Definition of Evil

Hows about torturing and killing your family in front of you purely to ease their boredom?
Yep. Especially if you belong to a different social group than the torturers. It's happened so frequently there's too many to list.

Good people do not continually and maliciously seek to do harm for the sake of doing harm; evil people do.
But "continually and maliciously seek[ing] to do harm" is not the full extent of what is "evil"

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.
And you know this how?
 
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.

But not diagnosed by you, correct? In other words, you are not, in fact, a psychologist, are you?

On the other hand, you do seem to be a dab hand at mindreading...
 
Hows about torturing and killing your family in front of you purely to ease their boredom?
Yep. Especially if you belong to a different social group than the torturers. It's happened so frequently there's too many to list.

Would you say that such killings aren't evil?

Good people do not continually and maliciously seek to do harm for the sake of doing harm; evil people do.
But "continually and maliciously seek[ing] to do harm" is not the full extent of what is "evil"

No, but it certainly comprises a big chunk of it.

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.
And you know this how?

I know some good people; I know some evil people. I've become personally acquainted with the differences between them.
 
But not diagnosed by you, correct? In other words, you are not, in fact, a psychologist, are you?

On the other hand, you do seem to be a dab hand at mindreading...

Social animals like us are naturally adept at modeling and understanding the minds of others. Some people develop this skill to a greater degree than others. How do you think a good psychologists successfully helps a patient or a psychopath manipulates some poor dupe(s)?
 
Would you say that such killings aren't evil?
Depends on who you ask. The victims I'm sure thought so.

Your problem seems to be that you think that "evil" people who do "evil" things are knowingly doing "evil". That doesn't happen except in cartoons and poorly written action movies. Almost always, everybody does what they think is right or good, and the people who are hurt by it call it "evil".

Yes, even the Nazis.

No, but it certainly comprises a big chunk of it.
No, it really doesn't. Ignoring everything else that is considered "evil" by others to simplify the problem is fallacious.

I know some good people; I know some evil people. I've become personally acquainted with the differences between them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist's_fallacy
 
Still not answering the question...

Social animals like us are naturally adept at modeling and understanding the minds of others.
No, we are really not.

Some people develop this skill to a greater degree than others. How do you think a good psychologists successfully helps a patient or a psychopath manipulates some poor dupe(s)?
Training and practice, in both cases.
 
Would you say that such killings aren't evil?
Depends on who you ask. The victims I'm sure thought so.

Well I'm asking *you* if they're evil. When you're done polishing your halo of impartiality let me know.

Your problem seems to be that you think that "evil" people who do "evil" things are knowingly doing "evil". That doesn't happen except in cartoons and poorly written action movies. Almost always, everybody does what they think is right or good, and the people who are hurt by it call it "evil".

Yes, even the Nazis.

In the extreme cases there are individuals who deliberately and coldbloodedly commit evil in full knowledge that what they're doing is wrong. They tend to be the ones manipulating things within cults and other social groups promoting pathological conditions. In many cases they are genuinely self-deluded but its not all together uncommon for them to be perfectly aware of their gleeful malice. Whenever given the power or opportunity they will cause misery and havoc on others.

Then there are the 'sheep'. The 'sheep' are not essentially malevolent themselves, but they tend to fall victim to the manipulation of socio-pathogens and end up allowing themselves to become crude extensions of their will [e.g. the Manson 'Family']. When confronted with the evil of what they have done/are doing they will often rationalize it away, lie to themselves, resort to denial or any number of other psychological defense mechanisms to avoid taking responsibility ["I was just following orders!", "I didn't know -- Really!", "That never happened!"]. The "sheep" aren't essentially evil themselves but, thru their psychological weakness and cowardice, they become accessories to it.

Events like the Holocaust and the Killing Fields happened because there was a critical mass of psychologically weak, desperate people. Also present were unscrupulous bastards who, like opportunistic infections, were there to take advantage of that weakness to con them into making their societies even more hellish. Though there are different degrees and varieties of evil, there is evil none the less.


No, but it certainly comprises a big chunk of it.
No, it really doesn't. Ignoring everything else that is considered "evil" by others to simplify the problem is fallacious.

If the RCC considers extramarital sex evil does that make it so? Should I seriously consider that assessment on par with say, the genocidal campaigns carried out during the crusades?

I know some good people; I know some evil people. I've become personally acquainted with the differences between them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist's_fallacy

Thats all well 'n' good but can to articulate and make your own arguments? I'm not having a discussion with a wiki article.
 
Last edited:
Still not answering the question...

Social animals like us are naturally adept at modeling and understanding the minds of others.
No, we are really not.

You want me to just start posting links to articles and experts who agree with my points or do you want to base this discussion on something other than appeals to authority?

