Evil

[DusterBoy]

Re: Evil

 

"You forgot the first rule of the fanatic. When you become obsessed with the enemy' date=' you become the enemy!"[/quote']

 

F Nietzche - "Let he who chases monsters beware, less he himself become a monster."

[Tasha]

Re: Evil

 

Off topic I know but, has anyone noticed how many people who acted in Babylon 5 have died? We are now up to 4. 2 of them seemed to be pretty young when they died.

 

"O'Hare is the fourth member of Babylon 5's main cast to pass away since the series ended. Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Stephen Franklin throughout the show's run, died in 2004. Andreas Katsulas, who starred as G'Kar, died in 2006. And Jeff Conaway, who played security officer Zack Allan, passed away last year. With O'Hare's passing, Straczynski mused on his Facebook page about a B5 reunion in the great beyond."

 

Sometimes I hate getting old....

Tasha

[Greywind]

Re: Evil

 

You missed Tim Choate, who plays Zathras. He was killed in a motorcycle accident in 2004.

[bluesguy]

Re: Evil

 

Interesting topic. I like many of the definitions people provided. I went to Wikipedia to see if there was something that could articulate what I was thinking better than I could. I like this item from the Evil entry on Wikipedia.

 

According to Peck, an evil person:

 

 

• Is consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection
  
• Deceives others as a consequence of their own self-deception
  
• Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets, scapegoating others while appearing normal with everyone else ("their insensitivity toward him was selective")
  
• Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of others
  
• Abuses political (emotional) power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion")
  
• Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
  
• Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
  
• Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim
  
• Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
  

 

The big distinction that Peck presents is that this description covers those who are NOT sociopaths. Read about "Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs".

[Greywind]

Re: Evil

 

...you just described my ex-wife.

[dmjalund]

Re: Evil

 

Off topic I know but, has anyone noticed how many people who acted in Babylon 5 have died? We are now up to 4. 2 of them seemed to be pretty young when they died.

 

"O'Hare is the fourth member of Babylon 5's main cast to pass away since the series ended. Richard Biggs, who played Dr. Stephen Franklin throughout the show's run, died in 2004. Andreas Katsulas, who starred as G'Kar, died in 2006. And Jeff Conaway, who played security officer Zack Allan, passed away last year. With O'Hare's passing, Straczynski mused on his Facebook page about a B5 reunion in the great beyond."

 

Sometimes I hate getting old....

Tasha

They are being reincarnated as Minbari

[The Arc]

Re: Evil

 

E.V.I.L.=Every Villain Is Lemons...Sorry it had to be said.

[Vulcan]

Re: Evil

 

You've just described both political parties.

 

Yep. And we keep voting for them.

 

We have the government we deserve. It's not good and better, it's evil and worse.

[Badger]

Re: Evil

 

One of the most interesting RPG experiences I have heard of (I wasn't in the game) was one where the PCs as a group decided the least evil option remaining to them was the destruction of the world (and this was the annihilation of the planet and all that was on it, not "just" the downfall of civilization). It was a fantasy world wherein, apparently, the supernatural evil powers were on the verge of winning, but it was not (at least initially) a crapsack world. The PCs were, in their own minds, following the right course of action by the standards set out for them by supernatural good powers they followed. The GM (from whom I heard the story) considers this the highlight of his RPG career. I don't know the full story of how and why the PCs made this decision; I would interested to know their opinions of the game and how it ended.

 

In the absence of supernatural evil-by-definition entities, of course, the act of annihilating the world is unmistakably an evil act.

 

Yeah, sounds like one of those games/GMs where the proper course of action is flip the table and walk out the door.

[Alverant]

Re: Evil

 

One of the most interesting RPG experiences I have heard of (I wasn't in the game) was one where the PCs as a group decided the least evil option remaining to them was the destruction of the world (and this was the annihilation of the planet and all that was on it, not "just" the downfall of civilization). It was a fantasy world wherein, apparently, the supernatural evil powers were on the verge of winning, but it was not (at least initially) a crapsack world. The PCs were, in their own minds, following the right course of action by the standards set out for them by supernatural good powers they followed. The GM (from whom I heard the story) considers this the highlight of his RPG career. I don't know the full story of how and why the PCs made this decision; I would interested to know their opinions of the game and how it ended.

 

In the absence of supernatural evil-by-definition entities, of course, the act of annihilating the world is unmistakably an evil act.

