Do you believe in radical evil?

brickmauser

I believe that broadly there are two types of radical evil.

1. Acts committed by people who take a perverse pleasure in the destruction and hurt they cause and commit these acts knowingly.

2. Acts committed by people who gave no thought to the destruction and hurt they cause and commit theses acts even after they know what the consequences of their actions are and are unmoved by any pity or concern for their victims.

In both cases these people when confronted by their victims or opponents refuse to take responsibility for their acts, deny they committed the acts or claim that their acts weren't wrong or were just and show no remorse or capacity for remorse.

Amon Goethe, the real life commandant of the concentration camp in the movie Schindler's List would be in the first category - a man who reveled in his absolute power over life and death and who killed on a whim like the way a child would burn ants with a magnifying glass. Goethe delighted in riding a white horse around his camp and having Jews bow to him like as if he was a Pharaoh.

The second type would be exemplified by the boringly efficient SS officer Adolf Eichmann who was given the task of overseeing the Holocaust and got on with the job with the same efficiency any civil servant would to overseeing road construction, taxation, the running of schools etc. When he was on trial in Israel in the 1960s he was a bland man with a balding head and heavy framed spectacles rather than the dashing stereotype of the Aryan Nazi in WW2 B-movies.

Now someone doesn't have to be a Nazi or a Communist or an Islamic extremist to fit either category.

We have met these types of people every day of our lives.
Given the right conditions and circumstances they would become monsters like Goethe or Eichmann if society gave them a license and active encouragement.

They live around us appearing to be normal human beings hiding behind a mask because in our civilized society where they must behave with restraint they must pretend to normal.

It is frightening that many people refuse to believe in radical evil.

They believe that human beings are born good and are corrupted by the world.

Any examination of history would tell you this is not true.

Your thoughts?

Omackeral

Radical?! I say radical! That's my thing that I say! I feel like I'm gonna explode here!

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Your thoughts?

You created 2 categories and defined what fulfils them.

The use of the term 'evil' is meaningless and confusing. Evil is just a term which describes things and behaviours we don't like. Terrorists are evil. Psychopaths are evil. Cancer is evil. It's meaningless.

Why not just describe behaviours in meaningful terms? Intentional harm vs reckless harm?

The_Valeyard

Interesting OP,

You basing this off the Emmanuel Kant philosophy?

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You created 2 categories and defined what fulfils them.

The use of the term 'evil' is meaningless and confusing. Evil is just a term which describes things and behaviours we don't like. Terrorists are evil. Psychopaths are evil. Cancer is evil. It's meaningless.

Why not just describe behaviours in meaningful terms? Intentional harm vs reckless harm?

How can you say it's meaningless?

Pain and suffering caused intentionally to other human beings is obviously not meaningless.

The person is sentient. He or she is no imagining it. They can't decide they will not feel pain and suffering. They can't shut it off. It is real and objective and undeniable.

If you agree it is objectively real therefore the person who causes it because they take pleasure from it or if they are indifferent is objectively evil.

You can be subjective about a lot of things but you cannot deny the reality of pain and suffering and that it is bad and it is caused.
If it is intentionally caused by one human being to other human beings then that is surely evil?

brickmauser

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Interesting OP,

You basing this off the Emmanuel Kant philosophy?

Perhaps. If you like you could explain what Kant has to say.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Intentional harm vs reckless harm?

That's pretty much it, harm caused by intent, caused by recklessness and caused by negligence. I presume radical evil is simply a variant on the first category.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Radical Evil was espoused and coined by Kant in 1793. Long debunked, but it's a long winded boring discussion.

brickmauser

Thea Attractive Spy wrote: »

Radical Evil was espoused and coined by Kant in 1793. Long debunked, but it's a long winded boring discussion.

It doesn't sound boring. Briefly describe how Kant's idea was debunked for those of us unfamiliar with Kant and the discussion.

brickmauser

Deleted User wrote: »

That's pretty much it, harm caused by intent, caused by recklessness and caused by negligence. I presume radical evil is simply a variant on the first category.

My belief is that two types of people commit evil with intent. Those who take pleasure from it in the case of an Amon Goethe or those who do so with indifference in the case of Eichmann.

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

How can you say it's meaningless?

The term 'evil' meaningless. It has so many meanings as to be meaningless because you have to explain what you mean by 'evil'.

brickmauser wrote:

You can be subjective about a lot of things but you cannot deny the reality of pain and suffering and that it is bad and it is caused. If it is intentionally caused by one human being to other human beings then that is surely evil?

