Does Absolute Evil Exist?

[CuriousSoul]

The case in point:














Adolf Eichmann
(In case you are wondering Dioklecian typed him as ESFJ - and since it started to look increasingly likely I might be one... [Don't ask - I need to talk things over with the Tank Boy...])

From my childhood, obedience was something I could not get out of my system. When I entered the armed service at the age of twenty-seven, I found being obedient not a bit more difficult than it had been during my life to that point. It was unthinkable that I would not follow orders.
Adolf Eichmann

Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's need to think.
Adolf Eichmann

To sum it all up, I must say that I regret nothing.
Adolf Eichmann

We shall meet again. I have believed in God. I obeyed the laws of war and was loyal to my flag.
Adolf Eichmann

He is on youtube too.

[Mea]

Evil is subjective IMO.
Evil to me, might not be evil to someone else, & vice versa.

Can't always blame the person for what they become too. Because we might never really understand the backgrounds or what turmoil a person has gone through. Bla bla.

[Joy]

When my son talks about "good guys" and "bad guys" I tell him that irl it's not that simple... everything and everyone is both good and evil, not solely one or the other. We talk about the importance of making good decisions and whatnot.

[Mea]

Eh. I dunno. What is absolute evil really.
People define it differently.

But I don't think I'd be able to truly tell someone very sincerely "hey! you absolutely, totally, evil!"

We talk about the importance of making good decisions and whatnot.

Ooo. And I kinda agree with this. I guess it IS important. However, when making a decision, there are many possibilities. And there can be more than one good decision, > <
And a good/bad decision, again, is probably subjective..

[FDG]

There are some actions that are clearly "wrong" like, harming any other person's right, but there's no definition of an "evil person".

[aestrivex]

what does "absolute evil" even mean?

[FDG]

what does "absolute evil" even mean?

- evil for evil <0
evil for evil >0

[vague]

Evil is subjective IMO.
Evil to me, might not be evil to someone else, & vice versa.

Can't always blame the person for what they become too. Because we might never really understand the backgrounds or what turmoil a person has gone through. Bla bla.

Even if someone can't be fully blamed for what they become, it doesn't make them any less worse of a person or mean we should be more accepting toward them.

I agree with FDG. I think there are objective, universally true morals and that culture should be largely irrelevant in defining them.

As for Eichman, he does appear .

[aestrivex]

what does "absolute evil" even mean?

- evil for evil <0
evil for evil >0

eh?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I don't think there is any such thing as universal evils - even if there was, you couldn't prove it, so it's irrelevant. The fact that most people think murder is wrong regardless of their views on evil shows there is no such thing. Universal evils can only apply to our understanding, therefore they can't be universal. You might not think it's wrong for cannibalism in animals, because they are 'just following nature', but as soon as it happens in humans, it's considered evil. How can the same act carried out by humans be more wrong than when carried out by animals if there is universal evil? If you say humans are 'more' responsible for their actions, rather than 'absolutely' responsible, belief in universal evil is untenable.

[FDG]

what does "absolute evil" even mean?

- evil for evil <0
evil for evil >0

eh?

just the sng function applied to evil.
a dumb math joke.

[vague]

I don't think there is any such thing as universal evils - even if there was, you couldn't prove it, so it's irrelevant. The fact that most people think murder is wrong regardless of their views on evil shows there is no such thing. Universal evils can only apply to our understanding, therefore they can't be universal. You might not think it's wrong for cannibalism in animals, because they are 'just following nature', but as soon as it happens in humans, it's considered evil. How can the same act carried out by humans be more wrong than when carried out by animals if there is universal evil? If you say humans are 'more' responsible for their actions, rather than 'absolutely' responsible, belief in universal evil is untenable.

Cannibalism used to be a natural behavior in humans but is not present because it is better to forgo eating others in order to avoid being eaten ourselves. Thus, it developed into a social contract of sorts and became imprinted in our evolutionary psychology as an undesirable behavior. When I speak of universal morals, I am basically talking about anything that inflicts suffering on others. No one likes to suffer. If we do not want suffering inflicted on us by others, then we ourselves should not inflict it--universal morals are born out of this. Most people do believe murdering is wrong, but this wasn't always the case. Our ideas of other behaviors that are wrong is expanding because the moral faculty in our brain has advanced through evolution and it has advanced because we have fought against natural instincts that threaten to cause ourselves or others suffering. In primal times, tribes only cared about the well-being of their own members, murdering people from other tribes was okay. Over time, tribes extended their concern for well-being to other tribes, soon all of humanity, then animals became included, and now some people even want to extend empathy toward microscoptic organisms.

I apologise if my ramble is non-sensical. I am mildly medicated from a visit to the dentist and will now remove my hands from the keyboard.

