Does an "evil" person exist?

[Andrew Brunelle]

Evil is made, not born. And when I say evil, what evil really is is all about a contraction of empathy and an expansion of sociopathic behavior. People are made evil by their genetics, their upbringing, their experiences, and their feelings. I wouldn't call it "evil," though, but simply very low vibrational beings. People who simply do not feel what others feel. I don't wish to blame them, but sometimes people do make a conscious choice to become evil. Most of the time it is nature or nurture, however.

[elucidate]

I do agree that people label people as being 'evil' when they step outside their boundaries of what is considered morally wrong, so in that sense we do add to the 'evil'.

It's more the actions that are selfish, which many make synonymous with the word 'evil'. Someone living out their selfish desires at the expense of someone else is called evil. Maybe you have broken it down to it's basic root, but does that mean that it helps the person who's life has been ruined or greatly damaged by someone else following through on their selfish urges? To the molested person, they have been violated and degraded, objectified and forced into something they didn't want.

That's life.

Hitler was doing what he thought was the best and right thing for his people, so in that sense he was being a good leader, it's just his methods and the hatred that fueled his orders, that made his actions 'evil', or inhuman is probably a better word for it.

Originally Posted by 180

OP - The consensus in philosophical circles that such things such as malignant evil (evil for the sake of evil) doesn't exist. All "evil" is carried out on the basis of selfish desires. But then so are all good deeds carried out on the basis of selfish desires. Thus you can say that neither good nor evil exist, it's merely selfish desire and motivation.

Evil is just a label. And what defines evil is whatever people were propagandized to believe. The most common cited example of modern day layman's is Hitler. He's almost synonymous with evil.

However, what did Hitler want to achieve? He wanted the German people to be the best, to be safe, and to stop the post WWII persecution and degradation of his people. Is that so different than wanting the best for the people around you? Not really, do you treat your neighbors and friends better than strangers on the street? Probably, everyone does and if you didn't that would be pretty terrible to treat a homeless bum better than your sister or brother.

On the flip side, how could someone who killed so many Jews NOT be evil? Well, symbolically the WWII Germans believed the Jews were the ones who caused the suffering of the country. Another analogy would be, what would you do if someone threatened your family?

Really, what Hitler did was no more psychologically divergent than an extension of what most of us would do for our family. He just viewed the entire country as his family, and like any animal, he is protective of his own, and labels any threat as "evil".

Any of us are not so different and I think people fail to see to label him as evil is just our own way of propagating "evil". Don't you think it's quite bizarre we label people as "evil" because we want them to be enemies and they threaten some value we hold dear? Child molesters are "evil"? Murders are "evil", etc etc. But each of those people do things on the basis of motivation. Child molesters have dopmaine receptors associating children with reward. Somehow that got rewired with sexual satisfaction (anyone who studies neurology understands how the amygdala primes the reward system and how often people mistake sexual gratification for rewards in general). I'm not excusing them, merely explaining it. Most murders kill because they feel threatened.

Haven't you ever wanted to hurt someone who said something hurtful to you? Don't you see how someone could turn murderer very easily if something was said?

I could go into greater detail but GEN Y has a short attention span and if I go on, it's going to be a "too long, didn't read" thing.

[reekah]

Originally Posted by Rimuel

Gaddafi and Sadam are excellent examples of darkworkers. If you think of it within the darkworking/lightworking paradigm, they are simply people who are good at consuming energy. They direct energy into themselves.

Read this for more insight: Are Darkworkers Evil?

With regards to what the second poster said, I disagree that a person who sacrifices himself for others should be labelled "good." Most people juxtapose between giving and receiving energy. For every job that you manage to get, a number of other applicants would have to fail. All competitions have many losers, with only several winners. In such situations, are you not "sacrificing others for yourself?" Are you a bad person then?

I think what the OP is trying to ask is "Is good and evil inherent in people?" This is a philosophical question, with no easy answer. Try reading philosophical texts on good and evil.

Some of the answers as to what is evil and what is not here seems to point towards moral relativism, i.e. "whether something is evil or not depends on who you are in relation to that subject." I'd like to point out that morality cannot be subjective, because then it wouldn't be able to supply an objective answer to the question "how should we live?" In other words, it would be perfectly fine if we choose to be immoral, if morality is subjective.

Morality is always subjective.

There is no evidence of an objective morality. Secondly, all persons hold unique morals.

[Rimuel]

Subjective morality wouldn't be morality anymore. It would mean that all things we consider "ethical" are arbitrary, that right or wrong is dependent on the state of the subject (e.g. victim of a rape).