Those things are real. 'evil' isn't.

You describe what you're talking about in the quote above without the word evil, so the word is only a distraction from what you're talking about.

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The term 'evil' meaningless. It has so many meanings as to be meaningless because you have to explain what you mean by 'evil'.


Those things are real. 'evil' isn't.

You describe what you're talking about in the quote above without the word evil, so the word is only a distraction from what you're talking about.

A person is evil if how they think and act is profoundly immoral and wicked.
They know right from wrong but intentionally commit actions which are wrong.
By definition that is what is evil.

Stealthfins

These people can be quite charming and witty,they run with the hare and hounds....

Cross them or disagree with them and they'll show their true colors.

I can read the majority of them because I am related to one.

They talk a lot in code words and business etiquette.
They'll come across all intelligent and sharp.

Also one day they'll be all nice then pull out the carpet from underneath you.

They hate having to do any manual work.
And they can't stand cold damp weather

Bit like the guy in Quadrophenia, he loved religion and his favorite part of the Bible was when they were persecuting and torturing Jesus.
As kids they would torture insects and amphibians.

These evil psychopaths are quite common.
They'll actually play the emphatic card too sometimes,tell you an aul yarn about some old lady they helped the other day.
They can be very pass remarkable too.

Pretending to like animals,then when nobody's looking grab a few lamb's by the legs and throw them over a hedge into the next field rather than open the gate and leave them in a more humane way.

I found a way to stand my ground with them and basically shut them up quite easily.

Grayson

Evil is a very abstract term. It's got more religious than ethical connotations.

Samaris

I'm always dubious of the word "evil" when applied to people. It's such an absolute term. It also has some connotations of abrogating responsibility.

"I am not evil. The Nazis were evil. Therefore, that couldn't happen again because me and people like me aren't evil". Very simplified, obviously, but I've seen variations on that argument multiple times.

It also suggests that some people are just..well, evil. Maybe it only takes circumstance to bring it out, but they are inherently evil, which is an idea I'm not so sure about.

Then again, reading about some of the more infamous and nasty killers out there, sometimes you do have to wonder...

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

I'm always dubious of the word "evil" when applied to people. It's such an absolute term. It also has some connotations of abrogating responsibility.

"I am not evil. The Nazis were evil. Therefore, that couldn't happen again because me and people like me aren't evil". Very simplified, obviously, but I've seen variations on that argument multiple times.

It also suggests that some people are just..well, evil. Maybe it only takes circumstance to bring it out, but they are inherently evil, which is an idea I'm not so sure about.

Then again, reading about some of the more infamous and nasty killers out there, sometimes you do have to wonder...

I urge you to reading the horrendous stories - real news stories - on the Dreamin' Demon website.

Here are two examples:

GAINESVILLE, FL – Police have arrested 22-year-old Yva Monord after she was accused of throwing boiling water on her boyfriend and their 2-month-old son as they were lying in bed.

According to police, Monord admitted she was pissed at her sleeping boyfriend over some “infidelity issues” and decided to give him an “abrupt awakening.”

After boiling some water in a pot normally used to sterilize their son’s bottles, she tossed the water on 23-year-old Winsky Perpignan as he was in bed under the covers. He ended up suffering significant burns to his right arm, upper torso, stomach, back and face.

What Monord did not realize, for some reason, was that her boyfriend was not alone in the bed. Their son was sleeping beside him and was also doused with the boiling water. The baby ended suffering second-degree burns to his chest and left arm that could require skin grafting.

After initially denying purposefully pouring the water on her boyfriend, she finally admitted the truth.

“In the beginning of the investigation, she said it was an accident, but we found some inconsistencies in the story there and started digging a little deeper, and that’s when we were able to determine it was an intentional act and that she had done it on purpose,” Gainesville Police Department spokesman Officer Ben Tobias said.…

MORELIA, MEXICO – The man captured on camera drowning his 3-year-old stepdaughter by repeatedly throwing her into a hotel swimming pool has been jailed for 100 years.

For those of you who missed the original story last year, Jose David N. was staying with a woman and her daughter at a popular hotel last August when he took the girl to the pool after her mother fell asleep.

As you can see for yourself in the video below, Jose repeatedly throws the girl in the pool even though he knows she cannot swim. Sometimes he just drops her in the water, while other times he haphazardly slings her out into the middle of the pool.

