Who was in your opinion the most evil single person in human history? And why would you choose particularly him/her?

I'd go for Hitler, not because of the masses of innocent humans which got killed at his orders, but also for provoking WW2, which was just another cause of death for additional millions of people and because the sick, inhuman methods by which his victims were treated and abused before they died eventually.

I'd agree he was the guy who industrialised mass murder.

God. sdsddsffg

Chairman Mao Zedong killed more human beings than any other single person in the history of mankind. Him.

I'd have too go for Hitler too. He was insane, and he did it because he wanted it done.
Others, like Stalin and Mao, were just ruthless, and they didn't necessarily enjoy it. They just wouldn't let anything stand in their way.

Chairman Mao Zedong killed more human beings than any other single person in the history of mankind. Him.
Let me do some math for you: Hitler killed 6 million Jews, provoked WW2 which killed 56 millions, civilians and soldiers alike, and killed maybe even some people while fighting on the front in WW1. Are you going to claim that Mao killed more people than that?

Let me do some math for you: Hitler killed 6 million Jews, provoked WW2 which killed 56 millions, civilians and soldiers alike, and killed maybe even some people while fighting on the front in WW1. Are you going to claim that Mao killed more people than that?

Is that death toll counting the amount of people who died in the Pacific Theater, which he had almost nothing to do with? The European and African theaters, together, only account for about 40 million.

But the high end for the amount of people Mao killed sometimes goes up to 80 million. I, myself, would argue for a figure closer to 60 million, and some people would go lower than that. But it's not some outrageous claim.

You're just arguing numbers.

Evil is more than that... you're looking for someone who took joy in torturing people, that sort of thing. There's plenty of people like that, and trying to define a "most evil" of them is absurd.

Evil is more than that... you're looking for someone who took joy in torturing people, that sort of thing. There's plenty of people like that, and trying to define a "most evil" of them is absurd.

The "cruelest" person in history would be Vlad Tepes, I suppose. But I think evil should also account for how much damage they did to the world, which is why I picked Mao.

Idi Amin was pretty damn evil. This may be unsubstantiated, but I read somewhere that he had a whole bunch of disabled people rounded up and pushed into a crocodile infested swamp.

The "cruelest" person in history would be Vlad Tepes, I suppose. But I think evil should also account for how much damage they did to the world, which is why I picked Mao.
Hitler brought damage to the whole world, even after his death until the end of the Cold War which was his fault too (think about it). If there would have been a nuclear showdown in the Cold War, then Hitler would have been even accusable to causing indirectly the end of the world!
Mao OTOH just brought misery upon the Chinese people alone.

Hitler brought damage to the whole world, even after his death until the end of the Cold War which was his fault too (think about it). If there would have been a nuclear showdown in the Cold War, then Hitler would have been even accusable to causing indirectly the end of the world!

Dubious logic, there. Should we also blame Hitler's parents for the Cold War, since they bore him? Should we blame the leaders of the nations of World War I for it as well, as they caused Hitler to come to power? How about their parents?

Dubious logic, there. Should we also blame Hitler's parents for the Cold War, since they bore him? Should we blame the leaders of the nations of World War I for it as well, as they caused Hitler to come to power? How about their parents?
Well, that's dubious logical indeed! But every person is up on his own, and you can't deny that the Cold War, which were triggered by the outcome of WW2, was just another tragedy caused by Hitler's existence.

I'd have to say a tie between Stalin,Hitler,Mao and the Evil Nurse.

Evil is more than that... you're looking for someone who took joy in torturing people, that sort of thing. There's plenty of people like that, and trying to define a "most evil" of them is absurd.
This is basically my opinion. After a point (no, I can't quantify it :rolleyes: ) it just becomes depressing to talk about millions of people slaughtered or something like that. People like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin...they were all scumbags, and it's irrelevant who was more scummy than the next.

Are these people necessarily evil, or just plain mad?

Are these people necessarily evil, or just plain mad?
You could take the position that only an insane person would be evil...;)

Someone wise once wrote, 'Insanity is a minority of one.'

Who was in your opinion the most evil single person in human history? And why would you choose particularly him/her?

I'd go for Hitler, not because of the masses of innocent humans which got killed at his orders, but also for provoking WW2, which was just another cause of death for additional millions of people and because the sick, inhuman methods by which his victims were treated and abused before they died eventually.

