True Evil

[SolidSamurai]

According to good ol' Dante and his Inferno, the 9th level of hell is reserved for the evilest of people. According to him, this is for traitors and slanderers, as well as the Prince of Darkness himself, wings and 4 weeping faces and all.

But the idea of it all is... what is true evil? Murder? Alot of murderers are simply just screwed up people, mentally screwed to the maximum degree. Insane people aren't instantly evil, they just can't help themselves, can they? From this argument, it could even include sadists who willingly allow others to suffer, whether horribly or otherwise.

As for so called 'slanderers' (depends who's labelling), a lot of them might be just ignorant people, a little misinformed themselves, thinking they've found 'the answer' and are willing to sway the lesser minded masses. Other 'slanderers' are those who simply ended up in the job of propaganda, working for a less than benevolent government.

As for traitors, I wouldn't know. The only argument I can think of for this is the issue of being forced to work against one's country, business, whatever for the enemy. It also depends on how much suffering you may cause by being a traitor.

EVEN PRIDE. Yes, perhaps someone who is prideful simply wishes to show all the other jerks. They're slightly unstable themselves. They don't feel the worth in love. They hate people in general.

Christianity. Indeed, the problem with the bible is that it is far too general. Anyone can interpret it to mean something else. And who knows what the original recorders meant from this outlook?

So, really I'd like to hear, of all the possible sins that can be commited, what your opinion is of true evil? It doesn't have to be from a religious perspective.

[CrazyTom]

True evil? For me, that would be anyone who glorifies in the suffering of other people. Torturers, some murderers, some rapists. Sadists, basically. But your statement about insane / mentally damaged people not being able to help themselves isn't exactly true. It's not been proven how much of behaviour is genetic and how much is a result of social interaction, but I think in most cases people have a choice to make. When you make the choice to give into the urge for gratification and achieve it by inflicting pain on others... then you become evil, in my book.

Still, I do leave room for 'crimes of passion' or 'moments of weakness'. True evil, on the other hand, is unrepetant. There's my opinion, anyway.

[Serban]

Any crime with serious effects [by that I mean things that are more serious than stealing a cookie :rolleyes:] that you do not feel truly sorry for at any moment of your life.

[Lithium]

True evil...hmm. I would say that jealousy isn't an evil, because life is unfair, and jealous people think life sucks, which is why they try to do something about it, albeit trying to do something stupid about it.

Pride - what if everyone had as much pride as that guy? It would actually be less evil.

My definition of true evil: something that you have done, you know it's wrong, you know it's unfair, it benefits nobody (no, not even you).

[Prozerran]

Interestingly enough, to have "true" evil, there must be "true" good, and if you decipher the Divine Comedy, you find the ultimate good (God), in and of itself, cannot be deciphered. In essence, while Satan is regarded as the true evil of the underworld and portrayed as a massive beast with three faces, six eyes, and six wings, God is ironically not regarded at all as a true good. God is merely three circles within each other, symbolizing the father, son, and holy ghost element of the religion. Who is the true good? The Father? The Son? The Holy Spirit? We don't know.

I think you'll find that in whatever circumstance you look to qualify an individual or act as true evil, there's always one more step to go, one more evil that is more evil than the most evil act we can imagine. I think of it that way for a reason, and as such, don't rely on good/evil terminology as a result. It's a fascade. There are better, more descriptive words with more specific meaning than good or evil. Regardless, if you're looking for true evil as it pertains to the Divine Comedy, you'll find every instance is in one of the nine circles of hell and not a one is as bad as Judas who betrayed Jesus or Lucifer who betrayed God.

But then again, if you buy into the belief that upon every scientific discovery, we defy God, then aren't all of us as human beings "truly" evil since we all seemingly betray God?

Bah, just making discussion...

[CrazyTom]

But then again, if you buy into the belief that upon every scientific discovery, we defy God, then aren't all of us as human beings "truly" evil since we all seemingly betray God?

What the hell? Who on earth believes that? Wasn't there an extent to which scientific study was started by religious men in order to better understand how God made the world?

Bah, just making discussion...

Seems quite a random argument to draw out of your ass. Scientific discovery has no place in this discussion.

