Do you believe in radical evil?

brickmauser

Mellor wrote: »

That may be the case, but the point still stands that those situations are covered by Sadistic personality disorder & psychopath/sociopath respectively.
Also, those two conditions are not necessarily exclusive, nor are the two class you presented for that matter.

Evil is a broad generic term, and in many cases subjective. The above clinical definitions are much more precise.


Cruel and evil, sure.
But I'm not sure we should go down the road of deciding who should be allowed to live based on subjective opinions. (The fact that everyone may share this same opinion doesn't mean it is any less subjective)

Execution in many states in the US is reserved as punishment for the most severe categories of heinous acts.

A serial killer of children who raped and tortured and then killed them is going to get the needle while a man who shoots a clerk during a hold up is going to get life imprisonment.

When there are severe aggravating factors the punishment is more severe.

A person who punches somebody in a bar fight or kills someone while driving drunk or failed to follow fire safety guidelines that led to fire deaths in a building they owned obviously a lower punishment.

So there are clearly defined categories of evil.

The upper scale is mass murder, serial killing, torture murders and so on.

We have a criminal justice system that establishes guilt and punishes it and there are prescribed punishments for specific crimes.

Mellor

brickmauser wrote: »

Execution in many states in the US is reserved as punishment for the most severe categories of heinous acts.

A serial killer of children who raped and tortured and then killed them is going to get the needle while a man who shoots a clerk during a hold up is going to get life imprisonment.

What about when aman is falsely convicted and executed?
Should the entire jury be given life in prison, should we just executed the judge?

Notwithstanding, I believe

So there are clearly defined categories of evil.

What are these clear definitions? Where are they?

As my understanding is that law is built around a set of principles, that are applied on a case by case basis. A heirachy of severity doesn't work as its non linear.

We have a criminal justice system that establishes guilt and punishes it and there are prescribed punishments for specific crimes.

Nobody disputes that. It literally has nothing to do with that you've been saying.
Nor the questions you've been ignoring.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

brickmauser wrote: »

You are playing with words now.

What is naughty, wicked, immoral, bad etc etc is evil. They are all descriptions of the same thing.

Thus, you have proved my point that your definition of evil was to simply supply a synonym. That's not a definition.

I'm not the won playing with words, you are by the use of the term 'radical evil' in the first place.

Grayson

Here's a nice little article on the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (It's the default go-to for any philosophical issue)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Particularly of interest might be the section on evil and responsability

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/#EviRes

brickmauser

Absolutely bizarre that there are posters who don't believe in right and wrong.

You don't think anything is wrong?

Mellor

brickmauser wrote: »

Absolutely bizarre that there are posters who don't believe in right and wrong.

You don't think anything is wrong?

Absolutely bizzare that you think anyone said that. :rolleyes:
Why you no read words good?

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

Absolutely bizarre that there are posters who don't believe in right and wrong.

You don't think anything is wrong?

No-one is saying that, what you're absolutely missing from other peoples arguments is that they/we don't necessarily believe in -your- version of good and evil as some sort of objective standard. Doesn't even mean that people arguing with you don't agree with your standards for certain debates, just that they can't be taken as objective purely because someone subjectively thinks it should be that way or someone else subjectively agrees with it.

I would certainly never say that MY belief as to the right or wrongs of a given situation makes -that belief- an -objective fact-. It just plain doesn't. I'm judging a situation through the lens of my upbringing, my moral centre, and my own experiences. They just can't apply across the board, across all countries and all times - which is what -objective- does rather suggest. If something is -objectively- evil (and if something CAN be objectively evil, given evil is a very subjective term in and of itself), it remains evil whether or not there's anyone there to process it and make a judgement on it.

Genital mutilation is evil. Okay, I can go with that. What about genital piercing? Isn't that a form of mutilation? What about genital piercing in babies? Okay, what about ear piercing in babies? What if you're part of a culture that believes damaging the natural form is evil and thus ear piercing is a big no-no? Is the act itself objectively evil looking through their eyes, and can something be objectively two things at once or does that pretty much by definition make it a subjective issue?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

No-one is saying that, what you're absolutely missing from other peoples arguments is that they/we don't necessarily believe in -your- version of good and evil as some sort of objective standard. Doesn't even mean that people arguing with you don't agree with your standards for certain debates, just that they can't be taken as objective purely because someone subjectively thinks it should be that way or someone else subjectively agrees with it.

