Evil

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's you disagreeing with the logic of your position.

The trouble is you've tried to blend emotionally incontinent wank, such as God orgasming as he slays people, with what you might like to portray as logic and reason.

[Maeght]

Ah ok. Then I think it's an interesting contribution. I think there is a tendency for us to think that those who carry out what society deem as evil are either aware that is evil but choose to do it anyway, or are some how mentally ill in not thinking it as evil. Hence the Nazis that were tried were deemed to be evil and aware of it. To relate back to sriram's blog, I think many of the circumstances that he has talked about 'evil' in such as adultery would not be deemed by most non affected as evil, whereas the Holocaust would be. There seems to me in the use of the term something that is about an extreme but that extreme is derived in society by the zeitgeist.

Thanks. Someone like Hitler would not have considered themselves evil, nor was he mentally ill. He was extreme in his views but a product of his time and the politics of the day. To consider him evil is dangerous since the bad things can be blamed on that rather than on the real reasons which led to the Holocaust. There are others who do terrible things, such as serial killers, who often know that what they are doing is considered wrong but don't feel it is wrong, because they lack empathy for others. Others do enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on others and know what they are doing. How do these different types of people fit with the idea of some absolute morality beyond which things,are considered evil?

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks. Someone like Hitler would not have considered themselves evil, nor was he mentally ill. He was extreme in his views but a product of his time and the politics of the day. To consider him evil is dangerous since the bad things can be blamed on that rather than on the real reasons which led to the Holocaust. There are others who do terrible things, such as serial killers, who often know that what they are doing is considered wrong but don't feel it is wrong, because they lack empathy for others. Others do enjoy inflicting pain and suffering on others and know what they are doing. How do these different types of people fit with the idea of some absolute morality beyond which things,are considered evil?

Can't help on the question of an absolute morality since I don't believe in it, though I think here we are talking more about objective morality. I'm not sure that 'evil' as an idea is dangerous. I don't think there are many people that regard evil as some unavoidable thing that isn't affected by other inputs. Rather I see it as an expression of disgust of a greater level than bad. It is harder for the majority to understand.

[wigginhall]

No. I understand politics might have been involved too.

Yes, but I'm asking if the Christians who burned people were aware of a moral absolute?   Or were they confused?

[Rhiannon]

Can't help on the question of an absolute morality since I don't believe in it, though I think here we are talking more about objective morality. I'm not sure that 'evil' as an idea is dangerous. I don't think there are many people that regard evil as some unavoidable thing that isn't affected by other inputs. Rather I see it as an expression of disgust of a greater level than bad. It is harder for the majority to understand.

Yes, I often see people described as 'evil' when I know they have no conception of themselves as such. But that in itself could be seen as a form of evil, that inability to empathise. It's different from hurting but knowing that you are doing so. Maybe it is about intent, whether you think your intent is wrong or not. And now I'm wondering whether we can separate out people from their deeds. Is it the deed that is evil and not the person?

'Bad behaviour' covers everything from the stuff kids get put on report for at school to serial adultery. It strikes me as a weak term. 'Hitler wasn't a vicious Nazi dictator, he was a very naughty boy.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but I'm asking if the Christians who burned people were aware of a moral absolute?   Or were they confused?

I don't know how to approach an answer for you. Is your historical view derived from bona fide sources or are you taking your cue from Splodgekins  ''The complete and arseclenching history of Utter Christian Bastardy''?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know how to approach an answer for you. Is your historical view derived from bona fide sources or are you taking your cue from Splodgekins  ''The complete and arseclenching history of Utter Christian Bastardy''?

Your first sentence was correct

[Harrowby Hall]

How about:

A bad person is someone who only cares about self-gratification (of some kind) but does not care if others are harmed in his pursuit of self-gratification.

An evil person is someone will deliberately set out to harm other people for self-gratification and then  take pleasure in observing the damage he has caused.

[Shaker]

How about:

A bad person is someone who only cares about self-gratification (of some kind) but does not care if others are harmed in his pursuit of self-gratification.

An evil person is someone will deliberately set out to harm other people for self-gratification and then  take pleasure in observing the damage he has caused.

Well there's a funny thing.

I've always considered evil to be sadism - not just causing pain per se, because over the course of a fairly long life (to date) sundry and divers medical professionals have done that incidentally, with a greater good in mind. I have never dislocated a limb. I have heard and would imagine that resetting such is perhaps briefly but intensely painful. But there is a greater goal in mind, so it can't be evil.

No, I think evil is sadism; the glorification of shame and humiliation and above all else pain purely for the sake of being a spectator of the preceding.

I am sorry to say that I have (have had) visual evidence of the uttermost worst of this by humans to other humans and also to non-humans, in ways that I refuse to describe in detail. According to my own personal definition, some humans are simply evil. Evil as far as I understand it; the delight in suffering of another for the sake of that delight in its own right.

There are reasons I'm not and refuse point blank to call myself a humanist, and I flatter myself that I've seen most of them. Some humans are just evil.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But there is a greater goal in mind, so it can't be evil.

Telling remark. Why aren't you prepared to allow this possibility for God?

[Shaker]

Telling remark. Why aren't you prepared to allow this possibility for God?

Because I have zero reason(s) to take seriously such a silly and ridiculous thing.

Human beings actually exist.

Gods? Best of luck with that one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because I have zero reason(s) to take seriously such a silly and ridiculous thing.

Human beings actually exist.

Gods? Best of luck with that one.

Small steps Shaker, small steps....I'm just pleased to see you propose ''a greater good.''

[Shaker]

Small steps Shaker, small steps....I'm just pleased to see you propose ''a greater good.''

Amongst beings who actually exist, sure. Is this news?

What was the greater good of NS's friend dying of skin cancer at 28, or my mate Ricky being turned into raspberry jam by an inattentive driver of a car coming out of the rugby club on his bike c. 1990 aged 17-18?

Do tell, as I'd love to know. Genuinely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Amongst beings who actually exist, sure. Is this news?

What was the greater good of NS's friend dying of skin cancer at 28, or my mate Ricky being turned into raspberry jam by an inattentive driver of a car coming out of the rugby club on his bike c. 1990 aged 17-18?

Do tell, as I'd love to know. Genuinely.

You are free to default to a no God position however accepting that bad stuff may happen on the way to a greater good undermines the rationale that God is necessarily a thug because of bad stuff.


I am sorry for your friend and it reminds me to be a better, more attentive driver today.


Part of being is played out in a world of flesh and forces and your friend's story, I suppose, can either lead us to search for meaning to life or announce straight away that there isn't one.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure that 'evil' as an idea is dangerous.

I think it can be. I think it can be used to avoid confronting unpalatable facts. Calling something evil isn't wrong unless you use that as an excuse not to dig deeper and find out why people do bad things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it can be. I think it can be used to avoid confronting unpalatable facts. Calling something evil isn't wrong unless you use that as an excuse not to dig deeper and find out why people do bad things.

Is it because someone has been bad to them?

[jeremyp]

Is it because someone has been bad to them?

In some cases. It's quite common to find that child abusers were, themselves, abused as children. You can either label child abusers as evil and lock them away out of sight and out of mind or you can confront the fact that there is quite a big problem and no clear solution.