Absolute Evil?

[O'Keafe]

Do you believe that there is a real, absolute and objective evil in existence or is it just all a projection of peoples worst or wickedness traits by themselves onto an "other"?

 

[Broken_Arrow]

Yes,there is evil in the world and there is evil inside every person which is devil or what also known as the dark side of you...every person has good and evil inside some can control the evil and show the good and others their good sides is weak and can't be shown...but also i know that evil people can be good someday with some help ^^

 

[miltankRancher]

I believe that being evil is relative. What is good for me may be bad for another. And yes, I believe that everyone can do things "evil" in another's eyes. We're not angels. We are barely humans.

 

[Degenerate]

Because morality is subjective, we all decide for ourselves what is "good" and what is "evil", which means there is no finite definition for "good" or "evil" on an all-encompassing scale. That's to say my actions will be judged as "good" or "evil" by the observers' own standards and according to their personal moral compass. "Absolute Evil" doesn't exist at a universal level, however, I believe it exists on an internal level. If I carried out an action I deemed evil according to my own subjective definition of "evil", then that would be "Absolute Evil". I could steal a loaf of bread in order to survive and some might view my theft as an evil deed, some might not – it's all subjective, but regardless of all external perceptions, it wouldn't be considered "Absolute Evil", unless I, the person who performed the action, thought it was. Our deeds may be coloured "evil" by outside observers, but they can only be coloured "absolutely evil" by the moral standards we set for ourselves.

 

[twocows]

I believe that being evil is relative. What is good for me may be bad for another. And yes, I believe that everyone can do things "evil" in another's eyes. We're not angels. We are barely humans.

Moral relativism is a cop-out. Sorry, but I don't buy the theory that any action can be seen in a positive or negative light. There are some things that are just wrong and I can provide reasons why those things are wrong.

I believe in the theory Kant proposed. To be morally tolerable, actions must treat people as an end in themselves, not as a means to an end. In other words, we can't just use people to get what we want; we have to think of others' well-being, not just our own.

Conversely, an evil action would be one where people are treated as tools to achieve one's goals. Pursing actions with blatant disregard for others' welfare is how I define evil. This can be expanded to most things that we consider wrong: murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc. These are all acts that treat people as a means to an end; thus, I would consider them evil. There are plenty of actions that would break the law, however, that I would not consider evil using this definition: underage drinking, substance abuse, etc.

This theory has worked well for pretty much every situation I've encountered, including most thought experiments designed specifically to trip up things like this.

 

[Mr.Destructo]

Well there is always revenge. and there are people who are medically sick and they are out of touch with morals,sense etc........

 

[Ayutac]

Because morality is subjective, we all decide for ourselves what is "good" and what is "evil", which means there is no finite definition for "good" or "evil" on an all-encompassing scale.

I disagree, because I believe from an objective point of view, (unnecessary) cruelty is evil. If someone disagrees with that, please give a good example.

Be e an objective function to meassure a humans evilness. Such a function exists because we can at least mess the evil by cruelty. It's very important while humans can't be compared, their evilness given by e can (with <, > and =, as usual). Then let be H the set of all humans who existed until now. As we know, H is finite. Then the set e(H) is finite and because we can compare the elements of e(H), there exists a maximum and a minimum within the set. Let the maximum be m. Then is e^(-1)(m) subset from H.
That means, under all humans existed untill now there exist(ed) the most evil humans by the meassure e. And since e was objective, these humans are the absolute most evil humans until now.
But we don't know if e is bounded, so we can't say if there would be the possibility of the most evil human ever existed. Maybe there always could be a more evil one. So, probably no absolute evil, but I'm sure it exists an absolute meassure for evilness.
…
Yes, that was math. Deal with it :P

Spoiler:

In the universe my stories take place, we have a LOT more of inherited planets and so more room for evil. I have indeed some evil villians. Some are looking for world galaxy dominations (as well as some of the good guys, by the way), one is happy with committing genocide against life itself (very evil). But there's one who's evilness is almost unreachable. You could say he researchs cruelty and pain someone can endure. His methods are so off the road I almost can't give any example without breaking some board rules.
I wouldn't say you couldn't increase his evilness (as said, we don't know the bounds of e), but in my stories, for all meassures, he is the non plus ultra.

 

[Degenerate]

Moral relativism is a cop-out. Sorry, but I don't buy the theory that any action can be seen in a positive or negative light. There are some things that are just wrong and I can provide reasons why those things are wrong.

I believe in the theory Kant proposed. To be morally tolerable, actions must treat people as an end in themselves, not as a means to an end. In other words, we can't just use people to get what we want; we have to think of others' well-being, not just our own.

