Is Evil a Property of a Person or Merely a Quality of their Behavior?

[Sunstone]

For anyone who believes in one or another concept of evil, is evil an intrinsic property of a person or thing, or is it merely a quality of their behavior (or the consequences of their behavior)?

Put differently, was Hitler an intrinsically evil person, or was only his behavior (or its consequences) evil?





______________________________

 

[Curious George]

For anyone who believes in one or another concept of evil, is evil an intrinsic property of a person or thing, or is it merely a quality of their behavior (or the consequences of their behavior)?

Put differently, was Hitler an intrinsically evil person, or was only his behavior (or its consequences) evil?





______________________________

For evil to serve as a property it would need to have an objectivity. Perhaps it is better to discuss evil as a quale of a person and/or an act.

What do you think?

 

[Sunstone]

What do you think?

This is not a topic I have a position on.

 

[crossfire]

Most people have the capacity to refrain from doing evil. If a given person lacks this capacity to refrain from doing evil, then perhaps one might call them intrinsically evil. However, there may be ways to help them regain their capacity to refrain from doing evil.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Perhaps it is better to discuss evil as a quale

Quale, ... evil?

 

[Sunstone]

Most people have the capacity to refrain from doing evil. If a given person lacks this capacity to refrain from doing evil, then perhaps one might call them intrinsically evil. However, there may be ways to help them regain their capacity to refrain from doing evil.

Interesting.

 

[epronovost]

Put differently, was Hitler an intrinsically evil person, or was only his behavior (or its consequences) evil?

His actions were evil (because of their consequences) and he made in fairly consistent and systematic way "evil behaviors". He can thus be qualified of evil a bit like a person who lies very often can be called a liar.

 

[Revoltingest]

His actions were evil (because of their consequences) and he made in fairly consistent and systematic way "evil behaviors". He can thus be qualified of evil a bit like a person who lies very often can be called a liar.

Could say that he was evil because of what he did.
And he did it because of his propensity to do evil.

 

[Curious George]

Quale, ... evil?
View attachment 38535

I have always wondered what qualia look like. Thank you for the pic

 

[epronovost]

Could say that he was evil because of what he did.
And he did it because of his propensity to do evil.

We can't read his mind or have a complete understanding of his moral motivation. We don't even know for sure if he was mentally healthy. We can only judge people by their behaviors and their actions; it's rare a person will give an extanded and detailed enough explanation of their mental process to assess their "virtues" for lack of better term.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can't read his mind or have a complete understanding of his moral motivation. We don't even know for sure if he was mentally healthy. We can only judge people by their behaviors and their actions; it's rare a person will give an extanded and detailed enough explanation of their mental process to assess their "virtues" for lack of better term.

Since he wasn't compelled by some irresistible exterior force,
what he did came from him. Mentally ill or not is irrelevant.
Evil is as evil does. (I think Forest Gump said that.)

 

[Jim]

For me it is neither. For me it’s a subjective classification of some kinds of behavior. It’s an open question for me whether or not to apply the word to a person. I have been tempted to do that a few times in my life.

 

[Milton Platt]

For anyone who believes in one or another concept of evil, is evil an intrinsic property of a person or thing, or is it merely a quality of their behavior (or the consequences of their behavior)?

Put differently, was Hitler an intrinsically evil person, or was only his behavior (or its consequences) evil?





______________________________

I'm thinking it is neither. It is a subjective opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

For me it is neither. For me it’s a subjective classification of some kinds of behavior. It’s an open question for me whether or not to apply the word to a person. I have been tempted to do that a few times in my life.

Sure.
So what constitutes evil will vary from person to person.
It's not even wrong.

 

[epronovost]

Since he wasn't compelled by some irresistible exterior force,
what he did came from him. Mentally ill or not is irrelevant.
Evil is as evil does. (I think Forest Gump said that.)

