[Sanin]

I have a question, is it evil when a male silverback gorilla rapes a female? That should settle the nature versus nurture debate. If an animal is capable of evil then evil exists, but if an animal is not capable of evil, then evil is unique to human beings and therefore necessarily owes itself to nurture.
Personally I think the silverback, while morally reprehensible, is not evil. It is satisfying a primal urge to spread his seed and not making a conscious decision to hurt the female. From my point of view anyway, evil is nothing more than a personal value system. Take pedophilia for a second. Contrary to common belief pedophilia was an act frowned upon in the Greek and Roman worlds, but it was not considered evil, only the preference of a group of perverts. During the Spanish Inquisition it was perfectly acceptable to torture witches and all sorts of other undesirables.
We gain our sense of right and wrong during the process of socialization, which explains the discrepancy both historically and culturally. Evil is any act which the individual believes to be so wrong that a rationalization must take place in which the act is attributed to an abstract concept like evil. That rationalization allows the individual to once again believe that they themselves are not capable of such an act.

[godking]

Originally Posted by mkess101

Isn't the "Almost" where it gets tricky? And just because a society deems something appropriate, does that really make it so? I'd argue that just because it was accepted in many past societies to have sex with children doesn't mean it wasn't an abhorrent act. Those people were just warped. I'm not sure it's the same exact discussion as TS brought up, but I don't think you can use a society's acceptance as the qualifier of whether something is wrong, (or "evil") or not. If, hypothetically, everyone in America (or the world, for that matter) decided within the next 10 years that pedophelia was acceptable (obviously it would never happen, it's an extreme hypothetical I'm using to make a point) does that mean it became a less abhorrent act? I just can't buy into that.

Define pedophilia and children

Remember that in earlier cultures people married alot younger then now for various reasons . And where seen as adults alot earlier.

Judging people from 100s of years ago by our modern beliefs of right and wrong is ridiculous .

By modern standards Alexander the Great Julius Ceasar ect are war criminals and mass murderers George Washington and most of the founding fathers are evil slave traders and genocidal murderers of native americans ect.

You cant just past cultures by modern values.

[PornoSatan]

Originally Posted by Sanin

I have a question, is it evil when a male silverback gorilla rapes a female? That should settle the nature versus nurture debate. If an animal is capable of evil then evil exists, but if an animal is not capable of evil, then evil is unique to human beings and therefore necessarily owes itself to nurture.
Personally I think the silverback, while morally reprehensible, is not evil. It is satisfying a primal urge to spread his seed and not making a conscious decision to hurt the female. From my point of view anyway, evil is nothing more than a personal value system. Take pedophilia for a second. Contrary to common belief pedophilia was an act frowned upon in the Greek and Roman worlds, but it was not considered evil, only the preference of a group of perverts. During the Spanish Inquisition it was perfectly acceptable to torture witches and all sorts of other undesirables.
We gain our sense of right and wrong during the process of socialization, which explains the discrepancy both historically and culturally. Evil is any act which the individual believes to be so wrong that a rationalization must take place in which the act is attributed to an abstract concept like evil. That rationalization allows the individual to once again believe that they themselves are not capable of such an act.

It's impossible for an animal to be evil. Animals don't have the capacity to believe in, much less invent religion. Nearly every animal commits acts of rape. Even turtles (Exhibit A, try not to laugh)

I agree with most of the other parts though, it's simply the moral zeitgeist.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Apple Pie

Most Evil is an American forensics television program on the Discovery Channel starring forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone from Columbia University. On the show, Stone rates murderers on a scale of evil that he has developed in order to help science understand and thus prevent this type of behavior. The show features profiles on various murderers, serial killers, and sociopaths. Stone researched hundreds of killers and their methods and motives to develop his hierarchy of "evil." The scale ranges from Category 1, those who kill in self defense, to Category 9, psychopath jealous lovers, to the "most evil" Category 22, serial torture and killers (for example; Westley Allan Dodd was among those classed as Category 22). Neurologists, psychologists, and other forensic psychiatrists are interviewed on the show in an attempt to examine and profile the minds of notorious killers.





