Evilness Doesn't Exist

[rousseau]

I've been reading Howard Zinn's 'A People's History of the United States' over the past week, and while reading the second chapter I learned that most African slaves who were uprooted from Africa, were actually sold to Europeans by other Africans. Likely not a shock to many, but it got me thinking about the concept of evil and what it means. The only thing I can reasonably conclude is that 'evil' doesn't actually exist, and is instead just an arbitrary label that we apply to behaviours that we don't like.

If one looks at patterns throughout history most behaviours that are deemed 'evil' can eventually be reduced to a survival or adaptability motive. In other words, behaviour is by default self-interested, and any act can be explained by some kind of selective pressure.

For example, one of the reasons African slavery happened at all in North America was because European colonies had a desperate need for cheap labour to survive. Another reason it happened was because it was profitable for Africans to sell members of other tribes. If these pressures were taken away, slavery wouldn't likely have happened. It's easy to label this type of thing 'evil', but more accurate and practical to call it what it is: various factions attempting survival.

Then politically, if you make it easy for someone to survive, you take a lot of the danger away from that person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

 

[bilby]

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Your examples of slavers and Hitler as 'evil' are compatible with the combination of a desire to do good (often coupled with factual error), and a limited view of who and what should be included in their in-group. They were not motivated by a desire to do harm, but rather by a desire to do good, coupled with an erroneous assessment of the value of slave labour, and a definition of their victims as valueless, sub human or non-human.

Sadists such as those you describe are the same - with the possible exception that they view not just whole races of people, but all people who are not them, as valueless.

Doing good for 'us' is a laudable goal; if harm comes to 'them' as a result, that's not a problem - as long as you view 'them' as unimportant. The Sadist simply replaces 'us' with 'me'.

And the characterisation of 'them' as 'unimportant' is not a defining characteristic of an evil monster - it is a characteristic of all people.

Most people include most humans in 'us'; but only a few include most mammals, fewer still include most animals, and very few include all living things.

Declaring a person to be 'evil', because he draws a smaller circle around his 'us' than we do is not helpful.

 

[DBT]

A slave may not be as productive as a worker paid an award rate, but the cost of labour for slave is significantly less.

 

[rousseau]

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

I'm not widely studied in this area yet but Zinn's book is calling colonial need for labour a main determinant in the drive for slavery. Eventually slavery would become profitable, but in the beginning Europeans needed people to work to help them survive. And they simply couldn't afford whites.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A slave may not be as productive as a worker paid an award rate, but the cost of labour for slave is significantly less.

Which means nothing if you are simply looking at the survival of a colony. Either the population can produce enough to make it or it can't.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Your examples of slavers and Hitler as 'evil' are compatible with the combination of a desire to do good (often coupled with factual error), and a limited view of who and what should be included in their in-group. They were not motivated by a desire to do harm, but rather by a desire to do good, coupled with an erroneous assessment of the value of slave labour, and a definition of their victims as valueless, sub human or non-human.

Sadists such as those you describe are the same - with the possible exception that they view not just whole races of people, but all people who are not them, as valueless.

Doing good for 'us' is a laudable goal; if harm comes to 'them' as a result, that's not a problem - as long as you view 'them' as unimportant. The Sadist simply replaces 'us' with 'me'.

And the characterisation of 'them' as 'unimportant' is not a defining characteristic of an evil monster - it is a characteristic of all people.

Most people include most humans in 'us'; but only a few include most mammals, fewer still include most animals, and very few include all living things.

Declaring a person to be 'evil', because he draws a smaller circle around his 'us' than we do is not helpful.

I do agree that they regard their victims as unimportant, but I think that's part of the definition of being evil--regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them.

 

[rousseau]

Which means nothing if you are simply looking at the survival of a colony. Either the population can produce enough to make it or it can't.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Your examples of slavers and Hitler as 'evil' are compatible with the combination of a desire to do good (often coupled with factual error), and a limited view of who and what should be included in their in-group. They were not motivated by a desire to do harm, but rather by a desire to do good, coupled with an erroneous assessment of the value of slave labour, and a definition of their victims as valueless, sub human or non-human.

Sadists such as those you describe are the same - with the possible exception that they view not just whole races of people, but all people who are not them, as valueless.

Doing good for 'us' is a laudable goal; if harm comes to 'them' as a result, that's not a problem - as long as you view 'them' as unimportant. The Sadist simply replaces 'us' with 'me'.