[FDG]

Makes perfect sense to me

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Cannibalism used to be a natural behavior in humans but is not present because it is better to forgo eating others in order to avoid being eaten ourselves. Thus, it developed into a social contract of sorts and became imprinted in our evolutionary psychology as an undesirable behavior. When I speak of universal morals, I am basically talking about anything that inflicts suffering on others. No one likes to suffer. If we do not want suffering inflicted on us by others, then we ourselves should not inflict it--universal morals are born out of this. Most people do believe murdering is wrong, but this wasn't always the case. Our ideas of other behaviors that are wrong is expanding because the moral faculty in our brain has advanced through evolution and it has advanced because we have fought against natural instincts that threaten to cause ourselves or others suffering. In primal times, tribes only cared about the well-being of their own members, murdering people from other tribes was okay. Over time, tribes extended their concern for well-being to other tribes, soon all of humanity, then animals became included, and now some people even want to extend empathy toward microscoptic organisms.

I apologise if my ramble is non-sensical. I am mildly medicated from a visit to the dentist and will now remove my hands from the keyboard.

I'm not sure humans were ever naturally cannibalistic, but I'm not sure they were ever naturally nuclear-warheadistic either. Humans do evolve 'moral' behaviour just because of universal evil - it makes sense that humans don't kill others of their own species\tribe, for their own protection, to prevent all-out war etc. If anything, humans have evolved into something worse, not better (although extant species, by definition, are those most fit for survival in their environment), if not biologically, then technology wise.

Universal morals are outside human experience and therefore can't be based on pain - besides pain is relative, and the morals of all cannot be determined by one person, one society, or the whole human race even if they agreed - people's actions are always misunderstood.

Only if humans were perfect (and possibly identical) could there be such things as universal evil\morals etc. - but if humans were perfect, universal evil wouldn't exist anyway, and morals wouldn't either, because they would be no pain.

I also apologise if my post is non-sensical - but I have always been this way .

[.thursday]

how the fuck do you know that humans used to be cannibalistic

[aestrivex]

the concept of universal morals is completely and utterly absurd. there only exists that which exists, and a being's relation to it is influenced by that which exists and not by an inherent sense of morals. any discrepancy between this viewpoint and the evolution of the human race is purely arbitrary and reflects the frailty of our pathetic cerebra.

[UDP]

Here's a test for absolute evil, particularly in regard to my duals:

If you let it get to this, then you have sinned beyond repent







(gluttony)







Not to take away from the evilness of the first post - that is not cool at all. But after the notable respect the first post deserves, I have a feeling this thread might not produce much more than absurdity as it is.

[aestrivex]

Here's a test for absolute evil, particularly in regard to my duals:

If you let it get to this, then you have sinned beyond repent







(gluttony)







Not to take away from the evilness of the first post - that is not cool at all. But after the notable respect the first post deserves, I have a feeling this thread might not produce much more than absurdity as it is.

????????

[anndelise]

Murder isn't a very good example for supporting the concept of universal evil.

The term "murder" already implies "wrongful kill".
If we took out the prejudgement we'd just have "kill/killing".
As humans, we can justify just about anything, including killing as a moral obligation.


Of course, there's also the ever popular sentiment when we have soldiers who are at war in another country ...
"How DARE they shoot back at us!!?!"
(these sentiments stress the dare...and seem to forget that "our" soldiers had been shooting at those who shot back)

[Phaedrus]

the concept of universal morals is completely and utterly absurd. there only exists that which exists, and a being's relation to it is influenced by that which exists and not by an inherent sense of morals.

What is universally correct (or true) and what exists are two logically separate questions. Even in a non-existent world there would be universal truths, for example the fact that nothing exists, and that 2+2=4. No statement in ethics (morals) can be inferred from what exists -- neither its truth or its falsehood.

[XoX]

Does a perfectly round circle exist? In theory yes, in practice perhaps not. If absolute good and evil exist it is in some "spiritual" or "godly" realm not in physical/material realm. So I think absolute evil exists in theory but in material world things are more yin/yang, in evil there is a bit good and in good there is a bit evil. I do believe good and evil as concepts do exist and make sense though. I think you could argue that the whole concept of good/evil is flawed but I don't buy that argument so don't bother making it

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Universal evils can only exist if people have the same experience (which they don't), otherwise it's absurd to say something is an universal evil.

[aestrivex]

No statement in ethics (morals) can be inferred from what exists -- neither its truth or its falsehood.

i would agree with that assertion and i don't believe it contradicts my post.

[vague]

Phaedrus put it wonderfully. I think it is possible that morality has an external reality just as numbers and shapes do.

