Evil, the horror, or the banality: What really is it & w

[Tdarcos]

As noted in the other thread, the show Mr. Robot raised the issue of Evil, and not the horror, but the banality, of Evil. I want to raise the discussion here to ask the question, "What is 'evil' and how do you define it?"

Alternate questions:
* Is there really 'evil' or is it just a manufactured concept?
* If there really is evil, can you objectively define 'evil' or is it something merely subjective?
* If there really is evil, what criteria do we use to measure it?
* Are there degrees of evil?
* If there isn't evil, what is your reasoning?

And we can go over this topic and maybe have fun and learn something.

[Tdarcos]

Since I intend to make this an ongoing discussion we might want to set some ground rules.

* First, no personal attacks. You may think someone's opinions are strange or crazy, that does not mean they are.
* Second, in order to demonstrate conduct in order to examine what is or is not 'evil', describing a practice does not necessarily mean the person supports or approves of it. Giving examples of things some people find horrible, such as child molesters, arsonists, or IRS employees, does not necessarily mean we approve of or have any interest in those fields of endeavor.
*Third, you may think some things are evil that others approve of, or disagree with someone else's declaration that something is evil and think it isn't. Let's hear your reasons, even if you can't precisely articulate them. In a different book I wrote from my current one, I said this about knowing things,

Or perhaps you just have a gut feeling it isn't right. I know how that is; more than once I've had gut feelings about things where I couldn't put my finger on it, but I knew something wasn't right. Later I would discover why I had that feeling, and, more importantly, why I was right, but at the time I did not have the evidence or knowledge to know why I felt that way.

[pinback]

* First, no personal attacks.

Okay, you fat crippled autistic.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Foul! Foooooouuuul!

FOUL!

[Tdarcos]

* First, no personal attacks.

Okay, you fat crippled autistic.

Fair enough, you bald alcoholic.

[Tdarcos]

Okay, let's start with something easy.

Proposal: There is nothing wrong with adults having sex with young children.

By 'adults' I'm referring to people at least 30 years old, and by 'young children' I mean those 12 and under. The argument that this is evil is just the jealous whining of people who don't want to admit it could be fun for them.

Note I'm excluding rape or non-consensual sex because (1) it's probably too easy to make an argument against it, and (2) I want to argue that one separately.

So, seriously, if you disagree with the idea of adults having consentual sex with children - and I'd like to note this was a common, accepted practice back around the 4th century BCE - what is your reason to oppose it?

[Flack]

Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

[pinback]

Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.

[Tdarcos]

Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

No, but I haven't seen anyone raise any seriousd issues around here.

This is a really serious issue! People, all the time talk about how something is terrible, or it's evil, or it's bad. So my question to you is, why? Why is it bad? Why is it evil? What is evil and how do you define it? If we can't define objectively what 'evil' is then what it represents is nothing more than 'I don't like it' which means that, if you can't define it, then Jeffrey Dahmer's dietary choices have no more significance than what you had for breakfast. And again, if you can't define what 'evil' represents, then if you think cannibalism is wrong, your opinion is of no more significance than if you said you think eating chocolate ice cream is wrong; it's pure opiniom and has nothing to objectively define it.

Or if you think there is something to talk about, then make a thread. Let's hear your great opinions.

I have opinions but I wasn't trying to just throw them out, I wanted to solicit other people's opinions. But if you don't have any, then don't proceed to argue that there is such a thing as 'evil' since you have nothing to support your opinion and it might as well be an opinion on the taste of chcolate ice cream.

[Tdarcos]

Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.

I haven't seen you say anything. At least I'm trying to raise the level of conversation here, to be something other than what you've turned into.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Is this really the best thing you have to talk about?

You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.

I haven't seen you say anything. At least I'm trying to raise the level of conversation here, to be something other than what you've turned into.

I'm getting to the point where I can't take it any more.

[AArdvark]

Evil is subjective. It's all point of view.

Suppose Mother Teresa shows up in a hot and dusty third world village with bowls of rice and that white milky crap that all the starving kids over there like so bad. That's a good thing, you say.

Now suppose Mother Teresa show up in that same village with an AK-47 and mows down everyone in a pinwheeling fury of hot lead. Her white and blue robes flying, eyes fierce slits, teeth clenched as she spins and fires, spins and fires. You'd say that is a bad thing, an evil thing.

But is it?

Maybe Mother Teresa holds the gun up and blows across the top of the muzzle and says: "Well, they aint hungry anymore are they?"

I think real evil would be Mother Teresa showing up in her white and blue outfit and showing them pictures of food that they don't have.


THE
OH WAIT, THAT'S FACEBOOK
AARDVARK

[AArdvark]

Not sure why but I thought this belonged here:



[youtube][/youtube]

[Tdarcos]

You get ten guesses, and the first nine don't count.

I haven't seen you say anything. At least I'm trying to raise the level of conversation here, to be something other than what you've turned into.

I'm getting to the point where I can't take it any more.

Now this, I do not understand. I'm trying to raise a serious issue and improve the conversation here, maybe get people to think a little bit, and you seem to feel as if this is horrible. And I do not understand why.

I'm conversing in a thread I started which you were under no obligation to read and which you knew - before you even opened it - that I started it.

So please, explain to me what's wrong. I do not want you banning me again because I've broken some unknowable or unstated reason. I mean, seriously, if there is something bothering you I presume you have a reason that it does. Seriously, I do not want to hurt your feelings and I would like to understand what is wrong.

I mean, AArdvark came up with a very good example of what he thinks is evil. I think this thread is working in trying to raise the level of conversation.

[pinback]

Yeah, Robb, what the hell is your problem??

[Flack]

ROBB IS EVIL.

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

Paul: I had not realized that this is a thread that you have started. This is your thread. Please disregard my earlier post, everyone can set sail and continue what they were doing.

[Jizaboz]

From Dungeons & Dragons:

Lawful evil

A lawful evil character sees a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit and shows a combination of desirable and undesirable traits. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, and undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct.


Neutral evil

A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on its allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. Another valid interpretation of neutral evil holds up evil as an ideal, doing evil for evil's sake and trying to spread its influence. Examples of the first type are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind their superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer. An example of the second type would be a masked killer who strikes only for the sake of causing fear and distrust in the community.


Chaotic evil

A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not work well in groups because they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative.

[Tdarcos]

From Dungeons & Dragons:

Lawful evil

A lawful evil character ... include tyrants, devils, and undiscriminating mercenary types who have a strict code of conduct.

Let's not forget Well Street Bankers and the politicans who wrote the laws to bail them out at taxpayer expense!

Neutral evil

A neutral evil character ... has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves.

Car salesmen!

Chaotic evil

A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel.

Funeral directors and politicians!

[Tdarcos]

How about this one?

I think it was Robert A. Heinlein's Autor Avatar Lazarus Long, who said something like "Evil is hurting other people unnecessarily. Hurting yourself isn't 'evil,' just stupid."

But what about other fun activities, like burning dogs alive, or dogfighting, what Michael Vick got jail time for. Or tearing the wings off flies? Are these evil, and why?

Did you hear about the kid that was soooio tough? How tough was he? He didn't tear the wings off of flies, he tore the wings off hornets!