What is an "evil person"

[scorpia]

Or a specific type of non-believer, if you don't mind me.

So question is as the title suggests, what in your view, is an evil person? Or, if you "don't believe in evil", what kind of person would you deem, say untrustworthy?

[scorpia]

What lesson was learnt by the guy who threw his kids of the roof? What can he do to fix things?

Imagine after serving a prison sentence, and undergoing therapy a future point arrives that the guy can say "I took killing my kids really badly, but I have come to terms with what I did and I have learnt to forgive myself". Arrrgghh!!!

First off, if you feel guilt, you might as well put it to good use. You can just sit around feeling angry at yourself which is stupid, or you can do whatever it takes to ease it. Not many people like to feel guilty so they will take the latter course of action.

Secondly, you say a person cannot feel a lack of guilt in good conscience. What about having a constant grudge in good conscience? What about the father's side of things? Yeah his son died and he won't take it easy but when the criminal tries to make up for it how can he go on feeling angry? The guy has changed. If, like you say, he's been stuck in jail and has had therapy and whatnot what's the point of it? What's the point of jail if not to seperate such people for a time and let them think about what they've done? Why release them? Why not give them lifelong sentances?

One can go on feeling angry at himself and one would expect that of him. But one should not expect people to continue hating the guy. Who wants to hate someone? In my experience feeling so much hate is as bad as committing murder, and the accuser might end up feeling just as guilty as the criminal. And someone who recommends continuing that grudge is just as shallow to me as you find making the guy feel okay after what he has done.

[Furrowed Brow]

First off, if you feel guilt, you might as well put it to good use. You can just sit around feeling angry at yourself which is stupid, or you can do whatever it takes to ease it.

I think we have completely different skew on things here. I am saying that it is morally obscene for the father who killed his kids to forget, forgive or ease himself.

Now say he becomes a new birdman of Alcatraz. Say he channels all that guilt into studying medicine After ten years or so he discovers the cure for all childhood cancers. A pretty positive outcome. That still does not offset what he did. There is nothing he can do that can fix what he did, and there is no lesson he can learn that will make it all for the better. Some wrongs just can’t be alleviated.

What would happen is that people will tend to forget, and pass over the fact he killed his kids. They’d probably tend to say stuff like he is a reformed character, or is no longer a danger, or he fully understands what he did. And that may all be true. But killing your kids is one thing - that for me - can’t be undone or eased. And nor should it.

And again, if he ever said “I have found the cure for childhood cancer so that has helped me feel less guilty about killing my kids,” then Aarrrggh! Again.

Secondly, you say a person cannot feel a lack of guilt in good conscience. What about having a constant grudge in good conscience? What about the father's side of things? Yeah his son died and he won't take it easy but when the criminal tries to make up for it how can he go on feeling angry? The guy has changed.

Well you need to be careful here. The young Russian was a soldier. Soldiers get killed in battle. It is not the killing that is the issue, in this case it is the beheading I found particularly repugnant. This took the killing to a whole different level. Perhaps you have to see it to understand. But I really suggest you do not go hunting it out.

You question the need for continuing a grudge or maintaining a level of anger. Well I am not against forgive and forget. I am only saying that there are some actions, and only some, for which that approach is inappropriate.

Ok Scorpia. Imagine you are a mother of a young soldier. Which of the following - do you think you can eventually bring yourself to forgive.

1/ You are told your son is killed in action.
2/ You are told you son was a prisoner of war and was executed by enemy.
3/ You are told your son was a prisoner of war and was beheaded alive.
4/ You are told your son was a prisoner of war, and that his last moments were someone standing on his neck, and using a serrated hand knife…..
5/ You get to see the film…..

I’d say somewhere around 3 the language of forgiveness becomes meaningless. That kind of talk just does not touch what is going on. I'd go further and say that the move towards forgiveness requires a filtering of reality, and is a kind of unreality.

[Confused]

And what, if say, you were in the Chechnyan's position? After trying to make up for it?

If I had really addressed what I had done I would not forgive myself. So I would not expect anyone else to forgive me either. For certain deeds talk of forgiveness is inane.

Hey Brow, what do you think of the blanket amnesty program as used by the South African government and often proposed for the Iraqi insurrectionists?

I would argue that in that case certain evil actions were forgiven by an entire nation and were therefore absolved.

