Thomas (dark_angel1112) wrote in philophilesanon,
Thomas
dark_angel1112
philophilesanon

Welcome!

Ok, so I doubt that you will even think of reading this preliminary post, but it's just to introduce everything.

I'm Alien, and I'll be moderating, so behave!

First topic:

Can people be truly evil?
Tags: current events, human nature, life situations
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 16 comments
Yes, people Can be truly evil. All people have the nature to be either evil or good. Take Stalin for example. While overshadowed by Hitler, Stalin killed just about as many of his own people, only he has no mental alibi to fall back on.
Conversely, People also have the nature in them to be truely good. While all people have a mix of Yin and Yang in them, only one's true nature shows in his or her actions.
I will end this with a moral saying from the Norse
"No man is So good he is perfect,
No man is so bad he is worthless"
Personally, I don't think people have it in them to be truly evil, nor to be absolutely good. I think that no one, no matter what they do, is honestly evil. Take Hitler - yes, he did kill millions of people, and did a wonderful jon at hiding the bodies, but he thought he was doing this all for the good of his countrymen.

Stalin, true, killed countless of his own countrymen, but also in the name of his country, as with Mussolini. And working off of your quote, if "No man is so bad he is worthless," then who's to say any man can be so bad as to be evil? I think it's curious that you use this as an example, because it seems to refute your own point that people can be evil.

Also, if people have a mix of Yin and Yang, then no one is truly evil, in all logic. In fact, it would imply that no one could be evil entirely or good entirely, and so none could be truly evil.

Just wondering.
I believe that there is a difference between Fully evil, and Truly evil. Truly evil, to me, means capable of decideidly evil acts. this also means that Humanity must be inherently evil, which I also think true. A person, yes, can be good, and show good acts; People, however, are basely evil. The only way that humanity can be good is if it is led by a basely good person. All advances and progresses in history have been led by a single, or group of few good people. However, regresses are inevitable if humanity doesn't have a 'good' figurehead to latch on to.
This is Kevin.
People can be truly evil.
Take Dr. H. H. Holmes.

Then again,
Define truly evil.

AS TO THE ABOVE:
Figureheads have often led good change,
But just as many have led bad change.
It is simple mob mentality.

Luther, Hitler, Parks, Stalin, Ceasar, Muhammed, Christ, . . .
Yes, mob mentality does have an effect on changes, however, Bad things happen without a leader. Tulsa race riots, for example, had no real leader; Good actions, consequently, must have a figurehead. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe that any mass good action hasn't had a single person, or a small group of people, leading it.
True. But my point is that I don't believe any EVIL action has happened without some kind of figurehead at it's helm.
Nyeh - There's no way to prove positively or disprove that point. I don't think everything must have a leader if it's going to be evil. I do think evil things have happened without figureheads. People who were involved may have later become figureheads, but I don't think that it's safe to say that no evil action has had no figurehead.
Look at the human race, everyone has the potential to be evil that's were things like organized religions and actual communities come into play. To set up laws and penalties to live a more civil life. The religions gave guidlines for people to follow under the guise of a divine life.
Yes, I think people can be truly evil. It usually involves greed. Hitler wanted power and to accomplish this he used a scapegoat to blame all of Germany's problems on. He earned his power and almost ruled Europe by killing millions of people without guilt now that is evil. Stalin wanted power and for the USSR to speak one language, Russian. He found an area called Ukraine that was rich with resources, claimed it Russian and starved more Ukranians to death than Hitler killed Jews. These were both very evil people. The power and greed motivated them even more, especially when everyone turned a blind eye.
If you're defining evil by what people do, then I suppose that everyone is evil, by our greed- and lust-ridden souls, but what if someone thinks that they are doing good? Everyone believes one thing or another to be good - maybe Hitler actually believed that the Jewish people were doing evil things. Stalin, it seems, thought he was trying to unify one nation. I'm aware that they did things that probably were not morally right, but you could also argue that they thought that it was for the greater good, couldn't you?

Maybe it wasn't power and greed that motivated them, but a want for their respective nations, Germany and Russia, to prosper. You have to take into account the fact that Germany was struggling economically when Hitler took power, and its people were suffering from hunger and poverty. In Russia, people were being made victims of a vicious monarchy, later expelled by the people. Stalin was one of the leaders of these people. The Bolsheviks had been digging the USSR into the ground, and when the Socialists took power, plenty of good came about. It was only when they attempted to make everyone into a single mold of a person that they began to do things one could interpret to be evil. I'll admit that they only prospered for a short time on the system they adopted, but things were good until the moment that they chose one's life.

