Does Evil Exist?

[Big Nick Dudley]

Trump is not evil. Hillary is not evil. "Evil" is reserved for movie villains, not real life.

I don't define evil in the biblical sense. Trump couldn't care less about anyone but himself. This is a promotional stunt, win or lose. The presidency is too important to play with. His decisions could legitimately hurt people, and he does not care. To me, and all sane people, that type of selfishness is evil.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Ah, so I can bring up the Nazis in reply to your incredibly naive claim that there is no "evil" outside the movies?

To be fair, I don't really need them as the real world is littered with enough evil examples to make you look silly.

The Nazis were self-serving, extremely lacking in universal compassion, held unjustified and extreme prejudice and acted upon them in an awful manner, but the concept of "evil" is a man-made one, and isn't an accurate representation of humanity's complexity. It's over-simplifying our existence, to put it lightly.

I don't define evil in the biblical sense. Trump couldn't care less about anyone but himself. This is a promotional stunt, win or lose. The presidency is too important to play with. His decisions could legitimately hurt people, and he does not care. To me, and all sane people, that type of selfishness is evil.

You're correct to call it selfish, and I can see the argument for impure evil being defined by a set of characteristics. On the other hand, the human condition is so complicated, and there are so many angles to look at it from, that to call something "evil" unless explicitly made out to be so (for the purpose of fiction), is heavy-handed.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

If someone could point out a single selfless, helpful act by Trump, throughout his entire life, I would back off a bit. But you won't, because you can't. The act you'd be looking for does not exist.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Fuck me how is this percentage of the population so fucking stupid. Only in Presidential elections is having experience in the area you want to work in a negative.

Oh, and Trump wants to talk about this shit being rigged and biased. Yet re-opening an investigation 11 days before the election to then, 2 days before, say 'Lol yeah there's nothing there - again' - isn't biased anti-Clinton nonsense?

Please don't prove to the rest of the world you're as stupid as they think you are by allowing Trump the presidency.

 

[Барбоса]

The Nazis were self-serving, extremely lacking in universal compassion, held unjustified and extreme prejudice and acted upon them in an awful manner, but the concept of "evil" is a man-made one, and isn't an accurate representation of humanity's complexity. It's over-simplifying our existence, to put it lightly.

Absolute bollocks.

Humanity is indeed complex, but that does not mean we should stop from labeling actions and individuals for what they really are.

Regardless of why they did it, the attempted genocides of men like Hitler and Pol Pot make them evil.

Not labeling them as such is the first step to justifying their actions.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

If someone could point out a single selfless, helpful act by Trump, throughout his entire life, I would back off a bit. But you won't, because you can't. The act you'd be looking for does not exist.

He sheltered Jennifer Hudson rent-free after her family was murdered. He allowed a terminally ill child that required special provisions to fly to use his jet. He's helped pay off foreclosures.

Trump's not exactly a good human being, but he's still a human being.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Publicity stunts. Glad his father's money went to good use, though.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Absolute bollocks.

Humanity is indeed complex, but that does not mean we should stop from labeling actions and individuals for what they really are.

Regardless of why they did it, the attempted genocides of men like Hitler and Pol Pot make them evil.

Not labeling them as such is the first step to justifying their actions.

It's the only step I'm going to take to what you consider justifying their actions, because I'm not justifying their actions. At all.

I think it's sick and repugnant what the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the HRE before the Thirty Years War, etc did, but to call it evil, as I said to Nick, is heavy-handed. To call something evil is not only subjective in the extreme (as what may be evil to you might not be evil to others), it is almost a get out of jail free card to write an individual off and to just say "Oh, they're just a bad seed."

There are easy ways to discredit these kinds of people without resorting to calling them evil, is what I'm trying to say.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

Publicity stunts. Glad his father's money went to good use, though.

How do you determine what is and what isn't a publicity stunt?

 

[HBK-aholic]

Can we confirm Jennifer Hudson's pussy remains un-grabbed? I imagine there was a not quite selfless motive to any act which may have put Trump in the proximity of an attractive woman.

 

[Барбоса]

It's the only step I'm going to take to what you consider justifying their actions, because I'm not justifying their actions. At all.

I think it's sick and repugnant what the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the HRE before the Thirty Years War, etc did, but to call it evil, as I said to Nick, is heavy-handed. To call something evil is not only subjective in the extreme (as what may be evil to you might not be evil to others), it is almost a get out of jail free card to write an individual off and to just say "Oh, they're just a bad seed."

There are easy ways to discredit these kinds of people without resorting to calling them evil, is what I'm trying to say.

So genocide is not evil then. Got it.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

So genocide is not evil then. Got it.

Evil is the wrong word. But I think we can both agree that it's disgusting.

 

[Барбоса]

Evil is the wrong word. But I think we can both agree that it's disgusting.

