The Evil That Men (and Women) Do

[GregoryJoseph]

Are people inherently evil? That is, do they have the natural inclination to do harm to others if it benefits themselves?

Is evil an actual entity, or merely the manifestation of mental illness?

(thanks to midwestjeff for the thread suggestion)

[IamPixie]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5LeLAELIxKY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5LeLAELIxKY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[sailor]

i believe the nature of man is neither good nor evil. some choose good, some choose evil, most are pretty much right down the middle. i'd say only in extremes (of either direction) could it be called mental disease (and most would probably not even consider an extreme of good to be just as crazy).

[midwestjeff]

The harm being done isn't always obvious to the harmer.

The evil is sometimes just feeding one's own ego but in doing so, outshining (thus harming) another human.

Acting like a good deed is done for others, when it is certainly done for the self.

Humans are slaves to their own gratification.

If there was no reward, would you compete?

Evil starts at the smallest level of outdoing one another
and then can be seen in a grand display in the form of mass destruction, war.
It exists.
Do you deny that it is your nature to destroy?

[IamPixie]

The harm being done isn't always obvious to the harmer.

The evil is sometimes just feeding one's own ego but in doing so, outshining (thus harming) another human.

Acting like a good deed is done for others, when it is certainly done for the self.

Humans are slaves to their own gratification.

If there was no reward, would you compete?

Evil starts at the smallest level of outdoing one another
and then can be seen in a grand display in the form of mass destruction, war.
It exists.
Do you deny that it is your nature to destroy?


I see your point, but

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qqsyXdj_p_I&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qqsyXdj_p_I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Friday]

The harm being done isn't always obvious to the harmer.

The evil is sometimes just feeding one's own ego but in doing so, outshining (thus harming) another human.

Acting like a good deed is done for others, when it is certainly done for the self.

Humans are slaves to their own gratification.

If there was no reward, would you compete?

Evil starts at the smallest level of outdoing one another
and then can be seen in a grand display in the form of mass destruction, war.
It exists.
Do you deny that it is your nature to destroy?

now gj is going to convert each and every one of these into brand new shiny threads.
nice going, jeffrey.

[Grendel_Kahn]

I think in the end chaos always wins. The center can not hold.

[midwestjeff]

Even the sweet Pixie desires to hurt others.

She knows I am physically disturbed by radiohead yet continues to post their music.

If a "nice" girl like that is prone to evil, then who dares to stand up and claim righteousness?

[GregoryJoseph]

If there was no reward, would you compete?

I don't know if this is a lyric (it sounds like one) or just a thought of yours, but I don't understand what we're competing for.

[RoseBlood]

How do you determine if someone evil?
Can do you measure it?
Can you separate an evil person from an evil act or evil thought?
What about perceived evil acts by other wise well intentioned individuals?
Many men (and women) clearly in their right mind have committed "evil acts".
Is it more or less evil when a sane-mined person commits an act perceived to be evil when they had good intentions or justifications, than when a mentally ill person commits a crime unable to realize the negative ramifications of their act?
Is true evil defined by the intent behind an action or the bottom-line result of any ill-contrived plan?

*edit* I meant to ask if it's more or less evil when a sane-minded person does good but only for the admiration and rewards (intent) verses a mentally-ill person who hurts someone unknowingly but with more honest intentions.

Also, I don't think most people are evil, but most of us do inherently look out for ourselves. Survival of the species, survival of the fittest.. looking out for number one as they say.. we want to see others happy but usually not at the expense of our own happiness.

So to answer your question, I think we are mostly good but even Mother Teresa had to draw the line somewhere.

[GregoryJoseph]

How do you determine if someone evil?
Can do you measure it?
Can you separate an evil person from an evil act or evil thought?
What about perceived evil acts by other wise well intentioned individuals?
Many men (and women) clearly in their right mind have committed "evil acts".
Is it more or less evil when a sane-mined person commits an act perceived to be evil when they had good intentions or justifications, than when a mentally ill person commits a crime not knowing what he's done?
Is true evil defined by the intent behind an action or the bottom-line result of any ill-contrived plan?