Maybe. Maybe not. I remember "Manifold Space" by Stephan Baxter in which the protagonist deliberately triggers the end of this universe. However as this sphere of annihilation spreads and reduces everything to the ground quantum state it creates countless trillions of NEW universes in its wake. We also find out the alternative was that humanity would continue the unwinnable fight against entropy until existence becomes static without the ability to change .... ever (it goes to far into the future that to express it in years you need exponents of exponents). So you have the choice, sacrifice this universe to create more or face an eternity of reruns. Which would you choose?

[Alverant]

Re: Evil

 

Evil is recognizing the harm dome to others in an effort to obtain one's desires' date=' and being okay with (or entertained by) that. "So long as it's not me it's happening to it isn't important".[/quote']

So a soldier who shoots the enemy is evil?! He/She recognizes the pain being inflicted on others to obtain the desire of protecting their country and that's OK with them.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

[Alverant]

Re: Evil

 

Dean Shomshak in The Ultimate Mystic made an interesting observation about Abrahamic angels as described in older text sources. While some' date=' such as "angels of mercy," may be pacifistic and nurturing, angels of battle, punishment, or death are anything but. While undeniably "good" in that they are unswerving in their devotion to duty, justice, and morality, they can also be aggressive, violent, and ruthless in the performance of their duties. There's no grey in their conception of right and wrong, and they have little sympathy or tolerance for human frailties and shortcomings. It would be easy to get on the bad side of one, and the result if you did could be as unpleasant as running afoul of a demon.[/quote']

I take issue with the "undeniably good" description because it assumes their version of right and wrong is a valid definition. For example if you were a member of a non-Abrahamic religion one of these "good" angels would attack you for not worshiping their false god. That would make the angels evil because they are suppressing the One True Faith.

[Alverant]

Re: Evil

 

I think the question of evil depends on the situation and the society (both of the people involved and the people observing). In the real world, nobody really thinks of themselves as evil. Everyone has a justification for what they do even if it doesn't make sense or isn't accepted by other people. We (as humans) are also more willing to not label something as evil if it's one of "us" doing it. For example if you ask someone if sending wild animals to maul some people who teased your bald friend is evil I think most people would say that it was. The point out that it was the Christian deity doing that act (2 Kings 2:24) and many people would change their minds and suddenly mauling of people becomes good and moral. You don't even need to involve religion, everyone has an excuse for their actions.

 

I think trying to set absolutes for what is good and evil is a futile pursuit since there could be some set of circumstances where an "evil" action would wind up being "good" and vise versa.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Evil

 

I take issue with the "undeniably good" description because it assumes their version of right and wrong is a valid definition. For example if you were a member of a non-Abrahamic religion one of these "good" angels would attack you for not worshiping their false god. That would make the angels evil because they are suppressing the One True Faith.

 

Well, that's why I put only the world "good" in quotation marks , and then laid out the terms applying to that "good." It is undeniable that those angels are unswerving in their devotion to duty, justice, and morality, which most people would call good in most circumstances. Because they're extreme and inflexible in their positions by their very nature, though, how they execute their duty could very well appear evil to most people, as per your example. Of course the angels would say that they are agents of the One True Faith, and your god is the false one. Validity of one or the other version of right and wrong doesn't really help resolve the issue, when one version is being espoused by the demigods with the flaming swords.

[Badger]

Re: Evil

 

Interesting topic. I like many of the definitions people provided. I went to Wikipedia to see if there was something that could articulate what I was thinking better than I could. I like this item from the Evil entry on Wikipedia.

 

According to Peck, an evil person:

 

 

• Is consistently self-deceiving, with the intent of avoiding guilt and maintaining a self-image of perfection
  
• Deceives others as a consequence of their own self-deception
  
• Projects his or her evils and sins onto very specific targets, scapegoating others while appearing normal with everyone else ("their insensitivity toward him was selective")
  
• Commonly hates with the pretense of love, for the purposes of self-deception as much as deception of others
  
• Abuses political (emotional) power ("the imposition of one's will upon others by overt or covert coercion")
  
• Maintains a high level of respectability and lies incessantly in order to do so
  
• Is consistent in his or her sins. Evil persons are characterized not so much by the magnitude of their sins, but by their consistency (of destructiveness)
  
• Is unable to think from the viewpoint of their victim
  
• Has a covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
  

 

The big distinction that Peck presents is that this description covers those who are NOT sociopaths. Read about "Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs".

 

Most of this describes my digestive system.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Evil

 

So a soldier who shoots the enemy is evil?! He/She recognizes the pain being inflicted on others to obtain the desire of protecting their country and that's OK with them.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

The soldier in the field is not enacting his own plans for his own enrichment, but those of his nation, as given to him through his chain of command.

