What is Evil?

Delete me.

Dr. Scott Peck, who wrote that book about LOVE, also wrote one on EVIL. He didn't seem to think our prisons were full of evil people. Mostly, he talked of bad parents, those who give their children drastically mixed messages so that they think everything is their fault, that they are in fact, BAD.

Don't care to research EVIL. Who could dwell on such a thing, or concept. Yuk.

Not this again.

Evil is live spelled backwards.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Evil is as evil does.

 


--From South Park, Bigger, Longer, and Uncut

George W Bush!

The book was called "People of the Lie, 1983"....the title may give you an insight into what Peck thought was the basis of evil.

And this is a philosophy forum Tex-Star, ethics are an integral part of philosophy.

For whatever else evil may be alleged to be, it is a human construct, without existence outside of perception.

Montana, you must be kidding me. Are you actually implying Bush to be evil or is that just a crude joke? Trust me, if Bush was 'evil' this country would be in a literal hell. His motives are pure and that is what matters.

Evil, as what I believe it to be, is anything or anyone that's sole intention is to harm, destroy, damage, mislead, etc. anyone or anything.

My religious view on evil... anything conflicting with or disobeying God (or whichever entity you choose to believe.

As a child, I always characterized people as 'good' or 'bad.' Watching all the kiddy shows, the 'bad' guys would acklowedge to the fact that they were evil and take pride in it. There was always a clear line between 'good' and 'bad.' But movies such as Ocean's Eleven or The Italian Job made the 'good' guys law breakers. The movie producers would make me believe that the main character's motives were pure and selfless, and then I thought he was 'good'.

Simply put, if one's motives are not a result of selfishness, jealousy, hatred, etc. then that one is evil.

Evil is a personality which is selfish in the sense of being very willing to prosper when others suffer as a consequence, and with no empathy for their suffering. An example might be a person who burglarizes a charity which provides help to the unfortunate. Also, clearly, there are degrees of evil.

It is upon such a basis that others would make the assertion that Bush is evil, without any intention to "make a crude joke."



This is an unqualified statement from authority for which you will be able to offer no proof. When you make such remarks, it would helpful, and honest, to preface the remark with a qualifier such as: "I believe . . ."

I agree.

Let me add a twist to this. :wink: There are scenarios in which, from a farsighted view, they would look evil. What if this charity was inefficient in distributing it's money? This may be a result of scandals, disorganization, or such. One may take notice of this and take it upon himself to take the money and distribute in a more efficient fashion.

The motives are all that matter.

Speaking as one of the nominees...

...I gotta say that "Evil is as evil does."

Or something like that.



Fact is -- "evil" as Mhatte pointed out, is a religious concept - having to do with offending some god or another.

I don't even know that there are any gods -- so naturally, I don't know if there is such a thing as evil.

But Mhatte, the people who handle George Bush are goddam close.

Setanta,

I have just as much of a right to say Bush is not evil as Montana can say he is, but we usually give 'the benefit of the doubt.'

Oh, one more thing, I understand your opinions on Bush. I can't stop you from thinking what you want to think, nor do I care enough to indulge in a debate to defend Bush. I just found such a comment to be overly rude. I believe it is better to at least respesct the authorities.

I don't contend that you have any less right to the expression of an opinion than anyone else. However, the statement you made read: "His motives are pure and that is what matters." That is not simply a statement of opinion. Unqualified, it becomes a statement from authority. There is no reason for anyone here to assume that you are authoritative on the subject of the man's motives.

As for what is due to an authority figure in the way of either respect, or "the benefit of the doubt," i'll overcome the sickening feeling of disgust which i experience in the face of such a contention, and quote for you the signature line of one of our other members here:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Theodore Roosevelt

By the way, you have no idea, at least within the context of this thread, what my opinion of Bush is. I haven't stated it.

I meant that statement to be directed towards Montana. Sorry for being unclear. If you read it a bit more carefully you may see who I was directing it towards. I can't blame you though, writing isn't my strong suit.

BTW, I said "I believe it is better to at least respesct the authorities." Calling one evil is in no way criticism. I, as well, make comments about things that Bush has done. I am not against criticism of any figure whatsoever... to some extent. I just believe some form of respect is necessary. Calling one 'evil' is, as we have discussed, depending on one's opinion. Montana insinuated that she believed Bush was evil. Fine. I admit, I shouldn't reprimand her for that. I also admit that my saying "His motives are pure and that is what matters." was my opinion. I should have made that clearer. I notice people are touchy in this forum about assumptions.

Yes, the standards of debate here are harsh.

I object to the notion that someone in a position of authority is automatically deserving of respect. People earn respect--in my opinion--and when someone is, as in this case, elected by fewer than half of those voting in an election, in which the voter turn-out was fewer than half of those registered, and when registered voters are less than those eligible to register and vote, then it is rather absurd to make the contention that such an individual is automatically entitled to respect. Once again, that is my opinion.

I show deference to police officers, for example, because i respect the institution of the law, as necessary to a successful society, and because i quite well understand the abitrarily administered harm which may result if i anger the officer in question. I would only respect the individual behind the badge if i knew him or her, and admired their principles in action, or otherwise admired their behavior.