Evil

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:03 am

Ok, so on Thursday my friend has asked me along to his philosophy club (which meets in a pub, natch).

This week we are discussing the nature of evil.

So, fellow Transfans, what is, in your mind, the defintion of evil?

Aside from the after effects of draught Stella Artois?

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:20 am

Evil is another one of those words that seems to attempt to generalize, and it annoys me sometimes.

Many people think that causing harm, killing, raping etc could be considered evil but I think it's more the human ability to rationalize the acts within enough to enable a person to commit them in the first place that's the bad part.

That's not to say that the acts themselves aren't bad; but the rationalization is what led to them being committed in the first place.

"Evil" can be personified: the Devil, Jeffrey Dahmer or Osama Bin Laden. Evil is a concept that, like most things, isn't black and white.

Also, the smell coming from Compy's room... That's pretty evil, too.

Brendocon · Post by **Brendocon** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:31 am

Tricky one.

Forced, and without much time to think on it, I'd probably have to say that it's to do with the pursuit of a purely selfish goal, with no regard for the consequences it has on other people/surroundings.

Varying moral compasses tend to blur the meaning of the word somewhat, but I'd say that probably the overwhelming absolute in the concept is placing self over others. Be it the dehumanisation and slaughter of an ethnic minority to cement ones own place in society, or torching a rainforest to drive up the value of your paper stocks...

Post by **spiderfrommars** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:33 am

I don't believe there is such a thing. It's a convenient label.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:56 am

spiderfrommars wrote:I don't believe there is such a thing. It's a convenient label.

Spidey has a knack for saying things I clumsily try to get around to saying with relative ease.

But within the definition... *points above*... selfish goals is another thing. I suppose imo if I actually had to give a personal definition to it it'd encompass most of the negative aspects of people, as it is people who created the word/idea of in the first place.

... It is supposedly the opposite of "good", which is another annoying/generalizing word...

Shouldn't we have to define "good" as well, to define evil? Attempting to define things in such narrow terms can be somewhat "dangerous" imo as it implies that the damn things can be slotted into narrow definitions.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:00 am

Evil imo is an idea, nothing more. It has no physical presence or manifestation- it's just a convenient term for humans to put things into an understandable context when otherwise it would be difficult or impossible. It's also a useful personification to impart motive and agenda to things which don't necessarily have them- e.g. "Ooh look at the teeth on that crocodile! He looks pretty evil!" A crocodile has no motive or agenda, those are human qualities, the crocodile merely does what it does and neither enjoys it nor dislikes it so in order to put order into this otherwise alien concept people tend to like terms such as 'evil'. It's also a convenient generalised term for any action perceived to be very bad (note perceived to be, actions in and of themselves are merely actions; they have no cosmic significance or 'value' other than those we give them imo).

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:01 pm

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:06 pm

Sutekh wrote: One man's evil is another man's good

Evil is a moral point of view. Its definition varies depending on the beleifs of the beholder. I could probably define what it means to me, and those people with a similar moral stand point would agree (with some slight variation probably), but beyond that it is just a label, a concept, It does not 'really' exist.

Although the draught Stella comparison comes pretty close i have to agree.

Aardvark · Post by **Aardvark** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:38 pm

Required reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:41 pm

Aardvark wrote:Required reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

Genius - you had me there

Post by **Best First** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:57 pm

the real wiki definition is actually a good starting point.

my personal feelings align with some of the others in this topic, i don't think its a particularly useful concept, especially when it comes to people. As soon as you dismiss someone as evil you rob yourself of the ablity to understand their actions, which, given that i am guesing you want to find a way to stop them, is pretty gosh darn stoopid.

I'm looking at you George.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:54 pm

I think that evil is rooted in selfishness. Basically wherever narrow self-interest is placed above things that are clearly for the greater good, there you have something that is at least a little bit evil.

I agree with Besty that describing a person (even the likes of Hitler or Pol Pot) as evil is counter-productive at best. Even the worst person has some good side or redeeming feature. However, it is certainly valid to describe an action (e.g, the Holocaust) or a system (e.g. the 18th Century slave trade) as evil - as long as you don't, in the process, demonise the people involved in them or fail to realise how people get caught up in that particular evil.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:32 pm

what is evil - and what is the definition, I think they are two different things. the same can be said of good, if its the opposite?

The Last Autobot · Post by **The Last Autobot** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:19 pm

Bouncelot wrote:I think that evil is rooted in selfishness. Basically wherever narrow self-interest is placed above things that are clearly for the greater good, there you have something that is at least a little bit evil.

