Are you evil?

Morality Games said:

Evil isn't that hard to figure out. People have free wills, life, a capacity for happiness, and equally legitimate claims to all three. Anybody who subverts any of those things for selfish purposes is doing a dastardly deed. Anybody who upholds and defends them is doing a good thing.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, if we are talking about individual relativism when it comes to evil. If I think it is not evil to kill you, then, based on my definition, I am not evil.

celticwar17 said:

haha true. But i think every person can recognize what is evil about them, but it could be up to them whether that actually means they are evil.

like, are we evil because we do some evil things, or are we evil if we do a LOT of evil things, or are we evil for only doing one evil thing. that could be a matter of opinion that isn't a paradox.

Click to expand...

And what you are talking about is a more collective agreement on what a definition of evil is. Ultimately, what we are talking about is the difference between someone being evil and someone doing something evil. How many evil things does someone need to do for that person to be evil?

CaptainCourtesy said:

Not necessarily, if we are talking about individual relativism when it comes to evil. If I think it is not evil to kill you, then, based on my definition, I am not evil.

Click to expand...

Evil is a normative condition that is as universally established as gravity. If a person prizes honesty and kindness toward others above pleasure or material gain, then they do good; they wouldn't be that way unless they were considerate of everybody. If they think of other people as impersonalities who need to be used to further their self-interests, then they do evil.

Everybody knows that.

Morality Games said:

Evil isn't that hard to figure out. People have free wills, life, and a capacity for happiness. Anybody who subverts any of those things for selfish purposes is doing a dastardly deed. Manipulating and deceiving other people undermines their free will. Hurting, intimidating, or killing them does injury to their life. Controlling them and depriving them of good things and opportunities takes away their happiness.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of things I could do that would subvert your free will, life, or happiness, some that might even be considered acts of self interest, but I wouldn't consider them evil.

A basic example would be if I killed you in self defense, I would feel completely justified and my motives would've been purely about self interest (I value my life way more than I value the life of my attacker). Almost all people justify their actions and consider them to be necessary to achieve some worthwhile goal or greater good. Only cartoon villians commit villiany for the sake of the evulz!

We have subjective opinions about right and wrong, good and evil. Just look at history and we can see countless things that were perfectly acceptable or even encouraged back in the day that we find totally reprehensible now. What changed? Our definition of what is right or good and what is wrong or evil.

Ultimately, is anyone evil?

There are evil acts, but, someone who commits them, are they necessarily evil?

Or, from the other side, does an evil person necessarily have to commit evil acts?

What makes a person evil?

Personally, you have to be featured in a Stephen King novel to qualify.

Morality Games said:

Evil is a normative condition that is as universally established as gravity. If a person prizes honesty and kindness toward others above pleasure or material gain, then they do good; they wouldn't be that way unless they were considerate of everybody. If they think of other people as impersonalities who need to be used to further their self-interests, then they do evil.

Everybody knows that.

Click to expand...

Firstly, your comment is a matter of perspective. Perceiving others are impersonalities who need to be used to further individual self-interests may not be evil to that individual. Remember, they do evil to that other person, not necessarily to the individual perpetrating the "evil". To THEM, it is not evil. So, if we are going to define this, are you subscribing to the position of a collective definition of evil?

Psychoclown said:

There are plenty of things I could do that would subvert your free will, life, or happiness, some that might even be considered acts of self interest, but I wouldn't consider them evil.

A basic example would be if I killed you in self defense, I would feel completely justified and my motives would've been purely about self interest (I value my life way more than I value the life of my attacker). Almost all people justify their actions and consider them to be necessary to achieve some worthwhile goal or greater good. Only cartoon villians commit villiany for the sake of the evulz!

We have subjective opinions about right and wrong, good and evil. Just look at history and we can see countless things that were perfectly acceptable or even encouraged back in the day that we find totally reprehensible now. What changed? Our definition of what is right or good and what is wrong or evil.

Click to expand...

Killing me in self-defense would be justifiably good, but not perfectly so. Perfect goodness would require you abstain from any practice of which evil is a component. Justice enables you to indulge in evil on a purely reactionary level. It's a compromise between being a sacrificial lamb and a complete monster.

