How do people become evil? Do even the most evil people have a good side?

[PokÉmblem]

Just a good philosophy question that makes you think. Evil people even have their reasons and in fiction most bad people are bad for a reason.

 

[Murlough]

I don't believe in evil. I believe as we go through life and face challenges again and again our souls become more and more corrupt. Some people become so corrupt and twisted that they are viewed as evil.

To answer the question: I think everyone has some good side in them. It may be completely buried in corruption and pain so no one is likely to ever see it, but it still is there.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Spec Ops: The Line is actually a wonderful musing on this topic.

The reality is evil isn't something inherent in people, evil is something that comes from people becoming progressively more willing to accept immoral actions.

This can come based on one of three basic ways:

1. Having a goal and in pursuit of that goal, justifying worse and worse actions along the way (the way explored in spec ops the lines).

2. Identifying a philosophical enemy and gradually becoming more permissive of extreme actions towards that group (a good example of this that doesn't hit the obvious Godwin's law example is TERFs who from philosophical opposition have reached the point of harassment campaigns and physically attacking and credible death threats on trans individuals due to seeing trans people as a threat to their ideology as sex being socially constructed).

3. Extreme reactions to a strong perceived injustice while in an emotional cloud.


Evil doesn't just happen, it comes out of reaction to predictable stimuli and within predictable social groups.

 

[the.tok]

Indeed, I do agree with what you said : this is more of a slippery slope in which you accept gradually worse actions.
One thing to note is that the first step often is to start denying their humanity to your target. Then it becomes easier to accept doing nasty things to them. The Hutus starting to adress Tutsis as cockroaches for example was the first step towards the genocide.

I must add that evil is a very subjective thing. The very same people/actions can be considered good or evil depending on the point of view.

For example, my roommate is a PETA adherent, she considers that animal testing is evil, whereas I consider it not that bad. We each have different moral barriers.

As well, a lot of people that I would consider evil are intimely convinced of acting for the greater good.

 

[Plunder]

I find that statement odd adumbrodeus, I think it's 100% possible that evil can be innate in some people.

And even in a quantifiable and scientific way. A lot of people have mental illnesses to varying degrees, most are institutionalized because unfortunately it's to the point where they can't function as a proper member of society.

It's fairly easy to look at serial killer and see that something is not right, either with their brain chemistry or with how their brain processes information, morals, and emotions unlike a normal average human (you see the same in autistics, savants, geniuses, etc as well). Now it can be escalated by events in their childhood or the choices they made growing up, but from what I've seen growing up to the age I am now I've seen countless times that some people are just more likely to to commit evil actions. And in a lot of cases it's just in their nature. Two people can go through the same exact situations and life events, one decides to live a righteous path while the other seeks revenge or a life of immorality. That is a product of their neurological make up and how their individual brain decides to process and react to life events and situations.

Perhaps we also have conflicting views on this too, but I also believe it's quite obvious that being gay/transexual can also be innate. If that's true then it also must be true that evil can be innate in some people or that some are more likely to be evil.

 

[kiteinthesky]

Spec Ops: The Line is actually a wonderful musing on this topic.

The reality is evil isn't something inherent in people, evil is something that comes from people becoming progressively more willing to accept immoral actions.

This can come based on one of three basic ways:

1. Having a goal and in pursuit of that goal, justifying worse and worse actions along the way (the way explored in spec ops the lines).

2. Identifying a philosophical enemy and gradually becoming more permissive of extreme actions towards that group (a good example of this that doesn't hit the obvious Godwin's law example is TERFs who from philosophical opposition have reached the point of harassment campaigns and physically attacking and credible death threats on trans individuals due to seeing trans people as a threat to their ideology as sex being socially constructed).

3. Extreme reactions to a strong perceived injustice while in an emotional cloud.


Evil doesn't just happen, it comes out of reaction to predictable stimuli and within predictable social groups.

That presupposes that those actions are evil and that there is even an objective standard for what makes an action evil or not.

Which is actually something I want to ask of the OP: What is evil and what standards are we supposed to use to judge whether something's evil or not? I don't think the question can really be answered without that. Furthermore, what's with the weird dichotomy of good and evil anyhow, as if people fall onto a spectrum where "good" is on one side and "evil" is on another? I think the human experience means more than that.

