Does an "evil" person exist?

[hamix]

Who defines it? why do the media perpetuate labelling persons as evil? This applies to persons such as Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, etc.

it is common knowledge that evil doesn't really exist, perhaps the media need to get with the programme.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by hamix

it is common knowledge that evil doesn't really exist, perhaps the media need to get with the programme.

"Common knowledge" = your own opinion is fact?

Whether you want to call it evil, or negative, or narcissistic, or greedy etc., it's true that there are "evil" people out there.

Here are a few easily understandable examples to help differentiate "good" from "evil":

1. An evil person sacrifices others for his own good; a good person sacrifices himself for the good of others.

2. An evil person attacks the weak; a good person protects the weak.

3. An evil person is greedy and selfish; a good person is generous and charitable.

If you look at Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein, they both fit the evil mold. They both hoarded billions of dollars of oil revenue that came from their countries' resources while the normal citizens suffered in poverty without food or clean water. They both killed their own countrymen for opposing their regimes. They both acted as absolute dictators and disregarded the needs and desires of their citizens. They both put their own desires above the needs of others.

[elucidate]

Yeah, I don't get people who deny that evil exists and that there are no evil people or evil actions.

I think you also said somewhere else that there is no such thing as hypocrisy in humans.

I have to ask...what planet are you from?

We all contain aspects of being human that are both what is considered "Good" and "Evil".

Most people strive to keep things on the good side, though by denying that the evil side exists in them they usually end up acting in evil ways unconsciously without realizing it...it's called projection.(Think Christians who bomb abortion doctors to death...because it's "God's Will".)

[taylor]

I don't think evil as such exists either hamix.

Look at nature. Is a lion evil when it rips apart nearby prey? What about when it kills another lion for dominance of a territory? What about when it has plenty of food and attacks other animals just for kicks? Not evil, just nature. The lion is seeking pleasure, avoiding pain.

Look at what humans do that is so-called evil. Killing other humans for money, dominance of a territory or public policy. Hunting animals for sport, or even serial killing for their enjoyment. It's in their nature to pursue that. Seeking pleasure, avoiding pain.

And yet we call humans evil and lions neutral why? Because we project our personal standards onto other people but we don't project those standards onto lions. So where is this good and evil but in your own mind, projected outwards?

I try to not put my standards on others but instead see them as a part of nature to be accepted as they are. But just as we wouldn't let a lion loose to eat our neighbors and family, neither should we be passive in the face of people who wish to harm others. This has nothing to do with punishment though.

"To understand everything is to forgive everything." - Buddha

[elucidate]

Because Lions don't have consciences...we do, or at least most of us do. Lions kill for food...not for fun.

It may be in the serial killers nature to do what they do for pleasure, but their actions are purely selfish, and that is what is evil. They do not consider the harm it brings upon the family of the person they killed. Their pleasure is all that matters to them in their little universe. Meanwhile the murder victims family are left to pick up the pieces, and make sense of something that makes no sense.

Animals kill and it isn't cruel or personal...they kill to eat. We kill to eat animals, but some also kill just for the fun of it. No animal does that. Killer whales play with their prey before they kill them, but they still kill and eat them.

Originally Posted by taylor

I don't think evil as such exists either hamix.

Look at nature. Is a lion evil when it rips apart nearby prey? What about when it kills another lion for dominance of a territory? What about when it has plenty of food and attacks other animals just for kicks? Not evil, just nature. The lion is seeking pleasure, avoiding pain.

Look at what humans do that is so-called evil. Killing other humans for money, dominance of a territory or public policy. Hunting animals for sport, or even serial killing for their enjoyment. It's in their nature to pursue that. Seeking pleasure, avoiding pain.

And yet we call humans evil and lions neutral why? Because we project our personal standards onto other people but we don't project those standards onto lions. So where is this good and evil but in your own mind, projected outwards?

I try to not put my standards on others but instead see them as a part of nature to be accepted as they are. But just as we wouldn't let a lion loose to eat our neighbors and family, neither should we be passive in the face of people who wish to harm others. This has nothing to do with punishment though.

"To understand everything is to forgive everything." - Buddha

[illbreaker]

I suppose Hitler was not evil? What about child molestors?

[taylor]

I don't get it.

Originally Posted by elucidate

Because Lions don't have consciences...we do, or at least most of us do. Lions kill for food...not for fun.

It may be in the serial killers nature to do what they do for pleasure, but their actions are purely selfish, and that is what is evil. They do not consider the harm it brings upon the family of the person they killed. Their pleasure is all that matters to them in their little universe. Meanwhile the murder victims family are left to pick up the pieces, and make sense of something that makes no sense.

Right. The serial killer just doesn't care. Their conscience isn't there if it ever was. A lot of humans don't have that empathetic part of their psyche and for many more it gets deadened early on. What about someone like Jeffrey Dahmer who claims to have felt intense remorse for what he did even as he was doing it. Is Dahmer evil but a true sociopath serial killer without a conscience is innocent? Most people think the sociopath is "pure evil", but if violating conscience is what defines evil then this really doesn't make sense.

What about things that people disagree about morally? Is killing ok? What about in war? Can we lie? What if it's a white lie? Is polygamy ok? What about romantic relationships with the very young? What about homosexuality? What about orgys? What about rock and roll? Genital mutilation? You get the idea.

In one society something is evil and in another that same thing is good. This looks an awful lot like people projecting an artificial standard onto nature. Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Originally Posted by elucidate

Animals kill and it isn't cruel or personal...they kill to eat. We kill to eat animals, but some also kill just for the fun of it. No animal does that. Killer whales play with their prey before they kill them, but they still kill and eat them.

Plenty of animals kill purely for entertainment when conditions are conducive. My cat for example.

[EmanQ]

Originally Posted by hamix

Who defines it? why do the media perpetuate labelling persons as evil? This applies to persons such as Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, etc.

it is common knowledge that evil doesn't really exist, perhaps the media need to get with the programme.

Evil people exist yes.

Everything in this world that exists, has an opposite of it.

[DarkTears]

Evil people are created, not born........

[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.

[JoeDRL]

I personally think there is no evil people in the sense that no people has always been and will always be evil.

If someone does something "bad", even if it lasts for years, but then after that changes and becomes "good", is he still a bad person?

You are not a "personality" that your mind thinks you are. You are your actions, in this very moment. People change every seconds, so how can we label something as definite?

Anyway, it's very true that people do really bad things, and that's sad.

[Apresto]

evil live
I just turned the word backwards and see what turned out - does that answer the question..

[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.