Good, evil and neutrality.

[mur'phon]

I've met selfish people.

 

Ah, you mean like every single person you have ever met?

I agree with your post though

 

Really? I think that in a nutshell evil is an accurate description of people who know better, and choose to do wrong to others because they get off on it in one way or another.

 

What is wrong? Is it whatever society defines as such at a given time? Your concience? Essentially, what defines a "wrong" action?

[Q]

An action where empathy is either overridden or completely disregarded, and causes harm to an innocent.

[EnderWiggin]

What is wrong? Is it whatever society defines as such at a given time? Your concience? Essentially, what defines a "wrong" action?

 

I know it's a bit rude to post links in response, but here goes:

 

A wrong action is something that is against a categorical imperative, as seen in deontology.

 

Unfortunately, I know that you don't agree with Immanuel Kant in this respect, mur'phon Whereas I tend to believe him depending on my mood

 

_EW_

[True_Avery]

Really? I think that in a nutshell evil is an accurate description of people who know better, and choose to do wrong to others because they get off on it in one way or another.

 

That's my 2 cents.

People do not do things unless it benefits them in some way. The exception to this are those that do something that they know will not have a benefit, or do something in known futility. Otherwise known as the medical definition of insanity.

 

Your definition of evil also seems selective, but I see it as being too broad to warrant such a word. What defines a wrong action? What defines getting off in some way?

 

I like cheap ****. Cheap **** comes from China, who's labor force is legal slavery. I know this. I know buying this object harms a group of people directly, and continues their day to day lives. It is justified by my continuation of their working economic ways.

 

I'll still buy it though, because it is cheaper. It saves me money, and directly benefits me at the expense of another. I am glad that I have saved money. Happy even. That selfish nature drives me to buy more from places like China, because that furthers my materialistic attitude towards the world and bring me artificial or real comfort.

 

That may be a poor example, as I am not directly beating them with a whip, but I am the one giving the guy permission to strike.

 

I could type more examples, but I'd eventually be repeating myself. I'll skip ahead to:

 

I don't think that is what you mean exactly. I am going to surmise what your meaning is one who rapes, murders, or some other similar action for self satisfaction. Directly causing physical and mental anguish for some sort of pleasure.

 

Part of this I think is simple human and animalistic nature, and is less evil and more apart of life. For those that do this because they directly -know- it is wrong (there is a difference. Rapists will rape for power, and similarly for murderers. There is still a selfish drive behind it, which creates a justification. Those lacking a justification and do it for a reason beyond selfish indulgence is what I mean), then they fit the broad, yet selective definition of insanity. Less a victim of "evil", and more of a mental disease.

 

For those that do these action for a directly selfish reason like satisfaction, comfort, pleasure, etc...

 

An action where empathy is either overridden or completely disregarded, and causes harm to an innocent.

See, I have problems with that word. Empathy.

 

We would like to say Empathy is our ability to feel compassion for others, but...

 

Ok, prick yourself on the toe. Your toe hurts. Every part of your mind is telling you your -toe- hurts, but there is actually nothing happening with your toe. What you are feeling is a sensation in your -brain-, not your toe. Every nerve you feel in contact with something on your entire body is doing nothing but giving a heads up to your brain, which gives the illusion that the pain is centered around an area of the body. This might be weird, but follow me for a second.

 

Empathy, as many people believe it to be, is just like your toe. Or, rather, the person is the toe. We would, in our naive fantasies, like to believe that we can genuinely relate and feel the pain of another. What is really happening is that, like the toe sending signals to your brain, it is all focused in your head.

 

Namely, how selfish you are. You do not keep a friendship because of the other person. You keep it because it benefits you. You are not mean to them, because then you feel guilty which is a negative side effect for you. Remember, only the insane do something because it negatively effects them.

 

You are nice to them because you get a return. This is why we are not friends with brick walls. But, at the same time, this is why children and even adults can develop imaginary friends.

 

I'll go ahead and say it: Mother Theresa was just as selfish as you or I. At a glance, she gave her life to others and seemed to be the epitome of empathy. You have to ask "why" or, I feel, the action is meaningless. The "why" is that she wanted to get to heaven, and being super nun was her cheat to get in. Her memoirs describe her as being pretty depressed throughout her life, so she relied on others for her own happiness. She helped others, but she did so only for a selfish desire and personal fulfillment.