 

[JayTheUnseen]

I don't believe in evil. I believe as we go through life and face challenges again and again our souls become more and more corrupt. Some people become so corrupt and twisted that they are viewed as evil. I think everyone has some good side in them. It may be completely buried in corruption and pain so no one is likely to ever see it, but it still is there.

I'm going to put this quote in my signature. *tips hat*

 

[sovereigntea]

Evil is a relative term I'm afraid, and our judgment of it is not only subjective but directly dependent upon culture, the passage of time, experience, identity, and so on.

Unfortunately I think there is more grey than black or white. How much "evil" derives from good intentions and chasing the greater good?

Stalin once exiled a group of Lithuanian-Jews to Siberia because he was suspicious and anti-Semetic. Clearly an evil act right? The Jews deported likely hated him. Of course they didn't realize that the Nazis would invade only a few weeks after they were deported. Stalin accidentally saved people from the holocaust. Can an evil act can have good, even heroic consequences?

We're all capable of great good and great evil in our lives. Unfortunately its not always easy to tell where one begins and the other ends, or where consequence and circumstance will cause our choices to end up.

Does evil require intent? Is it accidental?

I like to think I do well. I try not to be cruel at the very least. Of course how much is my standard of living the product of suffering and want in areas outside of my immediate surroundings?

...

Here is a good rule of thumb: don't go past the threshold where you can live with and accept your inner darkness

 

[AfungusAmongus]

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

The most harmful kinds of evil people are the ones who can recruit a following to multiply their power. This recruitment is greatly facilitated by a religion or ideology to encourage groupthink. For example, Communism/nationalism enabled Stalin, and Islam enabled Bin Laden, to commit atrocities claiming thousands (9/11) to millions (Soviet prison camps and executions) of lives. Both of these body counts are far more than all school shootings combined. My point is that empathy may help combat evil on an individual level, but freedom of thought keeps evil in check globally.

 

[Zaixl]

I disagree with most of you. Call me a pessimist, but I believe that deep down in our black little hearts we're all evil. We are concerned only with personal gain and any morals we have are brought on by wanting to seem better than we really are to everyone else. If any one of us had the chance to rob a bank and be garunteed to get away with no ill consequences, we'd all do it in a heartbeat. It's simply human nature to be evil.

 

[Whia]

I disagree with most of you. Call me a pessimist, but I believe that deep down in our black little hearts we're all evil. We are concerned only with personal gain and any morals we have are brought on by wanting to seem better than we really are to everyone else. If any one of us had the chance to rob a bank and be garunteed to get away with no ill consequences, we'd all do it in a heartbeat. It's simply human nature to be evil.

I could make the argument, then, that if there are no consequences, by what standard is it actually evil?

 

[Zaixl]

Ah, let me clarify. No ill consequences for you.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I disagree with most of you. Call me a pessimist, but I believe that deep down in our black little hearts we're all evil. We are concerned only with personal gain and any morals we have are brought on by wanting to seem better than we really are to everyone else. If any one of us had the chance to rob a bank and be garunteed to get away with no ill consequences, we'd all do it in a heartbeat. It's simply human nature to be evil.

It's just as naive/ignorant to assume everyone is evil at their core as it is to assume everyone is capable of virtue regardless of past decisions.

What makes you think it's acceptable to speak for everybody as if we're all nihilistic sociopaths devoid of conscience?

Human nature is synonymous with adaptation. The only trait all humans have in common is that we adapt to our early formative environment.

...

Many supposed pundits fail to consistently apply the axioms* required for intellectual integrity yet still prance around as if their opinion holds equal (or greater) weight under the implosive assumption of relativism. Ignore the garbage coming out of modern universities, they're inclined to take the likes of Descartes and Plato seriously.

*Identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

@ Zaixl got any evidence? People certainly seem to care about things outside of themselves, for example when a soldier throws himself onto a grenade to save his comrades. It seems implausible that he considers survival to be a fate worse than death, especially if he is really as selfish as you suggest. People vote, leave tips, give anonymous donations, and do all sorts of things that make no sense from a purely self-interested perspective.

 

[PrincessDoorknobs]

Not to be that guy who posts a game qoute but I found this qoute from GTA V very interesting and maybe will add to this discussion. "No. No I don't. I'm a man of science. Evil is a construct made by people who wish to indulge childish fantasies, or... by people who wish to judge others."