 

Would you argue that war is not evil? It's just that sometimes it presents a lesser evil than the alternative (and sometimes it just seems to).

[Markdoc]

Re: Evil

 

I take issue with the "undeniably good" description because it assumes their version of right and wrong is a valid definition. For example if you were a member of a non-Abrahamic religion one of these "good" angels would attack you for not worshiping their false god. That would make the angels evil because they are suppressing the One True Faith.

 

I would have thought the actual existence of angels would render any discussions about who had the One True Faith pretty much moot, to be honest.

 

cheers, Mark

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Evil

 

I would have thought the actual existence of angels would render any discussions about who had the One True Faith pretty much moot, to be honest.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I think what he's saying is that people with a different religion from the one with angels would view them as evil, regardless of their appearance.

[Markdoc]

Re: Evil

 

The soldier in the field is not enacting his own plans for his own enrichment, but those of his nation, as given to him through his chain of command.

 

Would you argue that war is not evil? It's just that sometimes it presents a lesser evil than the alternative (and sometimes it just seems to).

 

Actually, I would argue that war is not intrinsically evil (Edit: and having had to deal with the results up close, I'm under no illusions of what it's actually like). I view it as the political equivalent of cracking someone's ribcage open and resecting an infected part of their lung. In both cases, it's going to be an bloody experience, it's nothing any sane person would do if there was an alternative, and you do it (hopefully) understanding in advance that there is going to be significant suffering in the wake of your actions.

 

But taking all those things into account, if the odds of success are decent and the alternative to not acting is even greater suffering and death, then, no, I don't see launching a war as evil. Choosing not to act is also making a choice.

 

regards, Mark

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Evil

 

Actually' date=' I [b']would [/b]argue that war is not intrinsically evil (Edit: and having had to deal with the results up close, I'm under no illusions of what it's actually like). I view it as the political equivalent of cracking someone's ribcage open and resecting an infected part of their lung. In both cases, it's going to be an bloody experience, it's nothing any sane person would do if there was an alternative, and you do it (hopefully) understanding in advance that there is going to be significant suffering in the wake of your actions.

 

But taking all those things into account, if the odds of success are decent and the alternative to not acting is even greater suffering and death, then, no, I don't see launching a war as evil. Choosing not to act is also making a choice.

 

regards, Mark

 

Stated better than I could without pondering the matter for considerably longer than I did. Somebody rep this guy for me, huh?

[psyber624]

Re: Evil

 

I think one of the main issues with discussions of good and evil is the assumption that there is some sort of "universal" measuring stick for them. I personally believe that good and evil are merely constructs of the human psyche. That does not mean they are not valid, or worthwhile to have as constructs, indeed without them civilization itself would be nearly impossible to achieve. However, I do believe that until we can admit that they are something that we, as humans, came up with and modified over the course of our existence we will continue to be unable to objectively and rationally quantify them in any meaningful way. There is no "ultimate" or "universal" ideal of good or evil. What they represent will continue to change as we change, and the different concepts of what good and evil are will, I believe, continue to be a major cause of strife between the peoples of the world.

 

One of the issues I have with religion (in general) is that most religions tend to believe in an intrinsic system of good and evil, which is without question, and usually does not take circumstance or any other considerations into account when applying these "labels" to people who do not follow their beliefs. (Note however while I feel this is true of Religions themselves, most Religious people, at least in my experience, are far more rational these days.)

[Markdoc]

Re: Evil

 

I think what he's saying is that people with a different religion from the one with angels would view them as evil' date=' regardless of their appearance.[/quote']

 

Well, yes. But if there were actual angels, that would pretty much prove those people wrong (unless they had actual devas or something similar as evidence, which would probably get messy fairly swiftly)

 

cheers, Mark

[L. Marcus]

Re: Evil

 

Huh. A theological arms race?

[Tasha]

Re: Evil

 

I would have thought the actual existence of angels would render any discussions about who had the One True Faith pretty much moot, to be honest.

 

cheers, Mark

 

An alien lifeform that has deluded itself into believing they are executing "god's" will? Angels don't prove the existance of a Diety, Christian or otherwise. They would confirm the UFologist's assertion that Aliens visited the planet many times during Mankind's development.

[Chuckg]

Re: Evil

 

We've gotten this far without the Pratchett quote? Its from Carpe Jugulum, and Granny Weatherwax is speaking with an Omnian missionary.

 

“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”

 

“Nope.”

 

“Pardon?”

 

“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”

 

“It’s a lot more complicated than that—”

 

“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they are getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”

 

“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”

 

“But they starts with thinking about people as things...”