Can people truly be evil?

[Crocolyle]

Q: Can people truly be evil?







My response:
I would say no. Though people cannot truly be evil, people are capable of committing truly evil actions. But no person exclusively commits evil actions, regardless of their ideology or intentions and if you do factor in ideology and intentions, the motivations are often “good” despite bringing about catastrophe; therefore, people, can be neither considered good nor evil, and only their actions, regardless of intended or actual effect, can be defined into such specific categories.

For the purposes of my argument, I will divide actions into moral, immoral, and amoral. Since individual ethics vary from person to person, many others will categorize the actions I will list differently. I will try to avoid actions relating sexual preference, treatment of animals, and spirituality, since I know a consensus with such actions would be impossible and only have the effect of clouding my argument amidst small side arguments about what is ethical.

Let us assume killing/injuring (other human beings), suicide (remember: we’re just assuming), and stealing are immoral. Preserving your life and the lives of future generations we will assume are moral, as well as, trying to limit poverty and restoring the greatness of a country..

Now back to why people cannot be evil, but only their actions:
Take as an example, Hitler since he is someone one would expect to bring up in such an argument, so I might as well use him. Though in media depictions and popular culture assumes he is evil, I will say that he was not any more evil than the majority of the leaders of the U. S. or the U. K. Let’s look at some of his actions:
1. Economically revitalization—Germany as the Weimar Republic had been economically crippled because of sanctions imposed by the victors of WWI. Hitler tried to restore the country economically, which would be considered a moral action, because he was helping the poor and restoring a country’s greatness, which we determined were “good.” Because of this seeming moral action, we have determined that Hitler is capable of doing good. But is the capacity and a history of doing good, despite doing evil, enough to make the person good?
2. Genocide—Attempting to kill off political dissidents, handicapped, communists, Slavs, gypsies, and Jews. We decided that killing/injuring other human beings is immoral, so here is an immoral action. Because of the severity of the action let’s assume for a moment that this makes Hitler evil.

BUT WAIT:

a. In order to determine whether or not a person is good or evil, we have to look at their intentions. Then let’s look at why, Hitler would do something as serious as genocide:
i. Racism—he thought those races were inferior. So, put a check in the evil column.
ii. Health—he thought that by eliminating “undesirables” (particularly the handicapped with inheritable illnesses) the health of his nation, particularly of the next generation would improve (even if these thoughts were misguided), so put a check in the good column
iii. Economic revitalization—he was removing some of the poorest subsets in society, getting free (slave) labor, and getting money to fund the government through bits of jewelry, gold fillings, and the property of those he imprisoned. Though all these actions could be considered evil, they were for a good intention (economic revitalization).

We found several good intentions behind the Holocaust, despite it being an evil act. Therefore maybe intentions should not be taken into account when determining someone’s goodness or evil

b. Since historical perception sees him as evil, let’s compare his actions with people who are generally perceived as good:
FDR: Gathered Asians, fearing they were Japanese spies and put them in concentration camps in California.
Most American Colonists and Frontiersmen: lead a genocidal war against the American Indians.
George Washington: Genocide of American Indians.
Abe Lincoln: started an illegal invasion of an area that was formerly part of his country (understand, the actual war was over secession, which the states thought they had every right to do)
It seems you are only seen as evil if you lose the war!?

c. If Hitler is evil for being involved with the Holocaust, anyone involved with the Holocaust would also have to be evil—maybe even more evil for actually carrying out evil orders. To disagree would be to say that humans are order-carrying-out machines [an argument we’ll save for another thread]. Note: An argument saying Germans are more evil than anyone else wouldn’t work. Look up Stanley Milgram and his experiment involving electric shock. A very readable article on the subject that I read is the aptly titled, “If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? Probably” by Philip Meyer. Ordinary, moral people are capable of extremely immoral things (one of the reasons I think you can’t judge people as evil).

d. The actual effects of an action I don’t think are grounds to determine whether not a person is evil, because good actions and good intentions often have bad results, whereas immoral actions can potentially have good results. Say, systematically eliminating the unemployed. The action is immoral, but the effect gets rid of people who are a burden on society, so people actually can benefit. There literally is an endless list of why we shouldn’t take into account effects…

Because:
--it is nearly impossible to find an example of a person who has done only evil
--some of the greatest evils can be caused by good intentions, because people who are seen as “good” have committed the similar atrocities to those who are seen as “evil,”
--ordinary people can be mislead into committing atrocities,
--the actual effects of an action aren’t really a basis to morally judge someone,
One cannot judge someone as good or evil; rather only one’s actions can be judged.