 

[Albie83]

I don't think evil people think they are evil. In their minds what they are doing will make things better and the general populous is not smart or enlightened enough to see it yet. Of course I'm speaking of political leaders doing evil things like dictators and such. For a general person, they still justify their actions in their mind. As far as I can tell they do not believe they are evil but rather a victim of circumstance or society.

 

[Whia]

Ah, let me clarify. No ill consequences for you.

Fair enough.

But even still, I think you gave a bad example. I don't think people would take too much issue robbing a bank due to, presumably, operating under the assumption that the bank wouldn't feel much loss. They've got almost innumerable dollars in their vaults, will they really miss a million or two? In this case, the consequences (especially when contrasted with the immediate, massive personal benefit) are largely negligible.

 

[カワシさん]

Many people do horrible things because their emotions are out of control, or in the famous cases, they want to help. These people don't view themselves as bad, as they believe they are trying to help. Some are in the right frame of mind, but are doing things in the wrong way. Take Osama for example. Why did he do the things he did? 9/11, beheadings, bombings, all of that? He was taking the side of the Muslims he felt were wronged. He felt the United States was at the root of everything, and he wanted to stand up for them. This isn't so bad, but he used violence, and killed tons of innocent civilians who were not involved in anything the US did that might have been bad in Osama's view. His emotions and grievances led him to be indifferent to the lives of citizens of the Middle East. I think that many of the horrible people in history aren't truly evil, and they do have a reason, good or bad, that motivates them to carry out these horrible acts.

 

[Zaixl]

Well, a lot of this depends on what exactly is considered evil. I've been going by what I see as the most common (albeit usually lesser) evil: selfishness. Humans have been hardwired to be selfish since they were created. It was necessary for survival. However, once we as a species developed more socially and civilly people started being nicer. I personally believe it was initially not just to be nice but rather more to make sure that the other person was nice to them. But now there are many people who are genuinely nice all around us. My point is that underneath it all will still have the base encoding to be selfish, no matter how deep it gets buried.

 

[oZzIIgk]

Not to sound like a total idiot or lame nerd, but the Warcraft universe actually covers the development of evil really well. All of the big bad guys were good people brought to their edge, and who became confused. Illidan Stormrage had his eyes on a girl and his brother "stole" her, and through a lot of bad fortune, he became corrupted by evil magic and became the crazy, evil guy he is in The Burning Crusade. Even then, he's trying to solve problems, and nobody got that. Arthas Menethil became corrupted because he took a sword which he thought would save his people. He was one of the greatest paladins before he took Frostmourne. Everything goes downhill from there, all the way until he merged with the Lich King. Deathwing transformed Azeroth into a place which fostered mortal life until he was driven mad by the Old Gods.

I think that evil has many types of manifestations, and that WoW covers them pretty well: Corruption, misunderstanding, getting pissed off, etc.
EDIT: oops i forgot my point. evil's not always an inherent trait. usually, it's caused by something, even if that something is as simple as a lack of control.

 

[SwordM13X24]

Well, a lot of this depends on what exactly is considered evil. I've been going by what I see as the most common (albeit usually lesser) evil: selfishness. Humans have been hardwired to be selfish since they were created. It was necessary for survival. However, once we as a species developed more socially and civilly people started being nicer. I personally believe it was initially not just to be nice but rather more to make sure that the other person was nice to them. But now there are many people who are genuinely nice all around us. My point is that underneath it all will still have the base encoding to be selfish, no matter how deep it gets buried.

Not JUST humans are program'd to be "selfish", all organisms are program'd that way to begin with. Say a lone wolf eats a rabbit that was a mother/father of several infant rabbits, now was that selfish? Yes. Was it evil? No. Now that was with an animal that's not social. Social animals that don't have to be humans can also find themselves in a situation where they could do evil or good. Though why would they do "good" in the first place? Ya could say it's "selfish" to be "selfless" to get the better result for yarself. But now ya run into a paradox on bein' "selfless" is still "selfish" and plain "selfish" acts are still what they are. This is the Prisoner's Dilemma. It's an interestin' topic on it's own and here's a nice Youtube video about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr6lsTgZKAQ

But all in all, organisms do what they are supposively "program'd" to do, which is to survive.

Now if I were to talk about the concept of "evil" itself, that'd be another topic I will dive into another time.