And you accuse me of not answering my own questions! :tongue:

In all seriousness, you raise some great points RoseBlood, and I think the only way we can judge what is "evil" is by knowing "good." How we come to understand that isn't clear cut, but I believe that deep down everyone just knows what's "good." That judgement can easily get clouded, though. We tend to look at the world through our own filters, and then we look within ourselves with those same filters.

Removing them (and the murkiness that we add) is a difficult process.

Or perhaps the labels of "Good" and "Evil" aren't for us to apply, and we must simply follow the path we feel we're supposed to walk on.

[midwestjeff]

I would loosely call evil any act that harms another being.

Of course, there is the blatant kick in the face that we all can recognize as evil, but that isn't what we are really getting at here. At least, I don't think so.

The whole survival of the fittest is interesting because by adhering to it as truth you are encouraged to step over others.

If we are one species, being good, wouldn't we carry the weak with us rather than simply dismiss them as unfit?

Or when we do dismiss them, can we at least accept that it is an evil thing to do?

I am better than you, so you deserve less than me.

[RoseBlood]

Good point but when I say survival of the fittest, I meant more like how most of us wouldn't put ourselves out on the street to house 100 homeless people. But that's not even the point G was trying to make, i dont think :unsure:

[GregoryJoseph]

The whole survival of the fittest is interesting because by adhering to it as truth you are encouraged to step over others.

I am better than you, so you deserve less than me.

In the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest is a fact of life. It was in our evolutionary stages too. The fact that we consider ourselves "civilized" means that we no longer adhere to the laws of the wild, though.

Many in the world of business still do, and use it as justification for the awful things they do, like robbing people of their retirement plans and putting others out of business.

It's not an admirable trait in my eyes, but rather a shameful one. We as civilized beings have developed compassion as one of our inherent traits, and those that don't possess it are not to be admired.

[Chip196]

I believe that there are less inherently evil people than good. But I believe the people who are doing evil blaze a trail that is definitely bigger than the trail the good people are blazing.

There are 10 Evil men with high powered assault weapons fighting 100 good men with BB guns.

[midwestjeff]

Fucking compassion is where it's at, G.

Is that somehow the dividing line between good and evil?

I know it is never just black and white, but it's tough to come up with an evil act that involved a culprit possessing compassion for all (or any) things.

See, and fuck that.
I have tried to explain 1000 times why I wouldn't kill a man that killed my mother.

That fucker had no idea of the pain he was causing, he was simply evil and/or mean.

Isn't it enough to feel sorrow for a human that has no idea, or do you have to see him dead? Define his act as evil and strive to erase it from man's abilities by not repeating it.
Sure, it will always happen, but it never has to happen at your own hand.

[RoseBlood]

I have tried to explain 1000 times why I wouldn't kill a man that killed my mother.

That fucker had no idea of the pain he was causing, he was simply evil and/or mean.

Isn't it enough to feel sorrow for a human that has no idea, or do you have to see him dead? Define his act as evil and strive to erase it from man's abilities by not repeating it.
Sure, it will always happen, but it never has to happen at your own hand.

This post made my night as I share your sentiments. Killing another human no matter who it is or what they've done won't change a damn thing in your life, even if you feel they deserved it. And my feeling is, you are no better than the man who took your mothers life when you seek revenge, because as evil as you've made this person out to be in your head, someone out there still loves him. So then where do you draw the line for justifying a murder?

[epo]

I see your point, but

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qqsyXdj_p_I&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qqsyXdj_p_I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I see your Radiohead and raise you Eartha Kitt:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tQ5VaBgXzuM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tQ5VaBgXzuM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[epo]

But be serious though, I believe that "evil" is a weakness in humans. It finds us when we need a solution to a difficult situation and we as humans aren't strong enough to find the righteous way.

The good human is the one who rises above in a consistent manner.

[hedges]

Fucking compassion is where it's at, G.

Couldn't have said it any better.

[Recyclerz]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1420922505.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Wikipedia for those of you who don't have this book sitting on top of their computers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil)

I don't completely agree with Nietzsche but he is right about the fact that most of the rules of morality that we apply in Western civilization come from Judeo-Christian tradition. This is still 99.99% true in the US as religion and religiousity play such a large part in our thinking.

