Do you believe in radical evil?

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Nonsense. Evil is what is harmful to others. Clearly homosexuality is not evil. It is not harmful to others or to society. Just because it is called evil by ignorant backward religions does not mean it is evil and does not make the idea of evil itself useless. Some religions think it is good to kill people for not observing religious laws. That doesn't make the concept of good useless either. Good and evil are therefore not religious ideas exclusively.

You're missing the point. Homosexuality is repugnant and wicked to some religions. We both agree that homosexuality is not harmful. Repugnant and wicked are not necessarily harmful. Your definition doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

brickmauser wrote:

I am not confusing myself. You are confused not me. You seem to think there are equally valid world views on what is evil and what isn't. There is only one valid view. Evil is what is harmful to others. That is true in all times and all places. Slavery, murder, rape, massacres, theft, lying etc were, are and always will be objectively evil regardless what is the prevailing cultural, religious or political opinion.

Your definition is not good enough. It's not your fault. Evil is just a meaningless term and you're doing your best to give it meaning.

I keep asking and you keep not answering

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into your definitions?
And
Does evil have any prescriptive power?

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Evil is defined as what is profoundly immoral and wicked.

brickmauser wrote:

Nonsense. Evil is what is harmful to others.

Those definitions are distinct. Think about it for a second. Immoral and wicked doesn't necessarily mean harmful.
'evils is meaningless as you have just demonstrated

learn_more

I don't believe in evil as if evil in itself is some non-physical entity that exists to influence people to do evil things.

I do think that in some cases that there is a psychological explanations for persons that do incredibly evil things.

Having said that, I do believe there are people who do incredibly evil things that not suffering from any psychological condition.
Those types of people do things to flatter their own sense of worth and power. Those are the most dangerous kinds of people.

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're missing the point. Homosexuality is repugnant and wicked to some religions.

So what it is?

We both agree that homosexuality is not harmful.

Yes we do.

Repugnant and wicked are not necessarily harmful.

What is repugnant and what is wicked are two entirely different things.
Repugnance is relative but wickedness is not. Wickedness is what is harmful and immoral.

Your definition doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

Your definition does not stand up to scrutiny. Mine does as I have just shown you.

Your definition is not good enough. It's not your fault. Evil is just a meaningless term and you're doing your best to give it meaning.

I keep asking and you keep not answering

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into your definitions?
And
Does evil have any prescriptive power?

What you are essentially doing is similar to me handing you a red tomato and a green apple and an orange and you refusing to call them red, green or orange but instead insisting that color meaningless. Now imagine you were at traffic junction on your way home and you decided that color was meaningless? How absurd would that be?
Denying the reality of evil which is the same as wickedness and harm and immorality is equally as absurd.
You are playing with words.
Nobody in real life is a moral relativist or a skeptic.

Samaris

Pity more people aren't moral relativists, since life is pretty morally relative.

It is evil to harm others. Evil is what is causes harm, right? I'll throw in "intentional harm" just to be fairer.

Is it evil to cut open a person to heal them? What if they die? Some people believe that it -is- evil, as it goes against the laws of nature and God and won't accept medical intervention. What about euthanasia? Suicide? Abortion? At what stage? Whose morals judge whether something is objectively evil?

How can anything based on a judgement (morality) ever equal a set of absolutes that can apply to every person and every time?

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

So what it is?

So it's evil by your definition... you understand that right?

brickmauser wrote:

Yes we do.

So it's not evil in your opinion but it can be evil by your definition. Your opinion differs from your definition. Seriously. You've done all the work to undo your own argument.

brickmauser wrote:

Your definition does not stand up to scrutiny. Mine does as I have just shown you.

I haven't given a definition as far as I know. Can you quote what definition I gave and how you scrutinised it?

I'm not sure you've kept up with the discussion.

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into the definition? Do you know why?

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Denying the reality of evil which is the same as wickedness and harm and immorality is equally as absurd. You are playing with words. Nobody in real life is a moral relativist or a skeptic.

