Definition of Evil

[Sledge]

I define evil as anything that causes pain or death.

You just haven't been doing it right.

 

[Orbini]

evil is what other people don't want you to do.

 

[sadhatter]

Murder is a great evil only insofar as it is irreversible. So, too, causing pain. Without either, life would be akin to a video game, where gunshots don't hurt, and death is just hitting the spacebar to respawn, a minor irritation.

Come play a couple rounds of unreal tournament with me, and see how minor it ends up becoming, lol. You will begin to hate that spacebar with all your heart.

 

[MattusMaximus]

@Orbini
@MattusMaximus
then that is called evil man... back to the topic..

Who, Hitler or the person who murdered him? Or both? And how is this question not on topic?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I define evil as anything that causes pain or death.

It hurts some people to get a vaccine immunization shot. Does that make vaccinations evil?

 

[AkuManiMani]

[...]

Evil are the people who fail entirely to play by our rules, who seem outwardly normal, but the French have that saying: "To understand is to forgive."

Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner. Only God is capable of this, apparently.

What was my point? Not sure I had one, after all. Oh, yes. It's squishy.

Evil isn't measured by how much an individual deviates from social mores, but by their willingness to knowingly, and maliciously harm another for spurious or trivial reasons. Psychopaths (the clever ones, anyway) are very willing to callously exploit the "understanding" and compassion of others. Evil people don't do harm because they're upset or abused. They do harm because they enjoy it.

 

[Beth]

evil is what other people don't want you to do.

I think this is a very concise way of putting what I was trying to express. Thank you.

eta: It may be a bit overly broad though. Some things are only naughty, not actually evil.

 

[calebprime]

Evil isn't measured by how much an individual deviates from social mores, but by their willingness to knowingly, and maliciously harm another for spurious or trivial reasons. Psychopaths (the clever ones, anyway) are very willing to callously exploit the "understanding" and compassion of others. Evil people don't do harm because they're upset or abused. They do harm because they enjoy it.

Well, false dichotomy.

And, actually, we're confusing "evil people" with psychopaths. Two different categories.

If you read your Cleckley, he describes some people who mostly do harm to themselves, in some senseless fashion. They are not, strictly speaking, "evil".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mask_of_Sanity

Also, what if we could, in every case of people acting senselessly in destructive ways, identify some cause--drugs, drink, abuse, head injury, or something more subtle, but nevertheless real.

Would these people be "evil" or just helplessly in the grip of poor impulse control--(eta) or some other behavioral change resulting from some structural brain abnormality?

My point is that evil is what we call harm inside some system, but we also add all kinds of moral judgments not literally assessing harm. The literature on psychopathy is rife with them. And, my other point is that there is an enormous amount of evil done by people who might not otherwise be evil, if it were not for some cause.

Your pure psychopath is...how rare?

It's a construct, after all.

Was Pol Pot a psychopath? (Godwin time) Hitler? Stalin? Madoff?

My point is that it gets awfully confusing to try to identify psychopaths, and to think about where the line is.

 

[Piscivore]

I think that there is a problem with your definition: not all evil people operate at the level you are describing. Some are just individually evil, not evil because of their effect on a culture.

An example would be Charles Manson. I consider him evil, but don't see where he would fit in your definition. He influenced a few people, but I don't think he could be considered to have moved a common culture in a direction I don't like.

So to me it seems your definition is incomplete. There needs to be more to allow for individual evil. I hope I made sense, I feel I'm not explaining very well, sorry.

"People who do things I really don't like" works for me.

 

[Beth]

Evil isn't measured by how much an individual deviates from social mores, but by their willingness to knowingly, and maliciously harm another for spurious or trivial reasons. Psychopaths (the clever ones, anyway) are very willing to callously exploit the "understanding" and compassion of others. Evil people don't do harm because they're upset or abused. They do harm because they enjoy it.