While addressed to Furrowed, I have to add here:

I don't agree that to reach a political form of peace, blanket amnesty is ever justified. If the entire nation is at fault, then the entire nation should bare the burden of making it right, not just arbitrarily absolved of all wrong doing. I realize that you can make some cases where the constituents of a nation were only doing what is needed to survive (following orders) but did Germany get to use that plea when those who ran the concentration camps were brought up by the UN for crimes against humanity (war crimes, genocide, etc..). No, they didn't . I think that those responsible for the acts committed in S. Africa as well as those in Iraq should be held accountable. These are crimes against mankind and should reflect the laws of mankind. Not the laws of political peace.

[Demetrius]

Hello everyone.

My personal position on this point may sound odd. I think there is no absolute way to define an evil or a good person: reality is just too various, and perception of good and evil may change depending on each person's moral and cultural background.
However, there is an exception. I think the only absolute way to define an evil person is this: evil is one who breaks the laws of his/her society. Everyone who acts within law is to be considered "good", regardless of what (s)he actually does. Every other perception on goodness/badness is just relative. I myself don't consider every person who doesn't break the law good, but it's only my own opinion, influenced by what I have studied, how I was grown, etc... So, there is no absolute good and evil outside the human convention, which is the society and its laws.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hello everyone.

My personal position on this point may sound odd. I think there is no absolute way to define an evil or a good person: reality is just too various, and perception of good and evil may change depending on each person's moral and cultural background.
However, there is an exception. I think the only absolute way to define an evil person is this: evil is one who breaks the laws of his/her society. Everyone who acts within law is to be considered "good", regardless of what (s)he actually does. Every other perception on goodness/badness is just relative. I myself don't consider every person who doesn't break the law good, but it's only my own opinion, influenced by what I have studied, how I was grown, etc... So, there is no absolute good and evil outside the human convention, which is the society and its laws.

Hi Demetrius,

But are all laws just and good. What about the laws of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Ghandi broke the law you know. Was he evil?

[Demetrius]

Hello everyone.

My personal position on this point may sound odd. I think there is no absolute way to define an evil or a good person: reality is just too various, and perception of good and evil may change depending on each person's moral and cultural background.
However, there is an exception. I think the only absolute way to define an evil person is this: evil is one who breaks the laws of his/her society. Everyone who acts within law is to be considered "good", regardless of what (s)he actually does. Every other perception on goodness/badness is just relative. I myself don't consider every person who doesn't break the law good, but it's only my own opinion, influenced by what I have studied, how I was grown, etc... So, there is no absolute good and evil outside the human convention, which is the society and its laws.

Hi Demetrius,

But are all laws just and good. What about the laws of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Ghandi broke the law you know. Was he evil?

Hello Furrowed Brow,

Well, let's take those examples you made. The Nazi government. If we see it from outside any State, then we can say it was wrong and evil. We can say: "we all accept a greater authority, for example the Declaration of Human Rights of ONU, or even the Bible teachings, and say, by it, that Nazis were wicked and evil". But from inside the State of Germany, well, Nazis were "good". They were democraticly elected. They were expression of what German people wanted in that era. I think we can't make a democracy and then, when one is democraticly and freely elected, say he is terribly wrong so we can disobey his rules. States need security, and how can security be granted if one says there are cases in which law can be broken? Revolting against a democraticly elected government is like denying your own decisions and putting at risk your own health. And also an absolute monarchy or a tyrannical state will always be better than anarchy.
Sorry, I am driving the discussion on a political ground. The topic question was ethical. As I said before, we can accept a greater authority or follow our own ethical convictions and say that something is evil, something is good. I do that myself. But unless we all, and when I say all I mean every single human on Earth, accept the same identical ethical code, we have to appeal to laws. If everyone followed his own ethics and there were no laws, the world would be in chaos.
I'll try to explain better. What I mean is: it is really, really dangerous to say that something is right or wrong regardless of the rules. In order to grant peace and serenity to everyone, we have to adhere to the rules. Those who break the rules, like Gandhi, may be right for some (and I think he was), but they would only in that particular place and time. We can't say it is absolutely right to do what "one who breaks the rules" does. It's like when an acrobat performs a particularly dangerous show on TV and in the end says "It was great, but don't try that at home, kids.". "He was right after all, but don't do that in your everyday life, common people."
I don't know if I was clear enough about my position: I will give further explanation if needed.

[scorpia]

Well you need to be careful here. The young Russian was a soldier. Soldiers get killed in battle. It is not the killing that is the issue, in this case it is the beheading I found particularly repugnant.

