Are you comfortable calling people evil?

[El_Machinae]

Yes. Evil is a willness to hurt other sentients for your own aggrandizement. I'll agree with St. Paul, we're all a little evil. But some people are moreso than others.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't believe in any spiritual or supernatural existence, so I'm comfortable calling someone "evil" based on their actions.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

I'm not disputing that there are acts which we regard as terribly immoral. I'm just saying that the word 'evil' is fairly pointless, and even potentially counter-productive if it forecloses any further examination, which it has the capacity to do. Unless you're of the mind that someone is literally possessed by the devil or something similar, it has no explanatory value. Why use the word when it serves no positive purpose, and a potentially negative one?

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a moralistic and emotive word, even sans the spiritual tones. Deserving of deep condemnation and possibly hatred, if you want to get wordy about it. If you take out evil we'll just use "monstrous" or "barbaric" or the like.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I'm fine with using it casually, but perhaps not in a serious manner.

I've never liked black-white dichotomies to begin with, so I suppose in that case I'm also a bit iffy about using the word evil a lot of times - I just feel it's too easy to throw out a label, even if justified, as an excuse to ignore the deeper complexities behind things. Yes, it's easy to say Hitler is evil, and I'd agree with you, but usually people just say Hitler is evil and leave it like that without really considering why he did the things he did, all the little things that built together to make Hitler what we know him as, whether our perceptions of him have a role in twisting reality, stuff like that.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I agree that 'evil' has no explanatory value, I think it's just descriptive. That's not a problem with the word, though. The problem with calling Hitler evil and leaving it there isn't the calling him evil part, it's the leaving it there part. I would also say that if I think that the listener or reader will misunderstand a word, I probably won't use it.

 

[Camikaze]

It's a moralistic and emotive word, even sans the spiritual tones. Deserving of deep condemnation and possibly hatred, if you want to get wordy about it. If you take out evil we'll just use "monstrous" or "barbaric" or the like.

I agree that 'evil' has no explanatory value, I think it's just descriptive. That's not a problem with the word, though. The problem with calling Hitler evil and leaving it there isn't the calling him evil part, it's the leaving it there part. I would also say that if I think that the listener or reader will misunderstand a word, I probably won't use it.

Where I differ is with the idea that calling something 'evil' actively militates against further examination. If I decide to describe something as 'evil', I'm deploying a discourse which suggests that looking for a proper explanation is futile. I'm implying that we shouldn't bother with anything other than leaving it there. A word isn't inherently problematic because it has no explanatory value, but it becomes problematic when it is presented as having explanatory value. Evil is considered to speak to intent, so when you describe a person as evil, you're implying that evilness is some sort of explanation for their behaviour, rather than that you simply don't like what they've done. 'Deeply immoral' would be a better phrase, because it doesn't attempt to suggest any motivation, so leaves open the question of why. It also implies a subjective judgment, which is what you're meaning to imply, rather than some sort of objective reason.

Similarly, 'monstrous' could be problematic because it implies some sort of base animalistic motivation. 'Barbaric' could be problematic because it implies something foreign.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Where I differ is with the idea that calling something 'evil' actively militates against further examination. If I decide to describe something as 'evil', I'm deploying a discourse which suggests that looking for a proper explanation is futile. I'm implying that we shouldn't bother with anything other than leaving it there. A word isn't inherently problematic because it has no explanatory value, but it becomes problematic when it is presented as having explanatory value. Evil is considered to speak to intent, so when you describe a person as evil, you're implying that evilness is some sort of explanation for their behaviour, rather than that you simply don't like what they've done. 'Deeply immoral' would be a better phrase, because it doesn't attempt to suggest any motivation, so leaves open the question of why. It also implies a subjective judgment, which is what you're meaning to imply, rather than some sort of objective reason.

Similarly, 'monstrous' could be problematic because it implies some sort of base animalistic motivation. 'Barbaric' could be problematic because it implies something foreign.

Yes, if calling something evil means "leave it at that", then I wouldn't want to use it much, but I do think it has some descriptive value. Calling Ariel Castro immoral or mentally ill isn't quite sufficient to me, although both were almost certainly true. Monstrous and barbaric aren't enough either, even though I wouldn't argue, I think he was both of those things too. I think he was also evil, and I guess the visceral impact of that word is kind of what I want to convey when I use it. Some things warrant it.

 

[Kyriakos]

The term itself has gotten a messed-up connotation, but my view is that 'good' and 'evil' (or their particular synonyms) exist as opposite ends in any human scale (regardless of wide variations between the two ending points, and the scale is always infinite in positions).

If you limit the meaning of 'evil' to something tied to a cause for automatic aversion, then it should be said that this is not a thought but a (potentially very useful, in some circumstances) emotional reaction.
I am of the view that after a point a harmed person can become a danger to others, and should no longer be primarily seen as a victim cause you can harm your own self by trying to help a dangerous person.