 

[MonadoEmbassy]

Not JUST humans are program'd to be "selfish", all organisms are program'd that way to begin with. Say a lone wolf eats a rabbit that was a mother/father of several infant rabbits, now was that selfish? Yes. Was it evil? No. Now that was with an animal that's not social. Social animals that don't have to be humans can also find themselves in a situation where they could do evil or good. Though why would they do "good" in the first place? Ya could say it's "selfish" to be "selfless" to get the better result for yarself. But now ya run into a paradox on bein' "selfless" is still "selfish" and plain "selfish" acts are still what they are. This is the Prisoner's Dilemma. It's an interestin' topic on it's own and here's a nice Youtube video about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr6lsTgZKAQ

But all in all, organisms do what they are supposively "program'd" to do, which is to survive.

Now if I were to talk about the concept of "evil" itself, that'd be another topic I will dive into another time.

Wow. I've never looked at it that way. I need to think about it.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

My point is that underneath it all will still have the base encoding to be selfish, no matter how deep it gets buried.

Certainly true to a degree, but we're also hardwired for empathy. Consider how natural it is to love babies, even of other species! Our innate tendencies to be good helped our ancestors get along together. Additionally, helping your family not only improves your odds in life, it also promotes your genes via kin selection.

Though why would they do "good" in the first place? Ya could say it's "selfish" to be "selfless" to get the better result for yarself. But now ya run into a paradox on bein' "selfless" is still "selfish" and plain "selfish" acts are still what they are. This is the Prisoner's Dilemma

In some iterative forms of the prisoner's dilemma the optimal selfish solution is "tit for tat", cooperating at first and then echoing the other player from there on out. I think this strategy of reciprocation, not necessarily selfish or altruistic, is most nearly hardwired into our genes. It helps explain cycles of violence among rival nations or gangs, but also why friendship and love relationships can be self-sustaining once the conditions are right.

 

[Zaixl]

Not quoting cause it takes ages on mobile but:
Sword- I never denied that this was true of all species, in fact I agree with you wholeheartedly. Most beings are naturally what we consider to be evil.
Fungus- You're also right, but not as much as you think you are. We do have some lines of code for empathy, but they are much more limited to specific scenarios than the selfishness coding. This is less true with women as their roles in most society up to about circa 40 years ago was a nurturer and childrearer. (I'm merely being factual, not sexist.) Because of this, they're more inclined to be what we consider good.

 

[pkbutter]

Philosophy makes my head hurt... That aside, however, when I first saw the title of this thread I thought about the quote by Paarthurnax that goes "What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"

I agree with Zaixl that evil exists in all of us. I feel like evilness, or the capability to BE evil, is something all humans inevitably encounter, but we don't all give into. It can come in all forms, varying from temptations and jealousies (and sin, for those that are religious), to bitter emotions that drive us insane and even mental chemical imbalances.

 

[Murlough]

I disagree with most of you. Call me a pessimist, but I believe that deep down in our black little hearts we're all evil. We are concerned only with personal gain and any morals we have are brought on by wanting to seem better than we really are to everyone else. If any one of us had the chance to rob a bank and be garunteed to get away with no ill consequences, we'd all do it in a heartbeat. It's simply human nature to be evil.

I wouldn't. And no I'm not saying that just to make myself seem better. I think there are alot of people who wouldn't.


EDIT: I kept reading and somewhat agree. I wouldn't label that as evil though.

 

[MetalMonk]

Evil can only be defined by the words used to describe its actions.

I carry the personal philosophy that for every event there must be an action, decision if you will.
There are many actions to take but what we choose and why we choose it describes the person, not the action.
The reaction of events describes the action.

Also, I saw something that bugged me and that was comparison of Osama to evil, and his motivation being Islam.
That is simply untrue. If you researched anything about him, Al-Qaeda, or Islam you'd know you're wrong.
Radical Islam CAN be to blame. However, the entity most at fault for Osama is the U.S. Government. Same goes with Radical Islam.

Al -Qaeda was originally founded in 1988-1989 by Osama Bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam and the C.I.A. and a militant group to fight of the Russian Soviet Expansion into Afganistan.(Exactly what's going on in Syria right now FYI)
After giving them weapons and money(to the tune of 8.8 million IIRC) and telling them good luck against Russia; you can even see some recognition for their part on the ending of any unedited Rambo 3 Movie, only being changed after 9/11.
The US and it's support left just in time for the country to become ravaged and broken, leaving thousands of children to grow up hating the US and Russia for tearing apart their country for resources and then leaving.
Wonder what a bunch of pissed of people with weapons and no education do? If you guessed blow things up, you're correct!

