-
As other's have already rightly remarked, the straightforward, honest answer here is "the opposite Quadra from me". There are so many ways of approaching "evil", and the epistemic gap between Yourself and other's implicit notion of evil makes response tenuous at best. Good and Evil only fully cohere within an ontology of Dualism, which I'd wager a majority of people on these forums only tacitly agree with at best--cultural conditioning being what it is--and would outright disagree if pressed to think on this consciously.
For the many secular--lacking a strictly defined, central compass--the evaluation of "evil" is largely a deliberation between IEs and personal preference. For some, evil will be that which is ostensibly 'wrong' (in accordance with their temperament), most commonly an aversion to violence, which is largely a self-preservational extension of sympathy. For many, 'evil' is a hyperbolic placeholder for whatever personally inconveniences them or others, with an extension of sympathy vicariously evaluating the situation of others through the self. Most secular morality requires no consistent, core definition, as it's central-most feature is largely self-preservation, this is plainly obvious, as killing other humans--lest it be publicly justified as an organized act of war or restitution--is universally deemed murder. Admonishment of killing, theft, deception, exploitation, etc requires no set of moral axioms beyond self-preservation. It is only within the arbitration of intermediary agency, such as Religion or a State, that subjective ethics begins to socially engineer a populace, to say nothing of morality actually taking form in tradition. Mortality impairs our capacity to evaluate situations impartially - as seen in the fundamentally asinine reaction that violence is inherently wrong. All too human.
Personally, I find ethics remarkably boring, but every type exerts their own hot air (just look at my long-winded tripe lol) trying to propagate something essential to their valued IE, so these threads are bound to happen. For my part, given that I am a Dualist, my view of the aforementioned traits attributed to self-preservation is that many of these notions are embedded within us intrinsically, and point to a higher Order, however there is a selfishness in mortality, and without virtue to pursue the Good, rendered directionless, our moral nature spirals into self-serving indulgence and gratification (shameless debauchery presented as self-affirmation and 'exploration' being a clear example), propagating itself, like a virus, onto others. I believe Evil, existent independently of subjective preference, does exist. I am not a materialist. That said, on a personal level, how most would treat 'evil' as a placeholder for all the shit that most bothers them, some of the traits that make me most aggressive are: treachery, a leading astray, insidiousness, child predation, and those who would erode and deconstruct meaning; that which teleologically serves nihilism is my enemy. Ultimately, however, actual Evil transcends type.
-
What some have attributed as "chaos" to Beta Se, is largely misconstrued egoism (though it does exist). In the case of Beta, there is an 'Us vs Them' quality that can result in tribal opposition to a greater majority. This is not chaos, this Aristocratic Se. To necro Gilly's excellent post: "Generally Aristocrats are more self-contained as groups. They see their views as being applicable mostly only within the range of the group; they know what's best for them, and that is generally all they care about. Contrast to Democrats, who have a more universalist approach, viewing everyone on a level playing field.". Red Dead Redemption 2 provides excellent instance, as gang-leader Dutch Van Der Linde, an obvious EIE if ever there was one, leads the Beta ST protagonist and their motley crew of outlaws in an epic Us vs Them tale across the twilight days of the Old West. Beta can be 'Will to Power' egoistic and the like, but it archetypally orients itself towards a group, and the handful of socially Darwinist antisocials looking to make a bang are extremely exceptional. Granted, I understand how that is being construed as 'evil'.
Ne valuers comprise a vast majority of the most perverted, nihilistic, slippery, disloyal, infidelitous, and downright frustrating people I've dealt with. I anticipated Se valuers being landslided as the more "evil", both insofar as (at least MBTI-wise) statistics I have seen claim Si valuers outnumber Se valuers, and Se valuers more willingly trigger the aforementioned self-preservationist alarms - more comfortable with dealing violence, namely; this is so much the case, that I have actually seen Si valuers on these forums imply or explicitly say they have doubted the "humanity" of Se valuers. Ne valuers, with occasional exception to Delta STs, are simply generally more innocuous, as well as less capable of actualizing their ambitions. What others take by sophistry and exploited civility, Se earns through force of will. One calls the other "cruel", and the other responds: "dishonest coward".
-