Morality Games said:

Killing me in self-defense would be justifiably good, but not perfectly good. Perfect goodness would require you abstain from any practice of which evil is a component. Justified defense enables you to indulge in evil on a purely reactionary level.

Click to expand...

So, whether behavior is evil or not is relative.

CriticalThought said:

I'm very evil.

Click to expand...

No you are not and why would you wanna be? Real evil cannot be defined and you do not strike me as someone that enjoys hanging humans up on hooks as they do animals. While you may wish to come off as evil on a sexual tip? That is fine but when you say you are evil? Well it equals danger. I have a feeling you are not evil nor even half way pulling off that scary vibe. But that is just my thinking:lol:

Kali said:

No you are not and why would you wanna be? Real evil cannot be defined and you do not strike me as someone that enjoys hanging humans up on hooks as they do animals. While you may wish to come off as evil on a sexual tip? That is fine but when you say you are evil? Well it equals danger. I have a feeling you are not evil nor even half way pulling off that scary vibe. But that is just my thinking:lol:

Click to expand...

Us truly evil peeps know how to hide our evil auras.

CaptainCourtesy said:

So, whether behavior is evil or not is relative.

Click to expand...

No. Perceiving other people to be human beings with feelings and wills of their own and perceiving them to be puppets are distinct sensations. Goodness abides in one experience, evil in the other. There is nothing relative about it.

For example, when you respond to other people on this forum, how much do you consider them people with feelings like your own and how much are they an opportunity to assert your own intelligence and power? When you see a person spouting nonsense, do you think how to let them down gently and kindly or how you can make sport of them to delight yourself and raise your stature in your eyes and the eyes of others?

If you are more concerned with other peoples' welfare, you must be good. If you are out for yourself, then you must be evil.

Firstly, your comment is a matter of perspective. Perceiving others are impersonalities who need to be used to further individual self-interests may not be evil to that individual. Remember, they do evil to that other person, not necessarily to the individual perpetrating the "evil". To THEM, it is not evil. So, if we are going to define this, are you subscribing to the position of a collective definition of evil?

Click to expand...

Language conceptualizes reality, it does not create it. Definitions are only good so long as they tell the truth.

Morality Games said:

Killing me in self-defense would be justifiably good, but not perfectly so. Perfect goodness would require you abstain from any practice of which evil is a component. Justice enables you to indulge in evil on a purely reactionary level. It's a compromise between being a sacrificial lamb and a complete monster.

Click to expand...

So perfect goodness would require me to abstain from attacking a murderer who is slaughtering a group of school children? That sounds like absolute pacifism, which I reject as an evil and selfish philosophy. Force, sometimes even deadly force, is at times neccessary. I don't consider violence in self defense or in the defense of others to be even slightly evil. I consider it to be noble and admirable (i.e. good), and is far better than the pacifist who holds his lofty principles above the well being of his fellow man.

So you can see just by our disagreement here that humans have subjective perceptions when it comes to good and evil.

Psychoclown said:

So perfect goodness would require me to abstain from attacking a murderer who is slaughtering a group of school children? That sounds like absolute pacifism, which I reject as an evil and selfish philosophy. Force, sometimes even deadly force, is at times neccessary. I don't consider violence in self defense or in the defense of others to be even slightly evil. I consider it to be noble and admirable (i.e. good), and is far better than the pacifist who holds his lofty principles above the well being of his fellow man.

So you can see just by our disagreement here that humans have subjective perceptions when it comes to good and evil.

Click to expand...

Neither the world nor human nature support goodness. Perfect goodness requires you deny both.

In this world, there is no perfect way to resolve a situation where a person is attacking a bunch of school children; if perfection were possible, it wouldn't be happening at all.

EDIT:

Not exactly pacifism; you would be pacifistic as possible so far as your own interests were concerned, but there would be great liberty to use violence in the defense of others. However, you would try to delay or disarm the attacker rather than kill him. If you killed him, you would try to repent.

Morality Games said:

No. Perceiving other people to be human beings with feelings and wills of their own and perceiving them to be puppets are distinct sensations. Goodness abides in one experience, evil in the other. There is nothing relative about it.

Click to expand...