 

If she never got anything positive from helping children, then she would never have done it.

 

The difference between her and a serial rapist is that she indulged her selfish desires by thriving off of the positive emotions of others, while the rapist thrives off of the personal power gained by the act. Both, in essence, do their actions for a personal, positive confidence boost and both are addicted to the endorphin rush gained from doing their actions.

 

I guess, in a looser sense, you could call "Empathy" the selfish indulgence of "positive" emotions gained from an action upon another entity. You also call that "good", or rather a mutual benefiting action that fulfills your own, and an others selfish self indulgence. A mutual relationship if you will.

 

What most would call "evil" is when this is one sided. When your benefit, and the person on the other end does not. That is, essentially, what most people's idea of a "bad" action is. However, as is the nature of life, selfish fulfillment is primarily a one-sided focus with the "good" mutual benefiting actions being side effects of a social animal, or even an unintended side effect like killing an animal, and have scavengers eat the remains long after you are gone.

 

Civilization, or rather social contract, is when a large group of social animals (primarily humans) stay in a large group and decide that a mutually benefiting, or "good" relationship has a positive side effect for most involved. If we gained nothing from being in groups, then we would isolate ourselves from others. Much like large predators, which isolate themselves from other predators as to have a better chance of catching enough food for themselves, many only indulging in others when instinct tells them to mate or a mutually benefiting relationship can be formed.

 

So, I contend that "empathy" is something that is not "overridden" or "disregarded", but pushed aside for an action that, in their mind or situation, benefits them more than a selfishly indulging in an other's emotions.

 

This is not to say, however, that "empathy" is something that someone can lack. I guess you could, but, as said above, they are either insane, sick, or have personally found a better way to help themselves. Rapists and murderers need two to tango, and the feeding off of the emotions of the moment require a second entity. Essentially, they are working off of the same "empathy" system you are, but to a different, and possibly more honest end. Less social contract, and more of pure self fulfillment.

 

A woman may murder a man who threatens her child. The parent is driven by the genetic disposition to material instinct, and the body naturally gives benefits to the caring of the child. When threatened, the "logical" response is to lash back. She kills the man. What she gains is the removal of a personal threat, and the self fulfillment of satisfying her maternal instinct.

 

A man walks into a 7/11 and shoots the Clerc to get access to the money. He takes money, gets away, and gains the means to self fulfillment to whatever drove him to do so. In his mind, or even situation, the money was a requirement for continued survival, or the continued comfort of conservative living (no I do not mean the political definition).

 

A rapist attacks a woman and rapes her. Her does this because of a selfish desire to fulfill a possible confidence issue or some sort. Like Mother Theresa, possible depression. He does this through a showing of power, as rape is most often a crime of power than a crime of pleasure. A confidence boost that he is better than another human being, which I, personally, think is a foundation for a and stable comfortable life. To know that another relies on you, or you have dominance over them in some way. Any sense of control. Why do you think people, religious and non-religious, have the obvious desire to see themselves as being right?

 

All are examples of selfish actions, but the outcomes are different. Some may be "good" as the help benefit another, like the child, and others "bad" as the negatively effect others, like the death of the clerc or the rape victim.

 

What is "good" and "evil" eventually just boils down to social contract. We, as a society, approve of the aiming of self indulgence to directly support an others self indulgence. Much how sharks allow cleaner fish to clean them. Fish get food, shark is saved of skin infections.

 

In other words, we prefer the shark/cleaner method and disapprove of the parasite method. This is why our society hates lazy people. People without jobs or careers. Those that don't go to college. Why we hate the poor. We see them as parasites feeding off of our own lives, and negatively effect the social contract of our society.

 

But, at the same time this is why we hate taxes and so on. We, as a selfish entity, do not wish to help others in ways we cannot see, and thus cannot gain direct fufillment from.

 

If you got to watch your tax dollars directly pay a police officer, or saw it directly buy concrete for a road, I think many would think differently on taxes. If you handed the money to a police officer and said "this is your pay for protecting my social contract", he would most likely approve of this in some way as it is a direct benefit to him. Through this, many would gain a fufillment of their own.

 

That isn't the way taxes work though. We see it as money being taken away, as we cannot emotionally gain the same feeling as we would if we directly gave it to a charity.