And with this lack of education, lack of direction, people looked for answer and only found more pain, despair, and hatred.
Sorry to rant, but, please, don't generalize.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Evil can only be defined by the words used to describe its actions.

I carry the personal philosophy that for every event there must be an action, decision if you will.
There are many actions to take but what we choose and why we choose it describes the person, not the action.
The reaction of events describes the action.

This sorta resembles a coherent philosophy but it makes zero sense to me. Where are you coming from here?

Your story about American responsibility for Islamic terrorism is half true, but wildly inaccurate on the details. The US never funded or trained Bin Laden. They gave some $20 billion via Pakistan to train local Afghans to fight the Soviets, but none of this went directly towards foreign fighters (Bin Laden was Saudi). Although many of the local Afghans were - or became - radical Islamists, Al-Qaida was formed from the foreign fighters funded and trained by Saudis and other radical Muslims. Bin Laden began to hate America when his home country (Saudi Arabia) accepted American help over his own mujadeen during the Gulf War. I've seen no evidence that lack of education has anything to do with 9/11. Many jihadis, including some of the 9/11 hijackers, are/were university-educated. Maybe you should get your facts straight before preaching to me about doing my research.

 

[MetalMonk]

This sorta resembles a coherent philosophy but it makes zero sense to me. Where are you coming from here?

Your story about American responsibility for Islamic terrorism is half true, but wildly inaccurate on the details. The US never funded or trained Bin Laden. They gave some $20 billion via Pakistan to train local Afghans to fight the Soviets, but none of this went directly towards foreign fighters (Bin Laden was Saudi). Although many of the local Afghans were - or became - radical Islamists, Al-Qaida was formed from the foreign fighters funded and trained by Saudis and other radical Muslims. Bin Laden began to hate America when his home country (Saudi Arabia) accepted American help over his own mujadeen during the Gulf War. I've seen no evidence that lack of education has anything to do with 9/11. Many jihadis, including some of the 9/11 hijackers, are/were university-educated. Maybe you should get your facts straight before preaching to me about doing my research.

That's true some them where highly educated. But, what were they taught? How were they raised?
And let's be honest, there are plenty of people with degrees that aren't smart. Knowledge doesn't mean wisdom, morals, or ethics. Those are separate things that widely varying between each person.
Also, I like how the time article only lists psychopathic gunman that were Muslim as terrorists. Real subtle.

Here's two blog links that have some good sources on the subject:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/blowback.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/u-s-contact-bin-laden-911-hijackers-many-times-911.html

Thank you for admitting that it was also his country choosing the US and not Islam. I'm glad you agreed there.

Now to explain myself, think about how you would describe 9/11, Stalin's Reign, Holocaust, Mass Murders, and suicide bombings; atrocious, correct? Disgusting, maybe. Possibly, vile, horrifying, soulless, etc.
Granted, none of them justified outright, but they each have their origin.
Regardless, each person that performed that act, most likely saw it as the right thing to do.
Events that aren't talked about but, are very guilty of this include, The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and The Vietnam War.
Certain events seem right for the time and it's only hindsight that makes them evil.

The only thing I don't have an answer for, in terms of evil, are unwarranted acts of destruction and peoples willingness to violate others.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

That's true some them where highly educated. But, what were they taught? How were they raised?
And let's be honest, there are plenty of people with degrees that aren't smart. Knowledge doesn't mean wisdom, morals, or ethics. Those are separate things that widely varying between each person.

Well obviously Al-Qaeda's morality is faulty, but (1) that's different from "no education", (2) the USA isn't responsible for their morality, and (3) Islam is directly responsible for their morality.

Also, I like how the time article only lists psychopathic gunman that were Muslim as terrorists. Real subtle

(1) It's an article about jihadis, and (2) they specifically address non-Muslim terrorism: "Hoffman, who has studied terrorism of all stripes, say it's not just Islamic extremism that attracts middle-class adherents."

Thank you for admitting that it was also his country choosing the US and not Islam. I'm glad you agreed there.

I don't mean to downplay the role of religion: Islam promotes hatred, rationalizes violence, and is one of the primary causes of 9/11. The Gulf War merely directed that enmity towards the USA instead of Israel or India.