As we learn more about how the brain works we might discover that our deepest feelings and ideas are residue of how our noggins evolved rather than discovery of some eternal truths and the concepts of good and evil were just pit stops on the evolution journey of our species.

or

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/szdWPWnnNls&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/szdWPWnnNls&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[GregoryJoseph]

Fucking compassion is where it's at, G.

Is that somehow the dividing line between good and evil?

I know it is never just black and white, but it's tough to come up with an evil act that involved a culprit possessing compassion for all (or any) things.

See, and fuck that.
I have tried to explain 1000 times why I wouldn't kill a man that killed my mother.

That fucker had no idea of the pain he was causing, he was simply evil and/or mean.

Isn't it enough to feel sorrow for a human that has no idea, or do you have to see him dead? Define his act as evil and strive to erase it from man's abilities by not repeating it.
Sure, it will always happen, but it never has to happen at your own hand.


Amen, brother.

One of my favorite passages from the Tao -

If you attempt to play the role of the Great Executioner
It is like cutting wood in place of the Master Carpenter.
There are few who will not cut their own hands.

[GregoryJoseph]

The harm being done isn't always obvious to the harmer.

The evil is sometimes just feeding one's own ego but in doing so, outshining (thus harming) another human.

Humans are slaves to their own gratification.


I guess I'd say that if it was obvious to the harmer, then that person has truly "evil" intentions.

If it's not, I'd guess either complete ignorance or some type of mental deficiency or illness is to blame.

[Furtherman]

In the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest is a fact of life. It was in our evolutionary stages too. The fact that we consider ourselves "civilized" means that we no longer adhere to the laws of the wild, though.

Fucking compassion is where it's at, G.

Sure, it will always happen, but it never has to happen at your own hand.

So then where do you draw the line for justifying a murder?

These are all well and said in our society.

But not everyone lives in our society.

I could even be broader - civilizations, nations... if you want to live a decent life, you play nice, a lesson we learn early on. Those who don't - pay some kind of price, even if they're not punished.

But nations fall and civilizations collapse. Have no doubt, we are just one major disaster away from killing for food, to feed our families, our children, and finally, ourselves. Some of the more selfish won't go in that order, but it will happen to all.

When you have to live - you will kill. Maybe you'll kill yourself. Maybe you'll be killed. But there will be murder. Murder most foul. We will kill and we will eat each other to survive. Where does compassion and justification lie in such a land?



BUT if you want to keep this in civilized terms, I feel most people have good common sense to be good and live a fruitful life, whatever that fruit may be. They're will be the disturbed, the mentally ill and the just plain assholes, but overall, people are good.

[jauble]

An interesting question, but I think this may be a semantics question. What is evil and who is the decision maker. MWJ said be comapssionate and thats a great anti-evil, but how many cheeks can you turn before you have nothing and when evil takes from you who will show compassion.

Just a cynical thought.

[GregoryJoseph]

An interesting question, but I think this may be a semantics question. What is evil and who is the decision maker. MWJ said be comapssionate and thats a great anti-evil, but how many cheeks can you turn before you have nothing and when evil takes from you who will show compassion.

Just a cynical thought.

Does being compassionate necessarily mean turning the other cheek?

There are schools of thought that eschew the belief of pacifism, but not compassion.

If you've ever seen Kill Bill 2, Pai Mei (the old Chinese master who taught the assassins and took Daryl Hannah's eye) was more of a traditional Taoist, whereas the monks in the old David Carradine Kung Fu series were Buddhist.

Taoists are not "good" or "evil." Rather, they believe in staying to the center of the Yin and Yang.

[midwestjeff]

now gj is going to convert each and every one of these into brand new shiny threads.
nice going, jeffrey.

HA. This reminded me of my German class in college. The professor was a linguist but was also very well versed in philosophy. It wasn't uncommon for another student to ask me before class if I would get him off-topic because they weren't prepared for the day's lesson. We spent more time discussing the nature of time and things like societal influence on bathing habits than we did studying German.

An interesting question, but I think this may be a semantics question. What is evil and who is the decision maker. MWJ said be comapssionate and thats a great anti-evil, but how many cheeks can you turn before you have nothing and when evil takes from you who will show compassion.
Just a cynical thought.

