Evil

[Greater Tezdrian]

What is it?

Personally, I could be said to adhere to the school of Moral Absolutism; in the sense that there is a set of key principles that should not be violated; and while violating merely a single one of these principles does not make one automatically evil, violating two or more does. However I also recognize that besides these principles there are other specifics that vary from culture to culture in regard to what exactly evil is; so I also have a flair of Moral Universalism. The principles I mentioned are as follows:

• The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.
• The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.
• The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.
• The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.
• The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.
• The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.
• The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.
• The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.
• The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

Now, these are the core precepts which humanity and society abide by almost universally. Any one by itself is disgusting and perverted, but two are evil. There are of course other definitions but I feel that I have covered the basics. The only reason Amoralism could be adopted is the defense of these precepts. While I believe the precepts are generally universal, they are at heart my own personal definition of evil and I would like to hear the views of others on the matter.

So, what say ye', NSG?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Evil isn't a concept I believe in.

[Veblenia]

What is it?

Personally, I could be said to adhere to the school of Moral Absolutism; in the sense that there is a set of key principles that should not be violated; and while violating merely a single one of these principles does not make one automatically evil, violating two or more does. However I also recognize that besides these principles there are other specifics that vary from culture to culture in regard to what exactly evil is; so I also have a flair of Moral Universalism. The principles I mentioned are as follows:

• The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.
• The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.
• The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.
• The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.
• The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.
• The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.
• The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.
• The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.
• The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

Now, these are the core precepts which humanity and society abide by almost universally. Any one by itself is disgusting and perverted, but two are evil. There are of course other definitions but I feel that I have covered the basics. The only reason Amoralism could be adopted is the defense of these precepts. While I believe the precepts are generally universal, they are at heart my own personal definition of evil and I would like to hear the views of others on the matter.

So, what say ye', NSG?

I think this film describes evil better than I ever could.

[Trotskylvania]

It inspires bad junior writers to put characters in leather pants and then squee over their sexiness.

[Laerod]

It inspires bad junior writers to put characters in leather pants and then squee over their sexiness.

Don't diss fanfiction. I owe many a lesson plan to it.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Personally, I could be said to adhere to the school of Moral Absolutism; in the sense that there is a set of key principles that should not be violated; and while violating merely a single one of these principles does not make one automatically evil, violating two or more does.

That's hardly absolute then, is it?

[Siorafrica]

Trotskylvania wrote:
It inspires bad junior writers to put characters in leather pants and then squee over their sexiness.

TvTropes;it will ruin your vocabulary.

[Trotskylvania]

It inspires bad junior writers to put characters in leather pants and then squee over their sexiness.

Don't diss fanfiction. I owe many a lesson plan to it.

I'm not dissing fanfiction, I'm dissing bad junior writers--oh wait.

/haswrittenfanfiction

[Nazi Flower Power]

[*]The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.

Yes, except in the case it is the body of someone who was extremely evil, in which case it is acceptable, but still unnecessary.

[*]The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.

Absolutely.

[*]The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.

Depends on the religion being practiced there, but usually it is wrong. If it's a basically peaceful religion, then the places of worship should be respected.

[*]The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.
[*]The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

Well, it's disgusting...

[*]The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.

Depends on the motivation. Are you doing it just for the sake of being destructive or is there something else behind it?

[*]The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.

Civilization, yes. Government, it depends what you mean. It is sometimes right to overthrow a government and establish a new one. If you mean permanently abolishing all government, then that would be wrong, yes.

[*]The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.

Except in extreme cases. I don't think attempting to assassinate Hitler was wrong.

[*]The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.

Unless they are a masochist who asked you to hurt them.

[Pyravar]

It inspires bad junior writers to put characters in leather pants and then squee over their sexiness.

haha. Good one.

I think morality is too often tied to religious nonsense. I find getting your rules of life from some scroll 2000 years old (or whatever ancient timeframe) is idiotic. Better to develop your own code based on reasonable laws and living honorably in society.

[Greater Tezdrian]

[*]The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.

Depends on the motivation. Are you doing it just for the sake of being destructive or is there something else behind it?

The former.

[*]The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.

Civilization, yes. Government, it depends what you mean. It is sometimes right to overthrow a government and establish a new one. If you mean permanently abolishing all government, then that would be wrong, yes.

As in the permanent abolition of governance as a concept\practice.

[*]The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.

Except in extreme cases. I don't think attempting to assassinate Hitler was wrong.

Assassination to achieve a political end would generally be considered "official context". Wanton murder, however, would not.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Assassination to achieve a political end would generally be considered "official context". Wanton murder, however, would not.

Oh, I thought you meant anything illegal was wrong, but executions or criminals getting killed by police was OK. Killing someone just for shits and giggles would be obviously wrong.

[Greater Tezdrian]

Assassination to achieve a political end would generally be considered "official context". Wanton murder, however, would not.