I agree with much of this. Certainly, I don't think evil should be measured by how much an individual deviates from social mores. I not so sure how much the motivation for doing evil acts matters. I tend to agree with the idea that premeditated murder is a more heinous crime than a drunken accident where someone ends up dead. I also tend to agree that a premeditated murder for money is something different than a premeditated murder preceded by torture and sexual abuse for the enjoyment of the murderer. But I can't articulate what that last differentiation is important to me. I'm not sure it's a rational judgment or just a gut reaction of greater disgust to the latter crime.

But I also gather, and it makes sense to me, that abuse during childhood is what produces most of the people who enjoy doing harm to others; they become these monsters. Not all of them perhaps. Possibly some are just born that way.

 

[Piscivore]

Evil isn't measured by how much an individual deviates from social mores, but by their willingness to knowingly, and maliciously harm another for spurious or trivial reasons.

However, what constitutes "spurious or trivial reasons" depends entirely on "social mores".

Psychopaths (the clever ones, anyway) are very willing to callously exploit the "understanding" and compassion of others. Evil people don't do harm because they're upset or abused. They do harm because they enjoy it.

"They" do harm for a staggering multiplicity of reason. And there is no "they"- every single one of us that lives past infancy will eventually "do harm" to someone else, deliberately. Trying to overly simplify it to "they enjoy it" is fallacious.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Well, false dichotomy.

And, actually, we're confusing "evil people" with psychopaths. Two different categories.

If you read your Cleckley, he describes some people who mostly do harm to themselves, in some senseless fashion. They are not, strictly speaking, "evil".

They are malignant all the same. From my readings on them and my personal experience it seems that among psychopaths theres a general disregard for the well being of anyone, including themselves.

In an exhange I had with an 18 yro psychopath I pointed out to the self-destructive path he was on and how the harm he was doing to others was just the collateral. His response..?

Psycho Kid: "Haha! Maybe you're right but I don't care! I'd curb stomp a granny for 20 bucks. Life is meaningless and I intent to enjoy it to the fullest by wreaking as much havoc and suffering as I can get away with."

Another individual I've known since we were in highschool [shes currently classified as a malignant narcissist] once told me a little joke:

SW: "You know, Kimani, I'm a real con artist"

Me: "Erm...Yea." </rollseyes> "I have noticed that you're manipulative and lie a lot for no apparent reason. But whats the point? Many of the lies you tell are pointless or easily found out."

SW: "I know. Often times people will pick up on it and try to distance themselves from me."

Me: "Well, then who are you conning?"

SW: "My SELF! KYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH....!!!!!!" </maniacal laughter continues>

Anywho... So while their malgnancy may be self destructive they are still evil, none the less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mask_of_Sanity

Also, what if we could, in every case of people acting senselessly in destructive ways, identify some cause--drugs, drink, abuse, head injury, or something more subtle, but nevertheless real.

Would these people be "evil" or just helplessly in the grip of poor impulse control--(eta) or some other behavioral change resulting from some structural brain abnormality?

My point is that evil is what we call harm inside some system, but we also add all kinds of moral judgments not literally assessing harm. The literature on psychopathy is rife with them. And, my other point is that there is an enormous amount of evil done by people who might not otherwise be evil, if it were not for some cause.

Your pure psychopath is...how rare?

It's a construct, after all.

Was Pol Pot a psychopath? (Godwin time) Hitler? Stalin? Madoff?

My point is that it gets awfully confusing to try to identify psychopaths, and to think about where the line is.

I'm pretty sure they can be placed on a continuum. I have read up on the abnormal brain scans of such individuals but I think the differences between theirs and the brains of "normal" people lies with how they use them. Just as one can condition their body they can also condition their brain. Psychopaths utilize their brains differently and that difference is reflected in how they develop over the course of their lifetime. The consciousness of a psychopath is qualitatively different than that of a non-psychopath.