It's easier to turn it into a semantics thing than it is to agree on a concrete definition of evil. And, as far as pacifism and compassion goes, it is an endless struggle to maintain the peaceful way. So far, I have taken one serious beating, three punches to the face, had around 1000 dollars taken from me in one way or another, and been stepped on in a "taking advantage" sort of way innumerable times. I don't do violence. I insight it, obviously, but I don't partake. I don't claim any of these people are evil, but I do think they would much rather destroy another person than try to understand.

Does being compassionate necessarily mean turning the other cheek?

I don't think it has to, but if you truly sympathize with someone then you don't find yourself seeking their demise.

I think I am prone to believe that an evil man isn't necessarily a devil or demon type, but one that can not put himself last. And in the end, I think all of us are this way. Even giving a bum a dollar is a selfish act. Transcending the ego is for buddahs and saints. I doubt I will ever know what that is like.

*Also, I think I strayed too far from the initial topic before, sorry about that.

[ecobag2]

i believe the nature of man is neither good nor evil. some choose good, some choose evil, most are pretty much right down the middle. i'd say only in extremes (of either direction) could it be called mental disease (and most would probably not even consider an extreme of good to be just as crazy).

Sailor - did you mean that a very good person would not be seen as crazy?

Would you include that guy that jumped off the platform that day to cover the seizure victim? Or something like Mother Theresa who put herself at risk of disease (or whatever else) on a daily basis?

I can imagine some people thought they were insane and almost childlike - not really knowing what they were doing.

[ecobag2]

I think Jauble has a point - he mentions a need for embracing the concept before considering the answer.

Given Good and Bad, there need to be a codification of these ... which is what many of the major religions have done. There are laws and in adhering to them you're good. If not, you're bad.

I can remember a few concepts from Catholicism like original sin - which stated that 'yes' we are all inherently evil and look for our salvation in the commandments, a good life and ultimately Christ.

Then there's what I believe at the moment ... that we're placed within the stream of life with certian capacities and optimal expectations. I like what's his name's discussion of the Zen master in Charlie Wilson's War - boy gets a horse, good or bad? Good - no bad b/c he breaks his leg. Boy's leg's broken, bad... no good - the army doesn't take him... That's good... no bad. The army fights no battles and moves on and the town the boy lives in falls victim to plague.j

So I steal... what's the motivation for my action? To feed my family? Maybe good. But I had to have the opportunity (circumstances or placement within life) and the necessary characteristics (inherent ability) to get away with it, try it or whatever. Because I'm bad? No because I had to feed my family - but why did I have to feed my family through theft... b/c of an unjust polity? Ok, but if I'm stealing without attempting to rectify the unjust polity then is it right? I've accepted unacceptable conditions by acting unacceptably in lieu of right action.

I don't disagree with law though, Rousseau comes to mind in that - people form a political entity to protect themselves. The aim of this protection is to build character or to "use and build upon what god has given you" in essence .. you create laws and social institutions because without them, you'd constantly be watching your back rather than composing or engaging in science or some other noteworthy endeavor.

[ecobag2]

I was walking about earlier, and thought - I'd like to hear Eli or Mikey or HTG sound off on this. Or anyone else with law experience... at least consider it.

[Thebazile78]

I know it's a work of fiction, but have you considered reading Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West (http://www.amazon.com/Wicked-Times-Witch-Harper-Fiction/dp/0061350966/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231731261&sr=8-1) as part of your questioning?

The author, Gregory Maguire, said in the afterword and in multiple interviews that conversations with his brother started him to think about the nature of "evil" and what makes one "evil" or "good" ... is it largely perception? Is it innate? Is it upbringing? Is it some combination of all three that maybe we're all fearful of considering?

It's a good read, even if they did make a musical out of it.

While it doesn't conclusively answer your question, it does raise its own set of questions ... and invites you to consider other explanations for "evil" and "good" and what they mean to us in our society.

[ecobag2]

I wasn't at all happy with my ideas on this. I have no idea.:wallbash:

[Snoogans]

I cant speak for all humans but I know that I have been nothing but a complete angel since the day I was born