So, you are ascribing to a collective definition of evil. I do not agree. Morality is relative both to the individual and the situation. If I perceive others as being evil, based on my own morality, using them as puppets to cease their evil acts may, in and of itself, be non-evil acts.

For example, when you respond to other people on this forum, how much do you consider them people with feelings like your own and how much are they an opportunity to assert your own intelligence and power? When you see a person spouting nonsense, do you think how to let them down gently and kindly or how you can make sport of them to delight yourself and raise your stature in your eyes and the eyes of others?

If you are more concerned with other peoples' welfare, you must be good. If you are out for yourself, then you must be evil.

Click to expand...

Again, all of this depends on the situation. If someone is attacking someone else, I may care about the attacked individual's personal welfare, but not the attacker's, acting accordingly. It is the relativity of the situation that defines the morality of it.

Language conceptualizes reality, it does not create it. Definitions are only good so long as they tell the truth.

Click to expand...

Moral truth is not absolute, but relative to the situation and individual. This is how we get our definitions.

So, you are ascribing to a collective definition of evil. I do not agree. Morality is relative both to the individual and the situation. If I perceive others as being evil, based on my own morality, using them as puppets to cease their evil acts may, in and of itself, be non-evil acts.

Click to expand...

You seem to feel compelled to phrase it altruistically. That wouldn't matter subjectively speaking.

Your action definitely does not live up to the standard of perfect goodness. How good or evil it is is relative, but to the sincerity of your intentions, not your aesthetic whims.

Moral truth is not absolute, but relative to the situation and individual. This is how we get our definitions.

Click to expand...

Morality is an aspect of human existence rotating around conscience, which decides whether we are doing right by other people. When conscience is active, it considers whether we have respected other people's freedom and happiness to the best of our abilities. When it is inactive, we don't care about such things; only about aesthetic pursuits and personal pleasure. Unethical people have no ability to recognize other people have needs and desires as valid as their own.

We get our definitions for good and evil the same way we get them about gravity, except instead of physics we study the architecture of human nature.

Sure, why not. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think I'm evil. Since evil is entirely subjective, they'd be right, at least in their own minds.

My capacity for compassion is severely damaged and it is frequently overridden by other concerns. I enjoy hurting people and if I could get away with it, I would do so nearly indiscriminately. I exploit other peoples' feelings for material gain and amusement. By some standards, that would make me evil. I have my share of moral virtues, and I cling to them desperately, but in the balance I find that I cannot identify myself as any kind of good and it is primarily my sense of honor and my love of order, alongside a healthy respect for the law, that keep me from being more actively evil.

If I had the power, I would destroy everything I hated; perhaps then I could concentrate on loving whatever's left over.

Ok...nerd/geeky side coming out of me here but...In D&D terms I would be described as Chaotic Good. Which means that generally I will follow laws unless I see one being a hinderence or not a good law in certain circumstances. For example, in those states that do not have the castle doctrine and demand that you flee instead of defend your home...I'd tell them to go F themselves and defend my home all the way to the point of killing the intruder.

Morality Games said:

Morality is an aspect of human existence rotating around conscience, which decides whether we are doing right by other people. When conscience is active, it considers whether we have respected other people's freedom and happiness to the best of our abilities. When it is inactive, we don't care about such things; only about aesthetic pursuits and personal pleasure. Unethical people have no ability to recognize other people have needs and desires as valid as their own.

Click to expand...

Morality is a matter of aesthetics. It is a matter of seeking to create a world that is pleasing to you, according to your tastes. Evil is a matter of seeking personal gain or personal pleasure at the expense of your moral aesthetic, making the world an uglier and more unpleasant place.

Morality Games said:

We get our definitions for good and evil the same way we get them about gravity, except instead of physics we study the architecture of human nature.

Click to expand...

In a gravitational field, everyone can agree upon which direction is down.

No ... true evil is a person with no conscience. Sometimes it is difficult to recognize as those people are often astute observers and can mimic the emotions of a person with a good conscience.

Beyond that there is mediocre and then there are people that strive to make the world a better place. The ones trying to make the world a better place and contribute are made of all races, socioeconomic groups, ethnic backgrounds, nationalities, religious beliefs and political parties.


Fortunately true evil is only about 3% of the population.