And the characterisation of 'them' as 'unimportant' is not a defining characteristic of an evil monster - it is a characteristic of all people.

Most people include most humans in 'us'; but only a few include most mammals, fewer still include most animals, and very few include all living things.

Declaring a person to be 'evil', because he draws a smaller circle around his 'us' than we do is not helpful.

I do agree that they regard their victims as unimportant, but I think that's part of the definition of being evil--regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them.

I think the best way of explaining the difference between the two concepts is to separate them apart.

In one corner we have people who see the world in terms of 'good' and 'evil'. When people do 'good' things to the subject, whatever the subject deems to be good, the subject is happy, and conversely when people to evil things to them they're unhappy. This type of thinking is useful in the sense that it allows us to categorize people into groups that we like and dislike. The people that help us are good, and the people that hurt us are bad. Categorizing people in this way leads to one type of definition which affects our behaviour.

In the other corner, we can consider 'good' and 'bad' to be subjective labels applied to behaviour with a parental self-interested motive. So person [x] does [y], person [a] thinks [y] is bad, person thinks [y] is good, but both person [a] and are better served by realizing that [y] happened because of [z] motive that is constant regardless of the goodness or badness of the action

So if we're going to build a moral and legal framework we shouldn't be basing policy around 'evil' actions, we should be trying to regulate self-interested behaviours that are anti-social, which is something we're already doing very well. And I think in this way, by moving more people out of poverty and desperate situations, less violence will happen (which is also already happening globally right now).

 

[bilby]

Which means nothing if you are simply looking at the survival of a colony. Either the population can produce enough to make it or it can't.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Your examples of slavers and Hitler as 'evil' are compatible with the combination of a desire to do good (often coupled with factual error), and a limited view of who and what should be included in their in-group. They were not motivated by a desire to do harm, but rather by a desire to do good, coupled with an erroneous assessment of the value of slave labour, and a definition of their victims as valueless, sub human or non-human.

Sadists such as those you describe are the same - with the possible exception that they view not just whole races of people, but all people who are not them, as valueless.

Doing good for 'us' is a laudable goal; if harm comes to 'them' as a result, that's not a problem - as long as you view 'them' as unimportant. The Sadist simply replaces 'us' with 'me'.

And the characterisation of 'them' as 'unimportant' is not a defining characteristic of an evil monster - it is a characteristic of all people.

Most people include most humans in 'us'; but only a few include most mammals, fewer still include most animals, and very few include all living things.

Declaring a person to be 'evil', because he draws a smaller circle around his 'us' than we do is not helpful.

I do agree that they regard their victims as unimportant, but I think that's part of the definition of being evil--regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them.

But if we use "regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them" as the definition of evil, we find that, while specific actions may be 'evil' under this definition, people are not.

Hitler regarded Eva Braun as important, and he cared about her. Therefore, (if we accept your definition), Hitler was, demonstrably, not evil. Of course, he was also, demonstrably, evil (I don't think an example is really needed here), so we have a contradiction.

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to recognise that 'evil' is a category of actions, not of persons; Ordering genocide is evil, but Hitler is not - He is 'an evildoer', not 'an evil person'.

A person who does evil is not 'an evil person', because all persons who do evil also do good - at least on some level.

Given that the word 'evil' is usually applied to persons, rather than to actions; and given that (as I have just shown), this is an erroneous application of the word, I assert that the word 'evil' causes more confusion and error than it causes clarity or correctness. It's use should be greatly curtailed by those who value rationality as a guiding principle.

Good vs evil is a neat slogan, and is OK for movies and religious storytellers; but we do ourselves a disservice if we allow ourselves to be misled into thinking that there is such a thing as 'a good person' or 'an evil person'. Even the most loving person occasionally behaves selfishly; and even the worst psychopaths sometimes do things that benefit others.

When you label a person as 'an evil person' or 'a bad guy', you are engaging in the fallacy at the heart of Godwin's law.

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil" is not a rational argument - but it is exactly what you imply if you say "Hitler was evil".

 

[4321lynx]

Which means nothing if you are simply looking at the survival of a colony. Either the population can produce enough to make it or it can't.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Your examples of slavers and Hitler as 'evil' are compatible with the combination of a desire to do good (often coupled with factual error), and a limited view of who and what should be included in their in-group. They were not motivated by a desire to do harm, but rather by a desire to do good, coupled with an erroneous assessment of the value of slave labour, and a definition of their victims as valueless, sub human or non-human.

