PokÉmblem
Smash Apprentice
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.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
That presupposes that those actions are evil and that there is even an objective standard for what makes an action evil or not.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.
I'm going to put this quote in my signature. *tips hat*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 could make the argument, then, that if there are no consequences, by what standard is it actually evil?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.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.
Fair enough.Ah, let me clarify. No ill consequences for you.
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.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.
Wow. I've never looked at it that way. I need to think about it.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.
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.My point is that underneath it all will still have the base encoding to be selfish, no matter how deep it gets buried.
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.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
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.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.
This sorta resembles a coherent philosophy but it makes zero sense to me. Where are you coming from here?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.
That's true some them where highly educated. But, what were they taught? How were they raised?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.
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.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.
(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."Also, I like how the time article only lists psychopathic gunman that were Muslim as terrorists. Real subtle
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.Thank you for admitting that it was also his country choosing the US and not Islam. I'm glad you agreed there.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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'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.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 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.MetalBonk said: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.
How do you reconcile that with:MuddyButt said:I never said that he wasn't objectively evil.
Good and evil are entirely relative to what our cultures and societies value.
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.-snip-
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.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.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.