THE definition of GOOD and EVIL?

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

I forgot. Some guy is writing a book or something.


edit: he wanted to know why his bad guy was evil. I guess he has plenty of ideas now!!

Abit too much maybe

[fredjacksonsan]

I think we scared him off.....

[twospirits]

Originally Posted by KustmAce

Toksin - good
Toskin - evil

throw some filler material in there and ya got six chapters.

[Mcloud1]

I don't believe that there is such a thing as "evil", and more that someone just gets misguided. that's just my two cents.

[fredjacksonsan]

So would you say that Jeffrey Dahmer was simply misguided then?

How about Hitler and his plans to intentionally kill off an entire religion?

[MonsterBengt]

Well they weren't evil, they were different. Hitler believed in a state of politics and philosophy that included killing off every Jew on earth, for the sake of the white race. This still only fall on the 4th place on the Killingspree top list. Above there's the plague, communism and religion. are those 3 evil? The plague was a disease which was probably dispatched by nature to kill off alot of people, since they were over populating the earth and was starving to death anyway (or something like that). Radical communists believe that all capitalists are evil, and would like to kill them all of for the sake of mankind. In some cases, they even killed off all intelligent and educated people they could get their hands on to ensure that no one would you know, think differently. Religious people who kill people are convinced of something, often that their belief is the right one and everyone else is evil and should be put down. Take the catholic inquisation for instance; protestants were hunted down and killed off like rats.

All except the plague has been guided into killing, and could've been guided into something else, right? So i'd say yeah, they have been misguided.

[fredjacksonsan]

How is Dahmer not evil? He killed people, cut them up and ate them. When they caught him, he had human parts in his freezer.

I think that evil is often in the perception of the observer. To Hitler, his acts were necessary. To most everyone else, they were evil.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

How is Dahmer not evil? He killed people, cut them up and ate them. When they caught him, he had human parts in his freezer.

I think that evil is often in the perception of the observer. To Hitler, his acts were necessary. To most everyone else, they were evil.

Evil is still a word for describing something people won't take the time to understand, and simply put in the Evil basket with everything else that differ from them.

Dahmer was like everybody else, a preinstructed computer with a disorder and not big enough wall between his wishes and actions, in his brain (mothercard). "He" as in the hands and mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people, on the command by "his" brain, which had an overstimulated wish for human flesh.

If "Evil" were to exist, there have to be a Devil. And then it's not Jeffrey's "fault" either, is it? It's the Devil. It's like calling every person grewn up in a ghetto, with an alcoholic father who beat the family up while the mother is injecting heroin in the bathroom evil when they commit their first violent action. Or calling the dog evil when it bites you after kicking it over and over.

[turtlecrxsi]

Blight, there is a lot of good stuff already in this thread about the various motives and lifestyles of evil behavior. But if you'd like an actual text for reference, check out some of Joseph Campbell's work "The Hero's Journey". Basically, you get the whole idea of the plight of the hero. The conflict exists or is presented by not necessarily a person of evil but perhaps crappy circumstances and the hero seeks revenge etc. The hero must go through "the belly of the beast" before attaining the epiphany needed to overcome the "evil". Okay, this is all in a brief nutshell. In other words, you really can't have a story without a conflict ergo you need to have an evil entity or antithesis or antihero to your thesis or hero. You probably have already figured all that out though. That is the beauty of authorship. You can take on any direction you want and add all the conflict or evil and stack it up against your hero. As long as the hero can defeat the conflict and/or evil then you have a happy ending. If the hero dies then so be it. That is normally refered to as tragedy. Most tragedies are significant enough to illustrate an ongoing conflict that usually is not thwarted within the single story. I can go on and on but I'm not a teacher even though I studied to be a literature professor in college.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by MonsterBengt

Evil is still a word for describing something people won't take the time to understand, and simply put in the Evil basket with everything else that differ from them.

Dahmer was like everybody else, a preinstructed computer with a disorder and not big enough wall between his wishes and actions, in his brain (mothercard). "He" as in the hands and mouth of Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people, on the command by "his" brain, which had an overstimulated wish for human flesh.

If "Evil" were to exist, there have to be a Devil. And then it's not Jeffrey's "fault" either, is it? It's the Devil. It's like calling every person grewn up in a ghetto, with an alcoholic father who beat the family up while the mother is injecting heroin in the bathroom evil when they commit their first violent action. Or calling the dog evil when it bites you after kicking it over and over.

This makes it sounds as if we're not responsible for our own actions, whether there's a God or not. If there's God and the devil, then hey, it's the devil's fault. If not, our brains are "prewired" as commanded by our brains.

I'm a big fan of free will. You do as YOU decide.

Jeffrey Dahmer, by most accounts, was insane. Insane, as in not normal, or deranged. You could also say, "outside of the bell curve", as in beyond the what is considered normal by humans. That could be thought of as not evil, but "prewired", and in that case I'd agree.

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

This makes it sounds as if we're not responsible for our own actions, whether there's a God or not. If there's God and the devil, then hey, it's the devil's fault. If not, our brains are "prewired" as commanded by our brains.

I'm a big fan of free will. You do as YOU decide.

Jeffrey Dahmer, by most accounts, was insane. Insane, as in not normal, or deranged. You could also say, "outside of the bell curve", as in beyond the what is considered normal by humans.