The beheading or the enjoyment? If it was the beheading, I have given another example of beheading in this thread from the Japanese, who didit because they did not want their prisoners dishonoured. They did so because they thought they were doing the right thing. And the thought of keeping a prisoner alive in prison would be bad. Who knows, if you did the latter in one situation maybe you'd turn out to be the monster, even if you didn't kill anyone.

You question the need for continuing a grudge or maintaining a level of anger. Well I am not against forgive and forget. I am only saying that there are some actions, and only some, for which that approach is inappropriate.

I've heard of a lot of actions in my life and I can't imagine which, not from the outside. Add to that if I don't get over it I'll be the one considering those "innapropriate actions"

Ok Scorpia. Imagine you are a mother of a young soldier. Which of the following - do you think you can eventually bring yourself to forgive.

1/ You are told your son is killed in action.
2/ You are told you son was a prisoner of war and was executed by enemy.
3/ You are told your son was a prisoner of war and was beheaded alive.
4/ You are told your son was a prisoner of war, and that his last moments were someone standing on his neck, and using a serrated hand knife…..
5/ You get to see the film…..

I’d say somewhere around 3 the language of forgiveness becomes meaningless. That kind of talk just does not touch what is going on. I'd go further and say that the move towards forgiveness requires a filtering of reality, and is a kind of unreality.

I have never been a mother nor sought out to be one and cannot sympathise.

[Furrowed Brow]

I have never been a mother nor sought out to be one and cannot sympathise.

Well I never sought to be a father. It kind of just happened.

It was not so much sympathy as empathy I was driving towards. Kant thought empathy had nothing to do with morality. That morality was that which could be expressed by universal principles. I take the opposite view. Morality is found in the detail, the minutia and the subjective; it is life in situ. Thus - for me - empathy is key to being a moral person. That is perhaps why you have been frustrated with what seems like the way I have been "beating myself up". However empathy does not always entail sympathy. I try to put myself in the position of that angry, disturbed father, draw on all the resources I can, what I know of other people, and what I know of myself. In the end I cannot sympathise.

[Confused]

Hello everyone.

My personal position on this point may sound odd. I think there is no absolute way to define an evil or a good person: reality is just too various, and perception of good and evil may change depending on each person's moral and cultural background.
However, there is an exception. I think the only absolute way to define an evil person is this: evil is one who breaks the laws of his/her society. Everyone who acts within law is to be considered "good", regardless of what (s)he actually does. Every other perception on goodness/badness is just relative. I myself don't consider every person who doesn't break the law good, but it's only my own opinion, influenced by what I have studied, how I was grown, etc... So, there is no absolute good and evil outside the human convention, which is the society and its laws.

I would have to definately disagree with your absolute definition of an evil person. If it is absolute, then every person who breaks the law of his/her society is evil. The problem with this is that one can break a law for a just cause. For example, I murder a man who kidnapped and raped my daughter, but got off on a technicality (the cops forgot a warrant, or couldn't use the evidence of the mans wifes testimony because it is "sacred"). Am I wrong for exacting revenge, by biblical standards, sure. By societies standards, possibly. By legal standards, yes. But am I really evil? Was I not justified? Everyone knows the guy did it, but the confession was thrown out, the eyewitnesses to the kidnapping were confused and discredited on the stand, the DNA evidence was thrown out for lack of a specific warrant, the wife isn't allowed to testify as to what here husband confessed because of the sacred alliance. So where am I evil here?

[Demetrius]

I would have to definately disagree with your absolute definition of an evil person. If it is absolute, then every person who breaks the law of his/her society is evil. The problem with this is that one can break a law for a just cause.

Hello Confused.

The problem is that the cause of your actions may be just for you (or for thousands of other people as well), but not for society as a whole. Laws are there because men made a pact in order to live longer and more peacefully. We cannot disobey laws for a "greater purpose" or "values".
The fact is, I have a passion for each one's freedom, and a total lack of trust in mankind (I suppose one could say I'm an UnHumanist). So, I think no one should ever feel justified to break laws. What I think is there should NOT be shared values or ethics in a society. Freedom of thought, of word, and of print are holy, and if there are shared values, freedom is in danger. If I said Nazis were right in doing all their horrible actions (thing which I do not think, it's an example), people would probably ostracize me because the "common sense of ethics" says it's wrong to think like that. To me, this is hindering freedom. The logical consequence is that if there is no common sense of right and wrong, laws are the only way society has to grant security and peace to its members. So, laws are as holy as freedom itself. The only case, I think, in which one could feel justified to revolt against the State is if it denied freedom of thought, word and print.
I am terribly sorry, but I'm afraid I didn't exactly understand your example.