I would certainly never say that MY belief as to the right or wrongs of a given situation makes -that belief- an -objective fact-. It just plain doesn't. I'm judging a situation through the lens of my upbringing, my moral centre, and my own experiences. They just can't apply across the board, across all countries and all times - which is what -objective- does rather suggest. If something is -objectively- evil (and if something CAN be objectively evil, given evil is a very subjective term in and of itself), it remains evil whether or not there's anyone there to process it and make a judgement on it.

Genital mutilation is evil. Okay, I can go with that. What about genital piercing? Isn't that a form of mutilation? What about genital piercing in babies? Okay, what about ear piercing in babies? What if you're part of a culture that believes damaging the natural form is evil and thus ear piercing is a big no-no? Is the act itself objectively evil looking through their eyes, and can something be objectively two things at once or does that pretty much by definition make it a subjective issue?

You are trying to equate the barbaric practise of genital mutilation if children that is rife in barbarian savage cultures with the voluntary genital piercings that grown adults voluntarily subject themselves to?

You obviously can't tell the moral difference.

Crimes like murder rape genocide theft fraud etc are objectively evil.

No ifs buts or maybes.

They are clearly wrong because they are acts that are committed intentionally disregarding the pain and suffering they inflict on others.

You cannot deny the objective reality if pain and suffering and you cannot deny that intentionally inflicting it can only be considered evil.

There is nothing subjective about that at all.

Your Face

I remember First year.

Lux23

I don't believe in evil. Most of the time people do bad things because they think it is the right thing to do either practically or ideologically. I suppose there are some people who like to wreak havoc or hurt living things, but that is a personality disorder not evil.

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

You are trying to equate the barbaric practise of genital mutilation if children that is rife in barbarian savage cultures with the voluntary genital piercings that grown adults voluntarily subject themselves to?

You obviously can't tell the moral difference.

Crimes like murder rape genocide theft fraud etc are objectively evil.

No ifs buts or maybes.

They are clearly wrong because they are acts that are committed intentionally disregarding the pain and suffering they inflict on others.

You cannot deny the objective reality if pain and suffering and you cannot deny that intentionally inflicting it can only be considered evil.

There is nothing subjective about that at all.

I also mentioned genital or ear piercing in babies.

Okay, I've tried and I suspect you're absolutely not going to get what I'm saying Yes, evil exists and you can objectively identify it based on your personal mores.

Someday though, you'll run into someone who just as passionately believes the opposite to what you consider objective evil and it would be rather entertaining to watch you both argue why you're both objectively correct regardless of reality.

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

I also mentioned genital or ear piercing in babies.

Okay, I've tried and I suspect you're absolutely not going to get what I'm saying Yes, evil exists and you can objectively identify it based on your personal mores.

Someday though, you'll run into someone who just as passionately believes the opposite to what you consider objective evil and it would be rather entertaining to watch you both argue why you're both objectively correct regardless of reality.

This is not based on my personal opinion.
Pain and suffering happens to people doesn't it?
That is an objective fact isn't it?
You do agree that pain and suffering is unpleasant don't you?
Every human in all times and places would have the same opinion.
That means it is objectively true that pain and suffering is unpleasant.
Now if that unpleasantness is deliberately inflicted for either sadistic pleasure or with indifference toward the misery it causes to its victim that is wrong and therefore evil.
Therefore acts like murder torture theft genocide rape etc which are acts that create the greatest suffering of all are deliberate acts by humans on other humans and can be called objectively evil.
The people who do these things are evil doers and therefore evil people.

andrewdj409

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You created 2 categories and defined what fulfils them.

The use of the term 'evil' is meaningless and confusing. Evil is just a term which describes things and behaviours we don't like. Terrorists are evil. Psychopaths are evil. Cancer is evil. It's meaningless.

