Are you comfortable calling people evil?

[Hygro]

Title says it all.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Not totally. Because it is such a inherently relativistic concept.

But if we go by some kind of casual understanding -

- since my most recent thread I have found myself be extremely comfortable with that casual meaning.

 

[brennan]

What Terx said. No such thing as evil. Evil is a scary word that means 'I don't like something'.

 

[Global Skeptic]

What Terx said. No such thing as evil. Evil is a scary word that means 'I don't like something'.

+1

 

[REDY]

The comments above me are evil.

 

[brennan]

I'm about 5 feet above sea level, you?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A suggestion: while there obviously is no "true" or "objective" evilness

- evil may still play a "true" or "objectively" valuable and detectable role in human relations.

A role worthy of attention.


tl/dr - Stop to suffocate in your individually controlled misery for a minute and think of the social implications

 

[Tee Kay]

I used to be really apprehensive about calling people evil, now I have less of an issue doing so.

I believe evil people can become less-evil though.

What Terx said. No such thing as evil. Evil is a scary word that means 'I don't like something'.

Someone might like making designer bags out of orphans' skins. I'd say that's evil regardless of whether they were well-made.

 

[sophie]

Evil is not really a word I use very often. Human existence is too complex of an entity to describe people or societies in such simplified terms.

 

[Tee Kay]

Evil is not really a word I use very often. Human existence is too complex of an entity to describe people or societies in such simplified terms.

"Floor" is a simple term. "Evil" is a very complex term.

 

[Angst]

Everyone is basically evil... :/

 

[Mise]

When applied to deeds, I consider "evil" as synonymous with "deeply immoral". I'm happy calling deeds deeply immoral.

When applied to people, however, I think "evil" takes on extra connotations. An evil person has some inherent immoral quality to them. They haven't merely done an evil thing -- they are, themselves, inherently evil. The way we use the word when describing people implies that there is some delineation between Good People and Bad People, as if badness/evilness is a character trait that you're born with, and not the product of some conscious choice or environmental conspiracy. For example, in the Milgram experiments, people were "trained" to do evil deeds. In the Stanford Prison experiment, people were placed in an environment which (we now know) encourages evil deeds. If we set up a system of organising society such that we reward and incentivise evil deeds, then it is not the person who is inherently evil, but the system which is inherently evil.

Finally, by implying that some people are evil and some people are good, we fall into the trap of assuming that people who are ostensibly "good" can't commit evil deeds sometimes. We simply can't believe it when, say, a beloved priest, teacher or children's TV presenter abuses their position of authority and rapes children, because we believe from their good deeds that they are Good People, and therefore cannot possibly have done an evil deed. This is incredibly dangerous and makes it so much easier for people to commit evil acts.

I'll call deeds evil all day, but I am not comfortable calling people evil at all.

 

[Global Skeptic]

How can a deed be evil?

 

[Antilogic]

Evil is not really a word I use very often. Human existence is too complex of an entity to describe people or societies in such simplified terms.

I agree, but there are a few times and places where it is shockingly appropriate and effective. The term hasn't been ruined by overuse yet.

In the rare couple of cases I have used it, I think I use it more to describe an individual's nature leading to horrible deeds and outcomes rather than the deeds themselves.

When applied to people, however, I think "evil" takes on extra connotations. An evil person has some inherent immoral quality to them. They haven't merely done an evil thing -- they are, themselves, inherently evil. The way we use the word when describing people implies that there is some delineation between Good People and Bad People, as if badness/evilness is a character trait that you're born with, and not the product of some conscious choice or environmental conspiracy. For example, in the Milgram experiments, people were "trained" to do evil deeds. In the Stanford Prison experiment, people were placed in an environment which (we now know) encourages evil deeds. If we set up a system of organising society such that we reward and incentivise evil deeds, then it is not the person who is inherently evil, but the system which is inherently evil.

Finally, by implying that some people are evil and some people are good, we fall into the trap of assuming that people who are ostensibly "good" can't commit evil deeds sometimes. We simply can't believe it when, say, a beloved priest, teacher or children's TV presenter abuses their position of authority and rapes children, because we believe from their good deeds that they are Good People, and therefore cannot possibly have done an evil deed. This is incredibly dangerous and makes it so much easier for people to commit evil acts.

I'll disagree (but only a bit) here. I don't think the assumption in the second paragraph holds, especially if the term is only applied sparingly to individuals who are way outside the normal range of destructive and immoral personalities.

 

[classical_hero]

Everyone is basically evil... :/

Exactly.

 

[Farm Boy]

Everyone is the hero of their own story. That doesn't stop people from being evil in a relativistic world. You could probably roughly sum it up when applied to a person as a malefactor on an issue of importance, even if unintentional. It is possible to both be intentionally or unintentionally evil. When we have a poster enamored with individualistic freedoms to the point of advocating privatized emergency rooms, emergency rooms than can then deny care to people of color if they so choose, he's probably advocating for a romanticized ideal that he thinks will make the world better. What he's advocating for in reality though, sick and dying people of color or poverty turned away at the emergency room door, is evil from a lot of standpoints.

 

[bhsup]

Yes.

Answer says it all.

 

[Goodfella]

There are a handful of actions that mostly everyone everywhere judges as immoral and those I actions could be described as evil. However, I refrain from using the word because it seems to carry connotations that are too religious or dramatic for my tastes. On the same note, I usually would not use the word 'glorious' or 'saintly' to describe people or actions.

 

[Camikaze]

Labelling something evil tends to obscure motivations. It's shorthand to describe some behaviour we have difficulty understanding. Which is understandable in a lot of cases, but pretty unproductive or counter-productive.

 

[Farm Boy]

You don't always need motivations to be able to describe the later reality. It might be tragic that a child abductor/murderer was himself molested as a child, it might even be ameliorating of guilt. Maybe he's got brain damage or mental illness. But what he's become in that moment is awfully evil to a lot of people.