Sadists such as those you describe are the same - with the possible exception that they view not just whole races of people, but all people who are not them, as valueless.

Doing good for 'us' is a laudable goal; if harm comes to 'them' as a result, that's not a problem - as long as you view 'them' as unimportant. The Sadist simply replaces 'us' with 'me'.

And the characterisation of 'them' as 'unimportant' is not a defining characteristic of an evil monster - it is a characteristic of all people.

Most people include most humans in 'us'; but only a few include most mammals, fewer still include most animals, and very few include all living things.

Declaring a person to be 'evil', because he draws a smaller circle around his 'us' than we do is not helpful.

I do agree that they regard their victims as unimportant, but I think that's part of the definition of being evil--regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them.

But if we use "regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them" as the definition of evil, we find that, while specific actions may be 'evil' under this definition, people are not.

Hitler regarded Eva Braun as important, and he cared about her. Therefore, (if we accept your definition), Hitler was, demonstrably, not evil. Of course, he was also, demonstrably, evil (I don't think an example is really needed here), so we have a contradiction.

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to recognise that 'evil' is a category of actions, not of persons; Ordering genocide is evil, but Hitler is not - He is 'an evildoer', not 'an evil person'.

A person who does evil is not 'an evil person', because all persons who do evil also do good - at least on some level.

Given that the word 'evil' is usually applied to persons, rather than to actions; and given that (as I have just shown), this is an erroneous application of the word, I assert that the word 'evil' causes more confusion and error than it causes clarity or correctness. It's use should be greatly curtailed by those who value rationality as a guiding principle.

Good vs evil is a neat slogan, and is OK for movies and religious storytellers; but we do ourselves a disservice if we allow ourselves to be misled into thinking that there is such a thing as 'a good person' or 'an evil person'. Even the most loving person occasionally behaves selfishly; and even the worst psychopaths sometimes do things that benefit others.

When you label a person as 'an evil person' or 'a bad guy', you are engaging in the fallacy at the heart of Godwin's law.

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil" is not a rational argument - but it is exactly what you imply if you say "Hitler was evil".

And you are saying that you cannot judge (Oh, what a horrible word, judge?! JUDGE!!!.... so not 21st century) , you cannot judge, I say, whether the evil outweighs the good??
Hitler cared about his dog and Eva; Manson cared about whom besides Manson?; Stalin cared about his daughter Svetlana; Pol Pot cared about somebody for all I know; and so on... So that cancels out all their Evil actions and makes them good men, merely mistaken? I think that's utter BS; you are unable to judge ? not entitled to judge? too humble to judge? I repeat, it is utter theoretical bullshit, and before you dare judge me or my opinion, consider that I love my wife, children, grandchildren, and all dogs cats etc... So my having an opinion on good and evil cannot be judged by you.

 

[bilby]

Which means nothing if you are simply looking at the survival of a colony. Either the population can produce enough to make it or it can't.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. There's no way the colonies needed slave labor to survive. A slave isn't more productive than a free man, slave labor can't permit survival where it would otherwise not be possible. All it can do is change the lifespan & living standard of those who keep the slaves.

Some evil certainly is just a matter of pragmatic survival in harsh conditions but not all of it. Things like Hitler's genocide of the Jews had no survival need, it was purely based on hatred/the desire for a scapegoat to unite people.

Furthermore, there are sadists who commit evil purely for the pleasure it brings them with no other advantage to be obtained.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Your examples of slavers and Hitler as 'evil' are compatible with the combination of a desire to do good (often coupled with factual error), and a limited view of who and what should be included in their in-group. They were not motivated by a desire to do harm, but rather by a desire to do good, coupled with an erroneous assessment of the value of slave labour, and a definition of their victims as valueless, sub human or non-human.

Sadists such as those you describe are the same - with the possible exception that they view not just whole races of people, but all people who are not them, as valueless.

Doing good for 'us' is a laudable goal; if harm comes to 'them' as a result, that's not a problem - as long as you view 'them' as unimportant. The Sadist simply replaces 'us' with 'me'.

And the characterisation of 'them' as 'unimportant' is not a defining characteristic of an evil monster - it is a characteristic of all people.

