Can an act or actions of an individual be evil?

[The Overlord]

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

I don't believe in cultural relativism, a woman raped in Pakistan would be just as violated as woman raped in the US. Rape is immoral no matter which culture it is committed in.

 

[Abaddon]

What about infanticide? Would you consider that immoral?

 

[The Overlord]

What about infanticide? Would you consider that immoral?

I would say yes.

You may try to hit with the china situtation, but let address that. The communist party was the one that encouraged the population boom in the rest place, so their one child policy does seem hypocritical. Also consider that the fact that baby girls are usually the victims, one can see that China is setting itself up for a fall. From a purely logical stand point, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Harlekin]

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.

Yeah, you're not getting it. Define good and evil. Then explain to me where that sense of good and evil comes from. Then explain to me why obviously not everybody thinks the same. And I'm not just talking about the rapists and the psychos. I'm talking about humanity since its beginning. Why literally untold amounts of people disagree with you on the definition of good and evil.

Do you understand that if you could actually answer that with logical, rational answers, you'll have solved a mystery over a thousands years old? There is no universal definition of good and evil. There is only what you consider to be good and evil.

And, actually, yes, I could come up with a rationale for rape to be morally right. I'd just have to go back to medieval times, where rape was, nine times out of ten, a justifiable punishment for a cheating or unwilling wife.

 

[The Overlord]

Yeah, you're not getting it. Define good and evil. Then explain to me where that sense of good and evil comes from. Then explain to me why obviously not everybody thinks the same. And I'm not just talking about the rapists and the psychos. I'm talking about humanity since its beginning. Why literally untold amounts of people disagree with you on the definition of good and evil.

Do you understand that if you could actually answer that with logical, rational answers, you'll have solved a mystery over a thousands years old? There is no universal definition of good and evil. There is only what you consider to be good and evil.

And, actually, yes, I could come up with a rationale for rape to be morally right. I'd just have to go back to medieval times, where rape was, nine times out of ten, a justifiable punishment for a cheating or unwilling wife.

But the question is can some acts be qualified as evil and I think rape counts.

Like I said there is no logical reason for someone to rape another, revenge for "cheating" does not count as a logical reason. Give me logical reason, explain how it could serve a greater purpose, for example. People who disagree are illogical or immoral, I don't care their opinions. People who think rape is justified are warped. There is no reason to rape someone besides want to inflict pain on someone or to dominate them, there is no moral or logical reason to do it, therefore it is evil.

Natural law comes from wisdom and logic and sometimes logic and wisdom can be debated and other times it cannot. Just because some immoral peopletry to justify it or because the Mongols did, does not make it justifible.

 

[Abaddon]

People who disagree are illogical or immoral, I don't care their opinions.

And that's what it all comes down to apparently.

 

[The Overlord]

And that's what it all comes down to apparently.

Duh, some people have very warped views. That fellow Applegate thought aliens would take him to another planet if he killed himself, which he and is cult did. Now do I have to respect his views just because he happened to believe in them or can I use my common sense to determine that he was crazy and his views were insane?

 

[Harlekin]

But the question is can some acts be qualified as evil and I think rape counts.

You're getting too far ahead. Like I said: Define evil first. That's the first question that needs to be asked. Once you've actually ascertained what good and evil are, and we're talking about the universal good and evil here, not just what you think, then you can start wondering about which actions are good and which are evil. You can't do the one before doing the other.

Like I said there is no logical reason for someone to rape another, revenge for "cheating" does not count as a logical reason. Give me logical reason, explain how it could serve a greater purpose, for example. People who disagree are illogical or immoral, I don't care their opinions. People who think rape is justified are warped. There is no reason to rape someone besides want to inflict pain on someone or to dominate them.

You're asking these questions even though you actually have no clue of what good and evil are. I'm not joking when I ask you to define good and evil first. You have a very vague notion of what you yourself consider to be good and evil, based on what you've been taught and what you've learned from experience, but you really have no idea what real good and real evil is. Nobody does. If we did, world would be a lot simpler.

Natural law comes from wisdom and logic and sometimes logic and wisdom can be debated and other times it cannot. Just because some immoral peopletry to justify it or because the Mongols did, does not make it justifible.

So, what's natural law? Define it for me. You're talking about justification and morals and all those things, even though you can't actually define good and evil as they exist universally. All you're going on is what you think are good and evil, and that's the only real option, because that's all you have. That's all any of us have. Accepting that basic truth doesn't mean your ideas aren't any less valid, they just don't apply universally.

 

[Abaddon]

There are many logical, sane, emotionally stable people who do things you consider wrong. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. If you were born into a different cultural, you might not even have these prejudices. That is the point of cultural relativism.

 

[Harlekin]

Exactly. Some people take this notion to far and fall into moral depression, but most relativists are just able to accept that truth for what it is. Accepting that someone doesn't agree with you doesn't actually mean you agree with them. I still think rape is a horrid horrid thing to do. Doesn't mean I can't accept that someone doesn't think so.