I agree with Besty that describing a person (even the likes of Hitler or Pol Pot) as evil is counter-productive at best. Even the worst person has some good side or redeeming feature. However, it is certainly valid to describe an action (e.g, the Holocaust) or a system (e.g. the 18th Century slave trade) as evil - as long as you don't, in the process, demonise the people involved in them or fail to realise how people get caught up in that particular evil.

I agree with you Bounce in the selfishness part, but the problem is that most things we do are relative (even the greater good) and the POV of what should be done for the sake of others many times ends as only a good intention.

If defining evil is very complicated giving that label to someone is even more complex. Its rare to find a person talking about himself as "evil", everyone finds a reason for what they do and usually recognize it as "correct". A butcher of one nation is the hero of other.

Just remember how each nation s books depict their history in a "god guy" against "bad guy" fashion (Eg: In 1776 Usa, the british were bad, the americans were good).

Good and evil are comic book conceps, real life is more gray.

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:58 am

"Hi, i'm Magneto, do you fancy joining my Broterhood of Evil Mutants?"

"I thougt you considered yourself some kind of saviour?"

"Yes, i am here to liberate the oppressed mutant masses"

"So why are you called the Brotherhood of EVIL Mutants?"

"Hey, even Stan Lee ****s up sometimes kid. He's onlya god damn dirty ape after all"

"Man, Burton's remake sucked"

"Yes"

Anyway:

I'm inclined to agree on the selfishness front, but its not an objective valuation is it? Its my, or our, values, from some people's perpective selfishnes could eb considered, say, a driving force that forces people to compete and therefore, in some way leads to progress.

I mean lets face it, how many of us do all wec an for the greater good, salfishness is often a passive thing i think.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:48 am

So, Besty, what was the def of evil after three rounds?

Post by **Best First** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:52 am

Thursday dude.

saysadie · Post by **saysadie** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:29 am

Here, I've a question: Is Dracula evil?

More specific: I've just watched Bram Stoker's Dracula for the first time [all the way through, anyway- I've seen it in bits and pieces numerous times. There's probably some sort of spoilers here, so if you've not seen the movie- well, it's been out for ages. Pick it up, dammit!]. And I'm just wondering what y'all think... the movie character- is that evil?

The acts he committed were bad, surely. But in his head they were justified. He perceived himself as cheated out of the one thing he treasured most and "forsaken" by God, right? So, when he found it again... he set out to take it for himself, Keanu Reeves and his wooden acting be damned.

Probably won't make much sense unless you've seen the movie... the beginning sucks, but I found the rest muchly fun.

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:31 am

Best First wrote:Thursday dude.

Slightly abstract, but I see what you're saying-it's not quite the weekend, but close enough for making you want to go out and get trolleyed-after which, you have to suffer through work on Friday.

Interesting conclusion.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:51 am

I work another grave on Thursday.

Expect more bountiful wisdom and pontification. And evil is generally anything inspired by or relating to Don Murphy. Good is anything involving Joss Whedon. (except most of season 6)

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:20 pm

saysadie wrote:Here, I've a question: Is Dracula evil?

More specific: I've just watched Bram Stoker's Dracula for the first time [all the way through, anyway- I've seen it in bits and pieces numerous times. There's probably some sort of spoilers here, so if you've not seen the movie- well, it's been out for ages. Pick it up, dammit!]. And I'm just wondering what y'all think... the movie character- is that evil?

The acts he committed were bad, surely. But in his head they were justified. He perceived himself as cheated out of the one thing he treasured most and "forsaken" by God, right? So, when he found it again... he set out to take it for himself, Keanu Reeves and his wooden acting be damned.

Probably won't make much sense unless you've seen the movie... the beginning sucks, but I found the rest muchly fun.

I felt very sorry for him- he should have gotten away with it!! That attitude isn't helped by my loathing of Keanu Reeves. He manages to change expression ONCE I think in that whole movie- and that's only when he's being raped by about seven lesbian vampires. And even then his expression is rather inconclusive, it could be "EEEEK!" or possibly "Did I leave the kettle on?"

So yar, B. Stoker's Dracula is a classic example of evil I think. He's only evil so long as you think he is, and like I just said I tend to root for him the whole movie

so you can see where my allegiances lie! Personally I'd rather he'd won out over the rather feeble individuals trying to stop him; entirely for their own ends also imo (they seem to care very little that Elizabeth has actually fallen in love with Vlad and wants to stay with him- THEY don't think it's right so THEY are going to stop her).