 

[Piscivore]

From my readings on them and my personal experience it seems that among psychopaths there a general disregard for the well being of anyone, including themselves.

In an exhange I had with an 18 yro psychopath
Another individual I've known since we were in highschool [shes currently classified as a malignant narcissist]

I have read up on the abnormal brain scans of such individuals but I think the differences between theirs and the brains of "normal" people lies with how they use them. Just as one can condition their body they can also condition their brain. Psychopaths utilize their brains differently and that difference is reflected in how they develop over the course of their lifetime. The consciousness of a psychopath is qualitatively different than that of a non-psychopath.

Are you a psychologist? Who "classified" this girl of which you speak- or the boy?

 

[AkuManiMani]

However, what constitutes "spurious or trivial reasons" depends entirely on "social mores".

Hows about torturing and killing your family in front of you purely to ease their boredom?

"They" do harm for a staggering multiplicity of reason. And there is no "they"- every single one of us that lives past infancy will eventually "do harm" to someone else, deliberately. Trying to overly simplify it to "they enjoy it" is fallacious.

Good people do not continually and maliciously seek to do harm for the sake of doing harm; evil people do. If a good person wrongs another they feel remorse and a genuine desire to make amends; evil people do not. Good people adhere to social mores out of a genuine desire to promote the wellbeing of others; evil people follow them to camouflage themselves.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Are you a psychologist? Who "classified" this girl of which you speak- or the boy?

The girl enjoys going to therapists to flatter and entertain herself, and yes, shes has received an official diagnosis of malignant narcissism. I've known her personally for some time and I'm of the opinion that her malignancy runs deeper than they know (my assessment is that shes just a ******* abomination). Shes had dreams of forming her own cult since the was a small child and, last I spoke to her she was doing an internship at the UN. Given the opportunity, she'd most definitely put Manson and Pol Pot to shame.

The boy has been officially diagnosed as well and has a criminal record. He claims that he committed his first rape at the age of 14 and has a sum of money hes acquired thru fraud, though hes never been tried for the particular crimes he alleges.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I agree with much of this. Certainly, I don't think evil should be measured by how much an individual deviates from social mores. I not so sure how much the motivation for doing evil acts matters. I tend to agree with the idea that premeditated murder is a more heinous crime than a drunken accident where someone ends up dead. I also tend to agree that a premeditated murder for money is something different than a premeditated murder preceded by torture and sexual abuse for the enjoyment of the murderer. But I can't articulate what that last differentiation is important to me. I'm not sure it's a rational judgment or just a gut reaction of greater disgust to the latter crime.

But I also gather, and it makes sense to me, that abuse during childhood is what produces most of the people who enjoy doing harm to others; they become these monsters. Not all of them perhaps. Possibly some are just born that way.

Hmm... I'd recommend that you read The Sociopath Next Door when you get the chance. I also recommend that you search online for blogs and personal accounts of people who have had to live with the 'character disordered'. Granted, its not quite the same as first hand experience [TBH, you'd probably be better off without it in this case] but I think it will provide you with some perspective on the nature of evil.

 

[calebprime]

Hmm... I'd recommend that you read The Sociopath Next Door when you get the chance. I also recommend that you search online for blogs and personal accounts of people who have had to live with the 'character disordered'. Granted, its not quite the same as first hand experience [TBH, you'd probably be better off without it in this case] but I think it will provide you with some perspective on the nature of evil.

I don't disagree with you that there are psychopaths, but I wouldn't quote that book as an authority.

I spent several months obsessively going over it very carefully, and, aside from the bad writing and bad construction, it was also very sloppy in terms of the thinking. And, the case studies were all composites, so she could make them illustrate whatever she wanted. Plus her numbers were suspect.
Plus, her example of Joe the dog-lover was unfortunate--love for a pet does not a humane person make. (Godwin again.) She inflated her credentials, and is a former recovered-memory therapist. (This is not an ad hom, it goes right to her credibility.) She repeats the claim nearly word-for-word a total of sixteen times that one person in twenty-five is a sociopath, but her evidence for this is one slender study--a self-reporting questionnaire given to adolescent males, iirc.