IMO it's a close call between Hitler and Stalin. But counted by just the number of victims Stalin wins easily.

BTW, saying Hitler personally is solely responsible for WW II is historically incorrect. He intended to start war, yes; but he could have been stopped earlier than after 6 years of world war.

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world. His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe, and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other. Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.

The most evil people are the ones who do not even attempt to rationalize or justify why they did what they did. It's one thing to hide behind ideology and world view. Its another thing to do horrible things... for no discernible reason.

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world. His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe, and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other. Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.

Whut? You might as well blame the Jews, Zoroaster, the Middle East, the Levant and carpentry for that one... How exactly did "His Religion" cause the European domination of the world? Seriously?

Heck by that token lets blame sedentary farming... I mean seriously we wouldn't have had religion if it weren't for that... :rolleyes:

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world. His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe, and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other. Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.
So which of those wars were actually fought because of Christianity? Have you any idea of the knowledge and culture that was saved or generated by that religion? And why the devil are you connecting three non-Christian dudes with Jesus? :confused:

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world. His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe, and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other. Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.

Woop woop! Angstheist alert! :lol:

But the high end for the amount of people Mao killed sometimes goes up to 80 million. I, myself, would argue for a figure closer to 60 million, and some people would go lower than that. But it's not some outrageous claim.

Most of the deaths was due to famine though. More idiotic misrule than evil.

I'd say Pol Pot. He killed people for wearing glasses, just because they looked "too clever".

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world.
No he's not and here's why:

His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe,

No, agriculture and domestication, leading to sedentary peoples, and thus high population density, writing and other technology, and centralized states, which lead to guns, epidemics, and steel weapons and industrial states arising first in West Eurasia is the reason for European domination. Jesus had nothing to do with it.

and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other.

I'll give you the first two (however, these have nothing to do with Jesus), but I would argue, as would any real historian and/or person who had any history education at all, that the years of 1500-now have produced the most technology and culture than any other time. We went from telegrams to the Internet in but 150 years, we went from bleeding people to today's medicine in 120 years, we went from the Dark Ages to the Industrial Age in only around 300 years and mapped the entire Western Hemisphere in only around 200 years. We went from minstrels and ballads to Shakespeare in the blink of an eye, we saw the eruption of representative democracy throughout the world right in the midst of the age of absolutism, in the 1500s-1600s we saw physics, chemistry, astronomy, and modern mathematics burst forth from mythology and in the 1700s we saw the humanities, sociology, economics, linguistics, anthropology, and the modern study of history transform the way we see humanity and the universe around us. Modern religions, such as Protestantism, Sikhism, Deism, Agnosticism, and Atheism, formed and caused debate that continues to this day. Emancipation, human rights, ideas based on the Enlightenment, swept over the world, so that few nations have slaves and none have so many as the CSA. Painting went from painting 2-D Madonnas and Child to beautiful 3-D expressions of human feeling and every aspect of the human experience straight to today's conceptual and abstract art, which challenges man's brain and makes himself consider his place in the universe. In this period, we went from a pre-industrial, backwards planet to one that can reach the moon.

Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.

Unless one believes that Jesus is the creator of all humans, then this sentence has no meaning. Not to mention none of these men were Christians, especially Mao. Jesus preached a message of love, forgiveness, kindness to the poor, and of rejecting greed and material wealth. These megalomaniacs had none of these qualities, and none of them are Jesus's fault.

IMO it's a close call between Hitler and Stalin. But counted by just the number of victims Stalin wins easily.

BTW, saying Hitler personally is solely responsible for WW II is historically incorrect. He intended to start war, yes; but he could have been stopped earlier than after 6 years of world war.

no, he dosent. hitler killed more people.

You didn't read my epic post! (Though I've far longer)

If we're just arguing pure numbers then that's easy - Mao Zedong killed a flipping 40-80 million.

If we're talking about some abstract "most evil," that's much more difficult. There are people who were by far more sadistic than Hitler ever was like (at least Hitler liked the Germans), say, Dr. Marcel Petiot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Petiot) or any number of other serial killers. Some members of Hitler's own administration were more sadistic than he. To say which one of these is most evil is too subjective to call.

If you want to combine the "subjective" psychotic/deranged/evil factor with the numbers factor then probably Hitler.

Yawn.