Why not just describe behaviours in meaningful terms? Intentional harm vs reckless harm?

Who can ultimately define "good" and "evil"? Where did we get that concept from?

Morality

brickmauser

If I had a fully loaded 9mm pistol would I have to prove to you every time that when I pull the trigger that it will fire? Imagine if I was to test that by pointing it at you and pulling the trigger?

We wouldn't even be debating whether I was guilty of murder or not.

I could not seriously argue that I didn't know it wasn't fully loaded and that it would fire and that pointing it at your head while pulling the trigger was not murder.

I would rightly called evil and punished accordingly.

You wouldn't find any rational person on earth who would call it anything else except an evil act committed by an evil person.

It would be impossible to have a subjective opinion.

Any jury presented with the evidence would find me guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I would go further that the prosecution would have proven my guilt beyond all doubt. They would be able to establish an objective fact that I was guilty.

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

This is not based on my personal opinion.
Pain and suffering happens to people doesn't it?
That is an objective fact isn't it?
---
The people who do these things are evil doers and therefore evil people.

And you were placing your own value judgement on what YOU CONSIDER objectively evil or not objectively evil, such as -your views- on abortion. I mean..how do I put this politely, but you do understand what objective means, right?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

And you were placing your own value judgement on what YOU CONSIDER objectively evil or not objectively evil, such as -your views- on abortion. I mean..how do I put this politely, but you do understand what objective means, right?

Stop squirming away.
I was quite clear.
You cannot deny that objective pain and suffering exist and you cannot deny that deliberate acts that inflict pain and suffering are committed.
Those acts are therefore objectively evil.
End of

osarusan

brickmauser wrote: »

End of

Lets hope so.

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

End of

..Okay. End of. :pac:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

brickmauser wrote: »

Absolutely bizarre that there are posters who don't believe in right and wrong.

You don't think anything is wrong?

Where did anybody say that. You raised the philosophy of Radical Evil not right and wrong.

Samaris

Thea Attractive Spy wrote: »

Where did anybody say that. You raised the philosophy of Radical Evil not right and wrong.

Yiiis, but "radical evil" is the same thing as immoral, wicked, wrong and whatever OP says it is, so I'm not sure we're ever going to get to the bottom of this.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Sorry, forgot to add.

End of??

As my late mother used to say... thanks be to all that's good and holy.

Outlaw Pete

Evil is a Evil does.

Traits and behavior are manifested from nature and nurture. What's that expression: Genetics are a gun and environment pulls the trigger, well never more so when it comes to "evil acts".

We can inherit violent traits or a propensity to walk on others without due regard for their feelings but have a happy loving childhood and a person may never express it. Get addicted to meth and find yourself without it and those genes are gonna get expressed very quickly.

Life experiences don't make us what we are.. they reveal it.

ScumLord

The word evil comes with all sorts of long standing religious dogma. It infers that the act is influenced by a force, that something corrupted the natural order of god and brought this evil force into the world.

Evil doesn't really exist outside of human morals though. Male lions routinely kill lion cubs that aren't theirs. It's not evil, it has biological reasons. Someone who murders another person can do so for many reasons, even the psychopathic serial killer isn't evil, many are just people with either faulty hardware (some form of brain damage or malformed regions of the brain), or faulty programming (a harsh upbringing that destroys empathy). If you can show that there are reasons for an act it's hard to see it as evil.

When humans are born we're not that much different from the lions that will kill other lions cubs, or cats that will play with a half dead animal for fun. We have to instal thousands of years of learned behaviour and spend decades enforcing it before you end up with your average modern snowflake.

If the poop hit the fan and modern trade and cooperation broke down people would find their capable of all sorts of horrible acts. The only reason we can have these believes today is down to the centuries of trial and error our ancestors put into developing a fair society. It's all a fairytale though, it's a construct that just doesn't exist outside our own head.

We might see the murder of a human being as bad, but it's boom time for bacteria and maggots. It's only evil from our perspective.