Some people develop this skill to a greater degree than others. How do you think a good psychologists successfully helps a patient or a psychopath manipulates some poor dupe(s)?
Training and practice, in both cases.

Psychopaths manipulate others quite well without any formal training and I know individuals who've better personal insight and advice than some well educated psychologists.
 
...do you want to base this discussion on something other than appeals to authority?
I'd love to see something other than your appeals to your own alleged "authority".

I know individuals who've better personal insight and advice than some well educated psychologists.
How many "well educated psycholgists" do you know, and how do you gauge them against these individuals you claim to know?

What is the source of your expertise? I hope it is something better than one badly flawed pop-psych book you read one time.
 
I've always thought of evil as "treating people as if they were things".

I define "people" pretty broadly so it does include animals who are intelligent enough to be self aware. Yeah, this means that cows are included in the list but truthfully I think you should treat cows to a level that is appropriate for their mental capacity and simple basic needs. This doesn't mean you can't kill and eat them, just that you should treat them well and kill them humanely.

Huh, this is a pretty tough question. I need to think on it some more.
 
Well I'm asking *you* if they're evil. When you're done polishing your halo of impartiality let me know.
My opinon has no bearing on it. It's as subjective as anyone else's. Just because it's mine doesn't mean I'm deluded into thinking it's objective fact.

In the extreme cases there are individuals who deliberately and coldbloodedly commit evil in full knowledge that what they're doing is wrong. They tend to be the ones manipulating things within cults and other social groups promoting pathological conditions. In many cases they are genuinely self-deluded but its not all together uncommon for them to be perfectly aware of their gleeful malice. Whenever given the power or opportunity they will cause misery and havoc on others.

Then there are the 'sheep'. The 'sheep' are not essentially malevolent themselves, but they tend to fall victim to the manipulation of socio-pathogens and end up allowing themselves to become crude extensions of their will [e.g. the Manson 'Family']. When confronted with the evil of what they have done/are doing they will often rationalize it away, lie to themselves, resort to denial or any number of other psychological defense mechanisms to avoid taking responsibility ["I was just following orders!", "I didn't know -- Really!", "That never happened!"]. The "sheep" aren't essentially evil themselves but, thru their psychological weakness and cowardice, they become accessories to it.

Events like the Holocaust and the Killing Fields happened because there was a critical mass of psychologically weak, desperate people. Also present were unscrupulous bastards who, like opportunistic infections, were there to take advantage of that weakness to con them into making their societies even more hellish. Though there are different degrees and varieties of evil, there is evil none the less.
And you have evidence to support all these assertions, of course...

If the RCC considers extramarital sex evil does that make it so?
Yes, for them. No, for those that don't agree.

Should I seriously consider that assessment on par with say, the genocidal campaigns carried out during the crusades?
Only you can decide how you "should" assess them.


Thats all well 'n' good but can to articulate and make your own arguments? I'm not having a discussion with a wiki article.
I should think not. Arguing against facts is ill advised.
 
Yeah, Terry Pratchett has a lot of great ideas. Thanks for reminding me, I forgot who to credit for that.

Carpe Jugulum:
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black-and-white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that-"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes-"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things…"
The more I read Pratchett, the more I wish I'd read him much earlier. Would've saved a lot of effort figuring things out.
 
Last edited:
I've always thought of evil as "treating people as if they were things".

I define "people" pretty broadly so it does include animals who are intelligent enough to be self aware. Yeah, this means that cows are included in the list but truthfully I think you should treat cows to a level that is appropriate for their mental capacity and simple basic needs. This doesn't mean you can't kill and eat them, just that you should treat them well and kill them humanely.

Huh, this is a pretty tough question. I need to think on it some more.

That's a good quote. Thanks, it does seem to be a good place to start. And thanks to Pisc for finding and posting the larger quote.
 
Well I'm asking *you* if they're evil. When you're done polishing your halo of impartiality let me know.
My opinon has no bearing on it. It's as subjective as anyone else's. Just because it's mine doesn't mean I'm deluded into thinking it's objective fact.

So then its perfectly fine if someone broke into your home to brutally massacre your family as you helplessly look on. After all, its just a matter of relative opinion, right?

In the extreme cases there are individuals who deliberately and coldbloodedly commit evil in full knowledge that what they're doing is wrong. They tend to be the ones manipulating things within cults and other social groups promoting pathological conditions. In many cases they are genuinely self-deluded but its not all together uncommon for them to be perfectly aware of their gleeful malice. Whenever given the power or opportunity they will cause misery and havoc on others.