Why is it that people always look at body counts and statistics? Evil shouldn't be defined by how many people you kill (through your ideology, orders, whatever). It's a personal characteristic, albeit an abstract one but it's mostly to do with lack of empathy for other living things. Not even Hitler was very remarkable in that regard. I'm sure Stalin and Mao were capable of love and compassion at times.

There are some people through history (classical and recent contemporary) who didn't have even the slightest shred of empathy for anyone but themselves and truly benefited emotionally from causing direct suffering and pain of others. Elizabeth Bathory for example. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, ect. Pretty bad guys who where responsible for a lot of deaths. Where they the most "evil" human's who ever lived? Probably not.

If we're just arguing pure numbers then that's easy - Mao Zedong killed a flipping 40-80 million.

Where did you get those numbers? I thought the high end estimates were around 30 million.

Still, I would not place Mao near Stalin or Hitler on the "evil scale". I would place him slightly above Stalin and below Hitler on the "general incompetence scale" however.

Also, Jesus Cristobal. This thread got Jesus'd before the second page. I lost my bet :(

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world. His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe, and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other. Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.

Wow people. Flip out about Jesus why don't ya?
I don't think Jesus is actually the most evil person in the world. I was just joking.
I really think there is no evilest person in history because one non evil action can cause a chain of events that results in the most evil action imaginable. So there is no evilest person in the world. There is simply a fusion of many evils that is released at the same time under the right circumstances.

Hmmmm, I've got an ex-wife I'm not all that fond of.

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world. His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe, and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other. Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.

LOL.

Whether you the name you insert is Muhummad, Jesus, or whatever is irrelevant. Wars are very rarely fought because of religious zeal, there are always practical political motives that far outshadow any religious motivation.

LOL.

Whether you the name you insert is Muhummad, Jesus, or whatever is irrelevant. Wars are very rarely fought because of religious zeal, there are always practical political motives that far outshadow any religious motivation.


But religious motivation often has justified wars that otherwise would not have been fought.

I will not argue religious figureheads are indeed evil in any sense, only the extremists that follow such religions zealously. More casualties does not equal more evil. If that was true, the United States would be one of the evilest nations in the world.

I believe evil should be those who enjoyed killing or torturing for the sake of torture. I think that life-long torture is a far worse crime than killing. This would include psychological torture, such as that of a rape victim.

Having said that, Stalin and Mao should be excluded from the list. We must also eliminate such casualties not directly due to a person's hand, such as Hitler and World War Two. Hitler indeed caused the war, but he did not directly kill every single person. Americans, British, Soviets, etc did so too. That is not to say any of these people were evil, but we must look for the evilest. I've read some various accounts of eviler people, but I cannot recall such a name as of yet.

But religious motivation often has justified wars that otherwise would not have been fought.
Got an example?

Well, by body count alone it is either going to be Hitler, Mao, or Stalin (depending on which death's you count as being purposeful), however, the reason why the general opinion why one of them is the most evil in my opinion is because they managed to gain a high position of power.

In my opinion, the most evil person probably is not a world leader, but a common mass murderer or serial killer (there are too many to choose from for me to settle on one).

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, not really evil. Bad, horrible men, but from my knowledge they all killed for a reason, not the for the sake of killing. While many of their reasons are flimsy, horrible, and despicable, or the number of deaths is exorbitant as compared to their goals, they had reasons beyond simply killing.

Even most serial killers aren't truly evil. They have their reasons, be they insane or whatever. I can't think of any for certain off the top of my head, but the few truly evil people kill just to kill and for the pleasure of killing.

Even most serial killers aren't truly evil. They have their reasons, be they insane or whatever. I can't think of any for certain off the top of my head, but the few truly evil people kill just to kill and for the pleasure of killing.

Well, there are serial killers who do gain pleasure out of killing and torturing, just watch the Most Evil show on ID Discovery if you get that channel, it is pretty good.

I know I just can't think of a specific example off the top of my head. There is also a difference between gaining pleasure and doing it solely for pleasure, while the former is evil to a degree, the latter is IMO truly evil. Though it isn't just limited to killing, mentally or physically torturing someone can also be a defining part of an evil person.

There is also a difference between gaining pleasure and doing it solely for pleasure, while the former is evil to a degree, the latter is IMO truly evil. Though it isn't just limited to killing, mentally or physically torturing someone can also be a defining part of an evil person.