Conversely, an evil action would be one where people are treated as tools to achieve one's goals. Pursing actions with blatant disregard for others' welfare is how I define evil. This can be expanded to most things that we consider wrong: murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc. These are all acts that treat people as a means to an end; thus, I would consider them evil. There are plenty of actions that would break the law, however, that I would not consider evil using this definition: underage drinking, substance abuse, etc.

This theory has worked well for pretty much every situation I've encountered, including most thought experiments designed specifically to trip up things like this.

The problem is not everyone subscribes to your notion of morality - can we really call everyone who doesn't agree with your reasoning evil based solely on the fact they have a different ethical outlook than you do?

Believe it or not, some people find it acceptable to use others to get what they want; they may have a strong affinity for self-preservation and survival, or for whatever other reason (you'd be calling all animals evil under your definition?). It's all fine and well if you believe those acts are evil, but your perception in of itself doesn't make it so, neither does your subjective reasoning. You could very well be mistaking lack of understanding for evil in some of the circumstances.

IMO it's a cop out to say "some things are just wrong" based on your own reasoning with little consideration of the other party's moral standpoint.

EDIT:

I disagree, because I believe from an objective point of view, (unnecessary) cruelty is evil. If someone disagrees with that, please give a good example.

Well, let's say I thought toasting a cat in a microwave was my idea of fun (I think that might fall under unnecessary cruelty for most of us?). If I carried out that action, I wouldn't be acting in an evil way (at least not in my mind) because I wouldn't see it was "evil", I would see it as fun. Obviously a lot of people will be inclined to see it as "evil", but could it really be considered an evil action if I wasn't acting in an evil way when I carried it out?

 

[twocows]

The problem is not everyone subscribes to your notion of morality - can we really call everyone who doesn't agree with your reasoning evil based solely on the fact they have a different ethical outlook than you do?

No, but we can call people who break my axiom evil. Just disagreeing won't do it.

Believe it or not,

Don't patronize me; I'm certain I'm more of an authority on this subject than you and yet I'm still treating you as an equal in this discussion.

some people find it acceptable to use others to get what they want; they may have a strong affinity for self-preservation and survival, or for whatever other reason

Those people would be evil regardless of their warped definition of right and wrong. If I believed it was acceptable to go around raping and killing people, that would not make it right, even if I thought what I was doing was fine. It may even be acceptable within the context of whatever society I'm a part of, but it is not good. What is acceptable is something defined by society; what is good is something associated in some way with "helping people/whatever." The study of ethics aims to refine our definition of right and wrong into a set of ideas by which we can plan and judge actions.

Some people might say that "good" is the action that helps the most people while hurting the least; others might say something similar to me in that "looking out for others" is what makes an action good. Both of these are getting at the same thing, however: good actions are those that have or try to have some sort of positive influence on others. This is the core of what good means. Conversely, evil actions have or try to have some sort of negative influence on others. The action "raping and murdering a bunch of people for fun" should in no way be associated with the word "good" because that action, by definition, associates itself with "evil."

(you'd be calling all animals evil under your definition?).

Animals do not fall within the scope nor judgment of morality. They are not rational, they are not self-aware, and they are not capable of understanding the idea of morality to begin with. They act only in whatever way their instinct tells them to act, much like a computer merely acts on its programming. Likewise, I don't see them as falling under the scope of morality; killing an animal in itself is not something I judge as immoral outside of its potential impact on humans.

It's all fine and well if you believe those acts are evil, but your perception in of itself doesn't make it so, neither does your subjective reasoning. You could very well be mistaking lack of understanding for evil in some of the circumstances.

My perception doesn't make it so, my objective reasoning makes it so. So long as we're using the words "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong" (in other words, talking about morality), I can say that some "perspectives" can be justifiably incorrect.

IMO it's a cop out to say "some things are just wrong" based on your own reasoning with little consideration of the other party's moral standpoint.

I do consider other peoples' standpoints; only an idiot wouldn't. I listen to other peoples' thoughts on morality because I am not perfect and I'm sure my theories (and even those of the moral philosophers I think so highly of) are not perfect. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them every time. I still believe myself to be, at the very least, on the right track. If someone comes up and tells me that it's not evil to hurt people for the fun of it, I'll disagree every time. They are simply incorrect in making that statement. I might not have all the answers, but I can still usually tell which ones are the wrong answers.

 

[lx_theo]

Absolutes, in general, are silly.

 

[Ayutac]

Well, let's say I thought toasting a cat in a microwave was my idea of fun (I think that might fall under unnecessary cruelty for most of us?). If I carried out that action, I wouldn't be acting in an evil way (at least not in my mind) because I wouldn't see it was "evil", I would see it as fun. Obviously a lot of people will be inclined to see it as "evil", but could it really be considered an evil action if I wasn't acting in an evil way when I carried it out?

