Talk:Evil/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Tattletale

I just reverted some major vandalism, but maybe someone who's an admin should look into scolding 67.191.105.243 sternly. The user also vandalised disco! For shame. 72.196.104.129 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget communism, materialism, satanism and totaliaranism. Fascism is the true evil in our society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.197.71 (talk) 14:43, December 29, 2006

Communism isn't "evil", it just hasn't been properly exercised yet. Materialism isn't "evil", maybe "unfair" as it might end up with one person owning "everything" and another owning "nothing", but not "evil". Satanism isn't "evil" either (ironicly enough), it just has different moral ethics than some other religions. Totalitarianism is not "evil" either, it's just a form of politics that we feel uncomfortable with. Same goes for Facism... Me, myself, I wish that the Earth's population would decrease with about 5 billion humans, does that make me "evil"? Nope, my reasons for wishing this kinda justifies the ends (that, and I wouldn't dream of causing a genocide to achieve those ends, I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it). 217.208.27.4 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Seriously, this user's comment submission is a bit scary to me. Perhaps its even a ironic display of evil?

"...I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it". You know, we're quite capable of that. Toss a few thousand nuclear weapons all over the globe, or better yet, ship them remotely to all the places we just don't like, have them all go off simultaneously... Seems to meet your criteria. I'm sure the billions dying wouldn't be aware of the imminent death. Oh, you said "slowly"? Ok, we'll space out the events over the next hour, (that "slow" enough?) and remembering to knock out all satellite communications first.

What does them being unaware of their fates have anything to do with it?

Let me put some words in your mouth. Your statement really is a statement about your perception of an "ideal world". Who knows where the 1 billion number came from or why that's "ideal", but that's your ideal. Obviously, if we have 6 billion now, and we only want 1 billion for the future, we have a problem. You don't want to propose genocide (an obvious solution). But any transitory event that might precipitate transforming this world to your 1,000,000,000 people world wish that avoids the "evils" of genocide whatever you find "evil" would be welcome, (to you).

But, there's a problem. What if no path exists? What if there is no set of transitory states such that the limit point(s) fit some definition of the ideal world? If such a path cannot not exist, then surely there's some better ideal that exists that we can forge our efforts in closing producing a "better" spirit for Jesus/people/world/flying spaghetti monster/ etc. Otherwise, we'd be slaving away at something we cannot accomplish (if even partially). It would be much like that song, "Sixteen tons"

Sixteen tons, and what do you get,

Another day older and deeper in dept,

Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store.

We'd be owing our "soul to the company store" for something we cannot get, and possibly get even worse off in the process. I'd argue that this is a form of evil that it would be hard to argue is not evil.

The same argument can be said if the problem is intractable rather than unsolvable. This wish to reduce the population is at the very least intractable.

The other scary portion about the 1,000,000,000 people world wish is, how random the goal is... I mean, why 1 billion. There's been no justification, other than "we'd like the world to be a bit smaller" to reduce pollution or whatever. If not 1 billion, why not 500 million? Why not 500,000 elite scientists? Does this not sound incredibly dystopian to you?

I'm sorry, I just find it incredibly funny that in a discussion page about "Evil" that I'm having to point out to you that your thought processes reek of it.

In my view, there are no evil people, only evil actions and evil thoughts.

What utter rot. There is no such thing as evil, in people, action or thought. Evil is nothing but pure fantasy. And besides, what does any of this have to do with the page itself? AngryStan 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine me, after I wrote that long piece I realized it had nothing to do with the article, and probably should have ignored the poster, who's comments are in a similiar reign. And frankly, you're trolling, (If evil is "pure fiction", what is this article? Hahaha... that's fucking hilarious Evil is pure fiction... HA HA HA HA HA!