[kirby]

I just read Dante's Inferno lol.

true evil is the following:raping kids,murder,healthcare fraud,hacking in multiplayer video games, suicide, betrayal, incest, genocide, and stoning(yes it still happens).

[ScottieIWU]

As with all works of literature (which is exactly what this is) you need to consider, more than anything, the social circumstances of the time in which it was written. In the 14th century things were crimes that would now be inconceivable in all but the most "socially backward" countries. Speaking out against the church, much less acting out against it, were unforgivable sins, things that today are commonplace. Moreover, this is during one of the most corrupt times within the Catholic Church.

Consider slander: slander is the defamation of someone/something with the specific intent to hurt reputation. This makes perfect sense that this would be something unforgivable, as speaking out against the Church would probably end your life, if you were lucky. Looking at treason: speaking against the Church would have been one thing-acting against it would have been another crime entirely.

Considering these things, it's not surprising that to someone who was born into a wealthy, Pope-supporting family would write a work in which anybody who spoke or acted against the church would find himself in the deepest levels of hell, with only Satan himself. In terms of actual definition of evil, this obviously makes little to no sense at all.

Obviously this brings up the complex issue of what evil is, and that question is nearly impossible to answer. Most people would say malicious murder, rape, and other violent crimes. However, in many societies these things would have been acceptable, or at least not nearly as bad as they are in our society. The fact is that evil is itself a concept that is subject to the complex socialization, and cannot be objectively defined. What to one person is evil may to another be acceptable. Certain mental conditions may change these perceptions, but it is entirely feasible for someone who is otherwise mentally sound to have a loose moral system and consider murder, rape and abuse okay. Of course, there seems to be a generally objective moral code, one that has existed outside of religious bounds since the earliest civilizations, and thus it would seem that someone who is outside of this moral code is an aberration, likely the result of socialization outside of groups that accept this common morality.

Not quite the answer you wanted, eh?

[Prozerran]

What the hell? Who on earth believes that? Wasn't there an extent to which scientific study was started by religious men in order to better understand how God made the world?

Seems quite a random argument to draw out of your ass. Scientific discovery has no place in this discussion.

Well, Tom, I didn't quite pull this out of my ass. In the context of Dante's Inferno, it would be a sin to question the existence of God, miracles performed by his son, Jesus, or to question the fundamental text of the religion, the Bible. And yet, science has, in the past, questioned all of these things (whether it was for deeper understanding or not is a little outside the scope of what the question is asking, but whatever).

And scientific study actually WASN'T begun solely by religious men. There were many who weren't believers of a particular religion that sought truth through scientific, or at the very least, rational means.

Finally, if you're going to say that science fundamentally began with the intent to better understand how God made the world, you should be sure and qualify that statement. I'm not saying that some had this intent, but to speak so absolutely that this was why science came about, you better have the proof to back it up.

I'm not making the claim here that because people believe in science, they are truly evil or more evil than evil men. I happen to agree whole-heartedly with Scottie's assessment, but in the context of the original poster's reference to Dante and the Inferno, it's a statement I make with a particular sense of irony and amusement.

[CrazyTom]

Ah, my mistake. I'm not familiar with the work in question. (Although it isn't really under discussion either, more 'what do you think of as true evil?')

But yeah, I know scientific study wasn't begun solely by religious men, but as I understand it a decent proportion of its development came from Christian scientists like Newton and Galileo, and so forth. (That's why I said '...an extent to which...'.) Dammit, I know I'm not explaining myself very well.

[ScottieIWU]

Ah, my mistake. I'm not familiar with the work in question. (Although it isn't really under discussion either, more 'what do you think of as true evil?')I was under the impression from the OP that the topic was true evil, based somewhat in the context of Dante's Inferno.

Namely (to put it in a thesis-esque statement): Based on the definition of true evil based on Dante's inferno, the truest forms of evil come in the form of slanderers and traitors. This definition seems unsatisfactory, and therefore what is your assessment of "true evil."

The distinction may not be quite clear, but it definitely draws upon Dante's original work, and leaves open room for discussion about true evil as a social context (one of the points of my first post here).