Each time he does this, he nonchalantly walks around the edge of the pool or swims around her as she frantically tries to keep her head above water. With each toss, her attempts at swimming become weaker and weaker.

The video also shows Jose holding the girl under water for significant periods of time while other people in the pool nearby do nothing. …

http://www.dreamindemon.com/

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

A person is evil if how they think and act is profoundly immoral and wicked. They know right from wrong but intentionally commit actions which are wrong. By definition that is what is evil.

Yeah I just think it's a word that has a different meaning to everybody because it doesn't have any actual meaning. The religious aspect means that arbitrary things are evil to some people. In other words, evil is meaningless.

It's also not prescriptive. If someone is a psychopath in a clinical sense them you can understand and PREDICT their behaviours. Evil is a term that you can point to after the fact and say 'that's 'evil'. Which of course is completely useless.

Why are you so intent to shoehorn the term 'evil' into your definition? What's do significant to you about the word evil?

Fleawuss

Thinly veiled bring back the devil thread. The veils are getting thinner by the day. Veils. Nuns. Habits. Ah Jesus. I'm at it now.

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I just think it's a word that has a different meaning to everybody because it doesn't have any actual meaning. The religious aspect means that arbitrary things are evil to some people. In other words, evil is meaningless.

It's also not prescriptive. If someone is a psychopath in a clinical sense them you can understand and PREDICT their behaviours. Evil is a term that you can point to after the fact and say 'that's 'evil'. Which of course is completely useless.

Why are you so intent to shoehorn the term 'evil' into your definition? What's do significant to you about the word evil?

Evil has a very clear definition and what is considered evil is not arbitrary and evil is self evidently not meaningless.

Evil is completely independent of religious belief or theological discussion.

Evil can be committed by anybody not just psychopaths who are not necessarily evil at all. Many people are psychopaths and never get in trouble with the law or commit evil acts.

Those psychopaths who do commit evil acts are morally responsible for their actions the same as the rest of humanity.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

brickmauser wrote: »

Evil has a very clear definition and what is considered evil is not arbitrary and evil is self evidently not meaningless.

Evil is completely independent of religious belief or theological discussion.

Evil can be committed by anybody not just psychopaths who are not necessarily evil at all. Many people are psychopaths and never get in trouble with the law or commit evil acts.

Those psychopaths who do commit evil acts are morally responsible for their actions the same as the rest of humanity.

So you keep saying but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

tomwaterford

brickmauser wrote: »

I urge you to reading the horrendous stories - real news stories - on the Dreamin' Demon website.

Here are two examples:





http://www.dreamindemon.com/

That second story is fcuked up beyond belief.....I can't swim and couldn't imagine someone doing that to a child

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Evil has a very clear definition and what is considered evil is not arbitrary and evil is self evidently not meaningless.

Is it? What's the definition then?

brickmauser wrote:

Evil is completely independent of religious belief or theological discussion.

I don't think so. Maybe you definition will preclude a religious angle.

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into your definitions?

Grayson

brickmauser wrote: »

Evil has a very clear definition and what is considered evil is not arbitrary and evil is self evidently not meaningless.

Evil is completely independent of religious belief or theological discussion.

Evil can be committed by anybody not just psychopaths who are not necessarily evil at all. Many people are psychopaths and never get in trouble with the law or commit evil acts.

Those psychopaths who do commit evil acts are morally responsible for their actions the same as the rest of humanity.

Evil doesn't have a definition outside of religion. You're talking about something that is morally repugnant. Stuff like serial child abusers or killers. However defining something by saying it is both immoral and repugnant brings in many quandaries. There are many people that would include homosexuality as evil. Evil is nothing more than an adjective people use to apply to actions they feel are horrendous.

Problems also arise in how people deal with "evil". People who think someone is evil tend to think that person has something wrong with them on some kind of spiritual level. It's easy to start thinking they have an evil soul. The fact is that they're not a monster or evil. They're a person that has something wrong with them. We need to study how and why they became that way rather than think they just are that way.

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Evil can be committed by anybody not just psychopaths who are not necessarily evil at all. Many people are psychopaths and never get in trouble with the law or commit evil acts.

You seem to have ignored everything from that paragraph except the word psychopath. Useful labels such as 'psychopath' have prescriptive and descriptive value. 'evil' is useless in that it is simply descriptive. Maybe your definition of 'evil' will shed light on the matter.