 

In the end, it isn't so much a shark/cleaner society we have but a long, long line of parasites feeding off of each other. We all harm each other, but turn a blind eye or choose which harms and good and which are bad. The rapist and the China shopper are both hurting people, but we find the rapist more offensive because it is a direct action. Much like tax paradox.

 

Now that my problem with empathy is out of the way, let me look at your quote again:

 

Really? I think that in a nutshell evil is an accurate description of people who know better, and choose to do wrong to others because they get off on it in one way or another.

After all I've written above, let me summarize with this:

 

What you have here is an impossible situation. This does not realistically happen, which is why I think "Evil" is a load of BS.

 

Again, people do not EVER do something they KNOW is wrong and gain a positive. You cannot physically or mentally do something that you KNOW is wrong and still gain a selfish boost.

 

Why? It is a directly contradictory statement. It cancels itself out.

 

Only the insane do something they know is wrong. Not the evil, the insane. The sick. The mentally disabled. They do this not because it positively effects them, but because it negatively effects them. Or, rather, it does not effect them. It is a whim, and this going against natural reason.

 

In order for you to benefit from an interaction, you have to have a justification no matter how irrational it may be.

 

This is hard to describe with words, so I'll try it with a picture:

 

 

Ok, say, for the sake of argument, you have a machine that is perfect. This machine does 1 thing and one thing only: you press a button, and it uses a hammer to smack the ground.

 

You know this is what it does. You built it, know how it works, and know it cannot do anything more than hammer the ground.

 

However, every single day you come back and press the button expecting it to, say, make you a sandwich. You press the button over and over every day, genuinely expecting a sandwich. It does not come, because the machine cannot do this task yet you persist.

 

Pressing the button for a sandwich is an act of insanity. An insane person presses it expecting a sandwich, a rational person presses it to hammer the ground, but a "rational" person cannot press the button, expecting a sandwich, but also not expecting one. The feelings are exclusive.

 

A typical example of this kind of thinking is...

 

The joker.

 

 

Most would look at him and say "he is insane. He kills people" and so on. Joker is the fictional pinnacle of insanity, yet he embodies nothing of the sort.

 

Why?

 

Because he laughs when he kills people. He may be psychotic, but he is not insane. He has justifications for killing people.

 

In other words, when he kills someone he is doing it intentionally. Because he likes it. Because it gives him a thrill. He selfishly indulges in his own vices, and his vice is anarchy, or, rather, a person who does not follow the social contract of mainstream society.

 

His thought pattern may be crazy, but he is not insane. He also cannot fit your definition of evil, because it would imply that he knows that killing is bad and cannot positively effect him, but he kills anyway. Because he gains a thrill, a laugh, and so on out of the kill it means that his first justification is different: He knows he will get a thrill out of killing, so he kills, and thus gets a thrill.

 

Thats all I can think up right now for this.

 

I know it's a bit rude to post links in response, but here goes:

 

A wrong action is something that is against a categorical imperative, as seen in deontology.

 

Unfortunately, I know that you don't agree with Immanuel Kant in this respect, mur'phon Whereas I tend to believe him depending on my mood.

"The most pressing difficulty for deontologist philosophers is justifying constraints. Robert Nozick famously points out what has become known as the paradox of deontology. If we are truly concerned about rights (such as the right not to be harmed in certain ways expressed by Kamm's Principle of Permissible Harm) then it seems logical we should seek to minimize violations of these rights. However, deontological constraints themselves prohibit such action. For example, consider a case where someone has maliciously sent a trolley hurtling towards five innocent and immobile people at the end of a track. The only way to stop the trolley and save the five is to throw one innocent bystander in front of the trolley. If the five are killed, this would constitute five violations of the PPH. If the one is thrown in the way, this constitutes one violation of the PPH. However, the Principle of Permissible Harm clearly rules out throwing one in front of the trolley. Hence the paradox. In order to respect the rights of the five, deontologists tell us we must respect the rights of the one."

[Q]

lol@walloftext.

 

Then the percentage of insane people must be very high indeed. I'm sorry to say that I've known plenty of people who knowingly do wrong and derive a positive result for themselves from it. At someone else's expense, of course.

 

It all just seems like you're rationalizing the concept away; to what end I don't know. Perhaps to justify any type of behavior, now matter how despicable?

