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.
Most evil person in history
- Thread starter eastsidebagel
- Start date
generalstaff
Steadfast
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.
generalstaff
Steadfast
I think your position is a good one when determining evil. Although, when considering many horrible figures, there are ways to expand it.
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.).
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
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.
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".
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
And often their own, in droves.
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.
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.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
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.
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)
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)
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.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
I think he was being sarcastic 
Similar threads