Oh, I thought you meant anything illegal was wrong, but executions or criminals getting killed by police was OK. Killing someone just for shits and giggles would be obviously wrong.

Official context being anything considered acceptable by the State.

[Meowfoundland]

Evil doesn't exist, but things that I perceive as evil do.

[Risottia]

Personally, I could be said to adhere to the school of Moral Absolutism; in the sense that there is a set of key principles that should not be violated;

Why?

and while violating merely a single one of these principles does not make one automatically evil, violating two or more does.

Why the arbitrary choice of "two"?

The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.

So, no post-mortem exams or DNA sampling. Bet murders love this.

The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.

What if said kid is aiming a loaded AK-47 at you? Mind you, this happens quite often in some African countries.

The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.

But, I notice, you don't deem wrong and immoral the defilement of, let's say, a hospital. Hmmm... weird...

The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.

Even if it's consensual?

The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.

Define beauty. Objectively.

The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.

Why just wrong and not immoral?

The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.

Define "official context". Are you implying that the State is allowed to murder people but the private citizen isn't allowed to kill in self-defense even if it's the only option?

The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.

What if it's consensual?

The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

Again, what if it's consensual - that is, what if the late one's last wills included "please eat my corpse"? Mind, it happened (dunno if it still happens) in some cultures.

Now, these are the core precepts which humanity and society abide by almost universally.

No. Societies usually define most of the above as "crimes" - which is a totally different concept from "immoral actions".


As for my opinions, "evil" as a term has been abused so much that its usefulness has decreased. Too many layers of traditions are superimposed there for a logical debate to take place. I prefer to think of laws and crimes.

[Conserative Morality]

I don't believe in good or evil. Such concepts are birthed of conflict between viewpoints.

[Tiami]

Evil is a pigment of my imagination.

In other words, I don't give a shit.

But if you want a real answer, evil is an act committed against humanity in order for power.

[Risottia]

Evil is a pigment of my imagination.

Pigment, uh? Colourful language.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pigment

maybe you were thinking of a "figment".

[Tiami]

Evil is a pigment of my imagination.

Pigment, uh? Colourful language.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pigment

maybe you were thinking of a "figment".

Be aware of my sig.
Says to NSG to watch out for my unusual replies.
*Nods*

[Nazi Flower Power]

Oh, I thought you meant anything illegal was wrong, but executions or criminals getting killed by police was OK. Killing someone just for shits and giggles would be obviously wrong.

Official context being anything considered acceptable by the State.

Assassinating your leader is acceptable by the State?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Evil is a pigment of my imagination.

In other words, I don't give a shit.

But if you want a real answer, evil is an act committed against humanity in order for power.

What about acts committed against humanity for sex, money, cheese, etc.?

[Risottia]

Be aware of my sig.

The fact that Nana used you as collateral to get a secured loan doesn't explain why you think that evil is something that changes the colour of reflected light.

[Tiami]

Be aware of my sig.

The fact that Nana used you as collateral to get a secured loan doesn't explain why you think that evil is something that changes the colour of reflected light.

The Warning to NSG part is what I meant. -.-

[Farnhamia]

What is it?

Personally, I could be said to adhere to the school of Moral Absolutism; in the sense that there is a set of key principles that should not be violated; and while violating merely a single one of these principles does not make one automatically evil, violating two or more does. However I also recognize that besides these principles there are other specifics that vary from culture to culture in regard to what exactly evil is; so I also have a flair of Moral Universalism. The principles I mentioned are as follows:

• The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.
• The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.
• The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.
• The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.
• The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.
• The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.
• The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.
• The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.
• The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

Now, these are the core precepts which humanity and society abide by almost universally. Any one by itself is disgusting and perverted, but two are evil. There are of course other definitions but I feel that I have covered the basics. The only reason Amoralism could be adopted is the defense of these precepts. While I believe the precepts are generally universal, they are at heart my own personal definition of evil and I would like to hear the views of others on the matter.

So, what say ye', NSG?

The first three of your points are hardly universal. They've all been done for millennia. I will agree that they are perhaps wrong, especially the killing of children. The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is juvenile, not immoral and wrong. The others, alright, except for the consumption of a human. That one is dangerous medically but is hardly immoral and wrong. There's a story about an Indian king who called a group of his own people, who ritually consumed their dear, departed one, and some Greeks, cremated their dead, and bade them debate. Each was horrified by the customs of the others.

But you are, if you are anything, an absolutist, so while I can agree with some of this, for the rest, I think you are being moralistic and indulging in sweeping generalizations. But do carry on.

[Risottia]

The fact that Nana used you as collateral to get a secured loan doesn't explain why you think that evil is something that changes the colour of reflected light.

The Warning to NSG part is what I meant. -.-

As you see, I'm aware of your reply. I merely fall short of being wary thereof.