Obfleur · Post by **Obfleur** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:23 pm

Gary Oldman for the win!

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:25 pm

There's a kind of "Paradise Lost" effect with a lot of evil characters, like Dracula. They become much more compelling and interesting than the good, because they are so vibrant. I think the fact that Milton, a devout Puritan, could write an epic poem about the Creation and have Satan be perceived as the hero says a lot. Good and evil, in most people's minds, have to be elemental forces-- like in Star Wars-- because once they are personalized, we start confusing who we should root for. And on par for elemental forces, they are impossible to fully understand.

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:29 pm

Just so long as you're on Gary Oldman's side, like Ob and I are, there'll be no need to burn you in a giant wicker man, Christopher Lee style n_n

There's a kind of "Paradise Lost" effect with a lot of evil characters, like Dracula. They become much more compelling and interesting than the good, because they are so vibrant. I think the fact that Milton, a devout Puritan, could write an epic poem about the Creation and have Satan be perceived as the hero says a lot. Good and evil, in most people's minds, have to be elemental forces-- like in Star Wars-- because once they are personalized, we start confusing who we should root for. And on par for elemental forces, they are impossible to fully understand. Rolling Eyes

Something I always like is the idea of such power- the way that Dracula doesn't pussy-foot around hand-wringing and worrying about things. He knows exactly what he wants and he takes it. He's basically the ultimate extension of the Id, and there is naturally a huge amount of satisfaction in getting exactly what you like. Of course we generally can't behave like that in the real world for obvious reasons, but it's still an attractive fantasy and since movies are often pure escapism for me anyway I like rooting for Dracula because he's decided not to be pushed around by Creation anymore. He's the boss and doesn't care who knows it!

There's something hypnotising and so enigmatic about such characters in fiction. Shameless and childish yes, but why not? It's nice to root for evil sometimes

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:33 pm

IMO...

Evil cannot accurately be defined because it is highly dependent upon very subjective terms.

However, one thing that is definite about evil is that it is always associated with intelligence, and a selfish desire that supercedes its malicious effect upon others.

Similar definitions that are often confused with Evil include Cruelty, Sadism and Spoiling other peoples' fun.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:11 am

Yeah, Ayn Rand would tell you that selfishness and always acting in your best interest without regard to others is approximately the opposite of evil. She sucks.

I'm w/ everyone else. There is no evil. Evil to me exists on the far right side of the "Good and Bad" spectrum, with bad being on the right.

But that's all just morality, and IMO, morality is a completly subjective thing. If Jeffrey Dahmer had been born in a cannibalistic tribe, he'd just be another Joe. Or Jeff.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:47 am

sprunkner wrote:Good is anything involving Joss Whedon. (except most of season 6)

Anyone who denounces season 6 is evil.

Pissin' Poonani · Post by **Pissin' Poonani** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:09 pm

sprunkner wrote:Good is anything involving Joss Whedon.

Speaking of which, there's an episode of Buffy on Sky Two at the mo, so I called up the information box and got this description:

Real Me: As Harmony and her vampire gang plot Buffy's demise, Dawn adjust to life with Slayer

(emphasis mine).

I don't recall that plot development at all.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:34 pm

Pissin' Poonani wrote:
sprunkner wrote:Good is anything involving Joss Whedon.
Speaking of which, there's an episode of Buffy on Sky Two at the mo, so I called up the information box and got this description:

Real Me: As Harmony and her vampire gang plot Buffy's demise, Dawn adjust to life with Slayer

(emphasis mine).

I don't recall that plot development at all.

http://www.tv.com/buffy-the-vampire-sla ... mmary.html

Looks pretty much right to me, with the exception of the missing 'the'.

Post by **Best First** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:35 pm

Rebis wrote:
Pissin' Poonani wrote:
sprunkner wrote:Good is anything involving Joss Whedon.
Speaking of which, there's an episode of Buffy on Sky Two at the mo, so I called up the information box and got this description:

Real Me: As Harmony and her vampire gang plot Buffy's demise, Dawn adjust to life with Slayer

(emphasis mine).

I don't recall that plot development at all.
http://www.tv.com/buffy-the-vampire-sla ... mmary.html

Looks pretty much right to me, with the exception of the missing 'the'.

This is what we, in the business, like to call "making the gag unneccessarily explicit".