Sharks and love

Does evil exist? That is, can anyone be inherently bad, or are people ?

If not, then does the word evil a constructive word, or does it only serve to confuse people about the problems in the world?

I think that anytime the word "evil" is used, we tend to focus on the problem or their close associates, instead of understanding the environmental problems that lead people to become bad people.



...Wow. I really screwed the title up... :X

Robin57

Everyone of has a Jekyll and Hyde in us, for most part we can control it, but there are some who are unable to control those evil feelings.

I don't if studying and trying to understand the enviromental problems would always help to explain the evil persons reasoning.

You could say that a man or woman became evil because they were abused as a child, lived in a slum and was bullied at school (extreme I know). The I would agree that person became evil due to his personal environment.

Or if a child is bought up in a loving caring house but was ultra facist, this too be considered for a person becoming evil.

But what about those who were maybe bought up in a loving home, a balance of discipline, where the politics of the adults were liberal etc. Where would we go for the answer?

Looking at the environment is a good start but it will not always yield the answers.

Arctic Fox

Fascist does not equal genocidal rascist.

Fascisism is a collectivist ideal (sort-of, it trended to the corporatist/guild state). The second syllable in Nazi comes from "socialism".

Fascists lauded FDR's "new deal" as progressive and sympathetic to their politics.

Fundementally nationalistic as a reaction to Moscow's trans-national call for workers unite under Soviet leadership, independent-minded fascism did indeed lead to the uber-nationalistic politics of Hitler. But it did not start there. Spanish, Italian and Turkish fascists reacted somewhat differently.

I think it not far-fetched to say that fascism is the sister-politics of socialism.

Arctic Fox

Evil exists. even after the endless intellectual equivocations, people make the calls daily. like porn, you know it when you see it. definitions belabor the obvious.

Here are a couple:

1. N. Korean elite starving millions to secure their status
2. Khmer Rouge in Cambodia
3. Jeffery Dahmer
4. Hitler (of course)
5. Insurance companies
6. Stalin
7. the SOB who cut me off this morning

There is a point you do not cross and you know when it is crossed. Thereafter it is just semantics and degree as to when "wrong" becomes "evil".

Is it a constructive concept? Yes. Identifying something as too wrong/evil to ever be acceptable is what gave us the civil rights movement and contained Stalin. Understanding is not there to excuse it but to prevent its reoccurrence.

Lucius

Does evil exist?

Well, when someone does something bad to you that you didn't deserve, isn't that evil?

When someone does something good for you that you didn't deserve, isn't
that good?

avon

Put like that, Lucius, you make the case seductively simple. How could you that be wrong -- it must be right. But I'm left with a nagging voice at the back of my mind telling me something's not quite that simple.

Okay let's try this: 'when someone does something bad to you that you didn't deserve' that may appear 'evil' to you but at the same time may appear 'good' to another. That action that (to you) was 'evil', might also have consequences either on you or on another that may well turn out to be 'something good for you that you didn't deserve'. So, appearances, or interpretation of actions are thus all important meaning that 'good' and 'evil' only exist insofar as they can be perceived by the individual.

Okay, it's a nagging voice, I didn't say it made any sense!!

avon

Wow, didn't you just!! I think it makes it more intriguing!!

Lucius

avon,

My predilection toward keeping things simple is not entirely dictated by preference.

I can only think that the question has to do with the meaning of "deserve."

If someone maliciously scratches the finish on my car, he deserves to have his hand broken. Until I think about it some. Then, maybe just two fingers. Or maybe I just put an identical scratch on his car in the same place. But if his car is 20% nicer than mine, the scratch should rightfully be 20% shorter. But since he was the one who did wrong in the first place, maybe only 10% shorter. But what if his car already has a bunch of scratches on it? OK, I'll break his nose. No, wait a minute, I'll just give him a fat lip. And a black eye. Wait a minute ...

So, yes, the principle is simple, but the execution of it is fraught.

Bucephalus

Avon's nagging voice is in my head, too (along with that wonderfully hideous avatar ).

Let's imagine this utterly contrived scenario:

A man kills a police officer without cause or provocation during a routine traffic stop. He escapes, but is wounded in the process. Breaking news of the murder, the manhunt, and a description of the suspect and his car are broadcast on all of the local stations. He shows up at a friend's apartment, bleeding and frantic. The friend has been watching the news, knows what has happened, and still decides (because of his friendship) to help the murderer bandage his wound. The friend even lends him his car so that he can make a clean getaway.

The friend did something "good" for the murderer (who, by anyone else's standards, didn't deserve it), but most of us (and the legal system) would view the actions of the friend as evil, not good. He helped a murderer escape justice.

I agree that it seems like perspective is a critical element in the evaluation of good versus evil...

Lucius

The friend would have to live the rest of his life knowing that he was an accomplice to murder. Maybe that would cancel out the "good" in some cosmic way?