Attempt at a WLHP definition of evil personhood. Thoughts?

[1137]

A person is evil if and only if they have a disposition towards and pattern of violating or supporting the violation of the wills of others, in a way that interferes with the victim's hierarchy of needs.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't see an issue with this definition. This would qualify as a "bad" person imo.

 

[1137]

I don't see an issue with this definition. This would qualify as a "bad" person imo.

Do you think we need to differentiate between "bad" and "evil"? That was a hot issue in my class last night haha.

 

[The Hammer]

Do you think we need to differentiate between "bad" and "evil"? That was a hot issue in my class last night haha.

I'm not sure "evil" is a thing. But bad is.

I just hate to classify something or a person as "bad/evil": misguided, hurt, needing assistance, etc are how I try to see these people.

As person who has had a questionable past, I try to stick away from dichotomous, black and white thinking.

Even the darkest of things often have a flame of light. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[dybmh]

I would go with feeding off another's misfortune for pleasure alone.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'd argue that "evil" is too shaky to be defined in a diagnostic sort of way. There are different versions of evil, different perceptions of what is evil, different circumstances where an action may be justified and not, etc. There's no definition that captures everything that's evil that can be consistent and not accidentally capture something that could be righteous.

 

[Quintessence]

In my view, it has the same problem that, say, the Wiccan Rede has. On the surface of it, it's a simple maxim - an it harm none, do what ye will (with will being understood in a fashion parallel to what LHP would be teaching). Upon consideration of its practical applications though, it is untenable as an ethical maxim. Even taking an anthropocentric perspective that limits "personhood" (aka, agents worthy of ethical consideration) just to humans, it is utterly impossible to live and not "harm" or violate the "will" of other humans... therefore, all humans must be evil. I don't find that to be a useful perspective.

 

[The Hammer]

In my view, it has the same problem that, say, the Wiccan Rede has. On the surface of it, it's a simple maxim - an it harm none, do what ye will (with will being understood in a fashion parallel to what LHP would be teaching). Upon consideration of its practical applications though, it is untenable as an ethical maxim. Even taking an anthropocentric perspective that limits "personhood" (aka, agents worthy of ethical consideration) just to humans, it is utterly impossible to live and not "harm" or violate the "will" of other humans... therefore, all humans must be evil. I don't find that to be a useful perspective.

In what ways does the average person going about his day to day, violate the wills of other average persons?

Not disagreeing with you, I think you are on to something, and want to hear more .

 

[1137]

it is utterly impossible to live and not "harm" or violate the "will" of other humans...

What makes you think so?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nice topic. Let us see how it develops.
Such definitions are quite difficult.

 

[Heyo]

A person is evil if and only if they have a disposition towards and pattern of violating or supporting the violation of the wills of others, in a way that interferes with the victim's hierarchy of needs.

There are no evil/bad people.
Actions (and sometimes inaction) can be evil but a person can not. At least when we discuss morality.

When we discuss literature, there is of course the "bad guy" or villain. As a literary character, your definition of "evil" fits. (Though for a character to be the "bad guy" (and not necessarily "evil") it is enough to be the "hero's" antagonist.)

 

[Valjean]

There are degrees of good actions, and degrees of bad.
The band-centered altruism and coöperation in our genes worked well for a few million years, but our current lifestyles demand a whole new, artificial morality. It must be learned, and it's an easily altered façade.

 

[McBell]

A person is evil if and only if they have a disposition towards and pattern of violating or supporting the violation of the wills of others, in a way that interferes with the victim's hierarchy of needs.

Define "evil"
Define "will"

 

[crossfire]

There are no evil/bad people.
Actions (and sometimes inaction) can be evil but a person can not. At least when we discuss morality.

When we discuss literature, there is of course the "bad guy" or villain. As a literary character, your definition of "evil" fits. (Though for a character to be the "bad guy" (and not necessarily "evil") it is enough to be the "hero's" antagonist.)

The OP is referring to a person's Modus operandi - Wikipedia

 

[dybmh]

I'd argue that "evil" is too shaky to be defined in a diagnostic sort of way. There are different versions of evil, different perceptions of what is evil, different circumstances where an action may be justified and not, etc. There's no definition that captures everything that's evil that can be consistent and not accidentally capture something that could be righteous.

Agreed. But like pornography, I know it when I see it.

 

[dybmh]

Nice topic. Let us see how it develops.
Such definitions are quite difficult.

It's difficult to bring an exhaustive definition. But the worst of the worst is an easy place to start.

 

[Stoppelmann]

Define "evil"
Define "will"

I like the interpretation of Iain McGilchrist:

The easiest way to deal with evil is to deny its existence. In a society that is unwilling to countenance the existence of a moral force of any kind, and sees good and bad as merely labels we use to indicate degrees of societal approval, this recommends itself as the easiest path. For most of us, evil is just behaviour we disapprove of more strongly, and the term is thought better avoided, as it has no explanatory power.

Yet I cannot see this as satisfactory when we are faced with the dynamism of sheer wanton cruelty, the lust to destroy and cause suffering, that delights in power for its own sake. It can’t be denied that it exists. And power is the key: power is a form of energy.

In contemplating totalitarianism and its atrocities, such as the Nazi death camps, Hannah Arendt speaks of ‘radical evil’, by which she means a form of wrongdoing which is not captured by other moral concepts. Central to it is the making of humans into things, devitalised automata, living corpses without will or spontaneity. ‘According to Arendt a distinctive feature of radical evil is that it isn’t done for humanly understandable motives such as self-interest, but merely to reinforce totalitarian control and the idea that everything is possible.’ In other words, the self of the evil-doer, too, is destroyed, in the service of a power greater than itself, the ideal of which is simply – power. Power to do anything and everything possible. We have that lust within us.

McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 2007-2008). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Nice topic.

I'm going to set my personal views aside for the purpose of this discussion and operate on the premise that evil exists as something more than just a human social construct.

One could argue that evil is a potential state inherent in all humans. Whether or not it becomes manifest is dependent on one's environment.

In the case it becomes manifest, that manifestation can be inward as merely having the disposition, i.e. having the inclination to violate the will of other but not acting on it, or outward as displaying a pattern, i.e. acting on that disposition.

So when your definition states "they have a disposition towards and pattern of violating or supporting the violation of the wills of others," [emphasis mine] doesn't this presume that having the disposition alone doesn't make one evil? Can one be evil without action on their disposition to violate or support violation of the wills of others?

 

[crossfire]

Nice topic.

I'm going to set my personal views aside for the purpose of this discussion and operate on the premise that evil exists as something more than just a human social construct.

One could argue that evil is a potential state inherent in all humans. Whether or not it becomes manifest is dependent on one's environment.

In the case it becomes manifest, that manifestation can be inward as merely having the disposition, i.e. having the inclination to violate the will of other but not acting on it, or outward as displaying a pattern, i.e. acting on that disposition.

So when your definition states "they have a disposition towards and pattern of violating or supporting the violation of the wills of others," [emphasis mine] doesn't this presume that having the disposition alone doesn't make one evil? Can one be evil without action on their disposition to violate or support violation of the wills of others?

If you are consciously working contrary to any evil inclinations or inherent dispositions within yourself, then you are willfully working towards reprogramming those habitual patterns. If you act on those evil inclinations, then you are reinforcing them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you are consciously working contrary to any evil inclinations or inherent dispositions within yourself, then you are willfully working towards reprogramming those habitual patterns. If you act on those evil inclinations, then you are reinforcing them.

That's a valid point, but what if one merely doesn't act on them for fear of consequence, such as arrest, jail time, death penalty, etc.?