Evil exists. it's just that the Devil isn't the guy pulling their strings.

Evil is a combination of nature and nurture.

I really reject Stone's analysis. I believe it is psuedo-science, and his "model" is extremely subjective. For example, he rates Ted Bundy as "only" a 17, but gives Dahmer "most evil" status -- a 22. Why is Dahmer so much more evil than Bundy? (This is why I brought Hitler and the KKK into the discussion -- To help demonstrate the difficulty of quantifying evil.) I would argue Bundy is worse, since he seemed to be in so much better control of his faculties, whereas Dahmer was chronically drunk, deeply mentally ill (he ate his victims so they'd never abandom him???), and demonstrated what appeared to be genuine remorse.

As to what I boldfaced, I must disagree with your analysis. My position is that you can't say that "evil" exists if we are all nothing more than nature+nurture. Because if that's the case, the only thing preventing me from becoming another Bundy is 1) a happy accident of biology; and 2) a happy accident of my upbringing/circumstances. But neither of these events is within my control, and that, I would say, is the litmus test of "evil": volition/free will. Again, where there is no free will, there can be no evil. Someone can be deviant, twisted, sick, perverse, malicious, etc., whatever word you want to use, but they can't be evil if they are not in control. And this concept of control must extend to not only the actual behavior of the subject, but also the motivations. Thus, if BTK murders because he gets a sexual thrill from it, that's different from Dahmer's fear of abandonment. I'm not saying BTK's motivation is necessarily worse, but it surely is different.
I wonder why no one has mentioned contract killers and the like?

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by mkess101

I see where you're coming from, but I just can't buy it. Wrong is wrong, no matter how accepted a given behavior is. It seems very simplistic, but for lack of a better term, "it is what it is".

Does something have to be accepted worldwide to be deemed acceptable? What about an island cut off for generations from the rest of the world. If their behavior is abhorrent to the rest of humanity, does it matter since they didn't interact with anyone else for decades? Were their children who suffered at the hands of these people not victims of "evil", since in their society it was deemed acceptable?

I do believe in evil. The best way to put it would be "I can't necessarily describe it, but I know it when I see it". The whole question delves into mostly philosophical waters, so there is bound to be a myriad of opinions on the issue.

In such a situation, I would look at the society's motivations. If they behave out of what we might call ignorance, that's one thing. If they behave out of some kind of malice, sadism, whatever, that might be different.

[Sanin]

Originally Posted by PornoSatan

It's impossible for an animal to be evil. Animals don't have the capacity to believe in, much less invent religion. Nearly every animal commits acts of rape. Even turtles (Exhibit A, try not to laugh)

I agree with most of the other parts though, it's simply the moral zeitgeist.

Which was my first point, if an animal cannot be evil then it is not an absolute universal principle.

[MyCatIsFat]

No, just women.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by godking

Define pedophilia and children

Remember that in earlier cultures people married alot younger then now for various reasons . Anmd where sen as adults alot earlier.

Judging people from 100s of years ago by our modern beliefs of right and wrong is ridiculous .

By modern standards Alexander the Great Julius Ceasar ect are war criminals and mass murderers George Washington and most of the founding fathers are evil slave traders and genocidal murderers of naitve americans ect.

You cannto just past cultures by modern values.

I quite agree with you, and that's why I continue to place the emphasis on motivation, rather than exclusively the act itself.

[Cojofl]

"There is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself."

Herman Melville

[godking]

Originally Posted by Revolution

I quite agree with you, and that's why I continue to place the emphasis on motivation, rather than exclusively the act itself.

true what is seen as evil or not evil differs fromt he society that we live in .

All people consider murder rape and stealing to be wrong the difference lies in what is considered murder rape or stealing.

The Abortion discussion is a great example of this it depends on your point of view and opinion about where life begins if you consider abortion to be murder or not .