Can an act or actions of an individual be evil?

[AhabTheArab]

yes these god damned pointless threads are pushing me to murder, which is in fact evil... ipso facto... this thread and YOU whirly, are evil!

 

[bullets]

A person can be evil without firing a gun.

yes , torture and rape are far more heinous.

 

[Abaddon]

Has any society ever said rape was okay? How can you classify rape as anything but evil.

You'd be surprised.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Moral relativism is the refuge of fuzzy thinkers, too busy or stupid to accuratly define things.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Has any society ever said rape was okay? How can you classify rape as anything but evil.

In some cultures it is actually seen as an instrument of justice. Honor killings and the worldview that goes with it are an example where majority rules yet even adherents to such philosophies see the evil.

Truly we are sick beasts.

 

[Memphis Slim]

What is "good"?

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Me!

 

[Abaddon]

Moral relativism is the refuge of fuzzy thinkers, too busy or stupid to accuratly define things.

or maybe too smart to inaccurately define things.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

or maybe too smart to inaccurately define things.

Definitly NOT. Although I have noticed that wishy washy people tend to imagine themselves to be quite smart... must be a defense mechanism.

 

[Abaddon]

some people would argue that one can be more successful once morality is disregarded.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Yes and some would argue that Ted Bundy was just misunderstood. To live a life like that is to be pointless and clueless. MANY choose it, but not me.

 

[Harlekin]

Moral relativism is the refuge of fuzzy thinkers, too busy or stupid to accuratly define things.

Yeah... or not.

Moral relativism is about accepting that there is no one true definition of good and evil. And there isn't, no matter how much people want to think otherwise. It would certainly make things a lot easier. What we consider as good and evil is subject to time and situation. Doesn't mean I don't feel rapists ought to get their heads blown off, it's just accepting that views on what good and evil are differ.

There is no objective good and evil.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I know some smart arse is going to say Evil is something that is subjective. Blah, Blah, Blah. Aren't some things though so bad that they transcend cultural boundaries. Like genocide etc. So can an act from some one like Hitler be considered anything less than evil?

The answer to whether people and certain acts can be considered evil is a resounding yes. The day we eliminate the word/concept of "evil" from our collective vocabulary is the day we lose our moral center and become nothing more than animals. I'll give a few exacmples with no apologies: The Holocaust, The 9/11 Attacks, The Slave trade, The Virginia Tech shooting, The Amish School shooting...all pure evil, period.

 

[Addendum]

What is "good"?

 

[Mike_D202]

Hitler didn't think he was Evil. He thought he was a brave, strong leader trying to rescue the world from destruction and decay.

No, he wanted to rescue the "super race" aka blonde Dutch/Germans from "destruction and decay" by preventing interbreeding with other races and focusing his power in the elimination of the Jews (who apparently prevented his ideal super race from becomming powerful and helped in the decline of the the super-race when it was at its powerful hundreds of years ago, resulting in the modern-day German).

Hitler was ****ed in the head.

 

[November Rain]

For something to be good/bad, you'd have to sit the whole world down and then discuss the pros and cons of those actions and ultimately make a decision on that act.

Even if at the meeting that act was then deemed evil, it may not be deemed evil a week later when the circumstances have changed.

I think under the right circumstances, if the 'pros' outweighed the cons, you could get the 99.9999% of people to comit an evil act.

 

[bullets]

No, he wanted to rescue the "super race" aka blonde Dutch/Germans from "destruction and decay" by preventing interbreeding with other races and focusing his power in the elimination of the Jews (who apparently prevented his ideal super race from becomming powerful and helped in the decline of the the super-race when it was at its powerful hundreds of years ago, resulting in the modern-day German).

Hitler was ****ed in the head.

people think it was all he , like it was only his idea . he did it to satisfy other people that were flucked in head

 

[The Mighty Wind]

Yes but that dosent mean the person is evil. Although Hitler is probably the personification of evil to most people.