You're giving different definitions of evil again.

Now the definition has changed to ' wickedness and harm and immorality '

Just to be clear, what's the definition of evil now?

Stealthfins

There's also Evil people who know what a person is trying to say but they're sick in the head because they get a kick out of winding people up.

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Evil is defined as what is profoundly immoral and wicked.

I misspoke. I said repugnant and wicked when I meant to say immoral and wicked. It makes no difference. Homosexuality is immoral and wicked in some religions so it is evil by your definition. But we both agree it isn't harmful. So it's both evil and not evil because evil is a meaningless term.

Samaris

Or at the very least, a subjective one. Which is the issue. You can't really apply a term that implies such an absolute position to something subjective.

Religions have subjectively decided that it is wrong, it is immoral. You have subjectively decided that it is fine and moral. One of you is wrong, if it is objectively one or the other.

Edit: (I know, I edit a lot, it's quite easy to catch me between edits :P) Same-sex marriage isn't the best example for me personally as I can't logically see an issue with it. Abortion, suicide, euthanasia are all condemned as evil by some and can be logically argued as negative by both sides. And if you're going with absolutes, you kinda need a logical conclusion to it, an absolute doesn't really lend itself to feelings.

El_Duderino 09

Genuinely curious about why the OP is so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into the definition.

OP has asked for opinions and gotten lots of opinions. Are you content with your definition OP?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

Is it evil to cut open a person to heal them? What if they die? Some people believe that it -is- evil, as it goes against the laws of nature and God and won't accept medical intervention.

Jehovah's Witnesses who try to prevent their children from receiving life saving blood transfusions are clearly wicked, immoral and therefore evil.
A doctor who is careless following hygiene guidelines and best medical practice when performing operations is being wicked, immoral and evil and there is punished accordingly - stripped of his fitness to practice at the very least.

What about euthanasia? If people are put to death against their will that is murder. If they choose to be put to death by a doctor then how could that possibly be objectively evil?
Suicide? They are killing themselves and nobody else so how can suicide be evil?
Abortion? Clearly a human life is being ended by abortion - only an idiot or a liar would say otherwise - but the bodily integrity of the woman overrides all other considerations in the same way you would be under no moral obligation to be hooked up to another person to let them use your kidneys to keep them alive. It is therefore not evil to have an abortion. At what stage is an abortion wrong? At the stage where the foetus is viable independent of the mother's womb which is why most jurisdictions prohibit late term abortions.
Whose morals judge whether something is objectively evil? The reality is no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.
That does not mean objective evil does not exist.

How can anything based on a judgement (morality) ever equal a set of absolutes that can apply to every person and every time?

Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.

Regardless of whether Roman thought slavery was ok or Germans in 1942 thought it was good idea to gas Jews or whether regions of Africa and the Middle East think female genital mutilation is ok etc slavery, mass murder or genital mutilation are objectively evil. They always were evil, are evil and always will be evil. They are harmful to other people. The Romans and the Germans in the past and the people of Africa and the Middle East who commit this evil didn't consider or care about the harm their acts caused. So that is objectively evil.

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

J
Whose morals judge whether something is objectively evil? The reality is no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.
That does not mean objective evil does not exist.

Don't you realise though that that is -exactly what you are doing-? You are giving your own judgements as to whether certain things are objectively evil, while -also- saying that the reality is that no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.

You just can't have that both ways. Why is your specific interpretation of sanctity of life of the foetus and the bodily integrity of the mother the -objectively- good one?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

Don't you realise though that that is -exactly what you are doing-? You are giving your own judgements as to whether certain things are objectively evil, while -also- saying that the reality is that no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.

You just can't have that both ways. Why is your specific interpretation of sanctity of life of the foetus and the bodily integrity of the mother the -objectively- good one?