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is it? What's the definition then?

I gave you a definition.

I don't think so. Maybe you definition will preclude a religious angle.

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into your definitions?

Evil is defined as what is profoundly immoral and wicked.

I already described two kinds of individuals who could be classed as radically evil:

1. Those who take pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering.

or

2. Those are indifferent to the pain and suffering they cause.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

brickmauser wrote: »

I gave you a definition.



Evil is defined as what is profoundly immoral and wicked.

I already described two kinds of individuals who could be classed as radically evil:

1. Those who take pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering.

or

2. Those are indifferent to the pain and suffering they cause.

Never mind the repeated two examples. Give the definition and to do so you need to define immoral and wicked while you're at it. At the rate of defining you have used so far we'll soon have it being something naughty.

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is it? What's the definition then?

I gave you a definition.

I don't think so. Maybe you definition will preclude a religious angle.

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into your definitions?

Evil is defined as what is profoundly immoral and wicked.

I already described two kinds of individuals who could be classed as radically evil:

1. Those who take pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering.

or

2. Those are indifferent to the pain and suffering they cause.

Profoundly morally repugnant and wicked are subjective. Religious angles can make almost anything 'evil'. It doesn't even mention "pain and suffering" which your second scenario is about. In other words those definitions dont necessarily overlap.

Homosexuality can be genuinely "wicked and regnant" to someone but they don't cause pain and suffering to anyone. So something is both evil and not evil. "evil" is meaningless.

Back to the drawing board for the definitions then.

I keep asking any you keep not answering...

Is "Evil" in any way prescriptive?
and
Why are you so intent on shoehorning the term 'evil' into your definition?

brickmauser

Grayson wrote: »

Evil doesn't have a definition outside of religion.

Evil is word and a concept used by non religious people.

You're talking about something that is morally repugnant

That same thing as evil

Stuff like serial child abusers or killers

So you believe in radical evil. You are in agreement with me.

However defining something by saying it is both immoral and repugnant brings in many quandaries.

I don't agree.

There are many people that would include homosexuality as evil.

Homosexuality harms nobody. Therefore it is false to class it as evil. Psychological studies have uncovered compelling evidence that hatred for homosexuality can be attributed to repressed sexual desire. So I would call people who call homosexuality evil to be in fact perpetrators of evil themselves.

Evil is nothing more than an adjective people use to apply to actions they feel are horrendous.

That's what I have been saying. So again once you agree with me on the definition of evil.

Problems also arise in how people deal with "evil". People who think someone is evil tend to think that person has something wrong with them on some kind of spiritual level.

We don't need to believe in supernatural hocus pocus to recognize what is evil and evil in people.

It's easy to start thinking they have an evil soul.

We now know people's personalities are created by their environment, social conditioning and inherited psychological traits. Criminal psychopaths show different brain patterns than normal law abiding people.

The fact is that they're not a monster or evil. They're a person that has something wrong with them. We need to study how and why they became that way rather than think they just are that way.

People who commit evil acts are morally responsible for their actions. Psychopathic criminals are not insane. If they know right from wrong and do wrong they are evil and are punished accordingly.

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Evil is word and a concept used by non religious people.

So what? It's used by religious people to describe behaviour the religious doctrine sees as morally repugnant and wicked. In some religions, homosexuality is squarely evil. It is also not harmful which makes homosexuality both evil and not evil. I.e. 'evil' is a useless term.

brickmauser wrote:

Homosexuality harms nobody. Therefore it is false to class it as evil. Psychological studies have uncovered compelling evidence that hatred for homosexuality can be attributed to repressed sexual desire. So I would call people who call homosexuality evil to be in fact perpetrators of evil themselves.

You're confusing yourself with too many terms here. Homosexuality meets your criteria for 'evil' in some religions world views.

brickmauser

Thea Attractive Spy wrote: »

Never mind the repeated two examples. Give the definition and to do so you need to define immoral and wicked while you're at it. At the rate of defining you have used so far we'll soon have it being something naughty.

You are playing with words now.

What is naughty, wicked, immoral, bad etc etc is evil. They are all descriptions of the same thing.

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So what? It's used by religious people to describe behaviour the religious doctrine sees as morally repugnant and wicked. In some religions, homosexuality is squarely evil. It is also not harmful which makes homosexuality both evil and not evil. I.e. 'evil' is a useless term.