For me, it is hard to draw a line between the two, since most serial killers who gain pleasure from a kill continue to kill to gain pleasure. Part of the difficultly of determining "who is the most evil" is defining "what is evil," and defining "what is evil" depends on an objective morality, but that is heading us out of history and into philosophy.

There is a fine line between bad and evil, and yes it is subjective and comes down to philosophy. I gave my position of "intentionally inflicting significant pain (emotional or physical) or death upon others (human or not) solely for pleasure or just for the sake of it" and while it may be hard to place certain people and there are varying degrees still, that is as far as I can go. And I believe the historical figures mentioned all had a greater reason and where not "evil". The men doing the killing for them may have been, if a) it was their choice to have the role (i.e. they weren't forced into a position where of kill or be killed) and b) did not believe in the greater reason for the killings, or did not care about said reason.

There is a fine line between bad and evil, and yes it is subjective and comes down to philosophy. I gave my position of "intentionally inflicting significant pain (emotional or physical) or death upon others (human or not) solely for pleasure or just for the sake of it" and while it may be hard to place certain people and there are varying degrees still, that is as far as I can go.

I think your position is a good one when determining evil. Although, when considering many horrible figures, there are ways to expand it.

And I believe the historical figures mentioned all had a greater reason and where not "evil". The men doing the killing for them may have been, if a) it was their choice to have the role (i.e. they weren't forced into a position where of kill or be killed) and b) did not believe in the greater reason for the killings, or did not care about said reason.

I personally, consider them evil, only because I am looking at the means without considering the ends (I do that later down the road if I feel it needs to be done), like I do when I try to analyze atrocities. I also agree that it is important too look at he men that committed the atrocities, since the historical figures killed with their tongues and not with their hands. A few of the men were "true believers" and a few where also evil, but for the most part, I agree that they were ordinary men. Sociology and psychology have not been developed enough to make any concrete conclusions, although, the conclusion of the book, Ordinary Men, does come to reasonable conclusions (peer pressure in various forms, the logic of "if I do not commit this act, someone else will," etc.).

Got an example?

Wgile I know there were many nonreligious factors behind the Crusades, I doubt they would have happened without religious justificaiton, or ant least would have been a very different conflice, much smaller on scale.

Maybe its more accurate to say many people who have participated in wars have done so because they were justified on religious grounds, and wouldnt have otherwise.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, not really evil. Bad, horrible men, but from my knowledge they all killed for a reason, not the for the sake of killing. While many of their reasons are flimsy, horrible, and despicable, or the number of deaths is exorbitant as compared to their goals, they had reasons beyond simply killing.

Even most serial killers aren't truly evil. They have their reasons, be they insane or whatever. I can't think of any for certain off the top of my head, but the few truly evil people kill just to kill and for the pleasure of killing.

Yup, this. Being evil means that one finds pleasure simply from making others suffer - that would be an end in itself. Those you mentioned certainly were ruthless, delusional bastards void of empathy, but I think they probably believed they were fighting a just fight for a good cause.

I would like to give an 'honourable' mention to Leopold II of Belgium in this category.

I would like to give an 'honourable' mention to Leopold II of Belgium in this category.

He was a thoroughly bad man. ;)

He was a thoroughly bad man. ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Amputated_Congolese_youth.jpg

Indeed he was.

Yup, this. Being evil means that one finds pleasure simply from making others suffer - that would be an end in itself. Those you mentioned certainly were ruthless, delusional bastards void of empathy, but I think they probably believed they were fighting a just fight for a good cause.

Fighting "for a good cause" often ends up in evil though. (Cases in point: communism, fascism.) I find it curious that such "idealists" always are willing to sacrifice other peoples' lives for their "good cause".

Fighting "for a good cause" often ends up in evil though. (Cases in point: communism, fascism.) I find it curious that such "idealists" always are willing to sacrifice other peoples' lives for their "good cause".

And often their own, in droves.

Fighting "for a good cause" often ends up in evil though. (Cases in point: communism, fascism.)
Oh, there's no debating that. I'm probably one of the most anti-communist people in these boards (meaning I find it every bit as bad as that particular Hitler brand of fascism).

But I still think there is some difference - not that it matters much in practice, though. Self-righteous mass murderers with good intentions are still just mass murderers. However, the question is not "person with most blood on his hands", but "most evil person".

Also, you could just as well remove the quotation marks from your first sentence. Even fighting for genuinely good causes has often enough ended up in evil.