Then there are the 'sheep'. The 'sheep' are not essentially malevolent themselves, but they tend to fall victim to the manipulation of socio-pathogens and end up allowing themselves to become crude extensions of their will [e.g. the Manson 'Family']. When confronted with the evil of what they have done/are doing they will often rationalize it away, lie to themselves, resort to denial or any number of other psychological defense mechanisms to avoid taking responsibility ["I was just following orders!", "I didn't know -- Really!", "That never happened!"]. The "sheep" aren't essentially evil themselves but, thru their psychological weakness and cowardice, they become accessories to it.

Events like the Holocaust and the Killing Fields happened because there was a critical mass of psychologically weak, desperate people. Also present were unscrupulous bastards who, like opportunistic infections, were there to take advantage of that weakness to con them into making their societies even more hellish. Though there are different degrees and varieties of evil, there is evil none the less.
And you have evidence to support all these assertions, of course...

I'm just providing my own interpretation and assessment of established history. Besides, its all relative anyway -- or so I'm told ;)

If the RCC considers extramarital sex evil does that make it so?
Yes, for them. No, for those that don't agree.

So theres no rational basis upon which to make such deteminations, huh?

Should I seriously consider that assessment on par with say, the genocidal campaigns carried out during the crusades?
Only you can decide how you "should" assess them.

I assess the genocide perpetrated in the crusades to be evil and the issue of premarital sex to be trivial in comparison. Do I require authoritatively vetted 'evidence' or a wiki link to validate that assessment? Officially sanctioned credentials, maybe?


Thats all well 'n' good but can to articulate and make your own arguments? I'm not having a discussion with a wiki article.
I should think not. Arguing against facts is ill advised.

And what makes the wiki article relevant to the topic of discussion -- let alone 'factual'? Do you have any views of your own that aren't a reference to someone else's? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the whole quote Piscivore, that also points out that "treating people as things" is not all of evil, but it's where evil starts.

When you look at most of the atrocities of history they pretty much can be boiled down to that.

Slavery - People as a commodity

Genocide - People as a weed

Sadism - People as a toy

The list could probably go on and on.
 
So then its perfectly fine if someone broke into your home to brutally massacre your family as you helplessly look on.
It's perfectly fine with them, or they wouldn't be doing it. Not so much for me. Not in the least because I don't value "helplessly look[ing] on".

After all, its just a matter of relative opinion, right?
Yes.

Just like the things I'd do to someone who tried it would be great fun for me, but probably unpleasant and frightnening to them.

I'm just providing my own interpretation and assessment of established history. Besides, its all relative anyway -- or so I'm told ;)
So that's another "no", then. You're just presenting your opinion as if it were objective, documented fact, and then making allusions to support you don't have:

"You want me to just start posting links to articles and experts who agree with my points...?"

Why yes. Yes I do.

So theres no rational basis upon which to make such deteminations, huh?
Since they are entirely based on subjective values, no. I'd be delighted if you could show evidence (actual evidence, not more of your opinions or "assesments") otherwise.

I assess them to be evil.
And they don't. So?

Do I require authoritatively vetted 'evidence' or a wiki link to validate that assessment?
If you are going to claim that your "assesment" is objective fact, yes.

Officially sanctioned credentials, maybe?
Who would provide them?

And what makes the wiki article relevant to the topic of discussion -- let alone 'factual'?
That's the fallacy you are repeatedly commiting when you offer your own (amatuer and underinformed) opinions and assesments as representing facts.

Do you have any views of your own that aren't a reference to someone else's? :rolleyes:
Sure. But I'm a fallible human being and I prefer to deal with fact. And, since I don't consider myself a natural expert as you clearly do... yes, I do reference sources outside myself.

Curious that on a skeptic board you consider this a failing, when it is an important part of skepticism.
 
At the start of any definition of evil, is a unproven assumption about what matters in this world.

If one claims, that suffering of conscious beings has to do something with evil, he is basing his thought on he assumption, that suffering actually matters. Why should suffering matter more than joy? Why should suffering matter at all? After all, suffering comes for all creature.s to an end with death and then it realy doesnt mater what suffering had before this.

If one claims, that treating people as things, he is basing his though upon he assumption, that the difference between things and non-things is of relevance. And that although all non-things turn into things sooner or later. Why should the short stage in which some matter is composed in a way, that it could be classified as non-thing be of importance?

If one claims,that someone created this universe and that not following his commands has to with evil, he i basing this apart from the issue of lacking proof for such a being on the assumption, that creating something implies ownership and that ownership implies the right to subject the owned something to rules. That he can subject any dissenter to eternal suffering is just an argument from power.

And me personally i no different, i assume, that humans do matter as no one is around to object that except humans. But that of course is an assumption, from the fact, that no one but humans could complain about humans should have a special status on cannot infer any special status for humans - except of course as an argument that we are more powerful than he bugs to some extent.

All in all , there is always n arbitrary coice behind any moral codex.
 

Back
Top Bottom