 

 

This has all been argued before. Using your model, how do you explain the soldier who throws himself on an enemy grenade to save his squadmates? Is he insane? I'm sorry, but the human mind is not so simple and where it is concerned 1+1 does not necessarily =2

[True_Avery]

Then the percentage of insane people must be very high indeed. I'm sorry to say that I've known plenty of people who knowingly do wrong and derive a positive result for themselves from it. At someone else's expense, of course.

Wrong by your definition perhaps. This is assuming, of course, that right and wrong and existing and permanent definitions within this universe.

 

Again, there is a massive difference between someone who knows something is wrong, and then does it. You'll have to give me an example of said people, as they could have done the deed to gain something.

 

Insanity is when you do something futility under a false assumption and gain nothing. There is a difference between knowingly doing something wrong, and futily doing something.

 

The difference is, rational people do not do something they know is wrong. Somewhere in their head, maybe peer pressure, depression, or something there has to be, even for a split second, rationalization for an action. Is this rationalization right or wrong? Again, that isn't my point. Regardless of if I personally think it is right or wrong, it doesn't change the fact the rationalization is made.

 

Now, if they were to say, crash headlong into a wall or something on purpose and somehow gain something good, then that would be an inadvertent gain. They did the action without knowledge, or care that they would gain something yet did anyway. This, I would argue, is from an outside source separate from the formula. They gain something from someone else's deeds, not their own. Thus the whole shark/cleaner, social contract stuff I wrote up.

 

True insanity is not common, however I will not argue that there can be insane, irrational actions. This is still insanity, and any positive gained from these actions is gained without knowledge or means of the person.

 

To clarify, you don't have to be insane to make an insane decision. Those that are truly insane, however, lack the cognitive skill to decipher what will, and what wont help them. Or, rather, lack "empathy" or ability to decipher social contract, even within their own actions. They do this for reasons they do not know, and so on and so forth.

 

Perhaps the people you know have done something insane, however you have to take in mind that things like... beating someone with a bat when angry is not insanity. Somewhere in their mind, they have justifed doing so to, say, vent anger, depression, or so on. Doing this for power, or under the assumption that the end result will help them.

 

The obvious answer is that, in the end, beating your wife to death with a bat will land you in jail. But, that does not make it into the equation, as the momentary justification still made him do it.

 

Now, if he just grabbed a bat, killed his wife, looked at her body and said "huh, why did I do that?" then it would be an insane action. He either did it on a whim, or knew it was a bad idea with no positive results.

 

That is true insanity, and it is by no means all that common.

 

It all just seems like you're rationalizing the concept away; to what end I don't know. Perhaps to justify any type of behavior, now matter how despicable?

Personally, I see the word "evil" as pushing the concept away. Blanket labels are the easier way to push a concept away, and good and evil are too of our biggest labels. Everyone justifies their actions somehow, and deciding that "this person is evil" seems more like an ignorant way to purposely choose to not try to understand what happened, and instead use an impossible concept to justify their hate of the person.

 

I am not "justifying" their behavior, nor condoning it. I am simply trying to explain why people do what they do. I, unlike some, do not see the word "selfish" as being a negative. All "despicable" and "evil" behavior has a motive, and if we just label as such and move on without trying to find the source, or understand the motives then we're no better than they are.

 

Yes, the rapist raped someone. He still has a mind, motives, and so on and I'd still be interested in hearing them. Thats just the way I am. I like psychology, sociology, and have personal gain in understanding why people think what they do.

 

Why else would I be posting in Kavars?

 

This has all been argued before. Using your model, how do you explain the soldier who throws himself on an enemy grenade to save his squadmates? Is he insane? I'm sorry, but the human mind is not so simple and where it is concerned 1+1 does not necessarily =2

How do you explain heaven and hell? The afterlife?

 

Not everyone believes that this is it. If anything, those that firmly believe in life after death, I think, put little respect into the life they have. If they firmly believe that something is waiting for them, then I don't see why someone couldn't rationalize killing themselves in a suicide, sacrifice, or what have you. While self-protection is rational, to those that believe that death is not detrimental... then what is there to lose?

 

Sure, he throws himself onto the grenade. But then we get back to the mother teresa idea: she gave everything she thought she could give in life to buy her way into heaven, and save her own depression. She helped others because it helped her.

