what was needed to help the country. So from one side, they were being helpful but on the other they were being doing evil things/being evil.

sink

Ruffledpuff wrote: »

Also it depends on how much evil can be accepted as part of being human. As obviously there are the sins, but say giving way to selfishness, I'm sure plenty of us do it and sometimes it may even cause suffering to others. But we're not evil. I mean, Stalin and Hitler killed millions and that is obviously judged as evil evil. But when they did it, I doubt they did all the killings out of evil intent, they did it as they thought that was what was needed to help the country. So from one side, they were being helpful but on the other they were being doing evil things/being evil.

That is precisely why there is no such thing as evil. How can something be evil in the eyes of one person but not in the eyes of everyone, and be put in a box called evil? For evil to really exist it has to be complete objective truth and the same in the eyes of everyone. Every action we take has some positive and some negative effect, all actions contain degrees of both and the importance. The importance we place on the positive and negative aspects is subjective and will be different for everyone based upon their culture, beliefs and psychology. Evil is just an imaginary idea dreamt up by humans to help them cope with harsh situations.

Joe1919

"Evil is just an imaginary idea dreamt up by humans to help them cope with harsh situations."

Imaginary ideas are very important as they can often be brought to fruition. ( e.g. Martin Luther Kings dream). I would myself accept that good/evil may only exist as 'concepts' along with other concepts such as Justice, Equality, Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, Dignity & Law etc. but this does not negate the importance of such concepts or ideas. Of course, its the case that concepts, been the products of our mind, is subject to some variation but that does not take from their importance.

Similarly, many words used in language have been dreamt up by humans and in one sense language is not absolute, nevertheless some form of communication between humans is absolutely necessary.
Dont then knock the importance of dreams or imagination as much of our constructed world originated as someone's dream or idea.

The sense or idea that there exists good and evil may also be useful, especially in terms of giving children some reasonably simple sense of morality or right/wrongness.

nyarlothothep

Excellent post which I agree with 100%, pretty much expressed the key points on this

sink

Joe1919 wrote: »

"Evil is just an imaginary idea dreamt up by humans to help them cope with harsh situations."

Imaginary ideas are very important as they can often be brought to fruition. ( e.g. Martin Luther Kings dream). I would myself accept that good/evil may only exist as 'concepts' along with other concepts such as Justice, Equality, Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, Dignity & Law etc. but this does not negate the importance of such concepts or ideas. Of course, its the case that concepts, been the products of our mind, is subject to some variation but that does not take from their importance.

Similarly, many words used in language have been dreamt up by humans and in one sense language is not absolute, nevertheless some form of communication between humans is absolutely necessary.
Dont then knock the importance of dreams or imagination as much of our constructed world originated as someone's dream or idea.

The sense or idea that there exists good and evil may also be useful, especially in terms of giving children some reasonably simple sense of morality or right/wrongness.

You make a good point, I had never though of good/evil from the psychological/anthropological pov. It might have be a significant factor in the evolution human social interaction leading to more co-operation as opposed to competition which in turn helped evolve more advanced culture.

Joe1919

sink wrote: »

It might have be a significant factor in the evolution human social interaction leading to more co-operation as opposed to competition which in turn helped evolve more advanced culture.

Darwin more or less makes this point in his 'Descent of Man'. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

Diveonthe12th

Ruffledpuff wrote: »

Hi, I'm new so I'm really sorry if I do anyting wrong.
Anyway, I was wondering, what do you think? Can people be evil or do they just do evil things? Is it the action or the judgement of the action? Also why do you think that?

Personally I believe that people start off as people, and once they start doing evil things consciously they become evil as they are causing suffering thoughtfully. But still, they are just a person, an evil person may not exist and he is just a person doing evil things which he believes are right so in his world...he's not evil.

In my opinion, the main reason for people comitting evil deeds is caused by the belief in an after life. People think they might get a second chance so act and treat others casually...

Anyone who renounces that belief and still causes atrocities has to be mentally ill.

I believe that humans are fundmentally good. Environment and mental condition can/will alter that predisposition.

Black Swan

nyarlothothep wrote: »

it seems murder is condemned across all cultures.

Personally, I condemn murder in all its forms, but for argument sake I pose the following...