It is logical to say that a universal trait humans share is being wired to avoid suffering. Universal morals can be built off of this. There are morals that exist that are not derived from the same kind of logic, but rather could be argued to be the result of a systematic error in our moral faculty.

Example of this: Let's say a brother and sister decide to have intercourse. They use protection and birth control so there is no risk of producing a deformed child. Most people would consider this situation immoral because harm could come to another human being [the unborn child]. The sense of immorality felt is derived from the fact that the disgust faculty in the brain senses the risk of deformed offspring and alerts us that incest should be avoided. However, actions have been taken to make sure there are no offspring, so there is no logical reason to deem it immoral.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Phaedrus put it wonderfully. I think it is possible that morality has an external reality just as numbers and shapes do.

It is logical to say that a universal trait humans share is being wired to avoid suffering. Universal morals can be built off of this. There are morals that exist that are not derived from the same kind of logic, but rather could be argued to be the result of a systematic error in our moral faculty.

It's logical...but...when you read that scientists can measure people's responses to pain on a scale, it means that some people are more susceptible to pain than others (and so are more likely to be manipulated into do something 'wrong') - if there are evils which are universal, it means that people should receive the same punishment no matter why they did the evil, or what level of pressure they were under. Evil only happens to humans, and cannot exist without humans being able to perceive it (in fact, it was humans who created the word 'evil') - if humans aren't equal, there isn't an universal human, therefore no universal evil. 'Man is the measure of all things' etc. - not the universe, especially when it comes to perceptions and morals.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Example of this: Let's say a brother and sister decide to have intercourse. They use protection and birth control so there is no risk of producing a deformed child. Most people would consider this situation immoral because harm could come to another human being [the unborn child]. The sense of immorality felt is derived from the fact that the disgust faculty in the brain senses the risk of deformed offspring and alerts us that incest should be avoided. However, actions have been taken to make sure there are no offspring, so there is no logical reason to deem it immoral.

Speaking of avoiding suffering, this is a counter-argument: life is all about suffering, and there's the possibility that you'll suffer a slow and painful death, miles from anyone, after living a life of misery. Therefore, it is justified to humanely kill people now because they are going to die anyway. The fact that people may disagree with this shows there can't be universal evils etc. You might say that universal evils exist regardless of whether someone understands them, but who are you to say that? You are not the universe, and people don't agree 100% on even the simplest things, such as this poll.

[Joy]

Example of this: Let's say a brother and sister decide to have intercourse. They use protection and birth control so there is no risk of producing a deformed child. Most people would consider this situation immoral because harm could come to another human being [the unborn child]. The sense of immorality felt is derived from the fact that the disgust faculty in the brain senses the risk of deformed offspring and alerts us that incest should be avoided. However, actions have been taken to make sure there are no offspring, so there is no logical reason to deem it immoral.

I assume they're both adults?

[vague]

it means that some people are more susceptible to pain than others (and so are more likely to be manipulated into do something 'wrong') - if there are evils which are universal, it means that people should receive the same punishment no matter why they did the evil, or what level of pressure they were under.

I don't dispute that some people have less ability to gouge pain but I don't think they should be granted any less punishment as a result. A psychopath is incapable of empathy so he does not feel the pain he inflicts on others but that doesn't mean he ought to be granted any special consideration because his brain is dysfunctional. It probably indicates he should recieve an even more severe punishment because sadism is the only language he knows and he will not be responsive to other forms of rehabilitation.

and life is not all about suffering, there are other elements to it. Of course there is suffering that is not caused by humans but that has nothing to do with morals.

Anyway, I'm out for the night!

[and yes, Joy, my examples were adults. although that would make it no less immoral to the majority.]

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Another with thing with that example is that they may decrease the odds of having a child to 1 in a 100 billion or something, but as long as they are aware of even the slightest odds, does their act become an universal evil (presuming having a child from an incestuous 'union' is an evil? Universal means absolute, with no margin for such odds, no matter how small.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

it means that some people are more susceptible to pain than others (and so are more likely to be manipulated into do something 'wrong') - if there are evils which are universal, it means that people should receive the same punishment no matter why they did the evil, or what level of pressure they were under.

I don't dispute that some people have less ability to gouge pain but I don't think they should be granted any less punishment as a result. A psychopath is incapable of empathy so he does not feel the pain he inflicts on others but that doesn't mean he ought to be granted any special consideration because his brain is dysfunctional. It probably indicates he should recieve an even more severe punishment because sadism is the only language he knows and he will not be responsive to other forms of rehabilitation.

and life is not all about suffering, there are other elements to it. Of course there is suffering that is not caused by humans but that has nothing to do with morals.

Anyway, I'm out for the night!