(calming down)... ok, perhaps one of us should delete most of this section. I felt it necessary to warn against that kind of reasoning. Obviously, you don't agree, and probably never will. So be it.Root4(one) 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We all have thoughts exploring possibilities like this; it is human nature. But I think that there is enough wisdom available to realize that this chain of thought is not appropriate. I beg of you to reconsider your thoughts. Root4(one) 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As I see it Evil it's not a fictional or supernatural condition, yet it's not "fictional" as in terms of ferry-tale or film entertaiment goals but a very commonly used term for propaganda reasons, used either by state, religion or individuals, that has more or less specific definitions depending to the goals or the criteria of the user, and is reffering to acts, individuals, oppossing groups of people or as a supernatural power that push people or situations to "depravity" or opposses the divine laws (this form of "Evil" is fictional and has religius basis). Based on the perspective killing might be "Evil", stealing might be "Evil", liing might be "Evil", suicide might be "Evil", Yang might be "Evil", Satan might be "Evil", pre-marital sex might be "Evil", homosexuals might be "Evil", Cthulu might be "Evil", Cheese might be "Evil"; Fascists, Communists, Capitalists, Anarchists or Liberitarians might be "Evil"; Jews, Americans, Arabs, Canadians, Australians, Greeks, Polish or "those rotten rude French snobs" might be "Evil", Shaolin monks might be "Evil", the Pope might be "Evil", Barney the pink dinosaur might be "Evil", Smurfette might be "Evil" etc... I believe the main article is accurate enough to describe the use of "Evil" as a term of social ethics and to point out its subjectivity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodraco (talk • contribs) 15:09, August 8, 2007

Whoa, what do you mean, "The" sociopath? you know that the term "sociopathy" denotes a very diverse group of socially based disorders, right? Its also accepted wisdom that negative behaviour stems from mental/social maladjustment. And the Devil. But seriously, anything that we cannot hold in our hands, or see with our eyes, is a construct created by Us, as in "us" the species. No one can yet prove otherwise, but I only have to throw a book at my friend when he isn't looking to let him know that reality is not a figment of his imagination, that he seriously did NOT want me to do that. Only the action and the reaction exists. But what about the bible you say? or the other, more modern examples of miracles and what not? I see a book, or a TV screen. Also, on a more personal note, both communism and capitalism should at least be placed on the negative part of the "whats good for humanity" spectrum, what with their obsession with consuming resources. Does quality of life really make a political system good? (and I'm aware that I am calling capitalism a political system, it is a form of politics, and is the dominant form in certain parts of the world.) communism creeps me right out, with marx's talk about his ideal society entering into a state of "simple communism" which is described quite similarly to the lives of the cavemen proto-humans... and capitalism, well...its kind of obvious now, isn't it? they have nothing left to burn in their furnace to rotate that donut tray, so they're stealing more. Wow, that got really off topic... Evil..right...No such thing, just positive and negative impulse, the circumstances of their creation, and the quantifiable results. Also, an article on Evil should contain the major definitions, scientific and otherwise, and thats about it, right? examples are kind of superfluous. Lonegrigori (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive created

I've gone ahead and archived all the old posts here. If you wish to continue any of the discussions found in the archive, please create a new topic here instead. Do not edit the archive.

The dates are a bit off, but I didn't want to leave this page with only one or two topics showing. Later, when it comes time to archive again, we can move the last few posts dated October into Archive 1, and create Archive 2 for the next segment. -- Kesh 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Per above, I have moved the last few October comments to Archive 1. -- Kesh 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is bandalizing a discussion page Evil? ^^—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodraco (talk • contribs) 15:18, August 8, 2007

21st cen.

Evil is subjective by the standards of the current corrupt societies of the modern era as this article expresses. I am sure the article only reflects most people today anyway. Poor article, not fit for an encyclopedia. --Margrave1206 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. I think the concept of evil is certainly eminently suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Or do you mean the article is poorly written? This I agree with, in part. With the exception of the final two paragraphs in the "Is evil good?" section, I think the page should end after the second paragraph of the "Is evil a useful term?" section. The rest of it is a strange and irrelevant meandering, only vaguely related to the subject at hand. The fact that evil is a subjective concept is in any case inescapable, as are articles that "only reflect most people". AngryStan 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tone

On the first line of the article : In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings - "bad" seems a bit informal. Is there any objection to me changing this to negative? SparrowsWing _(talk) 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but not sure "negative" is the right word either - idleness, for instance, could be viewed as "negative", but hardly as "bad" or "evil". "Negative" doesn't necessarily have the moral connotation that "evil" or "bad" does. Maybe "objectionable" or "morally objectionable" would be better? AngryStan 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "morally objectionable" is definitely the better alternative. I'll make the change. SparrowsWing _(talk) 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish Evil