Kal'Stang said:

In D&D terms I would be described as Chaotic Good. Which means that generally I will follow laws unless I see one being a hinderence or not a good law in certain circumstances.

Click to expand...

I am Lawful Neutral, but I still believe there are cases in which the law is wrong. The law is nothing more than a tool to enforce moral order, and its sole value is its efficacy to that purpose.

Morality is a matter of aesthetics. It is a matter of seeking to create a world that is pleasing to you, according to your tastes. Evil is a matter of seeking personal gain or personal pleasure at the expense of your moral aesthetic, making the world an uglier and more unpleasant place.

Click to expand...

That would seem true to someone psychologically conditioned to only appreciate things aesthetically. Most of the things I appreciate aesthetically are ethically dubious; anybody who has seen the anime I took my avatar's portrait from would understand. The character is a villain protagonist who has no problem killing people who were kind to him in the past to advance his agenda. Indeed, he sometimes finds humor in it.

Anybody who appreciates Shakespeare understands evil is very aesthetically interesting.

In a gravitational field, everyone can agree upon which direction is down.

Click to expand...

Human nature doesn't exist in a different spectrum than physics. Nobody seems anymore seriously capable of regarding spiteful muttering and furtive glancing as worthwhile a way of being as sincere respect for other people's freedom and happiness than they are of arguing against the existence of gravity. There has to be a reason for that.

What makes gravity obvious is lack of motivation for a different reality. Humans have plenty of reason to wish that other people's needs and desires aren't as valid as our own -- they get in our way and interfere with our plans and hopes -- but no motivation to believe in a different theory than gravity.

I'm not saying people will always have a consensus on which actions are more or less ethical, but then again for a long time there was no consensus on the exact nature of gravity.

Going in that direction, when it comes to the Big Bang and evolution, there is less agreement; religious incentive gives certain people more motivation to deny Hubble and Darwin than Newton.

Dion said:

No ... true evil is a person with no conscience. Sometimes it is difficult to recognize as those people are often astute observers and can mimic the emotions of a person with a good conscience.

Beyond that there is mediocre and then there are people that strive to make the world a better place. The ones trying to make the world a better place and contribute are made of all races, socioeconomic groups, ethnic backgrounds, nationalities, religious beliefs and political parties.


Fortunately true evil is only about 3% of the population.

Click to expand...

I believe you're talking about severe psychological condition, not evil.


As to the question, I put the only truthful answer, "I don't know". Evil is a highly subjective term. Hitler looked pretty sure he was doing good. If the majority of people today thought like Hitler his ways would be considered good. It really is impossible to name anyone as good or evil, as these concepts will always be something dependent on each individual's perspective of them.

Morality Games said:

That would seem true to someone psychologically conditioned to only appreciate things aesthetically.

Click to expand...

I can conceive of no other way to appreciate something; to appreciate something is to consider its aesthetic value.

Morality Games said:

Most of the things I appreciate aesthetically are ethically dubious; anybody who has seen the anime I took my avatar's portrait from would understand. The character is a villain protagonist who has no problem killing people who were kind to him in the past to advance his agenda. Indeed, he sometimes finds humor in it.

Anybody who appreciates Shakespeare understands evil is very aesthetically interesting.

Click to expand...

In that case, would you not prefer to live in a world that has evil in it?

Morality Games said:

Human nature doesn't exist in a different spectrum than physics. Nobody seems anymore seriously capable of regarding spiteful muttering and furtive glancing as worthwhile a way of being as sincere respect for other people's freedom and happiness than they are of arguing against the existence of gravity. There has to be a reason for that.

Click to expand...

I respect the value of freedom and happiness, but I am quite capable of arguing that not only do people deserve limited quantities of these, but that they only benefit from limited quantities of these. Strength grows from conflict and exertion; without injustice and misery to strive against, we would never develop the will to create and experience their absence. I see not only the beauty but the necessity of inhumanity and strife, and would argue that the same human nature you derive your arguments from is also the source of necessary conflict; we seek freedom and happiness for ourselves at the same time that we impose tyranny and terror on others, and both impulses are fundamentally essential to morality.

Morality Games said:

Justice enables you to indulge in evil on a purely reactionary level.

Click to expand...

Sounds great... but is crazy. Justice is one aspect of the opposite of evil.