Most people include most humans in 'us'; but only a few include most mammals, fewer still include most animals, and very few include all living things.

Declaring a person to be 'evil', because he draws a smaller circle around his 'us' than we do is not helpful.

I do agree that they regard their victims as unimportant, but I think that's part of the definition of being evil--regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them.

But if we use "regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them" as the definition of evil, we find that, while specific actions may be 'evil' under this definition, people are not.

Hitler regarded Eva Braun as important, and he cared about her. Therefore, (if we accept your definition), Hitler was, demonstrably, not evil. Of course, he was also, demonstrably, evil (I don't think an example is really needed here), so we have a contradiction.

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to recognise that 'evil' is a category of actions, not of persons; Ordering genocide is evil, but Hitler is not - He is 'an evildoer', not 'an evil person'.

A person who does evil is not 'an evil person', because all persons who do evil also do good - at least on some level.

Given that the word 'evil' is usually applied to persons, rather than to actions; and given that (as I have just shown), this is an erroneous application of the word, I assert that the word 'evil' causes more confusion and error than it causes clarity or correctness. It's use should be greatly curtailed by those who value rationality as a guiding principle.

Good vs evil is a neat slogan, and is OK for movies and religious storytellers; but we do ourselves a disservice if we allow ourselves to be misled into thinking that there is such a thing as 'a good person' or 'an evil person'. Even the most loving person occasionally behaves selfishly; and even the worst psychopaths sometimes do things that benefit others.

When you label a person as 'an evil person' or 'a bad guy', you are engaging in the fallacy at the heart of Godwin's law.

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil" is not a rational argument - but it is exactly what you imply if you say "Hitler was evil".

And you are saying that you cannot judge (Oh, what a horrible word, judge?! JUDGE!!!.... so not 21st century) , you cannot judge, I say, whether the evil outweighs the good??
Hitler cared about his dog and Eva; Manson cared about whom besides Manson?; Stalin cared about his daughter Svetlana; Pol Pot cared about somebody for all I know; and so on... So that cancels out all their Evil actions and makes them good men, merely mistaken? I think that's utter BS; you are unable to judge ? not entitled to judge? too humble to judge? I repeat, it is utter theoretical bullshit, and before you dare judge me or my opinion, consider that I love my wife, children, grandchildren, and all dogs cats etc... So my having an opinion on good and evil cannot be judged by you.

No, I am not saying you can't judge (so the rest of your rant is a misplaced and pointless diatribe ).

I am saying that you must judge people based on their actions not some kind of implied character trait. The idea that a person who does something bad is 'a bad person' is deeply flawed. It leads to idiotic policy making. It is a hangover of a religious idea - that people choose to serve God or Satan, and that having made the choice, they are either unimpeachable men of standing and character whose actions may not be judged; or irredeemable savages whose very existence threatens the lives, property and even souls of all good men.

A person who commits a crime can and should be judged for that crime. But if you brand a petty criminal as 'evil', you end up with a self fulfilling prophecy. Minor offences should result only in proportionate penalties.

 

[4321lynx]

And I am saying you should judge men on the balance of their actions.
Serial killers are evil whether they are some Joe Blow, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Whoever, and this no way reflects on all WASPS if Joe blow is one; or on vegetarians, or on all Georgians like Stalin, or on all with the race and food habits of Whoever.
Himmler and Heydrich and Beria were not evil? Child rapists are not evil? it iis said they are incurable and no doubt they are 'sick'. They are also evil.
And in Hitler's case remember that some 60 million Germans loved him once. That does not make all those Germans evil, or even the majority, but there are again some Hitler-lovers there and all over the world now, (and even on this Forum, in other threads) and IMO that fact makes them evil people. Petty criminals, and some serious criminals, are not necessarily evil IMO, they're just criminals.

And to be picky, 'evilness' does not exist because AFAIK the word does not exist in Engish. I hope not, anyway. Ugly neologism. Too lazy to look it up

 

[bilby]

And I am saying you should judge men on the balance of their actions.
Serial killers are evil whether they are some Joe Blow, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Whoever, and this no way reflects on all WASPS if Joe blow is one; or on vegetarians, or on all Georgians like Stalin, or on all with the race and food habits of Whoever.
Himmler and Heydrich and Beria were not evil? Child rapists are not evil? it iis said they are incurable and no doubt they are 'sick'. They are also evil.
And in Hitler's case remember that some 60 million Germans loved him once. That does not make all those Germans evil, or even the majority, but there are again some Hitler-lovers there and all over the world now, (and even on this Forum, in other threads) and IMO that fact makes them evil people. Petty criminals, and some serious criminals, are not necessarily evil IMO, they're just criminals.