[wenching]

In my opinion "truly" evil person is someone who does something which in the society hes in is Extremely Bad and either takes pleasure in doing so or doesn't care at all.

Through this you should know that many say Nazis in world war two gasing jews were NoT "truely" evil merely doing what they belived what was o.k, if anything some were upset that the gasing of "vermin" affected them.

"True" evil in our society would be a Man laughing as he threw cute puppies into a woodchipper. Who here agrees with that?

[WarInSerbia]

The true evil people are the one that are psyhotic and mad.They can kill without and emo.

Oh yeah also true evil are the japanise soldiers they dont care if they die...

[NightElfking]

According to good ol' Dante and his Inferno, the 9th level of hell is reserved for the evilest of people. According to him, this is for traitors and slanderers, as well as the Prince of Darkness himself, wings and 4 weeping faces and all.

But the idea of it all is... what is true evil? Murder? Alot of murderers are simply just screwed up people, mentally screwed to the maximum degree. Insane people aren't instantly evil, they just can't help themselves, can they? From this argument, it could even include sadists who willingly allow others to suffer, whether horribly or otherwise.

As for so called 'slanderers' (depends who's labelling), a lot of them might be just ignorant people, a little misinformed themselves, thinking they've found 'the answer' and are willing to sway the lesser minded masses. Other 'slanderers' are those who simply ended up in the job of propaganda, working for a less than benevolent government.

As for traitors, I wouldn't know. The only argument I can think of for this is the issue of being forced to work against one's country, business, whatever for the enemy. It also depends on how much suffering you may cause by being a traitor.

EVEN PRIDE. Yes, perhaps someone who is prideful simply wishes to show all the other jerks. They're slightly unstable themselves. They don't feel the worth in love. They hate people in general.

Christianity. Indeed, the problem with the bible is that it is far too general. Anyone can interpret it to mean something else. And who knows what the original recorders meant from this outlook?

So, really I'd like to hear, of all the possible sins that can be commited, what your opinion is of true evil? It doesn't have to be from a religious perspective.
Let's see what I can remember off the top of my head.

Sins, all sins, regardless of what they are (Lust, greed, gulltony, murder, steal, arson, the list goes on) are a sin. It doesn't matter what you commit, you still sin. Each sin is equal and damns you to hell no matter what it is. Even thinking lusty thoughts of a girl (or a guy if you are a girl) is a sin and that is just as evil in God's sight as commiting rape.
What's really amazing though is that Jesus Chirst went to the cross in order to save us from ourselfs. Since he died on the cross, no matter what we commit, God is always willing to forgive our sins. He his more beyond our comprehesion than we can possibly imagine. God will forgive any sin. ANY SIN! You could have committed 79 murders and if you turn around, God will save you.

Peopel are only sent to hell now for not repenting and believeing in God and that Chirst Jesus died and rose again to save your sins.

A little off topic, but still relates to it.

In my opinion, the one true evil is Satan and his minions. Nothing and no one is more evil than him. And no one can be truely evil because in God's eyes, every sin is equal and always amounts to damnation. But remember: This is in God's eyes. Not humans. What we judge as truely evil may not be as evil as we think.

This is my personal belief.
Any comments or objections I will be willing to debate with you if you do not accept or have a conflict on my view.

[GenocideAlive]

Evil and Good are terms that I dislike to hear in any discussion of quality. Both are terms that we use to apply to specific behaviors or acts that typically have rather obvious motivations and circumstances. Interestingly enough, when you can get universal agreement on the undesireability of a particular circumstance, the death penalty is often provoked. Meanwhile, other things are open for interpretation: a preacher that's obviously milking the religious.

People who invoke either term for a qualitative description of the value of an act (good or evil) typically have an agenda that they are going to use logical fallacies to push. Because, let's face it: there's a core inside all of us that wills us to ignore the facts and do what makes us feel good. We must ignore that feeling for all that we can.

[Thedutchjelle]

The true evil people are the one that are psyhotic and mad.They can kill without and emo.

Oh yeah also true evil are the japanise soldiers they dont care if they die...

Wtf?

So if they want to sacrifice themselves for their country, they're true evil?