Nonsense.
Evil is what is harmful to others.
Clearly homosexuality is not evil.
It is not harmful to others or to society.
Just because it is called evil by ignorant backward religions does not mean it is evil and does not make the idea of evil itself useless.
Some religions think it is good to kill people for not observing religious laws.
That doesn't make the concept of good useless either.
Good and evil are therefore not religious ideas exclusively.

You're confusing yourself with too many terms here. Homosexuality meets your criteria for 'evil' in some religions world views.

I am not confusing myself. You are confused not me.
You seem to think there are equally valid world views on what is evil and what isn't.
There is only one valid view.
Evil is what is harmful to others.
That is true in all times and all places.
Slavery, murder, rape, massacres, theft, lying etc were, are and always will be objectively evil regardless what is the prevailing cultural, religious or political opinion.

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Nonsense. Evil is what is harmful to others. Clearly homosexuality is not evil. It is not harmful to others or to society. Just because it is called evil by ignorant backward religions does not mean it is evil and does not make the idea of evil itself useless. Some religions think it is good to kill people for not observing religious laws. That doesn't make the concept of good useless either. Good and evil are therefore not religious ideas exclusively.

You're missing the point. Homosexuality is repugnant and wicked to some religions. We both agree that homosexuality is not harmful. Repugnant and wicked are not necessarily harmful. Your definition doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

brickmauser wrote:

I am not confusing myself. You are confused not me. You seem to think there are equally valid world views on what is evil and what isn't. There is only one valid view. Evil is what is harmful to others. That is true in all times and all places. Slavery, murder, rape, massacres, theft, lying etc were, are and always will be objectively evil regardless what is the prevailing cultural, religious or political opinion.

Your definition is not good enough. It's not your fault. Evil is just a meaningless term and you're doing your best to give it meaning.

I keep asking and you keep not answering

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into your definitions?
And
Does evil have any prescriptive power?

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Evil is defined as what is profoundly immoral and wicked.

brickmauser wrote:

Nonsense. Evil is what is harmful to others.

Those definitions are distinct. Think about it for a second. Immoral and wicked doesn't necessarily mean harmful.
'evils is meaningless as you have just demonstrated

learn_more

I don't believe in evil as if evil in itself is some non-physical entity that exists to influence people to do evil things.

I do think that in some cases that there is a psychological explanations for persons that do incredibly evil things.

Having said that, I do believe there are people who do incredibly evil things that not suffering from any psychological condition.
Those types of people do things to flatter their own sense of worth and power. Those are the most dangerous kinds of people.

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're missing the point. Homosexuality is repugnant and wicked to some religions.

So what it is?

We both agree that homosexuality is not harmful.

Yes we do.

Repugnant and wicked are not necessarily harmful.

What is repugnant and what is wicked are two entirely different things.
Repugnance is relative but wickedness is not. Wickedness is what is harmful and immoral.

Your definition doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.

Your definition does not stand up to scrutiny. Mine does as I have just shown you.

Your definition is not good enough. It's not your fault. Evil is just a meaningless term and you're doing your best to give it meaning.

I keep asking and you keep not answering

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into your definitions?
And
Does evil have any prescriptive power?

What you are essentially doing is similar to me handing you a red tomato and a green apple and an orange and you refusing to call them red, green or orange but instead insisting that color meaningless. Now imagine you were at traffic junction on your way home and you decided that color was meaningless? How absurd would that be?
Denying the reality of evil which is the same as wickedness and harm and immorality is equally as absurd.
You are playing with words.
Nobody in real life is a moral relativist or a skeptic.

Samaris

Pity more people aren't moral relativists, since life is pretty morally relative.

It is evil to harm others. Evil is what is causes harm, right? I'll throw in "intentional harm" just to be fairer.

Is it evil to cut open a person to heal them? What if they die? Some people believe that it -is- evil, as it goes against the laws of nature and God and won't accept medical intervention. What about euthanasia? Suicide? Abortion? At what stage? Whose morals judge whether something is objectively evil?

How can anything based on a judgement (morality) ever equal a set of absolutes that can apply to every person and every time?

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

So what it is?

So it's evil by your definition... you understand that right?

brickmauser wrote:

Yes we do.

So it's not evil in your opinion but it can be evil by your definition. Your opinion differs from your definition. Seriously. You've done all the work to undo your own argument.

brickmauser wrote:

Your definition does not stand up to scrutiny. Mine does as I have just shown you.