Suppose someone tells you that rape is ethical. If you are a moral subjectivist, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) try to say that it is unethical, because whether something is ethical or not is dependent on the person considering it. Yet virtually every rape victim would feel traumatized by the event.

Moral subjectivism also means that whether something is ethical or not, depends on the state of the perpetrator/victim during the event. Under this system, an angry person can justify killing his boss just because he thinks it is ethical to kill someone who made you angry. Imagine what kind of turmoil this can evoke in the world if all laws were based on this philosophy.

Depending on what you mean by "evidence", there could be sufficient evidence for objective morality.

Just because everyone holds unique morals does not make morality subjective. Objectivity is in the first place independent of humans' opinions. Objectivity depends on the object. Whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or not, depends on the position of the Earth and its properties, not on what we believe about the Earth.

[reekah]

Originally Posted by Rimuel

Subjective morality wouldn't be morality anymore. It would mean that all things we consider "ethical" are arbitrary, that right or wrong is dependent on the state of the subject (e.g. victim of a rape).

Suppose someone tells you that rape is ethical. If you are a moral subjectivist, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) try to say that it is unethical, because whether something is ethical or not is dependent on the state of the person considering it. Yet virtually every rape victim would feel traumatized by the event.

Moral subjectivism also means that whether something is ethical or not, depends on the state of the perpetrator/victim. Under this system, an angry person can justify killing his boss just because he thinks it is ethical to kill someone who made you angry. Imagine what kind of turmoil this can evoke in the world if all laws were based on this philosophy.

Depending on what you mean by "evidence", there could be sufficient evidence for objective morality.

Just because everyone holds unique morals does not make morality subjective. Objectivity is in the first place independent of humans.

Again, who determines truly objective morality?

Secondly, morality is always societal. But a society can have any morality it chooses. In the US, tomorrow the many could revert to Jim Crow, bring back slavery, or confiscate the property of all wealthy WASPs. Anything truly is acceptable in the human condition.

[reekah]

Originally Posted by Rimuel

Subjective morality wouldn't be morality anymore. It would mean that all things we consider "ethical" are arbitrary, that right or wrong is dependent on the state of the subject (e.g. victim of a rape).

Suppose someone tells you that rape is ethical. If you are a moral subjectivist, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) try to say that it is unethical, because whether something is ethical or not is dependent on the state of the person considering it. Yet virtually every rape victim would feel traumatized by the event.

Moral subjectivism also means that whether something is ethical or not, depends on the state of the perpetrator/victim. Under this system, an angry person can justify killing his boss just because he thinks it is ethical to kill someone who made you angry. Imagine what kind of turmoil this can evoke in the world if all laws were based on this philosophy.

Depending on what you mean by "evidence", there could be sufficient evidence for objective morality.

Just because everyone holds unique morals does not make morality subjective. Objectivity is in the first place independent of humans.

Of course it does. I think it's right to lie when it serves me. My dad does not. He thinks homosexuality is unethical, I do not since it does not monumentally undermine society. His belief is no superior to mine, and mine is no inherently superior to his. Perchance, what makes any action inherently wrong? that is arrogant, IMO, of any human being to say this.

[Rimuel]

It is even more arrogant to assume that all human beings have authority over what is right or wrong. Consider that this belief is how tyrants were born.

Please do not confuse belief with truth. Beliefs can be irrational, truths must always be rational.

It is undeniable that the government of a country has more power over the laws. But legalizing slavery (for example) still does not make it "right" or "good". It presupposes that some people are superior to others, which is debatable.

"Who determines morality" is an invalid question simply because it presupposes that some human being gets to decide what is right or wrong. Anything a subject decides may be subjective, i.e. it may depend on the mental state of the subject. The correct question is "What determines morality", and the only way to determine objective truth is to determine the nature of the objects in question.

Who can deny that electrons exist? These objects exist independently of what we think, hence their existence is objective.

"What makes certain actions inherently wrong" is the central question in Ethical philosophy. I do not have the required knowledge to answer this question yet. At this moment I am simply saying that morality cannot be subjective if the notion of morality has to be maintained. To say something is moral is to say that something else is immoral, and morality has to be in the object for this relation to be maintained consistently.

What you mean is that virtually everyone creates their own set of principles to deal with the world. That doesn't make the principles right or wrong though. Furthermore, the more subjective the set of principles become (the more changes you make to your principles), the less moral it is. Principles that allow oneself to achieve their goals and motives should not be confused with morals.