Define evil
- Thread starter Some guy from Ohio
- Start date
Some guy from Ohio said:
See my post and I will use this as an example of my post.
This was a common event not all that long ago (60's), cats were seen as wild animals, kittins were taken, bagged, and thrown in creeks and rivers. I know people (fathers of friends) that did it and discussed it openly as just the course of business. Times have change it.
Please note: I think this is horrible, cruel and criminal.
I prefer to think of children as pre-moral, rather than pure evil, or innocent, for that matter.shilsen said:
They have the potential to become moral actors, maybe even a inherent disposition. But developing a moral framework doesn't happen overnight. It requires years of hard, human effort.
Hand of Evil said:
Of course, this assertion can be challenged also (and if this thread lasts long enough, it probably will be).
In fact, we could discuss many related issues:
* How do YOU define evil?
* Upon what do you base your definition of evil?
* Who has a "right" to define evil?
* What are the commonly accepted (societal) definitions of evil and their sources?
* Is evil relative or absolute, objective or subjective.
* Is one definition of evil more "right" than another?
* What is "right"?
And so on.
Liquidsabre
Explorer
It's very simple.
Evil = Complete Selfishness (self over all others)
Good = Complete Selflessness (all others over self)
Any and all descriptions for good and evil can be, in one form or another, placed under either definition. Grey areas naturally occur when you have a mixture of both traits (selfish, selfless) in one Character (which we ALL do). It's easy to see how by the definition of evil, where an individual persues self-interest OVER others can be detrimental to society (the many) and will be labeled as evil. Keep in mind that self-interest by itself is not evil, but self-interest at the EXPENSE of others is.
Evil = Complete Selfishness (self over all others)
Good = Complete Selflessness (all others over self)
Any and all descriptions for good and evil can be, in one form or another, placed under either definition. Grey areas naturally occur when you have a mixture of both traits (selfish, selfless) in one Character (which we ALL do). It's easy to see how by the definition of evil, where an individual persues self-interest OVER others can be detrimental to society (the many) and will be labeled as evil. Keep in mind that self-interest by itself is not evil, but self-interest at the EXPENSE of others is.
I've thought about this quite a lot over the years. Here's a non-glamorous answer but the most descriptive and useful I've come up with:
Evil is parasitic by intent.
This parasite doesn't care for the wellbeing of its host. It consumes resources, takes for itself, and otherwise seeks to satisfy its appetites without regard. It's like sci-fi space-worms feeding on the powerlines of the mothership. But we would not usually consider a worm-like intelligence capable of evil. We recognize that there are beings which are intentionally and unnecessarily parasitic. They pursue the resources of others to satisfy their own appetites. Such relationships typically encourage the same sorts of relationships (Hence the dog-eat-dog world in which many people live).
By contrast you can see that "good" people try to create mutually satisfying, synergistic, or selfless relationships. Ultimately, the efforts of two or more people to bring benefit to one another yield more outward flowing benefits than the simple addition of the benefits they each received. Ultimately, good produces synergies, and like a powerful atomic reaction, releases energy that encourages other synergistic relationships.
Evil is parasitic by intent.
This parasite doesn't care for the wellbeing of its host. It consumes resources, takes for itself, and otherwise seeks to satisfy its appetites without regard. It's like sci-fi space-worms feeding on the powerlines of the mothership. But we would not usually consider a worm-like intelligence capable of evil. We recognize that there are beings which are intentionally and unnecessarily parasitic. They pursue the resources of others to satisfy their own appetites. Such relationships typically encourage the same sorts of relationships (Hence the dog-eat-dog world in which many people live).
By contrast you can see that "good" people try to create mutually satisfying, synergistic, or selfless relationships. Ultimately, the efforts of two or more people to bring benefit to one another yield more outward flowing benefits than the simple addition of the benefits they each received. Ultimately, good produces synergies, and like a powerful atomic reaction, releases energy that encourages other synergistic relationships.
Galethorn
First Post
I tend to think of evil coming in four types;
(in order; from Least Harmful on Average to Most Harmful on Average)
Category 1: Selfishness (self explanitory),
Category 2: Good-Intentioned, AKA 'Loss of moral compass' (killing 100 street urchins to save a city of 10,000)
Category 3: Hatred (and/or vengeance; self explanitory),
and, <drumroll>
Category 4: [Evil], AKA Pure Unadulterated Evil (destruction for its own sake, as well as killing/maiming weaker creatures because they can; could be seen as a highly concentrated version of #3, with 'everything' as the focus of the hate)
Most people in real life that are evil tend to be of the first three categories, with most being Category 1, most [Evil] leaders being a combination of 1 and 2, and lots of Terrorists (AKA radicals who protest with bombs instead of signs) being a combination of 2 and 3. The only Category 4 evil people I can think of are insane, children (and therefore unable to do much harm, despite their outlook), or characters in books and movies.