And to be picky, 'evilness' does not exist because AFAIK the word does not exist in Engish. I hope not, anyway. Ugly neologism. Too lazy to look it up

When Joe Stalin orders the deaths of millions, that is an evil act.

Having committed this evil act, we can say that we consider Stalin more likely than another, randomly selected person to commit acts that are evil in the future. We can reasonably use this as justification for taking action against Stalin. But if we say 'Stalin is an evil person', that phrase goes further - it implies that Stalin embodies evilness; that he is incapable of any non-evil act.

By classifying a criminal in this way, we do ourselves a disservice (we do one to the criminal too, of course, but they are not our major concern). Making it deliberately more difficult to understand reality - to predict what will happen next - is truly harmful.

Broad classifications are simply not useful because they lead to false expectations, which in turn lead to bad policy, and poor decisions. Such classifications lead to people who cannot bring themselves to believe that crimes are being committed. Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris were able to get away with truly evil actions, because of the cognitive error that leads people to believe that evil actions can only be taken by evil people. And evil people don't bring joy to millions of children - that's not part of what being an evil person is at all.

Children are warned about 'strangers', and are on their guard for evil men. They believe that the guy they've never seen before can't be a 'stranger', if he smiles and offers them gifts and treats.

The belief in 'evil people' makes evil acts easier for people to commit. For that reason alone, it is an idea that needs to die.

Ordinary people do horrible things. They are not ugly; they are not exceptional, they are not twisted fiends with the intent always to do harm. They are ordinary people who suspend their empathy for others.

And every time there is an atrocity, people are surprised. "But he seemed so normal", they say. Because they never learn that 'evil' is not a kind of person; it is a kind of action.

You seem worried that to recognise this would somehow let people who do bad things off the hook. But in fact, the opposite is observably true - the concept of evil people; the bad guys; the men in black hats, is deeply flawed, and allows people to hide behind a veneer of respectability and decency, committing horrible acts all the while.

 

[noble brown]

I fully agree with bilby on this.
There are no "evil" or good people. There are only good and bad acts.
I also agree that to reduce this to a mere semantic distinction is detrimental to society as a whole. It gravely misinforms public policy. A very enlightening book i read was called " the Lucifer effect ", it was about the Stanford prison experiments. This and many other social experiments like the Milgram experiments should be used to inform us about our natural susceptibility to situational forces. Human behavior, especially moral behavior, is very susceptible to environmental cues. We like to think that we are all very morally consistent in our actions but this just isn't true.
To understand how behavior is predicted more accurately by situational forces then by individual personality is to understand how to better create public policy and other social institutions that create propitious environments to better develop and manifest the good that us in all of us

 

[jab]

The only way to resolve this contradiction is to recognise that 'evil' is a category of actions, not of persons; Ordering genocide is evil, but Hitler is not - He is 'an evildoer', not 'an evil person'.

You are what you do, particularly if you do something repeatedly or in a sustained manner. Thus for instance, a person who frequently behaves carelessly, but sometimes carefully, can properly be termed a careless person.

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil" is not a rational argument - but it is exactly what you imply if you say "Hitler was evil".

No, no more than having been a failed painter would be evil. All it implies is that vegetarianism was not sufficient to prevent at least one person from being evil.
A human being's nature is not unitary or necessarily totally infused with any one quality, even very significant or predominant qualities.
For example one can say "Roger Federer is a great tennis payer" without meaning that every second he is on court and every stroke he produces is great, or without meaning that he actually plays tennis 24/7.
Your logic would mean that we would have to say the linguistically cumbersome "Roger Federer is a person [or maybe 'tennis pro' instead of 'person'] who has played a lot of great tennis, most recently this week at Wimbledon."