Then you and I have two totally different beliefs. I see no logic whatsoever in the phenomena of Free Will. Think over it for a sec; how would it work out in our brains (which is just some gooey materials which sends electrical impulses here and there)? And why would nature designed it in the first place? And where do you draw the line between Free Will and not Free Will? And what actions do you classify as something that's been affected by something around oneself, and what's not? Where's that line? Also, where's the line between an "involuantary" move (like retracting your hand if in contact with something really hot) and something of "Free Will"? If there's a line to draw, you know you've found something thats "wrong", and people has two words for it to easen up understanding it and talking about it.

[fredjacksonsan]

OK. Free will.

You make hundreds of decisions each day. Coffee or orange juice? Walk or drive? Fast food or cook for yourself? Punch that idiot in the mouth or walk away? The decisions you make for yourself define in part who you are.

The sense of self, who we are, is somewhat beyond comprehension. I don't pretend to know how my lump of gray matter allows me to think I'm me, but it does. It's like, how does the jet engine on that 747 make it go? Most people don't know, but we still go on holiday in a plane. Same thing: it doesn't matter how your brain works, but that it does. Free will, also known as deciding what to do for yourself, exists.

Now as far as "good" and "evil" are you saying that the definition are due to religion? We discussed earlier how some actions could be considered to be "not nice" or "against the conventions of society" in some way or another. When I'm saying good or evil in this thread, I'm talking about some action that is seen as either wrong or right, independent of anything religious.

Can there be right and wrong without religion? I think there can be. When you have a society that has a convention, or group thought, that something is right or wrong to do, then that is defining. Take the example of a WWII U-boat. The crew knows that to open the torpedo tubes and let water in will kill everyone, so therefore it is wrong to do that. Now comes along one crewman who does exactly that, knowing that he is dooming all the sailors aboard. Although that individual may see no problem with his actions (being insane, suicidal, or whatever) the rest of the crew would see that action as wrong. So you have a very small society that sees an action taken by one person in that society as wrong. Religion doesn't enter into it.

Can you agree with that?

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

OK. Free will.

You make hundreds of decisions each day. Coffee or orange juice? Walk or drive? Fast food or cook for yourself? Punch that idiot in the mouth or walk away? The decisions you make for yourself define in part who you are.

No, who "you are" decide what you'll do. If free will existed like that, there would be no hate in the world, since everybody would decide to not hate. Though that doesn't add up either, because then you'd be satisfying a feeling (comfort/happiness) over another (hate), without being affected from the outside (people saying hate is wrong).

Just making sure; I take the Free Will concept as something untouchable, unexplainable and not-to-be-compared-with-a-computer.

I take the concept of Good and Evil as something you're born into, and miraculously choose to do, without any influence by your surroundings whatsoever.

The sense of self, who we are, is somewhat beyond comprehension. I don't pretend to know how my lump of gray matter allows me to think I'm me, but it does. It's like, how does the jet engine on that 747 make it go? Most people don't know, but we still go on holiday in a plane. Same thing: it doesn't matter how your brain works, but that it does. Free will, also known as deciding what to do for yourself, exists.

Then again, different beliefs. I don't believe that "yourself/oneself" as you put it exists either, its logically impossible. What we know as consciousness is merely the system of feelings and curiosity, painted before us like on a monitor, to make "us" make the moves we need to make to survive.

Now as far as "good" and "evil" are you saying that the definition are due to religion? We discussed earlier how some actions could be considered to be "not nice" or "against the conventions of society" in some way or another. When I'm saying good or evil in this thread, I'm talking about some action that is seen as either wrong or right, independent of anything religious.

Can there be right and wrong without religion? I think there can be. When you have a society that has a convention, or group thought, that something is right or wrong to do, then that is defining. Take the example of a WWII U-boat. The crew knows that to open the torpedo tubes and let water in will kill everyone, so therefore it is wrong to do that. Now comes along one crewman who does exactly that, knowing that he is dooming all the sailors aboard. Although that individual may see no problem with his actions (being insane, suicidal, or whatever) the rest of the crew would see that action as wrong. So you have a very small society that sees an action taken by one person in that society as wrong. Religion doesn't enter into it.

To say right or wrong, you have to base it on some standards. If you mean society, then there are different kinds of society. If you mean religiously, then theres different religions. If you mean overall, all people from anywhere, then theres ALOT of different people with very different views on right or wrong. That's why I don't like the words whatsoever when it comes to discussing ethics and morale matters, I find it not very democratic. In other words, I think we shouldn't use the two words. Instead; use the words Rational vs. Not Rational. And by saying that, base it on your current location/government. And if we are to use the words right or wrong, than use them as Legal vs. Illegal. I might've said something to confuse you of what I meant about religion in the matter, but I mean to say that if you believe that somebody would do something by pure evil or goodness, then its a religious belief, since it doesn't add up with logic.

[fredjacksonsan]

Hmmm.....

Ok, let's go with a very basic example of good and evil (or right and wrong, whatever)

Two people exist. One person cuts the arm off of another. Right or wrong?

[MonsterBengt]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Hmmm.....

Ok, let's go with a very basic example of good and evil (or right and wrong, whatever)

Two people exist. One person cuts the arm off of another. Right or wrong?

According to who? Me? And under what circumstances? ;

Person 1 suddenly attacks person 2 non provoked, on the street with a chainsaw and cut his arm off.

or

A psychopat with huge body structure, attacks your girlfriend and start to strangle her. You, who are really really small and weak are now holding a chainsaw and do the only thing you see as a possibility to stop the maniac and cut his arms off. (cheesy example, but you get the idea, maybe he attacks you when youre chopping down trees, get a grip 'round your throat to kill you and you then cut his arms off with your chainsaw.)