 

Perhaps he threw himself onto the grenade in a frenzy of thought to protect someone. Maternal instinct and the like is something odd, and the protection of others, I think, is one of humanity few instincts we've held since gaining intelligence.

 

Maybe he is religious. Being a martyr and sacrificing himself so his friends may live. Maybe it was spontaneous, sacrificing himself to, in an ironic twist, protect those he cares about.

 

Again, I do not see death as being something that humans automatically irrationally fear. Selfishness does not have to exclusively mean "out entirely for ones self". Like I said, my definition of "good" would be the rat ionization to indulge one's desires in a way that benefits other's indulgences. Social contract.

 

I've know people who are now death to suicide. People throw themselves in front of bullets, cars, and so on for their own reasons. This happens enough that I am inclined to call BS on the "well, they can't be selfish if they gave up their life" argument. I believe humans are perfectly capable of finding rational justification for death in their own minds, as it happens on a day to day basis. Soldier dies to save his friends, guy blows himself up in a store and kills 100 people. Kid cuts his wrists, and mother jumps in front of a car for her son.

 

Not everyone fears death, and I think that is an important distinction to make.

 

And, again, take in mind what insanity means. Is he insane? Hell, I don't know. In order for that to be insane, he would have to know that jumping on the grenade would help nothing, that nothing good or him nor anyone else would come of it, and go ahead and do it anyway. However, from your scenario, he jumped onto the grenade -to save his friends-, which means he did it with a justification.

 

Thus, not insanity.

 

As with the positive/negative part of the diagram, your "evil" rational would fit into this situation like this:

 

Solider sees grenade. He assumes that if he stops the grenade, he can save his friend. However, he does the opposite and throws the grenade at his friends. When he throws it, he has made the justification that it will save them from the first grenade.

 

While the second rational is insanity, having both rationals makes this situation a logical impossibility. Again, that is why I don't believe in your definition of "evil".

 

Is the solider insane? Is the solider stupid? Is the soldier [insert here]?

 

In summary, his impulse to do something was stronger than his inhibition, so he jumped onto the grenade. That is the simplest explanation that can be given, and impulses are the pinnacle of split second justifications. He doesn't think "this is going to hurt" or "this is going to kill me", he just does it.

 

Why?

 

Simply put, if he was being truly rational and had time to think it out, then he'd throw his damn helmet onto the grenade, or toss the grenade. It isn't insanity, its an impulse and an impulse is still a justification.

[Q]

Thanks for explaining. As long as there is still full accountability for one's actions (enforced if necessary), then I'd be okay with your way of thinking, even though I could never agree with it. I'm just afraid that there really isn't, though.

 

I've read Lord of the Flies and I'm old enough to have lived through the scenario it portrays several times now. Without the concepts of right and wrong and good and evil to go by, groups of people revert to savagery with amazing speed. It's almost as though they're being guided by a higher intelligence.

 

This type of environment then becomes a living Hell for anyone who tries to live their life by doing the right thing, because now they're walking around with a big, red target painted on their back (or the words "EXPLOIT ME" written on their forehead), and they'll either have to compromise their principles in the interest of their own well-being or get used to being a victim. Neither scenario provides a very positive outlook for the future, and they make existence look even more hollow and futile, and death becomes all the more attractive, afterlife or no.

 

The future looks damn rosy for the growing number who have no problem with being rotten to the core, though, since it's all relative, anyway.

[True_Avery]

Thanks for explaining. As long as there is still full accountability for one's actions (enforced if necessary), then I'd be okay with your way of thinking, even though I could never agree with it. I'm just afraid that there really isn't, though.

I'm not entirely sure how its my way of thinking though. I'm basically repeating my psychology/sociology classes, classes and books based around dissecting the human mind and how it works. Now, mind you, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

I'm not so much saying "I think everyone is selfish, and there should be no rules and blah blah blah". I'm saying that, regardless of this, "good" and "bad" exist in this world regardless through the social contract. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. I wont kill you, you don't kill me.

 

We all go along our merry lives, but in the end we're all just selfish animals. But, selfish is not a bad thing. We look out for ourselves, our interests, and by some miracle that translates to working together and creating something no other animal has done.

 

Accountability for one's actions? Don't we have that already? I'm not exactly explaining some futuristic world, or some concept I want to impose on humanity as much as I'm explaining sociology 101. What I've said about insanity is fact, and you can look up the medical definition if you'd like. There are a few, as the law is more flexible than biology, but the gist is there.