I've been annoyed with this particular vandalism for quite some time. Finally found out that this comic is the source of that particular gem. It's getting tiresome and it's not even as funny as what Stephen Colbert has been doing. -- Kesh 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Darn. I was hoping it had something to do with leprechauns. AngryStan 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, that comic is what got me interested in editing Wikipedia. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 03:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So is there any chance we could get semi-protection on this article for a few months? This Irish Evil thing has been going on for over a year now. Rpresser 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated an internal comment that Rpresser added to be a little less aggressive. Here is what is displayed when you view the comments.

If you are about to replace all instances of "evil" with "Irish Evil", as suggested by the comic at http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=816, don't. It's been done, many many times before, is considered vandalism, will be reverted and may result in a block of your account and or IP.

I think that should help. Slavlin 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. WP:BEANS states that we should not do this warning, so I removed it. Rpresser 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS is an essay not a policy or guideline, so I restored the note. Slavlin 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we maybe get a page where the edit has already been done, for those of us who would like to see what it looks like?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.162.41 (talk) 20:17, June 14, 2007

Try this diff. It's not even very inventive vandalism. -- Kesh 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Now absolutely no one has any right to complain: This link will automatically download and vandalize the page for you, without ever having to mess with Wikipedia (cheap PHP regex script ;-) Any questions? Martin Ultima (talk•contribs) 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I want you fuckers to know I was going to put "Irish Evil" into this article, but I checked the talk and now you've made me feel uninventive.

So, from the bottom of my heart, fuck you for ruining a good thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.21.132 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bush evil

There is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil. The school that wrote this obviously did not yet know of the the Bush Administration. Looks like a joke to me, but I may have missed something. Garrick92 12:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Am telling you this, if there ever was a pure evil irish person, the world would be doomed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.75.102 (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hacker jargon

I removed the following information from the article as there is no citation for it and it does not directly relate to the philosophy concept of evil. If documentation can be shown that this is a valid usage, then I would support adding it back, possibly as Evil (jargon) or something like that.Slavlin 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is straight out of the Jargon file. Rpresser 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it definately should not be used as it would be a copyvio. Slavlin 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is "Evil" not "Evil (philosophy)". I would imagine this could cover all English uses (especially jargon) and its meaning through the ages... If you're concerned about page length, or improper coverage of the use of the word, that's a different issue. Secondly, as Eric S. Raymond is the current maintainer of the current Jargon File, I doubt there's much issue of copyright violation, given his relationship to open source. Plagiarism, maybe, yes.

Perhaps the section could be rewritten. I don't know if I have time today. Root⁴(one) 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who kept taking this paragraph out originally. Neat to see people discussing it-- new to wikipedia editing and it's neat to see it in action Will try to be more constructive in future edits SedatedGodzilla 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hacker jargon

As used by computer hackers, the jargon term evil implies that some system, program, person, or institution is sufficiently maldesigned to the point that the hacker(s) shouldn't worry about it. Unlike the adjectives in the cretinous/losing/brain damaged series, evil does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's, and often acts as a synonym for the word difficult. This usage is more an aesthetic and engineering judgement than a moral one in the mainstream sense. "We thought about adding a Blue Glue interface but decided it was too evil to deal with," or "TECO is neat, but it can be pretty evil if you're prone to typos." Often pronounced with the first syllable lengthened, as /'i:::v¿l/. Compare to evil and rude. evil, among hackers, is often used when describing any corporation or entity that espouses conformity, rather than community, especially in regards to computer software and information flow.

