Evil?

Quote:

---

If he parked in the wrong place to get the sick child to a doctor and the child was not saved, a huge pile up occured, the building collapsed and 1000s were killed. The intent is not there, its not evil. Interestingly, 'manslaughter' is classed as voluntary or involuntary, negligence being an example. I can see differences between 'with intent' and 'without intent' and quantifying it is precarious. But, who and what would the exceptions be?

---

Un momento, mon frere, let's say...

The intent to park in front of the fire hydrant was there...also, let's say that he would be fully aware, somewhere in his li'l head, of the possible ramifications of doing so and yet not care. Would that not make this act, ergo this man, evil? Is any act completely void of either good or bad intent? What if his foremost intention of taking the child to the hospital and saving his life were to avoid getting into more trouble for having not simply injured the child, but inadvertantly caused his death? Cuz he's a bas...prat, and isn't terribly fond of the kid. What if, in the back of his head, he's hoping the kid dies anyway? Do any of these things make his parking in front of the fire hydrant any more or less evil in the eyes of man? What about in the eyes of his prefered deity? See, this is why I think some religions believe that their god doesn't quantify evil. Any act resulting in evil consequences, is in and of itself evil, (not that I personally believe this to be so). I mean really, considering all the cases on a deity's docket, he probably doesn't have time for quantification. Sure is headache inducing though, innit?

Quote:

---

I think it does have to be conscious to be evil - you can still be a proper wanker who should take himself right out of the gene pool; but not evil.

---

Now there's a tagline for someone at LoveMatch.com

Hopeless romantic seeks proper wanker....but not evil :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Un momento, mon frere, let's say...

The intent to park in front of the fire hydrant was there...also, let's say that he would be fully aware, somewhere in his li'l head, of the possible ramifications of doing so and yet not care. Would that not make this act, ergo this man, evil? Is any act completely void of either good or bad intent? What if his foremost intention of taking the child to the hospital and saving his life were to avoid getting into more trouble for having not simply injured the child, but inadvertantly caused his death? Cuz he's a bas...prat, and isn't terribly fond of the kid. What if, in the back of his head, he's hoping the kid dies anyway? Do any of these things make his parking in front of the fire hydrant any more or less evil in the eyes of man? What about in the eyes of his prefered deity? See, this is why I think some religions believe that their god doesn't quantify evil. Any act resulting in evil consequences, is in and of itself evil, (not that I personally believe this to be so). I mean really, considering all the cases on a deity's docket, he probably doesn't have time for quantification. Sure is headache inducing though, innit?

---

I take your point, which I guess is why we need so many lawyers to plead manslaughter. So.., 'completely void of good intent', does that exist? What can we say is completely bad, and with no trace of good?

Quote:

---

I take your point, which I guess is why we need so many lawyers to plead manslaughter. So.., 'completely void of good intent', does that exist? What can we say is completely bad, and with no trace of good?

---

Hehe, I was going to throw in an indictment of lawyers, but chickened out...

Even if your actions are utterly benevolent, isn't one's motivation based somewhat on ego. I feed the poor, it makes me feel good, thus feeding the poor is an act of selfishness. From a judeo/christian point of view at least, the selfishness taints the purely benevolent act.

At any rate, my personal belief is that there is no absolute good or evil act or person in 'this' world. When I write, I like to take a character, and regardless of his/her actions, try to make him/her sympathetic...although I've never been interested in taking on Hitler. One of my favorite things to do is to take a seemingly unsympathetic character from literature or history, and give him/her motivation for actions that make you think twice about judging him/her so harshly. Though the outcome of the action remains the same, the way you look at it can be altered completely depending on motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandini

I think it does have to be conscious to be evil

---

Yes, we don't think Tyrannosaurus Rex is evil because he likes to eat meat, and if he did eat a whole city of people, he is still doing only what he can do, devoid of conscience. And, how about a human, devoid of any conscience? I know lots of people that display very little consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Hehe, I was going to throw in an indictment of lawyers, but chickened out...

Even if your actions are utterly benevolent, isn't one's motivation based somewhat on ego. I feed the poor, it makes me feel good, thus feeding the poor is an act of selfishness. From a judeo/christian point of view at least, the selfishness taints the purely benevolent act.

At any rate, my personal belief is that there is no absolute good or evil act or person in 'this' world. When I write, I like to take a character, and regardless of his/her actions, try to make him/her sympathetic...although I've never been interested in taking on Hitler. One of my favorite things to do is to take a seemingly unsympathetic character from literature or history, and give him/her motivation for actions that make you think twice about judging him/her so harshly. Though the outcome of the action remains the same, the way you look at it can be altered completely depending on motivation.

---

Oh, go ahead, throw it in... :lol: I think the ego part is always present in our conscious, that kind of selfishness you're describing is perfectly acceptable. I was just thinking another way to quantify 'intent' might be to evaluate what possible 'good'. If there was any possible good from for example, 'hurting someone you never met'. There is no reason we can think of, just a completely random act, and we just give up trying to find anything good in it. Now, would that be classed as evil? I am thinking 'intent' must be established either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Un momento, mon frere, let's say...

The intent to park in front of the fire hydrant was there...also, let's say that he would be fully aware, somewhere in his li'l head, of the possible ramifications of doing so and yet not care. Would that not make this act, ergo this man, evil?