Now to explain myself, think about how you would describe 9/11, Stalin's Reign, Holocaust, Mass Murders, and suicide bombings, [...] The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and The Vietnam War.
Certain events seem right for the time and it's only hindsight that makes them evil.

No, they were evil all along and falsely seemed right to the perpetrators because religion and/or ideology suppressed their natural kindness, encouraged their tribalistic instincts, and stigmatized free thought.

 

[HeroponJohn]

I'm dont know if anyone has said this already but im just gonna say my opinion: I don't think evil exists. As a man once said "Evil is a construct made by people who wish to indulge childish fantasies, or... by people who wish to judge others." yes i know this is from gta 5 but i think it's correct. People may do bad things (one super original example is Hitler) but these people are not "evil" they are delusional or simply lack the society's moral code. Please tell me if you want me to elaborate on some point

 

[MetalMonk]

Well obviously Al-Qaeda's morality is faulty, but (1) that's different from "no education", (2) the USA isn't responsible for their morality, and (3) Islam is directly responsible for their morality.

No, they were evil all along and falsely seemed right to the perpetrators because religion and/or ideology suppressed their natural kindness, encouraged their tribalistic instincts, and stigmatized free thought.

1) You gain moral and ethics by education. By learning from others. 2) Never claimed the US was, in fact, I've repeated how every person still has a choice 3) I must stress again, it's RADICAL Islam if anything to blame. You don't see everyday muslims trying to kill each other or non-believers with nondiscrimination.

It's radicalization of ideas that creates those events of evil.

I don't mean to downplay the role of religion: Islam promotes hatred, rationalizes violence, and is one of the primary causes of 9/11. The Gulf War merely directed that enmity towards the USA instead of Israel or India.

If you want to gladly flaunt Islam in that light, I'll be glad to tell you Christianity promotes Violence as well. As does Judaism. Each has had their share of violence and hatred. Great examples of this exist today.
Christians assaulting, attacking, and protesting abortion clinics/planned parenthood/birth control/homosexual marriage/transgender people etc.

Judaism has spawned Zionism recently that has an attitude similar to western pioneer's in America that practiced Manifest Destiny, or British/French/Spanish colonialism.

It's radicalization of ideas that creates those events of evil.

HeroponJohn I've had thoughts similar. Morals are an understanding between a group of people. A social agreement.

 

[MattyMutt]

Good and evil are entirely relative to what our cultures and societies value. That, and what an individual believes is good or evil, which might not necessarily jive with that. I don't believe that anybody truly behaves in a way that is evil from their point of view. To use an extreme example, I don't think that Adolf Hitler believed that he was an evil man. It is also demonstrably true that he was not some kind of inhuman monster, nor was he significantly mentally ill. For the most part Hitler was just a regular man. He loved his mother and his dogs and his country, he was a Disney fanboy, he did what he thought was best for his people. For every atrocity that he orchestrated I'm sure that there was some kind of rationalization for why it had to be done. It's not like he sat in his office with his fingers tented, snickering like some oldschool super villain.

 

[Whia]

Good and evil are entirely relative to what our cultures and societies value. That, and what an individual believes is good or evil, which might not necessarily jive with that. I don't believe that anybody truly behaves in a way that is evil from their point of view. To use an extreme example, I don't think that Adolf Hitler believed that he was an evil man. It is also demonstrably true that he was not some kind of inhuman monster, nor was he significantly mentally ill. For the most part Hitler was just a regular man. He loved his mother and his dogs and his country, he was a Disney fanboy, he did what he thought was best for his people. For every atrocity that he orchestrated I'm sure that there was some kind of rationalization for why it had to be done. It's not like he sat in his office with his fingers tented, snickering like some oldschool super villain.

I have to ask, in what way is this demonstrably true? His claim to fame is dehumanizing an entire group of people to the point where he felt it was his duty to exterminate them. That's basically the definition of inhuman.

As for the rest of your post, moral relativism (which is what that seemed like) is a terrible position to take. Being able to rationalize your actions doesn't somehow make them morally neutral. One's own point of view is irrelevant (especially when that point of view is incredibly detached from objective reality); the reactions one's actions produce is what matters. Hitler's predisposition was one wherein through him an unfathomable amount of suffering was caused - if that doesn't qualify him as evil to you, then... I don't even know how to end this sentence...