--------
I call shenanigans on the religion card. An appeal to a higher authority (deities, the pope, holy books, the dalai lama, karma, WISB, someone’s catechism, Zeus, Shaun, etc) in an argument doesn’t count. ;)

[thededone]

I would primarily agree with your in depth analysis on this topic.
My only hang up is that I don't believe in the concept of good or evil.
Before human beings there were only animals, and animals act purely on instinct, much like a machine acts only on its programming. animals, and machines for that matter, will never be accused of being evil because they don't consciously make decisions. So evil, and good for that matter, were born with humanity. but when did they really develop into the concepts we have today? I would say after we had progressed beyond a hunter gatherer stage and started to become slightly more intelligent. The concept of good and evil has been instilled in our minds by religious and political authorities to make sure that they do not lose their sway over us. As long as we think that the other side is evil we won't consider changing sides. As you touched on in your post, the victors write the history books. Why wouldn't we make Hitler out to be worse than the devil? That's what he is to us. Worse than the devil.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as good and evil, it is a concept instilled in us from birth, that we really get hung up on. The only useful application of good and evil would be as a measuring stick to see how well your actions fit your community. Good and evil only exist to form a more cohesive society. If you want a modern day example take Americans and Iraqis. Americans believe that the Iraqis and Afghanis are evil, because they blew up our towers. But the Afghanis and Iraqis believe America to be evil because we won't share our wealth and we blow up civilians and steal oil. To both sides their actions are perfectly justified because the other side is evil. To be honest the worst things humans can do happen in situations like these when neither side sees fault in itself.

So to answer your question, I would say no. No one can be truly evil, because everyone thinks that someone else is evil.

[Crocolyle]

I would primarily agree with your in depth analysis on this topic.
My only hang up is that I don't believe in the concept of good or evil.
Before human beings there were only animals, and animals act purely on instinct, much like a machine acts only on its programming. animals, and machines for that matter, will never be accused of being evil because they don't consciously make decisions. So evil, and good for that matter, were born with humanity. but when did they really develop into the concepts we have today? I would say after we had progressed beyond a hunter gatherer stage and started to become slightly more intelligent. The concept of good and evil has been instilled in our minds by religious and political authorities to make sure that they do not lose their sway over us. As long as we think that the other side is evil we won't consider changing sides. As you touched on in your post, the victors write the history books. Why wouldn't we make Hitler out to be worse than the devil? That's what he is to us. Worse than the devil.
What I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as good and evil, it is a concept instilled in us from birth, that we really get hung up on. The only useful application of good and evil would be as a measuring stick to see how well your actions fit your community. Good and evil only exist to form a more cohesive society. If you want a modern day example take Americans and Iraqis. Americans believe that the Iraqis and Afghanis are evil, because they blew up our towers. But the Afghanis and Iraqis believe America to be evil because we won't share our wealth and we blow up civilians and steal oil. To both sides their actions are perfectly justified because the other side is evil. To be honest the worst things humans can do happen in situations like these when neither side sees fault in itself.

So to answer your question, I would say no. No one can be truly evil, because everyone thinks that someone else is evil.

I actually agree with most of that, with a few minor deviations. Obviously, as I stated in my last post, I do believe in the existence of evil, but only in that I believe in moral and immoral actions. As a note, the actions that I believe to be evil, such as killing or stealing, are immoral in any situation. So therefore both Americans and the Saudi terrorists in Afghanistan would both be doing evil. Even to kill in self-defense, I consider evil (however I believe suicide, even suicide through omission, is immoral, so in this situation where you can't take an amoral action [i. e. run away] you have judge which action to be the lesser evil). I think to take into account specific circumstances would make any action justifiable (Like to kill someone in self-defense, while possibly necessary, is not justifiable). Also, because people are forced to commit evil actions, I don't think people can be evil. Even at that point where I diverge, I sort of agree with you.