So nothing in this world fits your definition of evil?

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

So nothing in this world fits your definition of evil?

Fictional constructs e.g Emperor Palpatine do because they were made with the intent of being evil. Real people are not created with the intent of being evil.

 

[Барбоса]

Fictional constructs e.g Emperor Palpatine do because they were made with the intent of being evil. People are not created with the intent of being evil.

You realise that Palpatine is a literary reconstruction of Hitler? Doesn't start out bad, becomes so through an ideology he is introduced to, wishes to take over the state in order to protect it from other ideologies/races/religions, commits genocide, defeated in a great war, all of which he justified with a looming bogeyman (disorder and extra-galactic invasion vs Communisim and Jews).

By relegating evil to fiction through whatever philosophical wrangling you want, you are potentially making it more difficult to recognise it when it is right in front of your face.

Jeremy Corbyn suffers from exactly the same issue.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

You realise that Palpatine is a literary reconstruction of Hitler? Doesn't start out bad, becomes so through an ideology he is introduced to, wishes to take over the state in order to protect it from other ideologies/races/religions, commits genocide, defeated in a great war, all of which he justified with a looming bogeyman (disorder and extra-galactic invasion vs Communisim and Jews).

Oh yes, his character drew inspiration from Hitler. But to say Palpatine is a true representation of who Hitler was is heavy-handed. Allegories do not present a true, factual representation of what is at hand in reality. Which is not to say allegories have no place, but political discourse would be a lot healthier if one side didn't accuse the other of being evil, as it completely shuts down the conversation.

By relegating evil to fiction through whatever philosophical wrangling you want, you are potentially making it more difficult to recognise it when it is right in front of your face.

You seem to think that because I don't perceive it as evil, I must be complacent with it. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm just saying that using the term evil promotes a closed mind and isn't the best way to articulate something you disagree profusely with. I think both of us agree that genocide is a bad thing though, which is the important thing here.

Jeremy Corbyn suffers from exactly the same issue.

In what sense?

 

[Hyorinmaru]

Fictional constructs e.g Emperor Palpatine do because they were made with the intent of being evil. Real people are not created with the intent of being evil.

No but they choose to be evil which is even worse

To call Hitler anything other than evil is ridiculous and not something I would expect to see from you.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I never knew the word evil could be so complex. Fine. Not evil. Just a gigantic sack of shit scumbag.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

No but they choose to be evil which is even worse

To call Hitler anything other than evil is ridiculous and not something I would expect to see from you.

Do you think these people just decide "Alright, it's time to be evil now!" and then try to act as evil as possible? Of course they don't, that's something you'd see in a children's or Zack Snyder movie, not real life, where there are infinite factors at play.

Hitler is awful, as are the other people/entities mentioned, but the word evil is one that is unfit to explain real life human beings, as such a basic label fails to properly represent the human condition.

 

[Барбоса]

Oh yes, his character drew inspiration from Hitler. But to say Palpatine is a true representation of who Hitler was is heavy-handed. Allegories do not present a true, factual representation of what is at hand in reality. Which is not to say allegories have no place, but political discourse would be a lot healthier if one side didn't accuse the other of being evil, as it completely shuts down the conversation.

But they do have the same basic development, same kind of totalitarian politics, same kind of justifications but by your measure, only the one who is fictional is evil?

You do realise that you are essentially saying that evil does not exist in the real world? Or at least that your definition, whatever that is, does not?

You seem to think that because I don't perceive it as evil, I must be complacent with it. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm just saying that using the term evil promotes a closed mind and isn't the best way to articulate something you disagree profusely with. I think both of us agree that genocide is a bad thing though, which is the important thing here.

I would agree that using the term evil with regards to Trump and Clinton is not right but if the first thing Trump does in the White House is drop a nuclear bomb on Mexico City because they won't pay for his wall, that would be an evil act.

And if you could not bring yourself to call that or the Holocaust evil, then you are part of the problem.

You might not think you are being complacent but by being unable to categorise certain people or actions as evil for whatever quasi-philosophical reason - and evil does not require some sort of biblical connection - you are opening yourself up to a potential blindspot, too late to act when things have gone too far.

It has happened before.

In what sense?

Large parts of the left, including Corbyn, think/act like anti-Semitism does not exist so fail to recognise it in their own backyard. That is the kind of complacency I am talking about.

Hitler is awful, as are the other people/entities mentioned, but the word evil is one that is unfit to explain real life human beings, as such a basic label fails to properly represent the human condition.

I'm sorry, that is utter philosophical garbage and comes over as "I don't want to call anyone evil as it might sound insensitive or not be useful." (see Corbyn on anti-Semitism). In the heat of battle, war, genocide etc., why Hitler or Amin or Pot or ISIS are acting evilly does not matter - it is the sheer fact that they are acting evilly that needs to be dealt with.