Wgile I know there were many nonreligious factors behind the Crusades, I doubt they would have happened without religious justificaiton, or ant least would have been a very different conflice, much smaller on scale.

Maybe its more accurate to say many people who have participated in wars have done so because they were justified on religious grounds, and wouldnt have otherwise.
Actually, had the demand for Western Europeans been limited to Alexios' mere increased demand for latinkon mercenaries, I envision a somewhat longer and more drawn-out three way struggle for Anatolia and the Holy Land, which compared with what actually happened is about the same, minus the technological and philosophical benefits to Western European society. :mischief:

Actually, had the demand for Western Europeans been limited to Alexios' mere increased demand for latinkon mercenaries, I envision a somewhat longer and more drawn-out three way struggle for Anatolia and the Holy Land, which compared with what actually happened is about the same, minus the technological and philosophical benefits to Western European society. :mischief:

Well you definitely have me at a disadvantage here, but didnt huge amounts of people only volunteer after the pope gave the conflict it's religious character?

Joseph Mengele for the Nazi medical "experiments" (amoral rather than evil?)
Reverend Jim Jones for the Guyana poison kool-aid (deluded rather than evil?)
Jeffrey Dahmer for lobotomizing men for his sexual pleasure before later killing and eating them (insane rather than evil?) (obviously not a vegetarian but maybe a somewhat different definition of humanitarian)

Well you definitely have me at a disadvantage here, but didnt huge amounts of people only volunteer after the pope gave the conflict it's religious character?
Yeah, but for every Western European that signed up, a resident of the Basileia ton Romaion wasn't called up for service. Alexios was able to carry out his reforms in part because the loss of Anatolia utterly wiped out the great barons who dominated there, but also because the Crusaders provided a bit of a shield, behind which he could work in relative quiet.

Francois Mitterrand

Now that's just plain silly...

I think he was being sarcastic :p

FDR- I think I read somewhere that he was a fascist who started WWII. He must've been evil.

Getting sillier still...:rolleyes:

Albert Fish?

Albert Fish?
How the hell do you beat me to what I've wanted to say since this thread started four hours before my ban gets lifted? Fish is most definitely up there, if not the top dog. No real signs of mental instability, yet raped and murdered probably hundreds of children. At least dozens, even though he was convicted of only a few. Would try anything, including necrophilia and cannibalism, just because. Taunted his victims' families, which is what got him caught in the end. Pretty much a clear-cut case of evil, semantics and philosophy aside.

And Camikaze; :goodjob:

How the hell do you beat me to what I've wanted to say since this thread started four hours before my ban gets lifted?
Thaey don't call me "Perfection" for nothing! :smug:

Thaey don't call me "Perfection" for nothing! :smug:
Touche. You couldn't have waited a little longer though?

Whut? You might as well blame the Jews, Zoroaster, the Middle East, the Levant and carpentry for that one... How exactly did "His Religion" cause the European domination of the world? Seriously?

Heck by that token lets blame sedentary farming... I mean seriously we wouldn't have had religion if it weren't for that... :rolleyes:

yay, plain carpentry, i say!

Carpentry it is! Without carpentry he couldn't have been hung from the cross! No potent symbolism! No Christianity! No UBER evil faith of doom :p

But without carpentry, Harrison Ford would doubtless have turned to dust in that movie.

I am surprised that no Roman Emperors are mentioned. Surely killing people by the Brazen Bull and crucifixion ranks up with the most horrible ways to die, and they were pretty effiecent in killing people, so we need more respect for Rome.

I am surprised that no Roman Emperors are mentioned. Surely killing people by the Brazen Bull and crucifixion ranks up with the most horrible ways to die, and they were pretty effiecent in killing people, so we need more respect for Rome.
Their evilness, particularly Caligula's, is often overrated. Besides, they weren't on the scale of a Hitler or Stalin, and we saw where that argument went.

You also need to look at the morals of the time. Torture was common, accepted, and probably popular in the time of Rome.

Correction from before: Jesus Christ is the most evil person in the world. His religion caused the era of European domination of the globe, and it was during this era that more people died, more wars were fought, and more knowledge and culture was lost that in any other. Because of his actions we have Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and any other bad guy you can think.

how is Mao affected by Jesus?