 

[MattyMutt]

I have to ask, in what way is this demonstrably true? His claim to fame is dehumanizing an entire group of people to the point where he felt it was his duty to exterminate them. That's basically the definition of inhuman.

As for the rest of your post, moral relativism (which is what that seemed like) is a terrible position to take. Being able to rationalize your actions doesn't somehow make them morally neutral. One's own point of view is irrelevant (especially when that point of view is incredibly detached from objective reality); the reactions one's actions produce is what matters. Hitler's predisposition was one wherein through him an unfathomable amount of suffering was caused - if that doesn't qualify him as evil to you, then... I don't even know how to end this sentence...

I'm not suggesting that he wasn't evil, I was only trying to say that nobody actually believes that they are an evil person. His actions were not evil to him. I never said that he wasn't objectively evil.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

If you want to gladly flaunt Islam in that light, I'll be glad to tell you Christianity promotes Violence as well. As does Judaism. Each has had their share of violence and hatred. Great examples of this exist today.
Christians assaulting, attacking, and protesting abortion clinics/planned parenthood/birth control/homosexual marriage/transgender people etc.

I agree that Christianity historically shares many of the same ill effects as Islam. Perhaps these religions follow similar stages of liberalization in their evolution and Christianity is just farther along.

I never said that he wasn't objectively evil.

How do you reconcile that with:

Good and evil are entirely relative to what our cultures and societies value.

 

[comics]

There usually if not always a few redeeming qualities or "good things" that "evil" people have left.

Becoming "evil" is a result of your surroundings and what you are exposed to and how you deal with all of it.

My definition of being evil if you intentionally do things to hurt people more than you do to help people. That defines evil.

You might say evil is relative to what we value, MattyMutt , but things that some things are against the law such as murder of innocent people and r*** seem undisputedly bad. But then again, maybe that is only bad if you think it is bad? Is it ok to rip limbs off a fetus? Is it ok to take someones life if they try to take a thing from you by robbing your house (implying possibly that a thing is more important than a person to you)? These are things that don't have a solid answer and are answered differently depending on your perspective.

 

[MattyMutt]

-snip-

I'll admit I contradicted myself, but that's only because I got a little defensive after Whia's reply. I thought about it a little further and I decided that yeah, there is no such thing as objective evil. Good and evil are human concepts, they don't exist in a vacuum, and there is no act that is inherently evil, since even the most vile act can be "good" depending on why you did it. For instance, most people would agree that it's pretty evil to push a child in front of a train. But what if a murderer has a dozen more hostage, and he orders you to do it, or he'll kill all of them and you too? Killing millions of people is bad, but ehat if it's to save an entire planet from being exterminated? For ever conceivable "bad" act there is always a possible "good" consequence that could outweigh it.

 

[comics]

I'll admit I contradicted myself, but that's only because I got a little defensive after Whia's reply. I thought about it a little further and I decided that yeah, there is no such thing as objective evil. Good and evil are human concepts, they don't exist in a vacuum, and there is no act that is inherently evil, since even the most vile act can be "good" depending on why you did it. For instance, most people would agree that it's pretty evil to push a child in front of a train. But what if a murderer has a dozen more hostage, and he orders you to do it, or he'll kill all of them and you too? Killing millions of people is bad, but ehat if it's to save an entire planet from being exterminated? For ever conceivable "bad" act there is always a possible "good" consequence that could outweigh it.

be honest with yourself here. If someone pushes a child in front of a train, it will not always have a good side to it or anything good happen because of it. Could something happen good from it unintentionally? Maybe. It doesn't make it good or make the person a good person for doing it. If it was done in an act of destruction and nothing more that is NOT good.

 

[Whia]

I'll admit I contradicted myself, but that's only because I got a little defensive after Whia's reply. I thought about it a little further and I decided that yeah, there is no such thing as objective evil. Good and evil are human concepts, they don't exist in a vacuum, and there is no act that is inherently evil, since even the most vile act can be "good" depending on why you did it. For instance, most people would agree that it's pretty evil to push a child in front of a train. But what if a murderer has a dozen more hostage, and he orders you to do it, or he'll kill all of them and you too? Killing millions of people is bad, but ehat if it's to save an entire planet from being exterminated? For ever conceivable "bad" act there is always a possible "good" consequence that could outweigh it.

The scenario you just described was objective. Circumstantial and objective aren't mutually exclusive.