So what about all the soldiers of other countries that are fighting for a cause they think is just, and want to win no matter the cost?

And what about suicidal people? They are not evil, but they don't care about their life either.

[SolidSamurai]

The true evil people are the one that are psyhotic and mad.They can kill without and emo.

Oh yeah also true evil are the japanise soldiers they dont care if they die...

Ah... yes, good old blissful ignorance.

Psychotic ppl are mentally unbalanced. They are as human as you or me, and yet they see things. They live in another world. They feel as if no one loves them. They are filled with rage, and the feeling that everyone is there to bring them down. Perhaps they feel they have to stick it to a higher power. Maybe prove something to god. And to display there hate for humanity, some even kill ppl. Some pray on the weak and the pathetic because they believe that the weak and the pathetic are lazy or that they are too secure, or that they don't try in life, and that life is all about fulfillment (in every degree). They are not completely evil. Disturbed incredibly, yes. Filled with nerve wracking anger, yes. But not completely evil. They have demons, and such, and that's about it. Many appear unexpressive, cold, and 'robotic' (trust me, I know, you've seen ppl that go about things, and yet have slow reaction times to changes; which doesn't, in fact, suggest that they could be psychotic, or autistic; or possibly autistic psychos :P) and yet their heads are filled with countless thoughts.

As for the japanese soldiers, they have a code of honor. They believe in fulfillment too (not that they're psychos). They want respect among themselves and there family, through a service to the highest available power that exists; that which is the government. And what better way to serve then to serve? What about the marines of the US? Some are pretty sociopathic aren't they? And they can be intimidating with their huge muscles, and ecstatic expressions as well their intentions to have drunken bar fights or get laid. Many of them believe in honor too. We're all the same.

Even Hitler himself was disturbed. He's probably far more 'evil' than those I've already mentioned. There's no limit to the human psyche.

[Defil3r]

Hm. 'True Evil,' you say?

In my personal opinion, 'Good and Evil' in general is based wholly upon perspective. Say, a man shoots another with a Handgun. The initial response of an average witness would be to label the individual as 'Evil.'

However, alternate the perspective; The Man with the Handgun. His target sexually raped his daughter, killed his wife, and blackmailed his closest companions. That bullet was merely the whistle of redemption. But, one thing leads to another; He's been tried for Manslaughter and Mr. Handgun is off to jail. In the mind of the jury, he's a 'Malevolent, Untrustworthy Murderer.' However, the Mister just wanted revenge, and to him, his victim was evil, and he was the greater good; The angel that swoops down and smites his soul.

Which, begs the question; Can Revenge be defined as what the average man sees as ‘Evil?’

[NightElfking]

Hm. 'True Evil,' you say?

In my personal opinion, 'Good and Evil' in general is based wholly upon perspective. Say, a man shoots another with a Handgun. The initial response of an average witness would be to label the individual as 'Evil.'

However, alternate the perspective; The Man with the Handgun. His target sexually raped his daughter, killed his wife, and blackmailed his closest companions. That bullet was merely the whistle of redemption. But, one thing leads to another; He's been tried for Manslaughter and Mr. Handgun is off to jail. In the mind of the jury, he's a 'Malevolent, Untrustworthy Murderer.' However, the Mister just wanted revenge, and to him, his victim was evil, and he was the greater good; The angel that swoops down and smites his soul.

Which, begs the question; Can Revenge be defined as what the average man sees as ‘Evil?’
Yes, pending what the person who gives the vengence does.
Also it says in the bible that revenge is a sin. I know everyone here is not Chirstian, but I am a believer and I also am sharing my views with you. If somebody does something to you, God will pay him back 7 times over according to his teaching.

Now I must go because my new kitten will not stop touching my keyboard.

[Fiendwurm]

politicals [/sarcasm]

there is true evil, but it's all in perspective, and everyone has there own "true evil" for me its a character I invented for a book that I'm thinking about writing.

[SolidSamurai]

Speaking of which, I gotta a starcraft fan fic I'm working on. It's gonna be bad ass, but only if I pay attention to the tweaking of it.

[GenocideAlive]

Why must you fucking test me?