I think to call any person evil plays right into their hands. I mean sure, Hitler certainly wouldn't wish to be thought of as the world's worst person, but to treat him as the epitome of evil leaves him with all the dignity in the world. Look at Hitler as a person, look at him as a sad, pathetic individual and discover all the inadequacies and the tragedies that turned him into what he became, and he simply becomes nothing more than a whimpering sad sack of a man who managed to gain the power to take his problems out on millions.

Maybe its just because I identify with satire (which of course often relies on stripping serious things of all their dignity) better than anything else, but I can see no better way to reflect on Hitler's existence than an emotionally frail, criminally misguided, urchin than the towering monstrosity that he made himself into.

Now, that said, there is one breed of people where I just don't know how you can do such a thing, being psychopaths. Granted most suffered immensely in their childhood, but given that they commit the acts that they do purely because they derive joy from suffering, well, I don't know how you are able to bring that sort of an act down. That, I would say, is pure evil, though I hope someone can find a way to reduce it to something less.

 

[The Overlord]

Yeah... or not.

Moral relativism is about accepting that there is no one true definition of good and evil. And there isn't, no matter how much people want to think otherwise. It would certainly make things a lot easier. What we consider as good and evil is subject to time and situation. Doesn't mean I don't feel rapists ought to get their heads blown off, it's just accepting that views on what good and evil are differ.

There is no objective good and evil.

Just because some psychopath can come up with rationalizations for their actions, doesn't make them any less immoral. Anyone can rationalize anything if try hard enough, but often these rationzlizations are excuses for an ultimately base motive.

Plus there is a difference between postive and natural law. Just because the Nazis legalized the Holocaust, doesn't make it any less immoral.

 

[Abaddon]

Just because some psychopath can come up with rationalizations for their actions, doesn't make them any less immoral. Anyone can rationalize anything if try hard enough, but often these rationzlizations are excuses for an ultimately base motive.

Plus there is a difference between postive and natural law. Just because the Nazis legalized the Holocaust, doesn't make it any less immoral.

To you, which is the point.

 

[Harlekin]

Just because some psychopath can come up with rationalizations for their actions, doesn't make them any less immoral. Anyone can rationalize anything if try hard enough, but often these rationzlizations are excuses for an ultimately base motive.

Which explains how in the thousands of years that we have been on this planet, we have never been able to collectively decide what is good and what is evil. If it were truly that simple, the question didn't even need to be posed. Thing is, it's not that simple. Good and evil are not rooted in any tangible and scientifically verifiable construct.

Plus there is a difference between postive and natural law. Just because the Nazis legalized the Holocaust, doesn't make it any less immoral.

And what would then constitute this "natural law"? If there were a natural law, from which one could clearly define good and evil, then again, we would not be having this problem.

 

[The Overlord]

Which explains how in the thousands of years that we have been on this planet, we have never been able to collectively decide what is good and what is evil. If it were truly that simple, the question didn't even need to be posed. Thing is, it's not that simple. Good and evil are not rooted in any tangible and scientifically verifiable construct.
.

Much of this doubt is caused by immoral people who know they have done something wrong, but choose to confuse the issues with their rationalizations and excuses. Its like a kid who didn't do their home work, they know it was because they were goofing off the night before, but they make up an excuse so they can get off the hook. Ted Bundy could likely come up with a billion excuses for his actions, but they are ultimately just excuses, just another way for a psychopath to get off the hook.

Someone who rapes a another person does because they want to dominate another person. Rape is an act of violence and power, it serves in no purposes besides tormenting another person. There is no way any rational person could justify it. You can never come up with a scernario where rape would be morally correct, it is an evil act.

 

[The Overlord]

To you, which is the point.

Well can think of any sitution where rape would morally acceptable. You should I care about the opinions of some psychopathic rapist who just wants to rationalize his own actions?

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

This is an interesting short read, it makes good and evil seem interchangeable to the point of genocide.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral/moral8.htm

 

[Abaddon]

Well can think of any sitution where rape would morally acceptable. You should I care about the opinions of some psychopathic rapist who just wants to rationalize his own actions?

Not in our culture, but maybe in someone else's.