How about Dr. Mengele? I remember reading he was personally not just indirectly responsible for the deaths of 1 million people.

well, i know hitler, stalin, and mao have killed many, but seriously if this "War on Terror" continues through what will be inevitable a long, many may see bin Laden as the man who is indirectly the cause of all those deaths

Torquemada. That guy was such a religious fanatic he burned 1,500+ people too death and displaced/ruined millions of Jewish lives.

How about Dr. Mengele? I remember reading he was personally not just indirectly responsible for the deaths of 1 million people.
You know, Mengele was voted the most evil man of the 20th Century, but like most of the others mentioned, he didn't do it for pleasure, he did it out of a sense of duty, warped and twisted though it may be.

I don't see why doing something immoral for pleasure is worse than doing it out of a twisted sense of duty. Personally I'd be inclined to think that someone who justifies an evil act in such a way as to make it seem a good act is more evil than someone who attempts no such justification. The justifier is so thoroughly drenched in wickedness that they have, effectively, lost the ability to reason morally. Their reasoning is evil as well as their desires. That's not the case with the pleasure-seeker, who simply chooses to follow twisted desires. So to my mind, someone like Mengele, or indeed any of those Nazis who did what they did in the belief that their actions were justified, is far more evil than someone who kills simply for the fun of it. With someone who kills for the fun of it, there is always the chance that if you can get them to think rationally about what they're doing, they will change their ways. With the twisted justifier, there is no such chance, because they are already thinking rationally about it - or at least in a parody of rationality - and yet that simply spurs them on to do it all the more.

Queen Ranavalona was very evil. Though not the most but maybe she would be if she wasn't restricted to the island of Madagascar. About a third of her entire kingdoms population fell just because she wanted old traditions back. She even boiled her victims alive just for sport.

I'd have to say Genghis Kahn.

I'd have to say Genghis Kahn.

I'd call him and the Mongols ignorant more than anything else. They simply didn't understand the point of a city.

Plotinus, I disagree. I believe if there is a actual reason behind what they do it isn't inherently evil. In some ways it is more despicable, but not more evil. If you truly believe that your killing of all the Jews will benefit the world, I would not call you evil. Stupid, despicable, vile, inhuman, vicious, horrible, and many other terms would be out there, but not evil.

In my view, with the truly evil, they are thinking rationally, they know what they are doing wrong, but believe they have some right to do it anyways and yet still performing the evil deeds, so that you can't make them change their ways.

In my view, with the truly evil, they are thinking rationally, they know what they are doing wrong, but believe they have some right to do it anyways and yet still performing the evil deeds, so that you can't make them change their ways.
Best thing so far in this thread. This was the answer I was looking for.

Plotinus, I disagree. I believe if there is a actual reason behind what they do it isn't inherently evil. In some ways it is more despicable, but not more evil. If you truly believe that your killing of all the Jews will benefit the world, I would not call you evil. Stupid, despicable, vile, inhuman, vicious, horrible, and many other terms would be out there, but not evil.

In my view, with the truly evil, they are thinking rationally, they know what they are doing wrong, but believe they have some right to do it anyways and yet still performing the evil deeds, so that you can't make them change their ways.

I agree with this as well.

Different answers. Did someone only now after 5 pages define what evil might be? Are you talking about death toll, motivation, or both? It's sad anyway that we had people like that succeed and get into high positions to do the bad stuff. Another question is did we fail to realize the evil before it was too late and how can we identify it?

The problem I see is that anyone wanting to get into power doesn't have to tell the truth about their motivations. I think they should take tough morale tests and lie dector tests before serving.

Another way to think of it is that there's no leader of 'one' really.

I'd call him and the Mongols ignorant more than anything else. They simply didn't understand the point of a city.

Something like 10% of East Asians are descended from him alone. That's a lot of rape. Throw in ruining much of the Middle East, killing more people than any other dictator in history as a percentage of the world's population, wiping out the Caucasian tribes of Central Asia and replacing them with Mongols (biggest racial genocide no one knows about), and contributing absolutely nothing of worth of culture, and you have the most evil man in history.

yeah hitler said once that no one remebers the Caucasian tribes and see Genghis Khan as a great leader.... in 1937

Something like 10% of East Asians are descended from him alone. That's a lot of rape. Throw in ruining much of the Middle East, killing more people than any other dictator in history as a percentage of the world's population, wiping out the Caucasian tribes of Central Asia and replacing them with Mongols (biggest racial genocide no one knows about), and contributing absolutely nothing of worth of culture, and you have the most evil man in history.

Thank you.