Just because the term "evil" has been bandied about far too much and erroneously, does not mean that it should not be used when confronted with proper evil.

Sometimes you have to be heavy-handed and call a spade a spade.

There is evil in the real world.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

When someone decides to try to exterminate an entire race/religion while also trying to take over the world evil seems like a rather apt description of that person.

Is Trump evil? Not at the moment but he is a rather disgusting human being. Hitler on
the other hand is.

It seems we're gonna have to agree to disagree though.

 

[Dan Severn's Moustache]

But they do have the same basic development, same kind of totalitarian politics, same kind of justifications but by your measure, only the one who is fictional is evil?

You do realise that you are essentially saying that evil does not exist in the real world? Or at least that your definition, whatever that is, does not?

I'm not denying there are definitely similarities, but Palpatine was written with the explicit point of being the villain in the Star Wars movies. Hitler was not constructed to be a villain by any entity, nor did he possess a self-awareness that what he was doing was "evil." If he actually thought what he was doing was evil, he wouldn't do it.

I think you can make an argument by defining certain traits as "evil", a good example is the seven deadly sins, but to define a being as complex as a human as evil fails to do them justice in terms of nuance. What's more, the term "evil" seems to be binding in the sense that someone perceived as evil cannot do anything good, or their good deeds are immediately erased on the grounds of their atrocities. The terms "good" and "evil" are man-made constructs that help us deal with the weight of character judgement, but aren't helpful in intelligent discussion, which is what politics should be.

I would agree that using the term evil with regards to Trump and Clinton is not right but if the first thing Trump does in the White House is drop a nuclear bomb on Mexico City because they won't pay for his wall, that would be an evil act.

And if you could not bring yourself to call that or the Holocaust evil, then you are part of the problem.

Disgusting, abhorrent, repugnant, definitely. Those words have less connotations than evil, which is a fictionalised condition.

You might not think you are being complacent but by being unable to categorise certain people or actions as evil for whatever quasi-philosophical reason - and evil does not require some sort of biblical connection - you are opening yourself up to a potential blindspot, too late to act when things have gone too far.

It has happened before.

I'm willing to call out what I see as bullshit, but the key term there is "I". What I see as bullshit in the world, which is in fact the rise of right-wing populism and an anti-intelligence agenda in the realm of political discussion, as well as various inequalities that could be acted upon, might not be the same as what you or someone else view as bullshit. Which is fine. But the term "evil" is a stronger word than that. It implies that this is a force of malice that has no redeeming qualities and must be stopped with the joint co-operation of everyone. And that's not what intelligent debate is about. It's about having both an emotional mind and a rational mind in order to achieve the best possible result.

I'm sorry, that is utter philosophical garbage and comes over as "I don't want to call anyone evil as it might sound insensitive or not be useful." (see Corbyn on anti-Semitism)

Just because the term "evil" has been bandied about far too much and erroneously, does not mean that it should not be used when confronted with proper evil.

Sometimes you have to be heavy-handed and call a spade a spade.

There is evil in the real world.

Calling something evil immediately closes down the debate and assumes the worst from an action and an individual. Like I said, you could argue that evil is a by-product from certain actions and traits, but it is never the driving force that compels someone to do something, which is always the impression I get when people use the term.

 

[Lee]

HEY IF YOU DON'T LIKE AMERICA YOU CAN GIIIIIIIIIIIIT OUT!

 

[Барбоса]

If he actually thought what he was doing was evil, he wouldn't do it.

No one chooses to do anything they themselves perceive as evil?

to define a being as complex as a human as evil fails to do them justice in terms of nuance.

What new philosophy book have you gotten recently?

The terms "good" and "evil" are man-made constructs that help us deal with the weight of character judgement, but aren't helpful in intelligent discussion, which is what politics should be.

In a political discussion, it is good to keep an open mind but not everything is a political discussion. There are lines in the sand when why Nazis, ISIS, individuals etc. are acting as they are are no longer important.

Disgusting, abhorrent, repugnant, definitely. Those words have less connotations than evil, which is a fictionalised condition.

All words are fictionalised constructs - you just happen to not like the term evil; an overused term for sure but not one we should just stop using because it might hurt feelings or colour our reception of someone/thing.

But the term "evil" is a stronger word than that. It implies that this is a force of malice that has no redeeming qualities and must be stopped with the joint co-operation of everyone.

Calling something evil immediately closes down the debate and assumes the worst from an action and an individual.

And how is that not applicable to something like the Holocaust? Regardless of why it or any other genocide is taking place, it is inherently evil.

 

[JGlass]

Fallout arguing with Barbosa is like a three legged puppy trying to box Muhammad Ali in his prime.