I pretty much agree to twocows, but I would like to use my own words:
Yes. The thing is not about what one one thinks is evil, but what evil is in general. Cruelty is such a thing, as it sure is neither good nor neutral.
Now, my spoiler from before is taking purpose as an example, as this evil character doesn't think he's evil in the way we think of evil. He's "just a scientist having fun with his work". But that doesn't make him any better, does it? (Especially since he can hear the soul tearing crys of his "experiments".)

Animals do not fall within the scope nor judgment of morality. They are not rational, they are not self-aware, and they are not capable of understanding the idea of morality to begin with. They act only in whatever way their instinct tells them to act, much like a computer merely acts on its programming. Likewise, I don't see them as falling under the scope of morality

I sign that.

Absolutes, in general, are silly.

Absolute zero. Just sayin'

 

[Esper]

I'll concede that there are bad things in the world, but not an absolute evil. How would you decide that? Is rape more evil than murder? Raping two people more evil than murdering one person or vice versa? At a certain threshold things just become bad. My personal judgment of what is bad is something along the lines of "unnecessary harm" so I don't personally invest much time in debating with myself whether one evil act is more evil than another because whatever the act is it's bad and ought to be stopped.

Clearly different people have different feelings on what strikes them as particularly evil. I think rape is one of the most horrendous things a person can do. Is that me projecting my own inner darkness on "the other?" No, I don't think so. It's more like I see it as something which contrasts very strong with how I look at the world and what I value. I think lots of people define "evil" as something antithetical to their worldview.

 

[twocows]

I'll concede that there are bad things in the world, but not an absolute evil. How would you decide that? Is rape more evil than murder? Raping two people more evil than murdering one person or vice versa? At a certain threshold things just become bad. My personal judgment of what is bad is something along the lines of "unnecessary harm" so I don't personally invest much time in debating with myself whether one evil act is more evil than another because whatever the act is it's bad and ought to be stopped.

Clearly different people have different feelings on what strikes them as particularly evil. I think rape is one of the most horrendous things a person can do. Is that me projecting my own inner darkness on "the other?" No, I don't think so. It's more like I see it as something which contrasts very strong with how I look at the world and what I value. I think lots of people define "evil" as something antithetical to their worldview.

You bring up an interesting point. What someone considers bad might relate to what they value. I value human life and happiness, so actions that threaten that I tend to disagree with. It's worth thinking about.

 

[Livewire]

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

starwars joke aside

Scarf made an interesting point; what you determine to be good or evil may very well depend on what you value, or what your value system is. Although, I doubt you'd find a society that doesn't condemn rape or murder. There are somethings that are just evil, across cultural boundaries.

 

[The Void]

No human, I believe, is truly evil. To be absolutely evil means to be evil or to do bad things for the sake of evil only and not for a purpose which you think is good or for at least a purpose. Even people who kill and destroy people and only thinks "evil" thoughts in his mind cannot be considered evil; only crazy (which is why they get sent to the mental hospital). Every person has a good in them; it's just that some of them just don't see it or refuse to recognize this or that other people don't see the good in them.

But I do believe there are such things as truly evil deeds, or bad deeds, when their intentions are for evil purposes, but that does not mean the doer is completely evil.

 

[Alley Cat]

Those people would be evil regardless of their warped definition of right and wrong. If I believed it was acceptable to go around raping and killing people, that would not make it right, even if I thought what I was doing was fine. It may even be acceptable within the context of whatever society I'm a part of, but it is not good. What is acceptable is something defined by society; what is good is something associated in some way with "helping people/whatever." The study of ethics aims to refine our definition of right and wrong into a set of ideas by which we can plan and judge actions.

Because, YOUR definition of evil is the absolute right one? Isn't that a bit arrogant to presume? You view murder as evil because you don't have a reason to murder anyone. I'm sure that'd change, if you did get one.

No one is evil. They all have reasons for doing what they do, justified or not. Be it for some "greater good" or because aren't right in the head, they still have a reason for committing the things they've done Despite how despicable or terrible they are, they would not view themselves as evil. No one ever does. If they do attach this title to their deeds and actions, it's for the emotions that "evil" conveys.

 

[twocows]

Bit drunk right now.

Because, YOUR definition of evil is the absolute right one? Isn't that a bit arrogant to presume? You view murder as evil because you don't have a reason to murder anyone. I'm sure that'd change, if you did get one.

I value human life, happiness, and freedom above all. This is the only standard that morality should be judged by, unless you have an argument for a better one. Any theory as to morality should value these things somehow. All the popular theories fit this, including the one I tend to agree with most (Kantian moral theory) AND the ones I tend to disagree with the most (e.g., utilitarianism). It isn't really my definition, either; Kantian moral theory isn't called "twocows' moral theory" by the general public.

It's more semantics. Morality refers specifically to the value we (should) all place on human (and potentially other "intelligent" species, for whatever intelligent means). You're referring more to what's tolerable to a specific society. What a society tolerates isn't necessarily morally justified, and morally justifiable actions aren't necessarily tolerated by society.