I wonder if murder, per se, is a bit more complex, value laden, and contextually bound? Perhaps an imperfect example, but right now there's a popular film (Valkyrie, 2008) about the German officer (played by Tom Cruise) who attempted to assassinate Hitler during WWII (The screenplay was claimed to be informed by historical events). It would seem that many in the audience would sanction such action against Hitler, because they perceived him to be evil, or at least to have exhibited evil behaviour? I wonder if all in the audience would, at the same time, perceive the actions of the bomb plot conspirators to be evil or justified?

Is assassination a version of murder, qualified by the fact that the person being killed is of political standing, and that the assassination may, or may not be sanctioned by a government, special interest group, or the individually held perception of the assassin (or some combination)?

"Murder as defined in Common Law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission. The word murder is related, in old English, to the French word mordre (bite) in reference to the heavy compensation one must pay for causing an unjust death." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

In the case of our Valkyrie film, under German law at the time that Hitler was Germany's head of state, would the killing of Hitler be defined as an "unlawful killing of another human being (Hitler) with intent" (i.e., the plot of the conspirators)? When the conspirators were later apprehended, did the existing German government "consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission?"

Had the conspirators been successful, would the faithful among Hitler's followers, many of whom held positions in government, consider it an "unjust death?" At the same time, would the special interests in Germany that supported the plot to kill Hitler think just the opposite; i.e., will all parties to the act of murder consider it evil, or will it be defined or otherwise labeled differently based upon the perceived context, values, and interests of the perceivers, individually and/or collectively?

In another context, I am often reminded of how the actions of persons are defined and labeled depending upon the value laden perspectives of the definer. Rockets are being fired into Israeli cities by members of Hamas. To many Palestinians, Hamas members would be defined as freedom fighters, while from the perspectives of many Israeli citizens, terrorists that murder innocent civilians. Media reported views about the recent actions of the Israeli military have been labeled differently too, depending upon the source?

In summary, I really wonder is there is an act that is universally held by all persons on our planet to be evil, or is such a definition subject to context, values, interests, philosophy, religious interpretation, or whatever?

Latchy

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In summary, I really wonder is there is an act that is universally held by all persons on our planet to be evil, or is such a definition subject to context, values, interests, philosophy, religious interpretation, or whatever?

That is the parodox .Like ( present economic climate aside ) Yes.

I firmly believe in times of plenty that every man and womon who wants to should be able to go out to work and earn a decent wage to accommodate a decent standard of living without the restraints that are put upon us by goverments and beauacracy's of one kind and another. Now we have all seen for ourselfs .Slave labour is evil yet the will to stamp it out by goverments are not great enough because it provides cheap labour , some might say ' a necessary Evil ' .We have seen in recent times how religious organisations have being exposed for their abuse and paid out billions ( at tax payers expense ) while still not actually coming to grips with the problem ( their problem )and you could argue that it's eveil how greedy banks and financial institutions invest and loose our money ,yet have it wiped away at a stroke ,while the ordinary person pays the price.Not in the league of evil commited by tyrants such as Hitler etc but along the lines you mention ie ,values, interests, philosophy, religious interpretation, or whatever

Black Swan

latchyco wrote: »

That is the parodox

Indeed!

latchyco wrote: »

you could argue that it's eveil how greedy banks and financial institutions invest and loose our money ,yet have it wiped away at a stroke ,while the ordinary person pays the price.Not in the league of evil commited by tyrants such as Hitler etc but along the lines you mention ie ,values, interests, philosophy, religious interpretation, or whatever

The "ordinary person" that you mention may see "evil" in the actions of the wealthy minority, but I doubt that most of the wealthy consider their actions as "evil." There are many justifications over the years claimed by the elites for their privileged positions. Just a few...

• The nobility and with respect to the serfs? (Divine right)
• Plantation owners and slaves? (Constitutional right)
• Social Darwinism and American robber barons? (H. Spencer)
• Calvinist predestination that suggested the wealth of elites was proof that they were members of the select and predestined to enter the Pearly Gates, whereas those not wealthy were doomed in their vile ways (Max Weber).
• Separate but equal doctrine of the former white minority government in South Africa.
• The perspective that, in the long run, each individual pursuing his/her own interests in a free market will result in the best for all (Adam Smith).
• Tax breaks for the wealthy, claiming that there will be a trickle-down effect creating jobs and social mobility for the unemployed and poor (GW Bush Republicans).