One other factor is that you can think of all people having all four types of evil in them, but each and every person supresses them to a different degree. In terms of D&D, a 'good' ranger might be selfless, have a flawless moral compass, and protect all creations of both nature and civilization, but they would have the flaw of a blind hatred of all orcs, and letting that hate ultimately be their undoing.
Generally, #3 is the only one that otherwise [Good] people can posess in any degree and not be truly tainted. #1 is probably the easiest to be redeemed from (per 'taintedness' quotient, or however you want to measure the degrees of each category), #2 being the next easiest, #3 being possible but difficult, and #4 being impossible.
Now, in D&D, Category 4 is my personal requirement for any creature with the [Evil] descriptor. If it's a Devil, they focus mostly on the killing/maiming of weaker beings, whereas Demons would focus more on breaking/burning things for the sake of breaking/burning things. Also, for Celestials, they can be totally 'perfect' in #1, 2, and 4, but have a deep, all-consuming hatred for evil, which in itself can cause much harm to innocents.
(in order; from Least Harmful on Average to Most Harmful on Average)
Category 1: Selfishness (self explanitory),
Category 2: Good-Intentioned, AKA 'Loss of moral compass' (killing 100 street urchins to save a city of 10,000)
Category 3: Hatred (and/or vengeance; self explanitory),
and, <drumroll>
Category 4: [Evil], AKA Pure Unadulterated Evil (destruction for its own sake, as well as killing/maiming weaker creatures because they can; could be seen as a highly concentrated version of #3, with 'everything' as the focus of the hate)
Most people in real life that are evil tend to be of the first three categories, with most being Category 1, most [Evil] leaders being a combination of 1 and 2, and lots of Terrorists (AKA radicals who protest with bombs instead of signs) being a combination of 2 and 3. The only Category 4 evil people I can think of are insane, children (and therefore unable to do much harm, despite their outlook), or characters in books and movies.
One other factor is that you can think of all people having all four types of evil in them, but each and every person supresses them to a different degree. In terms of D&D, a 'good' ranger might be selfless, have a flawless moral compass, and protect all creations of both nature and civilization, but they would have the flaw of a blind hatred of all orcs, and letting that hate ultimately be their undoing.
Generally, #3 is the only one that otherwise [Good] people can posess in any degree and not be truly tainted. #1 is probably the easiest to be redeemed from (per 'taintedness' quotient, or however you want to measure the degrees of each category), #2 being the next easiest, #3 being possible but difficult, and #4 being impossible.
Now, in D&D, Category 4 is my personal requirement for any creature with the [Evil] descriptor. If it's a Devil, they focus mostly on the killing/maiming of weaker beings, whereas Demons would focus more on breaking/burning things for the sake of breaking/burning things. Also, for Celestials, they can be totally 'perfect' in #1, 2, and 4, but have a deep, all-consuming hatred for evil, which in itself can cause much harm to innocents.
Last edited:
Yes.tmaaas said:
This is why is it a topic of discussion and debate throughout history.
Henry
Autoexreginated
tmaaas said:
Isn't this what defines the majority of philosophies and religions in the world today? That's a Pretty big order.
I like the categorical evil (1,2,3,etc.) but I would define them by their likeness to the three personas that (Freud?) speaks of: The Id, Ego, and Superego. Each one, taken to their excess, creates a different kind of evil.
Ego I would say leads to your selfish evil. If the Ego is oriented toward realities in the real world, greed is the overextension of the need to compensate and deal with basic needs in the real world.
The Id leads to the Passionate Evil, the kind of evil that takes the heat of the moment to accomplish. I would'nt call Drowning a crime of being stronger, I'd call it a crime of passion - it takes a lot of passion to override the knowledge that you are killing someone in a very personal way. Just like strangling is personal, drowning is personal.
The Superego leads to that "misguided moral compass" evil. You want to do right, to sublimate dark desires and/or physical needs, but to do it you do something for the community that you would likely not do if it were different circumstances.
All three are evil, but utilizing different drives and urges to see you through the dark task.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