No one is evil.

I'm not arguing that, I never did. I don't think of things in terms of "evil people," because I think who we are changes from moment to moment, so that'd be silly. However, I'm sure you'll find many, many people who disagree. I think the families of the victims of 9/11 will probably be quite offended by that statement, for example.

They all have reasons for doing what they do, justified or not.

That has nothing to do with morality. Serial killers have the urge to go out and murder people. Does that justify their actions with respect to morality? No, it doesn't. As humans, they should value other human life, even if it goes contrary to their instincts. If those instincts are too strong for them to handle, they need to get help with them.

Be it for some "greater good" or because aren't right in the head, they still have a reason for committing the things they've done Despite how despicable or terrible they are, they would not view themselves as evil.

They ought to. Even a serial killer should realize that what he or she is doing is "evil" by any moral standard. And in fact, from what I've read/heard on the subject, many are aware of it.

No one ever does.

Completely untrue, and obviously so. Plenty of people throughout history have knowingly commit evil. Some went on to try to atone for their actions; others became wildly successful in some way by trampling on human dignity. Regardless of the outcome or of their reasons for doing what they did, they still trampled over real, living people who went through real suffering because of their actions. That is evil, plain and simple.

If they do attach this title to their deeds and actions, it's for the emotions that "evil" conveys.

So I can get out of being evil by saying I enjoyed it? That's sure convenient.

 

[Alley Cat]

Completely untrue, and obviously so. Plenty of people throughout history have knowingly commit evil. Some went on to try to atone for their actions; others became wildly successful in some way by trampling on human dignity. Regardless of the outcome or of their reasons for doing what they did, they still trampled over real, living people who went through real suffering because of their actions. That is evil, plain and simple.

To you, and I'm sure a majority of the people on this planet, myself included. But not to everyone, plain and simple.

 

[femtrooper]

'Evil' is socially constructed, but as I say that, in my opinion there are some things that are pure evil. Slaughtering 100 children is pure evil in my opinion. However, usually people who do that are not mentally sane. Hitler...pure evil. But, I do think it is socially constructed.

 

[The Void]

Bit drunk right now.


I value human life, happiness, and freedom above all. This is the only standard that morality should be judged by, unless you have an argument for a better one. Any theory as to morality should value these things somehow. All the popular theories fit this, including the one I tend to agree with most (Kantian moral theory) AND the ones I tend to disagree with the most (e.g., utilitarianism). It isn't really my definition, either; Kantian moral theory isn't called "twocows' moral theory" by the general public.

It's more semantics. Morality refers specifically to the value we (should) all place on human (and potentially other "intelligent" species, for whatever intelligent means). You're referring more to what's tolerable to a specific society. What a society tolerates isn't necessarily morally justified, and morally justifiable actions aren't necessarily tolerated by society.

I'm not arguing that, I never did. I don't think of things in terms of "evil people," because I think who we are changes from moment to moment, so that'd be silly. However, I'm sure you'll find many, many people who disagree. I think the families of the victims of 9/11 will probably be quite offended by that statement, for example.
That has nothing to do with morality. Serial killers have the urge to go out and murder people. Does that justify their actions with respect to morality? No, it doesn't. As humans, they should value other human life, even if it goes contrary to their instincts. If those instincts are too strong for them to handle, they need to get help with them.

They ought to. Even a serial killer should realize that what he or she is doing is "evil" by any moral standard. And in fact, from what I've read/heard on the subject, many are aware of it.
Completely untrue, and obviously so. Plenty of people throughout history have knowingly commit evil. Some went on to try to atone for their actions; others became wildly successful in some way by trampling on human dignity. Regardless of the outcome or of their reasons for doing what they did, they still trampled over real, living people who went through real suffering because of their actions. That is evil, plain and simple.

So I can get out of being evil by saying I enjoyed it? That's sure convenient.

What I'm saying is evil is evil for the sake of evil. Basically, it's evil for evil and evil only. Like I said, an act can be evil (like killing a person just for the heck of it) but a person cannot be absolutely evil. Every person has a conscience. He or she may not just be able to feel it. So even if they knowingly committed evil, that doesn't mean the person himself is entirely evil, but the act is pure evil.

'Evil' is socially constructed, but as I say that, in my opinion there are some things that are pure evil. Slaughtering 100 children is pure evil in my opinion. However, usually people who do that are not mentally sane. Hitler...pure evil. But, I do think it is socially constructed.

Hitler wanted 'a somewhat better world' or whatever for Germans and even if it was a very crazy reason, in his opinion, it was good for everyone and therefore committed what he thought to be good. Some of Hitler's acts may be considered pure evil but Hitler still had a conscience. Just a rusty one which he merely ignored.