 

I guess I'll just leave it at this:

 

In what way is life, animals, and every single human not driven by selfish action?

 

Every person has some sort of justification for their actions, regardless of how crazy their action, thought processes, etc might be. Hell, don't even use the word "justification" if its too honor bound; use "thinking", as that is essentially what a justification is. You think about something, make a decision on what to do, and then your brain moves your body. It is what keeps us doing anything that our body doesn't force us to do on clockwork.

 

I don't like the term "evil" because 1) your definition is logically impossible and 2) it is a blanket term label used to dehumanize people and place them lower, giving us our own justification to neither relate, nor even discover what went wrong.

 

Everyone is "evil" I guess. Hitler's Germany? Human beings, like you and me. They actually did studies trying to prove that German's were more inhumane than Americans. What happened? Nothing. Humans are humans. You are just as capable of fighting along side a nazi in their situation as anyone in that country at the time.

 

Insanity aside, people are people and I've yet to be given a reason to believe that this is the way humans work. This isn't me trying to impose a new word order on you or anything, or start a religion, but simply point out what I think is an fair summary of humanity.

 

Although, you are doing the same so I guess my point is moot.

 

I've read Lord of the Flies and I'm old enough to have lived through the scenario it portrays several times now. Without the concepts of right and wrong and good and evil to go by, groups of people revert to savagery with amazing speed. It's almost as though they're being guided by a higher intelligence.

See, this is what I mean. How is it that we don't agree when you've basically summarized what I've said in one paragraph?

 

This type of environment then becomes a living Hell for anyone who tries to live their life by doing the right thing, because now they're walking around with a big, red target painted on their back (or the words "EXPLOIT ME" written on their forehead), and they'll either have to compromise their principles in the interest of their own well-being or get used to being a victim. Neither scenario provides a very positive outlook for the future, and they make existence look even more hollow and futile, and death becomes all the more attractive, afterlife or no.

No offense intended, but I believe that is the world we've been living in since the dawn of time. Call me a cynic, but all things consider we have it pretty damn good right now compared to, say, 100 years ago. Social contract has evolved and grown, and in reality this "bleak world" is one that our current society has taken pretty great strides is moving away from.

 

My point is that this compromise, forehead labeling world is one we've been living in the entire time.

 

The future looks damn rosy for the growing number who have no problem with being rotten to the core, though, since it's all relative, anyway.

Again, the world isn't such a bad place right now all things considered, and this "growing number" of rotten people still can't compare to a time like, say, the crusades where a -lot- of moral compromises were made.

[Q]

Everyone is "evil" I guess.

You're 100% right about that. We are.

 

And you're probably right about society always being the way it is now, but that doesn't make it seem any less bleak to me. The only thing that has improved is our technology.

[vanir]

I did make the earlier distinction of evil as a behavioural activity.

 

Evil is the word "live" spelled backwards. So obviously no living creature is evil, but all are capable of evil. The term best applies to humans due to conscious choice, though the argument could be made for comparatively intellectually developed animals such as certain primates. There is a species of chimp that was the subject of some study which hunted smaller primates and routinely tortured them as part of a ritualistic, excited frenzy before eating them, often still alive.

 

One may very well regard the shark which is presently eating them to represent primordeal evil. Though it is also true such a person should also consider that a shark's brain is not well developed enough to determine such choices. Pods of Killer Whale however have been studied also at length, there is one Alaskan bay which is frequented by two different pods, one hunts only small fish whilst the other goes for seals and is regarded by the locals as evil and a danger to human swimmers. They are adamant (and many scientists agree) it is not a matter of confusing us for seals but simply deciding we are another food source, targeting human swimmers specifically and hunting them down. This group also likes to torture seals during feeding, crushing its flippers and then letting it go and playing with it, tossing it among themselves for a while before somebody finally eats it. Other times of the year locals swim with the fish-eating Killer Whales regularly.

But even here it would be a fuzzy argument to level human political philosophy such as the contemplation of true evil.

 

But one can most definitely look upon the determined course of an individual with an accusation of evil. Whilst no person is evil in one sense, all people are capable of evil. It seems this much most of us can agree upon. So why is it so hard to contemplate that some have actually embarked evil?