I haven't given a definition as far as I know. Can you quote what definition I gave and how you scrutinised it?

I'm not sure you've kept up with the discussion.

Why are you so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into the definition? Do you know why?

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Denying the reality of evil which is the same as wickedness and harm and immorality is equally as absurd. You are playing with words. Nobody in real life is a moral relativist or a skeptic.

You're giving different definitions of evil again.

Now the definition has changed to ' wickedness and harm and immorality '

Just to be clear, what's the definition of evil now?

Stealthfins

There's also Evil people who know what a person is trying to say but they're sick in the head because they get a kick out of winding people up.

El_Duderino 09

brickmauser wrote:

Evil is defined as what is profoundly immoral and wicked.

I misspoke. I said repugnant and wicked when I meant to say immoral and wicked. It makes no difference. Homosexuality is immoral and wicked in some religions so it is evil by your definition. But we both agree it isn't harmful. So it's both evil and not evil because evil is a meaningless term.

Samaris

Or at the very least, a subjective one. Which is the issue. You can't really apply a term that implies such an absolute position to something subjective.

Religions have subjectively decided that it is wrong, it is immoral. You have subjectively decided that it is fine and moral. One of you is wrong, if it is objectively one or the other.

Edit: (I know, I edit a lot, it's quite easy to catch me between edits :P) Same-sex marriage isn't the best example for me personally as I can't logically see an issue with it. Abortion, suicide, euthanasia are all condemned as evil by some and can be logically argued as negative by both sides. And if you're going with absolutes, you kinda need a logical conclusion to it, an absolute doesn't really lend itself to feelings.

El_Duderino 09

Genuinely curious about why the OP is so intent on shoehorning 'evil' into the definition.

OP has asked for opinions and gotten lots of opinions. Are you content with your definition OP?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

Is it evil to cut open a person to heal them? What if they die? Some people believe that it -is- evil, as it goes against the laws of nature and God and won't accept medical intervention.

Jehovah's Witnesses who try to prevent their children from receiving life saving blood transfusions are clearly wicked, immoral and therefore evil.
A doctor who is careless following hygiene guidelines and best medical practice when performing operations is being wicked, immoral and evil and there is punished accordingly - stripped of his fitness to practice at the very least.

What about euthanasia? If people are put to death against their will that is murder. If they choose to be put to death by a doctor then how could that possibly be objectively evil?
Suicide? They are killing themselves and nobody else so how can suicide be evil?
Abortion? Clearly a human life is being ended by abortion - only an idiot or a liar would say otherwise - but the bodily integrity of the woman overrides all other considerations in the same way you would be under no moral obligation to be hooked up to another person to let them use your kidneys to keep them alive. It is therefore not evil to have an abortion. At what stage is an abortion wrong? At the stage where the foetus is viable independent of the mother's womb which is why most jurisdictions prohibit late term abortions.
Whose morals judge whether something is objectively evil? The reality is no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.
That does not mean objective evil does not exist.

How can anything based on a judgement (morality) ever equal a set of absolutes that can apply to every person and every time?

Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort.

Regardless of whether Roman thought slavery was ok or Germans in 1942 thought it was good idea to gas Jews or whether regions of Africa and the Middle East think female genital mutilation is ok etc slavery, mass murder or genital mutilation are objectively evil. They always were evil, are evil and always will be evil. They are harmful to other people. The Romans and the Germans in the past and the people of Africa and the Middle East who commit this evil didn't consider or care about the harm their acts caused. So that is objectively evil.

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

J
Whose morals judge whether something is objectively evil? The reality is no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.
That does not mean objective evil does not exist.

Don't you realise though that that is -exactly what you are doing-? You are giving your own judgements as to whether certain things are objectively evil, while -also- saying that the reality is that no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.

You just can't have that both ways. Why is your specific interpretation of sanctity of life of the foetus and the bodily integrity of the mother the -objectively- good one?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

Don't you realise though that that is -exactly what you are doing-? You are giving your own judgements as to whether certain things are objectively evil, while -also- saying that the reality is that no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.

You just can't have that both ways. Why is your specific interpretation of sanctity of life of the foetus and the bodily integrity of the mother the -objectively- good one?