---

But the man did not intend to have people killed. The fire is what would kill them. If anything, this man is maybe rebellious, pretentious, stupid, i dont know - but not evil.

Also, I do not think evil is an absence of good or the other way around. What about neutrality? Also, if Germany had won WW2, everyone would probably love Hitler right now and would remember how terrible everyone else was before. There would be all kinds of different philosophies and literature. The world would be flipped. :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Yes, we don't think Tyrannosaurus Rex is evil because he likes to eat meat, and if he did eat a whole city of people, he is still doing only what he can do, devoid of conscience. And, how about a human, devoid of any conscience? I know lots of people that display very little consciousness.

---

Well, T-Rex probably did not have rational though processes and more than likely was a creature of utter instinct. That's why no one evangalizes puppies. However, you have an excellent point...what of the sociopath/psychopath? I lump them together here because the DSMIV does now too. In the DSMIV, a sociopath/psychopath is described as someone who has:

A personality disorder characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts without guilt feelings.

In other words, a person without conscience, all though there are many 'degrees' of sociopathy/psychopathy. Disclaimer here: Not all criminals are sociopathic, not all sociopaths are criminals.

But then, lets ask another question, cuz I love the question mark. Is a sociopath created or born? If created, have they no memory of conscience and is that memory not sufficient that it should be a deterrent and remind them, at the least, that good and evil exist, allowing them to still form a choice? If born, then what of that passage in the bible that says something to the effect that all men are born with the inherent knowledge of good and evil, therefore, the sinner is without excuse?

Quote:

---

What about neutrality?

---

Thanks for sending my mind on another tangent, BB... :D

Well, beats staring at stuff on the walls to avoid work. I'm just wondering, can you think of a completly neutral act? I can't think of a single act that is utterly void of negative or positive, either intent or outcome. Taking as a truth the statement that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." It stands to reason that every good act results in a bad act and vice versa. I'm getting a headache. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeingaBunny

Also, I do not think evil is an absence of good or the other way around. What about neutrality? Also, if Germany had won WW2, everyone would probably love Hitler right now and would remember how terrible everyone else was before. There would be all kinds of different philosophies and literature. The world would be flipped. :thumbs_up

---

Well, off the top of my head, WWI/II was won by the allies and Hiroshima ended that War, they may have been popping champagne immediately afterwards, but not for very long, when they woke up to the carnage, its hard to realize there were actually any 'winners'. Whats an example of neutral?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Well, T-Rex probably did not have rational though processes and more than likely was a creature of utter instinct. That's why no one evangalizes puppies. However, you have an excellent point...what of the sociopath/psychopath? I lump them together here because the DSMIV does now too. In the DSMIV, a sociopath/psychopath is described as someone who has:

A personality disorder characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts without guilt feelings.

In other words, a person without conscience, all though there are many 'degrees' of sociopathy/psychopathy. Disclaimer here: Not all criminals are sociopathic, not all sociopaths are criminals.

But then, lets ask another question, cuz I love the question mark. Is a sociopath created or born? If created, have they no memory of conscience and is that memory not sufficient that it should be a deterrent and remind them, at the least, that good and evil exist, allowing them to still form a choice? If born, then what of that passage in the bible that says something to the effect that all men are born with the inherent knowledge of good and evil, therefore, the sinner is without excuse?

---

Wow, you mean there is a department set up for this now.... DSMIV ( I think thats what you mean ).. and strange to think. To answer your question, I guess its in conflict with the bible.

Something else that concurs with your thoughts regarding what society sees as acceptable determining good and evil BB. The following addendum to determining sociopathic behavior is also in the DSMIV:

Dissocial Personality Disorder (F60.2), usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by:

DPD encompasses sociopathic and psychopathic behavior. I just think its interesting to ponder, as you did, the fact that it's based on prevailing social norms. So if we lived in a society where it was perfectly acceptable for party clowns to eat little boys, John Wayne Gacey would be like...the head of some freakish Royal Order of The Clown social club. With pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey night instead of bingo night. Kinda scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Now there's a tagline for someone at LoveMatch.com

Hopeless romantic seeks proper wanker....but not evil :lol:

---

If I wasn't already taken I'd have to answer that one.

Quote:

---

Wow, you mean there is a department set up for this now.... DSMIV ( I think thats what you mean )..

---

Sorry, I am SUCH the ugly American with my assumptions.

DSMIV is the diagnostic and statistical manual used by the mental health community in the US for diagnosing mental disorders.

Another interesting point...albeit completely irrelevant, homosexuality used to be listed in this manual as a personality disorder...but wait! Not so irrelevant if we harken back to the issue of acceptable social mores.

Yeah me for staying on topic! :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Something else that concurs with your thoughts regarding what society sees as acceptable determining good and evil BB. The following addendum to determining sociopathic behavior is also in the DSMIV:

Dissocial Personality Disorder (F60.2), usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by:

DPD encompasses sociopathic and psychopathic behavior. I just think its interesting to ponder, as you did, the fact that it's based on prevailing social norms. So if we lived in a society where it was perfectly acceptable for party clowns to eat little boys, John Wayne Gacey would be like...the head of some freakish Royal Order of The Clown social club. With pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey night instead of bingo night. Kinda scary.

---

Kinda scary? I won't sleep tonight!