This is not a scholarly, careful book. It's fear mongering. It's also deliberately "inspirational". The history chapter is a mess, as well.

Reviews said the same.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I don't disagree with you that there are psychopaths, but I wouldn't quote that book as an authority.

I spent several months obsessively going over it very carefully, and, aside from the bad writing and bad construction, it was also very sloppy in terms of the thinking. And, the case studies were all composites, so she could make them illustrate whatever she wanted. Plus her numbers were suspect.
Plus, her example of Joe the dog-lover was unfortunate--love for a pet does not a humane person make. (Godwin again.) She inflated her credentials, and is a former recovered-memory therapist. (This is not an ad hom, it goes right to her credibility.) She repeats the claim nearly word-for-word a total of sixteen times that one person in twenty-five is a sociopath, but her evidence for this is one slender study--a self-reporting questionnaire given to adolescent males, iirc.

This is not a scholarly, careful book. It's fear mongering. It's also deliberately "inspirational". The history chapter is a mess, as well.

Reviews said the same.

I figured it was a good book on the topic for a layperson to read. I've found nothing in it at odds with more technical literature on the subject or my personal experiences with the character disordered. Any materials you'd suggest that are more to your personal liking?

 

[calebprime]

I figured it was a good book on the topic for a layperson to read. I've found nothing in it at odds with more technical literature on the subject or my personal experiences with the character disordered. Any materials you'd suggest that are more to your personal liking?

What's at odds is in all the details, such as what percentage of people in the population are really sociopaths, and whether we can identify them by their evil stares. Also, by broadening the definition of what a sociopath is by changing the wording of the checklist, she includes lots of people that wouldn't ordinarily be included: deadbeats, nonconformists, free spirits.

If you triangulate between the DSM and Robert Hare, you'd be on safer ground. They may quibble with each other a little, but they (the psychiatrists who wrote the DSM and Robert Hare) are experts, at least.

Also, by some accounts, sociopathy is something that many people grow out of, and you'd never know it from reading her book. She's an essentialist.

 

[AkuManiMani]

What's at odds is in all the details, such as what percentage of people in the population are really sociopaths, and whether we can identify them by their evil stares. Also, by broadening the definition of what a sociopath is by changing the wording of the checklist, she includes lots of people that wouldn't ordinarily be included: deadbeats, nonconformists, free spirits.

Oddly enough, the 'evil stare' is a common observation made of psychopaths. When their 'masks' are down theres an eerie vacancy to their eyes; its hard to covey with words but I think the best way to describe it is 'zombie-like'. I've seen it myself on more than a few occasions and it genuinely makes my skin crawl.

If you triangulate between the DSM and Robert Hare, you'd be on safer ground. They may quibble with each other a little, but they (the psychiatrists who wrote the DSM and Robert Hare) are experts, at least.

Also, by some accounts, sociopathy is something that many people grow out of, and you'd never know it from reading her book. She's an essentialist.

I know some people who were delinquents and violent offenders but they are not psychopaths/sociopaths. They generally have some psychological issues and are often simply victims of circumstance and their own poor choices. They have a fuller range and depth of emotion than psychopaths and they are capable of experiencing feelings of compassion and remorse. Such individuals are misguided but not essentially evil; they can and often do reform themselves.

On the other hand, there are psychopaths who commit no violence or technically break any laws, yet they wreak a lot of personal havoc and anguish in people's lives in really subtle and insidious ways. Many of them wear suits and have very respectable positions in society -- they're the Lex Luthors and Jim Jones of the world. They're coldly adept at manipulating the good faith and naivety of people. They aren't the way they are because of some childhood trauma or a rough life. They're simply corrupt to their core.