It's based on the objective harm and evil inflicted upon individuals.
Are you trying to tell me that the pain and suffering inflicted on victims of violence is subjective?
Are trying to tell me that if a drunk driver causes a fatal.accident that it is merely subjective whether he is deserving of punishment or indeed if he committed a crime at all?
Is it simply only a matter of subjective opinion whether Hitler or Stalin or Mao were guilty of monstrous evil?
Is there no moral difference between a soldier killing another soldier in armed combat or a policeman shooting an armed criminal and criminal gunning down a business owner because he won't pay protection money?
Clearly there are objective evils.
If a kid was torturing a puppy the puppy is suffering and in pain. The kid is enjoying the pain or is indifferent to it. The kid is evil.
Evil exists.

Mellor

brickmauser wrote: »

I believe that broadly there are two types of radical evil.

1. Acts committed by people who take a perverse pleasure in the destruction and hurt they cause and commit these acts knowingly.

2. Acts committed by people who gave no thought to the destruction and hurt they cause and commit theses acts even after they know what the consequences of their actions are and are unmoved by any pity or concern for their victims.

The first is an example of Sadistic personality disorder.
The second is an example of what's common called a psychopath or sociopath.

Those are a lot more precise definitions than evil, which is rather subjective.
Also, I'm not sure why you describe it as "radical" evil. In what way is it radical, as opposed to just evil?

Samaris

brickmauser wrote: »

Clearly there are objective evils.
If a kid was torturing a puppy the puppy is suffering and in pain. The kid is enjoying the pain or is indifferent to it. The kid is evil.
Evil exists.

Is the kid still evil if he takes a swing at the puppy and misses? No harm done, thus it's not evil. But the kid intended to, so evil ends up down to chance of its effects? Not to mention that depending on the age of the child, s/he may not be mentally capable of processing that their acts are causing pain or fully understand what that means.

The point isn't so much arguing with your judgments of what is and isn't evil on their own merits though, just that you are still giving -subjective opinions- as objective absolute.

brickmauser

Mellor wrote: »

The first is an example of Sadistic personality disorder.
The second is an example of what's common called a psychopath or sociopath.

Those are a lot more precise definitions than evil, which is rather subjective.
Also, I'm not sure why you describe it as "radical" evil. In what way is it radical, as opposed to just evil?

We all commit evil but this is evil that is all consuming to the extent that you not really dealing with anything like a human any more. They are so far gone. They can only be described as a monster.
In the case of both Goethe and Eichmann what both men did was so revolting cruel and evil it was offensive to let them live.

Mellor

brickmauser wrote: »

We all commit evil but this is evil that is all consuming to the extent that you not really dealing with anything like a human any more. They are so far gone. They can only be described as a monster.

That may be the case, but the point still stands that those situations are covered by Sadistic personality disorder & psychopath/sociopath respectively.
Also, those two conditions are not necessarily exclusive, nor are the two class you presented for that matter.

Evil is a broad generic term, and in many cases subjective. The above clinical definitions are much more precise.

In the case of both Goethe and Eichmann what both men did was so revolting cruel and evil it was offensive to let them live

Cruel and evil, sure.
But I'm not sure we should go down the road of deciding who should be allowed to live based on subjective opinions. (The fact that everyone may share this same opinion doesn't mean it is any less subjective)

El_Duderino 09

Mellor wrote:

The first is an example of Sadistic personality disorder. The second is an example of what's common called a psychopath or sociopath.

I've tried to get the OP to discuss the predictive power of 'evil' vs actual diagnosable conditions with diagnostic criteria. They can't engage on that level unfortunately. Clearly psychological diagnosis is more useful than 'evil'.

Mellor wrote:

Those are a lot more precise definitions than evil, which is rather subjective. Also, I'm not sure why you describe it as "radical" evil. In what way is it radical, as opposed to just evil?

I also asked about this but the OP didn't respond to it either.

It's a case of the op coming up with a definition that doesn't really work. Asking for opinions about the definition and being roundly told the definition doesn't really work. Defending the definition without good reason except a certainty that evil exists.

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

Don't you realise though that that is -exactly what you are doing-? You are giving your own judgements as to whether certain things are objectively evil, while -also- saying that the reality is that no single individual judges whether something is objectively evil.

You just can't have that both ways. Why is your specific interpretation of sanctity of life of the foetus and the bodily integrity of the mother the -objectively- good one?

If the actions of a person cause demonstrable pain and suffering and misery to other people and those actions are committed deliberately tha t person is immoral wicked and evil. That is clearly an objective standard. We use this standard to determine right and wrong and punish people in real life.

There is nothing subjective about this whatsoever.