Economic Evils

A monopoly is "evil"? Give me a break. The fact that people claim Microsoft or other businesses are evil, has to do with the activities of those firms, and their unfair business practices. It is not just because they are monopolies. Many monopolies have reasonable business practices. Many monopolies even serve the greater good. Northern Bear 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree one hundred percent. A monopoly does not imply malevolence in and of itself. --70.78.18.102 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest we change in the article? Specifics. (Patricia Op 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Nazis and evil

Okay, don't everyone jump down my throat, but not sure about 'The Nazis, during World War II, considered genocide acceptable...' I'm not arguing that they didn't practice genocide, I'm just not sure whether they actually considered it acceptable, in that not only did they wring their hands a lot about how hard it was on them having to kill all those people, they also did their damnedest to make sure that the rest of the world didn't get to hear about it (cf Mark Roseman's 'The Villa, The Lake, The Meeting' on the Wannsee conference, not to mention Hilberg's 'Destruction of the European Jews, etc etc). You notice also that neo-Nazis tend not to argue 'yes, the Nazis killed six million people and good thing too', but try to persuade people that it never happened at all. The Nazis argued not that genocide was acceptable, but that it was a bad thing that was nevertheless necessary and which should remain as their little secret (cf Himmler's speech at Poznan in Oct 1943 in which he called it 'a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.'). Still it's a moot point and I'm not sure whether it warrants changing the wording. Lexo 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazis are a good example of the objectivity of morality; they thought that what they were doing was "good" or at least the only way to bring themselves out of poverty. However, everyone else considered it "evil" and thus tried to stop them; so who is right? Is something "good" just because a bunch of people think it is, and is something "evil" just because a bunch of people think it is?24.118.227.213 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit more too it. showing that the Nazi's did not find genocide acceptable was the fact that they did try to off load the jews on the US of A and even sent a boat load to Palestine. Both were turned back by the British and Americans. 1000 years of jew hating in europe and the fact that no one else wanted them, plus the fact that no one made a stink over 9 million armenians being butchered in WWI, lead the Nazi's to conclude that no one would raise an out cry over the extermination of the jews either. Much of non-nazi europe, including France and Italy were all too happy to get rid of their jews as well. Jiohdi (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism and evil

no view of evil would be complete without a view that turns the concept on its head Jiohdi (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in its current state, devoting an entire section to it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. What should really be done with the section is that it should be merged with the rest of the article. Based on the "Ayn Rand on Evil" template, it would also be logical to put stuff like "Lenin on Evil" or "George W. Bush on Evil". The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just merged "Ayn Rand on Evil" section.The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly any citations in the article

Please see subject!69.254.93.246 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) I concur. The article looks more like a term paper then an encylopedia entry

I have to agree. While aspects of the article are informative and insightful, overall it is poorly presented. There's too much stuff included which is only indirectly relevant, and far too little stuff which actually explains and explores the concept of evil. In any case, when ideas are put forward in the article they need referencing. I think someone ought to start again (keeping to 'good stuff') with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.61.77 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 18, 2006 edit

On July 18, 2006, when I edited the page and put under "See also" "Conservatism", it was because I had a poor concept of what evil actually was, and I instead thought that anything that had a second-rate effect was evil (e.g., how a Hulver poll of the most evil people listed Richard Simmons as one of the options). Now I realize that only what is deliberately harmful or wrong is evil. So, in response to what a user said above, I'd have to say Cheney, not Bush, is the evil one. User:Gmeric13@aol.com —Preceding comment was added at 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

definition

The definition of evil that begins this article seems far, far too broad. Minaker (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is all wrong. "Evil" is a religious concept. "Bad" is the secular concept. To use myself as example: The Christian morality labels me as evil, as well as a sinner. I have no compunctions about that. The words "evil" and "sinner" have no meaning to me. As a free spirit I can do no evil, nor can I sin. I carry those labels as badges of honor since I do know what they mean to Christians. I can do bad, though, but chose not to. But doing so I exercise what the Christian morality labels as "evil"--free will. See how silly this "evil" thing is?

You're absolutely wrong when you say that free will is labeled as evil. Free will gives us the opportunity to choose evil -- but it was given to us by God and hence cannot be inherently evil. It can be misused, just as anything God has given us can be misused -- but nothing God has given us can be evil. Rpresser (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I am in a tiny minority on this. But that is no fault of mine. It is the fault of conformist "freethinkers" who have never had an independent thought in their lives and coward atheists who are Christians in all but faith. How I loathe those sheep in wolf clothing.