 

[BvBPL]

I wonder if people who believe evil is too subjective to apply as a statement of character have the same feeling about calling other people funny. Being a funny person is at least, if not more, subjective than being an evil person. That line of logic forecloses upon any characterization of a person. To some extent, it would be nice if people acted in this manner and did not assign character traits to other people in the expectation of people behaving inline with those traits. If you do want to say that someone is evil because you are cautious about assigning character traits to other people then you also cannot say that someone is funny.

Some of my clients have performed truly vile and despicable acts. Such acts are evil as the acts have visited great evil upon their victims. I'm not sure those acts, by themselves, make a person evil. My conclusion is helped by the fact that these men suffer from mental illness so they are, at least for me, less responsible for their acts.

When the same acts are committed by people in their right mind and gifted with appropriate socialization, I have less sympathy. Those people who choose to commit volitional misdeeds upon their fellow man deserve vilification. When doing evil is the clear minded and intentional choice of an actor then that reflects upon that person. I don't have a problem calling those people evil.

There are people who have developed an understanding of their mental health, or other, problems that have led them to commit evil deeds, but refuse to take action to correct their future behavior. I am uncertain about how to classify those parties.

 

[Phrossack]

I use it sparingly.

 

[Camikaze]

I wonder if people who believe evil is too subjective to apply as a statement of character have the same feeling about calling other people funny. Being a funny person is at least, if not more, subjective than being an evil person. That line of logic forecloses upon any characterization of a person. To some extent, it would be nice if people acted in this manner and did not assign character traits to other people in the expectation of people behaving inline with those traits. If you do want to say that someone is evil because you are cautious about assigning character traits to other people then you also cannot say that someone is funny.

I agree that they're theoretically similar, but the implications of simplifying someone or something as 'evil' are generally going to be much more serious than the implications of calling someone 'funny'. 'Evil' is a term operating in what might be regarded as heavier discourses. I'd also contend that evil is generally meant to speak to the totality of someone's character, whereas calling someone funny doesn't actually foreclose upon a consideration of someone's individuality or other characteristics or whatever.

 

[Farm Boy]

If one would argue evil is meant to speak to the totality of someone's character, I would hazard they probably haven't had to wade through it enough.

 

[Zelig]

I'm significantly more comfortable calling people evil than I am ascribing hatred as an emotion I feel towards them.

 

[Camikaze]

If one would argue evil is meant to speak to the totality of someone's character, I would hazard they probably haven't had to wade through it enough.

I don't understand what you mean. If you're just labelling an act evil, that's not saying the actor is necessarily evil, but if you're applying the label to a person (assuming you're being serious), you're talking about their fundamental humanity (or lack thereof), not just how well they tell jokes. You can't really say someone is evil, but a generally nice guy. If you're more comfortable using the word that way, I guess that's a valid answer to the thread, but it'd be a pretty novel usage.

 

[Farm Boy]

You can't really say someone is evil, but a generally nice guy.

You can though, and I don't think it's particularly novel. Gangsters, mobsters, and political bosses often fall into this sort of category. They can be simultaneously magnanimous and helpful in very kind ways to people while simultaneously being capable of remarkable evil. A man who murders other men for control of street territory to sell narcotics might be remarkably kind and selfless to an aging relative. Evil's not so simple, really.

 

[Camikaze]

'Being capable of remarkable evil' implies that it's the acts in which they engage that are evil - they have the capacity to perform an act which can be described as evil. Phrasing it that way avoids labelling the person themselves evil. It seems a bit of a circular concept to me; if you're not speaking to the fundamental characteristic of a person, you're not really applying the evil label to them.

 

[ParkCungHee]

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.

See, you can use it that way, but it's not necessarily the case. The less I understand the motivations and mentality of the perpetrator, the less I'm likely to say evil. The better grip I have on the person, and their motivations, the closer and more comfortable I feel towards saying "Yeah, evil."

You can't really say someone is evil, but a generally nice guy.

That is pretty much exactly how I'd describe Herman Goering.

 

[Farm Boy]

'Being capable of remarkable evil' implies that it's the acts in which they engage that are evil - they have the capacity to perform an act which can be described as evil. Phrasing it that way avoids labelling the person themselves evil. It seems a bit of a circular concept to me; if you're not speaking to the fundamental characteristic of a person, you're not really applying the evil label to them.

If one knowingly engages in acts of evil, then yes, I can call them an evil person. Despite what redeeming qualities they may have, exceptional or not. Sinners all are we, like El Mac says, the degree varies.

 

[brennan]

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

You'd likely think nothing of it if it was the skin of another species though, so the subjectivity of the judgement is clear.