 

[The Overlord]

You're getting too far ahead. Like I said: Define evil first. That's the first question that needs to be asked. Once you've actually ascertained what good and evil are, and we're talking about the universal good and evil here, not just what you think, then you can start wondering about which actions are good and which are evil. You can't do the one before doing the other..

Well would define an act that hurts another for no purpose beyond providing enjoyment or entertainment of the that person as evil. Rape is evil because it ultimately never serves a purpose beyond that. Its always done with ill intent, you can't do to protect your family or anything, its always about establishing dominance.

Killing in self defense is okay, killing because you think its fun is not. Evil is established by intention and actions, combine those two things, ill intent and immoral actions and you get an evil outcome.

You're asking these questions even though you actually have no clue of what good and evil are. I'm not joking when I ask you to define good and evil first. You have a very vague notion of what you yourself consider to be good and evil, based on what you've been taught and what you've learned from experience, but you really have no idea what real good and real evil is. Nobody does. If we did, world would be a lot simpler.

Tell that to rape victms, they may disagree.

So, what's natural law? Define it for me. You're talking about justification and morals and all those things, even though you can't actually define good and evil as they exist universally. All you're going on is what you think are good and evil, and that's the only real option, because that's all you have. That's all any of us have. Accepting that basic truth doesn't mean your ideas aren't any less valid, they just don't apply universally.

I'm not very religious, but I like the Golden rule in principal, do onto others that what you would want done onto yourself. Its a good guideline. Now I realize that at times are necessary evils (say bloodshed during the fight to liberate Europe from the nazis) but the whole its sound rule.

There are many logical, sane, emotionally stable people who do things you consider wrong. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. If you were born into a different cultural, you might not even have these prejudices. That is the point of cultural relativism.

Care to name someone who has done that, that I might respect?

 

[The Guard]

Evil may be subjective, like anything else, but like anything else in our culture, it also has an accepted definition.

Otherwise what's the point of defining anything?

 

[KevanG]

I haven't read most of the responses on this thread but here's my views on it. Their not perfect but I call them like I see them. The thing is that there are no strict definitions of "good" or "evil". The world isn't black and white like that. We base "good" off of what we would like to happen to ourselves, helping people through charity, being kind, ect... and "evil" off of what we would not want to happen to us, murder, rape, theft, ect...

Things that are beyond what we consider "normal", the cults, genocide, and things like that have varying degrees of "evil" or insanity attached to them. If it's just a person who brutally kills animals for fun we consider them both crazy and evil in a sense. Sometimes it's a matter of just a chemical imbalance and for medication to take hold to fix that. Would a person bve considered evil still if they had killed a person or even several people but then were properly treated and became a productive member of society afterwards?

Some people thought that human sacrifice was good for the world and that the sun needed it, we find it a horrible idea today but back then it was accepted as it was thought they needed it for their way of life to continue. In war usually the opposing side is vilified to seem evil in the minds of the opposing countries/peoples/whatever.

Genocide on the other hand does take more than just one person to commit, so would that be considered evil? The most famous occurrence of this would be from the Nazis as likely stated before, but if someone or a group of people were forced to do it as their own homes and families were in danger of being targeted of the same act, would they be thought of as evil or just doing what they thought what they needed to do in order to protect their families. In the larger view it is considered an atrocity (I'm not too fond of it either) and even when broken down the actions of the whole are deplorable but there are some cases where they didn't have a choice. (Not that that's an excuse for the whole thing really) but anyway the whole post is basically saying that good and evil are subjective terms varying on who is talking about them and their own views on it and that depending on the person the one being talked about could be evil or good.

 

[Harlekin]

Well would define an act that hurts another for no purpose beyond providing enjoyment or entertainment of the that person as evil. Rape is evil because it ultimately never serves a purpose beyond that. Its always done with ill intent, you can't do to protect your family or anything, its always about establishing dominance.

Killing in self defense is okay, killing because you think its fun is not. Evil is established by intention and actions, combine those two things, ill intent and immoral actions and you get an evil outcome.

Universal good and evil. This is not the universal definition of what's evil.

Tell that to rape victms, they may disagree.

Great way to dodge the debate there.

I'm not very religious, but I like the Golden rule in principal, do onto others that what you would want done onto yourself. Its a good guideline. Now I realize that at times are necessary evils (say bloodshed during the fight to liberate Europe from the nazis) but the whole its sound rule.

See, there you go. You keep to that guideline. You also judge it, which is only necessary if there are other theories abound. If that was the only guideline, you wouldn't have to judge it, it'd be automatically good. So now, you're already accepting that others don't necessarily follow that same guideline. So why can't you accept that good and evil are not the same for everyone?

 

[TBadora]

Can an act or actions of an individual be evil?

Yes.

 

[Abaddon]

Care to name someone who has done that, that I might respect?

ha, how could you respect them when

People who disagree are illogical or immoral, I don't care their opinions.

You're right. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. This is the way you choose to view things.