You are right to say that no matter what he thought or his mental competency, what he did was evil. The question was more as was he evil because of his nature or was he evil because of what he did. I can't speak about his nature much since we don't know enough about it, but we know his actions very well. They were evil. The only thing we can say is that Hitler was convinced he was doing what needed to be done for the greater good. It turns out he was completely wrong and his reasonning was certainly filled with holes of all sorts. Can we say that someone who wants the greater good of all is, by his nature, evil? I'm not convinced we can say that. I don't think Hitler had a very different nature than other humans. He "just" made a few capital mistakes in reasonning and killed millions of people because of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are right to say that no matter what he thought or his mental competency, what he did was evil. The question was more as was he evil because of his nature or was he evil because of what he did. I can't speak about his nature much since we don't know enough about it, but we know his actions very well. They were evil. The only thing we can say is that Hitler was convinced he was doing what needed to be done for the greater good. It turns out he was completely wrong and his reasonning was certainly filled with holes of all sorts. Can we say that someone who wants the greater good of all is, by his nature, evil? I'm not convinced we can say that. I don't think Hitler had a very different nature than other humans. He "just" made a few capital mistakes in reasonning and killed millions of people because of it.

I'm fairly confident in judging him as evil.

 

[Sunstone]

His actions were evil (because of their consequences) and he made in fairly consistent and systematic way "evil behaviors". He can thus be qualified of evil a bit like a person who lies very often can be called a liar.

Good point, but it might suffer from being mere semantics. I would have to take a closer look at it to be sure. Something I don't have time for at the moment.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Potential Resource for the curious:

• EVIL: The Science behind Humanity's Dark Side,by Dr. Julia Shaw (2019)
  • Contents
    • Introduction: The Hunger
    • 1. Your Inner Sadist: The Neuroscience of Evil - On Hitler’s brain, aggression and psychopathy
    • 2. Murder by Design: The Psychology of Bloodlust - On serial killers, toxic masculinity and ethical dilemmas
    • 3. The Freak Show: Deconstructing Creepiness - On clowns, evil laughs and mental illness
    • 4. Two-faced Tech: How Technology Changes Us - On air pirates, bad bots and cyber trolls
    • 5. Kinky as F*ck: The Science of Sexual Deviance - On S&M, coming out and zoophilia
    • 6. To Catch a Predator: Understanding Paedophiles - On understanding, preventing and humanising
    • 7. Snakes in Suits: The Psychology of Groupthink - On paradoxes, slavery and ethical blindness
    • 8. And I Said Nothing: The Science of Compliance - On Nazis, rape culture and terrorism
    • Conclusion
      • ‘DISASTER TOURISM’ IS a term used to describe people who travel to so-called ‘traumascapes’, areas that have been destroyed by natural disasters or been affected by horrific historical events. In many ways this is conceptually what we have done throughout this book. We have visited many instances throughout human behaviour where terrible things occurred, and have looked at the science of how such things could happen.
        
      • Scholars like sociologist DeMond Miller believe that Disaster tourism serves as a vehicle for self-reflection. He believes that going to visit traumascapes allows a message to be conveyed to visitors in a way that allows them to interpret and better understand their own lives. It is also seen as an educational tool that can accelerate the time it takes for humans to heal after adversity. By seeing the full detail and complexity of a disaster, we can better understand what has happened and become less
        afraid of it. We can learn and move on.
      • This book is in no way an exhaustive exploration of evil. Instead, it is a tour through some key issues that society wrestles with today, with a focus on topics that are particularly close to my heart. The goal was to tear away the preconceived notions of evil, and the vast amount of misinformation that is routinely fed to us. The goal is to start informed conversations about evil. And the goal is to personalise evil, to make it about you and me, not just about abstract and unrelatable phenomena.
      • So, is there really such a thing as evil? Subjectively, yes. You can call sadistic torture, or genocide, or rape, evil. You may mean something very specific, and have well-reasoned arguments as to why you have called a
        particular person or act evil. But as soon as you have a discussion about it with others, you may find that what you think is an undeniable act of evil is not perceived that way by them. Certainly by the time you bring people who have committed the act into the discussion, you are likely to encounter a different perspective. To echo the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, evil is only created in the moment when we perceive something as such. And
        just as quickly as we can make evil, if our perception shifts, it can disappear.
      • We make evil when we label something so. Evil exists as a word, as a subjective concept. But I firmly believe there is no person, no group, no behaviour, no thing that is objectively evil. Perhaps evil only really exists in our fears.
      • You have probably heard the saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Well the same thing rings true for many contexts – one person’s soldier is another’s insurgent, one person’s sexual liberation is another’s perversion, one person’s dream job is another’s
        source of all ills. When we learn that evil is in the eye of the beholder, we begin to question the beholder and the society they live in. And when we turn our attention to ourselves we realise that we sometimes curiously even
        betray our own sense of morality.
      • Because of what I consider an insurmountable problem of subjectivity, I think that neither humans nor actions should be labelled evil. Instead, I cannot help but see a complex ecosystem of decisions, cascades of
        influences, multifaceted social factors. I refuse to summarise all of this into a single hateful word, ‘evil’.
        