The main thing I'd disagree with you on oddly enough if the statement equating animals to machines, though to argue against that would be a little off topic. I think our complex society and technology is all that separates us. We're just as programmed as they are (I think we're pretty programmed ourselves; people usually do the same thing as other people in a lot of situations). A lot of animals, particularly mammals can be taught skills and solve puzzles, just as we can. Also animals can recognize other animals (like one sheep recognizes the different sheep in the herd as being different sheep) and obviously have moods and emotions (like dogs, cats, horses, etc). The only difference between us and animals I think are thumbs and the capacity for language. Without a capacity for language, animals can't form a complex society or invent stuff. People with certain types of autism, where they can't learn language, are basically animals. Like they think in terms of pictures instead of words (Temple Grandin, an animal scientist, wrote about this subject). I'm not a biologist, so my statements about how animals think could be entirely untrue.

[Joker]

I think that people can be truly evil. My example would be Charles Mansen. Admittedly, he was treated rather badly as a child (his uncle, I think, made him wear girls clothes to school), but how many other abused children grow up to now drive others to murder? I don't believe that a person is born evil, rather that the evil is manufactered through three factors.

Genetics: This decides whether the person in question can be corropted, and how much it would take to do so.

Environment: THis is what gives the person the inclination to do evil. An abused child would, because of his environment, be more inclined to do evil acts.

Choice: THis is the big one. The previous two factors can only influence the person, in the end it his choice whether or not he kills someone.

There are other examples of truly evil people. I would not say Hitler was truly evil, rather he was twisted and way too charasmatic for everyone else's good.

[Crocolyle]

I think that people can be truly evil. My example would be Charles Mansen. Admittedly, he was treated rather badly as a child (his uncle, I think, made him wear girls clothes to school), but how many other abused children grow up to now drive others to murder? I don't believe that a person is born evil, rather that the evil is manufactered through three factors.

Genetics: This decides whether the person in question can be corropted, and how much it would take to do so.

Environment: THis is what gives the person the inclination to do evil. An abused child would, because of his environment, be more inclined to do evil acts.

Choice: THis is the big one. The previous two factors can only influence the person, in the end it his choice whether or not he kills someone.

There are other examples of truly evil people. I would not say Hitler was truly evil, rather he was twisted and way too charasmatic for everyone else's good.

I agree that genetics and environment do affect someone's "choice" whether or not do an immoral act, but as I tried to prove through my argument that committing evil acts does not necessarily make someone evil. Can you prove that Charles Manson truly was evil, not an insane, psychopathic man who murdered some people? Ultimately I think it was his delusions and insanity that made him do evil.

[Shadow]

Meh, I just think there is no concept of good or evil. There's only how people act. I'll agree that some actions can be considered good and some evil, but it depends on your opinion. As Croc said, some of Hitler's actions could be percieved as good by some (i.e. his subjects). Another example is that people think all communists are evil. Not necessarily. Sure, China's government is power-mad and is incrediblt powerful because of it's strict laws, but China's people would be worse off if the actual concept of Communism, not the laws that the government has been able to put on it's people though communism, were not in effect.

[thededone]

I actually agree with most of that, with a few minor deviations. Obviously, as I stated in my last post, I do believe in the existence of evil, but only in that I believe in moral and immoral actions. As a note, the actions that I believe to be evil, such as killing or stealing, are immoral in any situation. So therefore both Americans and the Saudi terrorists in Afghanistan would both be doing evil. Even to kill in self-defense, I consider evil (however I believe suicide, even suicide through omission, is immoral, so in this situation where you can't take an amoral action [i. e. run away] you have judge which action to be the lesser evil). I think to take into account specific circumstances would make any action justifiable (Like to kill someone in self-defense, while possibly necessary, is not justifiable). Also, because people are forced to commit evil actions, I don't think people can be evil. Even at that point where I diverge, I sort of agree with you.