[and yes, Joy, my examples were adults. although that would make it no less immoral to the majority.]

If you punish people more for a crime because of an inherent inequality, there can be no universal evil. And you might say life isn't all about suffering, but this is your opinion not a universal truth. How could you establish what is an universal evil on such grounds (tha fact you need to establish it shows it's not universal).

[ragnar]

The case in point:

Das elende Schwein Eichmann

Those who would like to experience "absolute evil" are hereby advised to convert to Judaism, and move to a place where guys like DESA are in power. Iran under the present regime might be a good idea, dozens of other moron hangouts passing for countries would be fine too.

In many places things are even easier: One can become the center of attention in a lynching or videotaped killing just for comitting WAWA: Walking around while American. Somalia, f.i., would probably be a good choice for anyone desiring this, especially if gleeful defilement of your formerly living body afterwards is on your wish list.

If you can get to the Communist Paradise North Korea you may want to visit this place.

For those who'd like to experience "absolute evil" firsthand the possibilities are endless ...

Greetings, ragnar.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Who is the most evil person you know? Why don't you add one to that (what is 1 + infinity?). What if the person was mentally ill? How many rapes = a murder etc.? I'm sure you can think of worse evils in your head than those caried out by even the worst dictators. There are probably even worse evils than that, but the fact people don't have the same vision of evil means it can't be universal. Do people in Iran consider the actions of their government an universal 'evil', or is it just you? etc., etc.

[vague]

Christ, you folks are giving me a headache. How dare you have an opinion that differs from my own.

In regards to ann's post. Killing was not a good example. Let's use rape. You can't really find any logical justification for rape.

How could you establish what is an universal evil on such grounds (tha fact you need to establish it shows it's not universal).

As I stated in an earlier post, I do not believe universal morals are "established", but discovered rather. Similar to how mathematicians can elucidate truths about numbers and shapes.

The fact that people don't have the same vision of immoral/moral could simply be flaws in internal logic. The moral sense is just as much as a gadget as the eyes are, it is capable of producing flaws.

Okay, I really have to get going now. Good Night.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Hmm..it could be due to flaws in internal logic....if universal morals only applies to humans, and yet they can't recognise them (because no one is perfect, or more 'true' than another), it seems flawed to say morals are universal. Or, at least to reinforce this, despite evidence to the contrary. The only evidence which would support this would be everyone having the same view on morals, but it has already been established this can't happen.

[aestrivex]

Phaedrus put it wonderfully. I think it is possible that morality has an external reality just as numbers and shapes do.

It is logical to say that a universal trait humans share is being wired to avoid suffering. Universal morals can be built off of this. There are morals that exist that are not derived from the same kind of logic, but rather could be argued to be the result of a systematic error in our moral faculty.

Example of this: Let's say a brother and sister decide to have intercourse. They use protection and birth control so there is no risk of producing a deformed child. Most people would consider this situation immoral because harm could come to another human being [the unborn child]. The sense of immorality felt is derived from the fact that the disgust faculty in the brain senses the risk of deformed offspring and alerts us that incest should be avoided. However, actions have been taken to make sure there are no offspring, so there is no logical reason to deem it immoral.

i strongly disagree. to suggest that all humans inherently find birth control to be immoral is absurd. (actually, this is a terrible example since there is also the issue of whether or not the unborn child is actually alive.)

i would maintain that there are some humans who fundamentally see nothing wrong with, say, murder. many people use their own sense of morality and find such crimes as murder to be appalling. however, this does not by any means extend to all people; there are some who find nothing inherently wrong with ending the life of another person, for a myriad of reasons.

to suggest that morality is highly tied to empathy -- not a huge step away from commonly accepted definitions of socionics -- is not altogether unreasonable, because those that have the ability to empathize with such problems as death (well, perhaps something slightly less severe) may simply find it a breach of their empathic nature to inflict whatever such punishment on their brethren.

[MysticSonic]

Humanity's sense of morality, what is good and what is evil, is derived mostly on cultural and practical norms, and while that isn't terribly a strong argument for the non-existence of morals by itself, it provides, at least me, with a strong intuitive reason to not believe in their existence. There is only what I feel to be right, and what I feel to be wrong---that is my moral rule.

[MysticSonic]

"You can't really find any logical justification for rape."

Then what do you call the reasons that rapists use to motivate and justify their actions?

[Joy]

entitlement

[MysticSonic]

"entitlement"

My point is that the reasons are logical and coherent from their point of view and perspective. There is always a situation in which there is a possible reason to behave a certain way. There are no morals which can be defined in such a way that they might be universally moral from a rational stand-point.

[Joy]

While I wouldn't use rape as an example because I associate it with poor mental wellness, I agree with your point.