      • But not believing in evil as an objective phenomenon does not make me a moral relativist. I have strong views on what is objectively appropriate behaviour and what isn’t. I believe in fundamental human rights. I believe that intentionally causing pain and suffering is inexcusable. I believe we need to take action when individuals violate the social contracts we make when we live as part of a society.
      • More importantly, though, knowing the various influences that can contribute to problematic behaviour makes us more likely to identify these influences and to stop them from having their full effect. Understanding that we are all capable of much harm should make us more cautious and more diligent. This is a powerful gift indeed.
      • ....
      • As Zimbardo’s prison experiment supported (and as Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often misattributed as saying), ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.’ So how do we teach
        people to do something? Zimbardo argues that we should foster ‘heroic imagination’.
        
      • To do this, we need to do three things. First, we need to share stories of normal people standing up for their values. We need to give people’s imaginations a boost, make them think about normal heroes, realise that they can be one. Because not all heroes wear capes. Second, we need to put ourselves in a state of readiness to act heroically when the opportunity arises, through imagining acting heroically and having a plan as to what we would do in an emergency. And third, we need to teach people that heroes don’t have to act alone. They can recruit others, therein changing the wider personal, political or social landscapes.
      • This book seeks to inform and empower. When we understand what leads to harm, we can begin to fight against it. This involves taking action to stop harm, fighting against our own urges to do harm, and helping people who have done harm to get better. And whatever we stand for, fight for, feel for, we must never dehumanise each other.
      • TEN THINGS EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT EVIL
        • 1. Calling people evil is lazy.
        • 2. All brains are a bit sadistic.
        • 3. We are all capable of murder.
        • 4. Our creepiness radars suck.
        • 5. Technology can amplify dangerousness.
        • 6. Sexual deviance is pretty common.
        • 7. All monsters are human.
        • 8. Money distracts from harm.
        • 9. Culture cannot excuse cruelty.
        • 10. We must speak of the unspeakable.
      • Finally, I have but one wish: please, stop calling people or behaviours or events ‘evil’. It ignores the important nuances of the underlying behaviours.
      • I encourage you instead to think the unthinkable,speak of the unspeakable, explain the unexplainable,because only then can we begin to prevent that which others have deemed unpreventable.
      • It’s time to rethink Evil.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis' trilogy: The Space Trilogy or Cosmic Trilogy.

• “He [The Bent One] has left you this way because a bent hnau can do more evil than a broken one.”
  ― C.S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet

 

[epronovost]

I'm fairly confident in judging him as evil.

Since I'm overwhelmingly a consequentialist when it comes to ethics, I would also qualify him as evil.

 

[osgart]

Evil is a nature of being. So the question is do we choose our own nature of being? When the heart of a being says yes to evil I think it's fair to call the person evil.
Because when you truly love something you say yes to it.

Can a person that is truly in love with evil decide to reject evil? Like repentance.

Our there degrees of evil? Is there a point too far?

Who knows these things?

Hitler is stone, cold evil and probably so evil that he doesn't wish or hope for any way back to good.

I think human nature is such that a person can choose either good or evil. There are no propensities for either side of that kind of nature inherent in any biological factors. Good and evil exist solely in the realm of the heart and mind. And the actions manifest in the physical world.

I think people reach accountability when they are very young. Accountability is how are laws are constructed. I am glad for that.