As far as religions giving guidelines by which people were to find "divine life," I don't believe that to be true. There have been many cases in history where certain religions - usually Christianity - persecuted other religions for its progression. Take the Crusades as an example. The people leading the Crusades ultimately believed themselves to be persecuting non-Christians for the good of mankind, did they not? The basic idea was to convert the victims or kill them. It was by this method that many different holidays were assimilated into Christianity, Christmas being one of these, and ideals were brought forth into the Christian religion. Also, there were the Salem witch trials, a chaotic time period in which twenty-four people were "convicted" of being a witch, and then hanged. They were often tortured to gain a "confession" and if a sufficient confession was not heard, they would sometimes be tortured until death. The people who led this were moved partially by mass hysteria and partially by a want to gain revenge.

So I suppose the question now becomes this: Can people who believe themselves to be doing good things or who are insane be called evil if they do things morally unacceptable?
You have made some good points here. Greater minds than ours have been debating the motivational factors behind Stalin and Hitler. To actually have a list of names brought to you each day and then marking the ones you have decided to execute with out knowing the person, then that is evil by concept.
The thing with religion is how each person interprets each guideline, like a defense lawyer that uses the written laws to help his client from being prosecuted by the law.
It seems we may be at a stale mate with this question. Until we can actually get into some ones head and feel exactly what they are thinking we will never know about truly evil people existing.
"Can people who believe themselves to be doing good things or who are insane be called evil if they do things morally unacceptable?"
Now that's a good question! It may very well depend on which side of the fence you sit on.
Like pro-life vs pro-choice, who's right?
I don't believe that people can be truly evil, although all of their choices and actions can be purely evil.

Why can't they be evil? Because they are a part of Creation and Creation is inherently good.
Do you really think it inherently good? I think it's more like inherently neutral, personally.

I think good and evil are, more often than not, a perception rather than a given thing. Not all people think TV good or sex bad.

Just a thought?
I think it's more like inherently neutral, personally.

You make a very good point. Perhaps everything is, by nature, inherently neutral. In this way, bad/good are purely subjective, as we assign bad/good to things according to our perceptions.

Just as bad/good are subjective experiences, so are good and evil...

But it is not our perception of things that causes the essence of something to be good or evil. The essence of all things must be, as you say, neutral.

Take the concepts of good and evil themselves. Personally, I don't believe that evil actually exists - it is just a way of identifying/naming the absence of good. Just as darkness does not, in fact, actually exist - it is only the name we use to identify the absence of light.

Just as one person may fear darkness/the absence of light, another person may love and seek darkness. Their experiences are subjective. And yet, this doesn't change the fact that light exists and is essential to life. Without light, nothing would exist. We may perceive that light, just like good, is in fact, neutral - but without this neutrality, there would be no creation. And yet creation, like good, is neutral in and of itself.

I bring in Creation because, by the definition of Evil, it implies the opposite of Evil:

"Not good; bad; wrong; unhappy; calamitous- That which is not good; anything which produces pain, calamity, etc; wrong; malady"

This definition of Evil implies that Evil is synonymous to destruction and is the opposite of creation.

If the essence of all Creation is inherently neutral, then as a part of Creation, a person is inherently neutral, too. Just as darkness is only the absence of light, so is evil only the absence of good. So, if an individual fails to choose anything "good"/creative, it means that his choices are truly "evil"/destructive. But that doesn't change the fact that he is, in essence, a neutral being, capable of choosing either "good"/creative or "evil"/destructive but truly being neither one.

It would seem then, that a person can be neither truly "good" nor truly "evil" - an idea that seems to be pretty supportable by factual evidence. A person, essentially, is neither one.

So, that would then mean that no, a person can not be truly evil.

Then, of course, there is also the question of conscience... :)
You definitely are the frontperson for debaters all around, and the question of a conscience... Well, may we bring that up some other time.

As for now, I hate to say I absolutely like your argument and support it. I've not much to say in any defense, because you only support yourself beautifully, and I was just trying to see your response from curiosity.

You're good - I like you.
You definitely are the frontperson for debaters all around

Are you kidding? I'm flattered. This is fun.

I hate to say I absolutely like your argument and support it

I wonder why? From what I've read of what you've written, my argument seems to corroborate your ideas...

You're good - I like you

**Blushes** Thank you for making such an interesting community.



Nyeh - I'm just messing with you about the hating the fact that I agree with you. It is just odd that I've not anything to argue against (without contradicting my previous messages and attempting to make a fool of myself) in your messages.

Thank you for finding the community interesting, though.