 

To say "Hitler was an evil man" is really a statement of context. No he wasn't an aberrant series of genes, that's just ridiculous. But his manner of being a man, the character he chose to develop, the actions and assertions he chose to perform, were decidedly evil. Any doubts about this need only a copy of Mein Kampf to alleviate, I've one right here and believe me, moreso in our current culture of improving common education standards and at least some positive reinforcement of independent thought, it is very, very clear how vile and vindictive, callous, intentionally ignorant and venomous all his lines of thought are, all his contentions. If Hitler were born today he'd be laughed out of the classroom by the students themselves, only a psychopath would follow him, and only psychopaths did. Unfortunately it is the conspiracy of government that people have little say about it and its illusion that they do (which is the real lesson of the war, typically unlearned).

 

To say Dahmer is an evil man is the same token. In fact calling him insane is worse, it challenges both accountability and responsibility where we are talking about a man who premeditated, planned and executed and followed up terrifically vile, aberrant acts remorselessly and for little more than kicks and jollies. But most importantly calling him insane suggests that he has some genetic aberrance, ie. is evil incarnate. And that's just meaner than a religious fundamentalist who at least recognises salvation (ie. the fact no person is more evil than another by birth).

 

Insanity is simply the new age word for evil. It is misused in exactly the same way.

 

 

 

For all you theologians I've got a rhetoric for you:

I am the word which begat creation. I am the light, the truth and the way. I am that I am. I am...?

 

Live.

 

I am not...?

 

Evil.

[Q]

I'm not entirely sure how its my way of thinking though. I'm basically repeating my psychology/sociology classes, classes and books based around dissecting the human mind and how it works.

I suspected as much back when you wrote those walls of text. Is there any reason why you couldn't have clarified this earlier, because it seems rather disingenuous of you. I was going to let this slide, but recent events have caused me to change my mind about how to deal with this type of situation, which I seem to encounter often in conversations with you.

 

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter, or are you going to continue regurgitate someone else's while declining to mention that they are not your own ideas until much later in the conversation?

Now, mind you, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

You don't say. You should have indicated this earlier. A lot earlier. As such, I'm just going to have to disregard everything that you've stated in this thread (and elsewhere) up to this point.

See, this is what I mean. How is it that we don't agree when you've basically summarized what I've said in one paragraph?

But I haven't. If you believe that, then you're missing the point that I was trying to make.

[Totenkopf]

Again, the world isn't such a bad place right now all things considered, and this "growing number" of rotten people still can't compare to a time like, say, the crusades where a -lot- of moral compromises were made.

 

Curious as to how you see this age, globally, as any less morally conflicted (ie "compromised") than 800-1000 yrs ago. Our means have changed, but not our natures. Strip the thin veneers of civilization and we're about as savage as our ancestors. Remember, the "civilized" western world is only ~ 20% or so of the total global population. We're probably no wiser than we were even 5000 years ago, just more technically adept.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter, or are you going to continue regurgitate someone else's while declining to mention that they are not your own ideas until much later in the conversation?

 

This kind of thing was leveled at me by another individual and I resent it when people attack the person for believing in a certain thing instead of trying to figure out why they came to believe it in the first place. I know EXACTLY what the statement was directed at (students,children,peers, ext. believing in their superiors instead of what they came to on their own)

 

Well I'll have you know that many problems in this nation could be eased if people actually relied MORE on what they get in a library and not less. Although experience may be regarded as more significant, reading should not be underrated. Although I do get exposed to the ideals and thoughts of my college professors, I do not simply mimic them without having any idea how the hell they came to think the way they do. When I get exposed to a source of knowledge that I can examine, evaluate, and comprehend; I come to my own idea on the matter by taking what I've absorbed into consideration while making it.

[Q]

I perfectly understand what you're saying, D_Y, and I agree with you about thoroughly researching the subject matter first, but I think that every source should be questioned just as thoroughly before reaching your own conclusions. But in the end, that's not what my above post was about.

 

What got me in this case was that I got fed this line as a form of disclaimer after wasting several hours on a conversation that I would have ended far earlier had I known, because it would have been obvious to me that continuing said conversation was pointless:

I'm not entirely sure how its my way of thinking though. I'm basically repeating my psychology/sociology classes, classes and books based around dissecting the human mind and how it works.

The dismissive manner in which I was finally informed didn't help, either. I don't like having my time wasted by being lead on like that.