It's based on the objective harm and evil inflicted upon individuals.
Are you trying to tell me that the pain and suffering inflicted on victims of violence is subjective?
Are trying to tell me that if a drunk driver causes a fatal.accident that it is merely subjective whether he is deserving of punishment or indeed if he committed a crime at all?
Is it simply only a matter of subjective opinion whether Hitler or Stalin or Mao were guilty of monstrous evil?
Is there no moral difference between a soldier killing another soldier in armed combat or a policeman shooting an armed criminal and criminal gunning down a business owner because he won't pay protection money?
Clearly there are objective evils.
If a kid was torturing a puppy the puppy is suffering and in pain. The kid is enjoying the pain or is indifferent to it. The kid is evil.
Evil exists.

Mellor

brickmauser wrote: »

I believe that broadly there are two types of radical evil.

1. Acts committed by people who take a perverse pleasure in the destruction and hurt they cause and commit these acts knowingly.

2. Acts committed by people who gave no thought to the destruction and hurt they cause and commit theses acts even after they know what the consequences of their actions are and are unmoved by any pity or concern for their victims.

The first is an example of Sadistic personality disorder.
The second is an example of what's common called a psychopath or sociopath.

Those are a lot more precise definitions than evil, which is rather subjective.
Also, I'm not sure why you describe it as "radical" evil. In what way is it radical, as opposed to just evil?

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

Clearly there are objective evils.
If a kid was torturing a puppy the puppy is suffering and in pain. The kid is enjoying the pain or is indifferent to it. The kid is evil.
Evil exists.

Is the kid still evil if he takes a swing at the puppy and misses? No harm done, thus it's not evil. But the kid intended to, so evil ends up down to chance of its effects? Not to mention that depending on the age of the child, s/he may not be mentally capable of processing that their acts are causing pain or fully understand what that means.

The point isn't so much arguing with your judgments of what is and isn't evil on their own merits though, just that you are still giving -subjective opinions- as objective absolute.

brickmauser

Mellor wrote: »

The first is an example of Sadistic personality disorder.
The second is an example of what's common called a psychopath or sociopath.

Those are a lot more precise definitions than evil, which is rather subjective.
Also, I'm not sure why you describe it as "radical" evil. In what way is it radical, as opposed to just evil?

We all commit evil but this is evil that is all consuming to the extent that you not really dealing with anything like a human any more. They are so far gone. They can only be described as a monster.
In the case of both Goethe and Eichmann what both men did was so revolting cruel and evil it was offensive to let them live.

Mellor

brickmauser wrote: »

We all commit evil but this is evil that is all consuming to the extent that you not really dealing with anything like a human any more. They are so far gone. They can only be described as a monster.

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.

In the case of both Goethe and Eichmann what both men did was so revolting cruel and evil it was offensive to let them live

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)

El_Duderino 09

Mellor wrote:

The first is an example of Sadistic personality disorder. The second is an example of what's common called a psychopath or sociopath.

I've tried to get the OP to discuss the predictive power of 'evil' vs actual diagnosable conditions with diagnostic criteria. They can't engage on that level unfortunately. Clearly psychological diagnosis is more useful than 'evil'.

Mellor wrote:

Those are a lot more precise definitions than evil, which is rather subjective. Also, I'm not sure why you describe it as "radical" evil. In what way is it radical, as opposed to just evil?

I also asked about this but the OP didn't respond to it either.

It's a case of the op coming up with a definition that doesn't really work. Asking for opinions about the definition and being roundly told the definition doesn't really work. Defending the definition without good reason except a certainty that evil exists.

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

Don't you realise though that that is -exactly what you are doing-? You are giving your own judgements as to whether certain things are objectively evil, while -also- saying that the reality is that no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.

You just can't have that both ways. Why is your specific interpretation of sanctity of life of the foetus and the bodily integrity of the mother the -objectively- good one?

If the actions of a person cause demonstrable pain and suffering and misery to other people and those actions are committed deliberately tha t person is immoral wicked and evil. That is clearly an objective standard. We use this standard to determine right and wrong and punish people in real life.

There is nothing subjective about this whatsoever.

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.