One of Nietzsche's objections was that the death of God had given the 19th century Europeans new freedoms, people still pretended nothing had changed. They still pretended the Christian morality applied. Nietzsche called them mad. What do you call the people who more than a century later still delude themselves?

I know I cannot win this. I know the cowards and conformists outnumber me a billion to one. Instead this is a call to any freethinker out there worthy the name, preferably on the Wiki crew.

Everything I wrote here goes for the religious question of Good and evil, which, again, is good and bad in the secular world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I don't want my point to be associated with the above rant. The argument that the concept of evil is a purely religious one and that the highly vague term "bad" is the secular equivalent could be described as a simple oversimplification, but I think it's just plain wrong. In either case, the above comments are clearly more about the user's personal passions and have very little to do with objective encyclopedic definitions. Minaker (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no claim of neutrality. I speak from a secular, not neutral, POV. Other than that, and that it is a rant, you are wrong.

Classic example: Nazi Germany.

The Nazis were not evil. They were rational and ethical. Rational means to take optimal action based on what you know and want. Ethics is merely a system to justify immoral acts. The most often used ethic is the "good of the many." The "good of the many" justified the immoral Tuskegee Syphilis Study in America from 1932 to 1972. It's highly unlikely that the people in the Tuskegee Study were not aware they were doing "evil." But the ones in charge knew they acted ethically. And those who followed orders had their defense: they "just" followed orders. But somehow the Nazis were different. They were just "evil."

The Africans welcomed the Nazis because they treated them better than what the British did. The Nazis, the British, the Americans, etc. of the 1930s-40s did "evil" by today's standard.

My point is not that an atheist cannot accept the Christian morality, at least a cherry-picked Christian morality. After all, the atheist is a sinner according to Christianity, which I doubt the atheist agrees with. I just can't stand their hypocrisy and cowardice. Same goes for the people who call themselves "freethinkers."

My point is that you cannot make a secular argument for the concept of "evil." You can only argue "evil" by resorting to a higher (divine) good. "Secular evil" is a logical contradiction.

I'm not deluding myself. I know the secular voice can never win. The secular society is the ultimate utopia. And maybe that's a good thing. We (and I include me) are a much too primitive race. The Iraqi war is proof enough of that. But then, they are "evil" and God is on our side. No logic--i.e. "evil relativism"--is needed.

I changed the opening definition; it still needs some work, but it's much more accurate than the previous definition. Minaker (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

on a different note, on my exodus from religious faith, the origin of evil was not immediately apparent, but after several years of zen like practices and studying psychology, it occurred to me that evil cannot exist but in the presence of an ideal. Consider that reality seems to be made of dynamic energies which become atoms, molecules, cells, plants, bugs, people, etc... and no evil exists at any of those levels. It is only when the mind enters the picture and compares what is reality to what is ideal that good and evil can come into existance... ideals are either possible potentials for the future, or complete rejections of reality in total ignorance of how reality works. It seems obvious to me that no all knowing god can judge a human as a sinner for not living up to a fantasy ideal that being always knew to be a lie. Labelling someone for not actualizing one potential over another seems to be rooted in ignorance or the nature of reality as well as no one really understand how we humans make the choices we make. The myth of freewill is oxymoronic on its face as no action uncaused can be at the same time willed and no caused action is free. Consciousness has beeen demonstrated, since the 1960s, to trail what we actually do, rather than initiate it and so saying we made a conscious choice is false on the face of the evidence. essentially, if one gives up the myths and religious lies, one is left with reality being perfect until compared to what it is not. our judgements about it being cruel, uncaring, etc. are simply our minds ability to compare and contrast reality as we experience it, to fantasy realities as we wish we could experience. All of these seem to trace back to simple bio-programming that tells us that pain is to be avoided and pleasure to be sought. Pragmatically this seems to be rooted in the obvious need to avoid bodily damage and seek biological goals such as feeding, procreating, etc. The human mind, with its vast abilities as apparently added to this the goals of self-image protection and enhancement as well as our fantasy ideals. we feel pain and pleasure when these mental fictions are harmed or acheived the same way other animals feel it for their bodies alone.Jiohdi (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)