The main thing I'd disagree with you on oddly enough if the statement equating animals to machines, though to argue against that would be a little off topic. I think our complex society and technology is all that separates us. We're just as programmed as they are (I think we're pretty programmed ourselves; people usually do the same thing as other people in a lot of situations). A lot of animals, particularly mammals can be taught skills and solve puzzles, just as we can. Also animals can recognize other animals (like one sheep recognizes the different sheep in the herd as being different sheep) and obviously have moods and emotions (like dogs, cats, horses, etc). The only difference between us and animals I think are thumbs and the capacity for language. Without a capacity for language, animals can't form a complex society or invent stuff. People with certain types of autism, where they can't learn language, are basically animals. Like they think in terms of pictures instead of words (Temple Grandin, an animal scientist, wrote about this subject). I'm not a biologist, so my statements about how animals think could be entirely untrue.

See again, we aren't entirely too far off from each other. In my opinion the ability for us to have a complex conversation about an abstract concept such as good and evil and morality is what seperates us from animals, at least in this case. Yes humans are animals, and we have instincts that we can not fully control, and yes animals do show some traits that are "humanlike," but animals have no concept of good or evil. They are no more evil or good than a baby, because they do not understand and realize the extent of their actions. The reason I equated animals to machines was only for the discussion of morals, because I machine has no more concept of morality than an animal.

[Shaun]

I'm too tired to address this argument fully, but I will say that you should take into account that the world does change over time. Actions that we considered "right" at some point in time are not considered "wrong" and when such actions are made by people living in an "enlightened" (for lack of a better term) modern world, those people and their actions are designated as evil or wrong or immoral or whatever you want to call it. We don't consider the extermination of the Native Americans to be a good thing, but it was thought to be the right thing to do back then. We've learned and changed. Hitler, however, was stepping backwards, going to a time when exterminating people you don't like is acceptable.
So I think we need to take the changing times into account. I'm not trying to justify the horrible things the people of America have done, well, at least that's not my intention, but we should recognize the differences in culture over hundreds of years.

[Crocolyle]

I understand where you're coming from, and I sort of agree with you. I think that in fact helps prove my point that people can not be judged as good or evil.At the time of the Holocaust, Eugenics and Social Darwinism, which the Holocaust was supposedly an implementation of, were held to be true even by many Americans. The Nazis actually thought they were doing good.

In fact, that is part of the basis of my argument against people being considered to be evil--because a lot of this would fall into my "point a" under "BUT WAIT:"

[Shaun]

I think there's a difference between believing people aren't of the same calibre as you because of skin color or religion and thinking it's acceptable to erradicate an entire people based on the same things, even in those times. There was a lot of anti-jewish sentiment among the U.S. Military during WW2, but even the most charged anti-semites who found out what happened in the camps were stunned and disgusted.
I see your point, I just don't think it necessarily applies to people like Hitler, Stalin, etc. Then again, I guess part of your point still stands because I'm looking at this from a particular perspective (generally the view of a far westerner).
I don't know. I think there's a point where you have to draw a line, and I draw that line with Hitler and Stalin and the people in and around that time who were doing wickedly evil things. Some of the stuff Hitler authorized to be done to the Jews is beyond disturbing. Here's an example:
They actually put Jews in boiling water...alive...and boiled them until their skin came off. Why? I don't know. There was a reason, I imagine, but it wasn't a good one and that's just sick. They did a lot of terrible things, whcih I can't attribute to something as simple as "we're better than them". There has to be a line where simple "racial superiority" sits down and pure hatred and evil takes over.

[Crocolyle]

I don't know enough about that example to comment on it. I have difficulty assigning the label of good or evil to people, because despite their clearly evil actions, the person felt it to be justified, the person likely did good things as well as evil ones, and the evil actions of leaders who we view as good are typically glossed over. I would assume, in fact, that if Hitler had won the war or had been more discreet about his genocide, people would look at him as a hero, even if they were not anti-semetic, anti-gay, anti-slav, anti-communist, and anti-gypsy.

[electrilad]

I believe that no person can be truly evil. They just may have different perspectives than others.

Example:

The other day I watched an eight-hour-marathon of the second season of Heroes. The character Adam, who had lived for four hundred years, wanted to release a virus that would kill almost all of the human population.
Even though that sounds extremely evil, he believed that it was for the sake of the greater good. In his 400 years, he had seen war, pestilence, famine, etc., and it wasn't getting better. He wanted to play God, like in Noah's Ark, and create a new beginning for mankind.

So even though people may do evil things, they all justify it in their heads.