 

[4321lynx]

I fully agree with bilby on this.
There are no "evil" or good people. There are only good and bad acts.
I also agree that to reduce this to a mere semantic distinction is detrimental to society as a whole. It gravely misinforms public policy. A very enlightening book i read was called " the Lucifer effect ", it was about the Stanford prison experiments. This and many other social experiments like the Milgram experiments should be used to inform us about our natural susceptibility to situational forces. Human behavior, especially moral behavior, is very susceptible to environmental cues. We like to think that we are all very morally consistent in our actions but this just isn't true.
To understand how behavior is predicted more accurately by situational forces then by individual personality is to understand how to better create public policy and other social institutions that create propitious environments to better develop and manifest the good that us in all of us

In my day, with my lack of education, what you said above was covered by saying 'It all depends whose ox is being gored'.
But I see what you are driving at.
My 'evil man' is shorthand for a man who habitually, or more often then not, or serially, or frequently commits evil acts.

 

[bilby]

You are what you do, particularly if you do something repeatedly or in a sustained manner. Thus for instance, a person who frequently behaves carelessly, but sometimes carefully, can properly be termed a careless person.

"Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarianism is evil" is not a rational argument - but it is exactly what you imply if you say "Hitler was evil".

No, no more than having been a failed painter would be evil. All it implies is that vegetarianism was not sufficient to prevent at least one person from being evil.
A human being's nature is not unitary or necessarily totally infused with any one quality, even very significant or predominant qualities.
For example one can say "Roger Federer is a great tennis payer" without meaning that every second he is on court and every stroke he produces is great, or without meaning that he actually plays tennis 24/7.

No, the analogous description would be 'Roger Federer is great'.

He is a great tennis player. But by skipping the context, and referring to him simply as 'great', you imply that he is a great father, a great warrior, a great gardener ,a great darts player etc., etc., - none of which need be true at all.

Your logic would mean that we would have to say the linguistically cumbersome "Roger Federer is a person [or maybe 'tennis pro' instead of 'person'] who has played a lot of great tennis, most recently this week at Wimbledon."

No, you can just say 'He is a great tennis player'.

In the same way that it is correct to say 'Hitler was an evil dictator'; but saying 'Hitler was evil' is not correct - it is indeterminate. 'Hitler was an evil vegetarian' is a silly thing to say - his vegetarianism was not morally suspect - but it is implied by 'Hitler was evil'.

 

[bilby]

I fully agree with bilby on this.
There are no "evil" or good people. There are only good and bad acts.
I also agree that to reduce this to a mere semantic distinction is detrimental to society as a whole. It gravely misinforms public policy. A very enlightening book i read was called " the Lucifer effect ", it was about the Stanford prison experiments. This and many other social experiments like the Milgram experiments should be used to inform us about our natural susceptibility to situational forces. Human behavior, especially moral behavior, is very susceptible to environmental cues. We like to think that we are all very morally consistent in our actions but this just isn't true.
To understand how behavior is predicted more accurately by situational forces then by individual personality is to understand how to better create public policy and other social institutions that create propitious environments to better develop and manifest the good that us in all of us

In my day, with my lack of education, what you said above was covered by saying 'It all depends whose ox is being gored'.
But I see what you are driving at.
My 'evil man' is shorthand for a man who habitually, or more often then not, or serially, or frequently commits evil acts.

So a man who rapes a child just once is not evil?

What about a president who only orders one genocide?

That is an odd definition, and I question its utility.

 

[4321lynx]

In my day, with my lack of education, what you said above was covered by saying 'It all depends whose ox is being gored'.
But I see what you are driving at.
My 'evil man' is shorthand for a man who habitually, or more often then not, or serially, or frequently commits evil acts.

So a man who rapes a child just once is not evil?

What about a president who only orders one genocide?

That is an odd definition, and I question its utility.

Yes, it's an incomplete definition and was only meant as a reply to post 13, not an exhaustive list of all possible evil actions.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm in to bottom lines today since that is where many people on morality questions. Bottom line: is ending human kind evil?

 

[Unbeatable]

I do agree that they regard their victims as unimportant, but I think that's part of the definition of being evil--regarding people as unimportant and so not caring about the harm done to them.

Well then, pretty much every human being who has ever lived, including you, is evil to some extent or another. The only differences are which people we regard as unimportant and how we rationalize writing them off.

God, this whole business is such fucking bullshit. People are not continuous, internally consistent entities, and yet you lot persist in pretending that they are and assigning static labels to them.

I'm in to bottom lines today since that is where many people on morality questions. Bottom line: is ending human kind evil?

No.