"Evil Men"

[Mannix]

First off I want to clarify that I want this thread to focus on linguistic particulars rather than on any particular "evildoers." Now that that's out of the way...

I think the English language is limited in its capacity to describe people that do bad things. I believe this is the case because far too often when discussing men like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, various serial killers and the like (that weren't actually, physically, clinically insane) we tend to default to terms such as crazy, insane, evil, monster, etc etc etc to describe their actions and nature.

I believe that conducting a dialogue on such people using the outlined terms and the categories they represent cheapens the consequences of their actions and provides them with an existential "out."

Why? Because crazy/insane people are not in control of the mental faculties, and saying, for instance, that Saddam is 'insane' because of the crimes inflicted on the Kurds gives him the psychological excuse of 'hey I couldn't stop myself, I can't control my own mind.'

Evil/monster present the same problem. Evil and monsterous beings do not posess the capacity for good in their nature. They act in a vile nature because they can do no other - its what they are to their very core.

The people that perpetrate these crimes are human beings that posess the capacity for choice. Each and every situation presented to an individual allows for essentially two choices - help or hurt. I'm not saying that there aren't situations that have multiple solutions, just that those solutions can be categorized as helping something or hurting something. Yes, sometimes those things conflict - hurt one person to help another, etc - and sometimes the solution results in nothing at all, but those situations are rare and I'm speaking in general terms.

Every time the DC sniper pulled the trigger, he had a binary choice - kill/don't kill. Every step on the way to invading Poland, Hitler had the choice to reverse his path. The list can go on and on, so my point is this; these guys that are refered to with the terms I listed at the begining made deliberate descisions they were fully cognizant of. They had every chance and capacity to do otherwise and they willfully chose not to.

What I haven't been able to figure out is what kind of language we should use to discuss these kinds of situations, because the way we do it now just doesn't cut it for me.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

I agree that the "insane" word is not the proper term to use, but I disagree with your usage of evil. If it was their nature to commit such acts, and they had no choice in the matter, then it no longer becomes evil... it simply becomes their nature. Thats like saying a lion is evil for killing an antelope in order to eat it. Then it becomes more "they were compelled to do this" rather than "they made a choice".

Usually when you discuss evil, it automatically implies a choice and a capacity for good. Thats what makes it so evil... they COULD choose to do the right thing, but instead they do the worse thing imaginable.

If they had no choice in the matter, could you honestly call them evil? So basically, that they direct chose to commit those acts, and took pleasure in them, is what makes them evil. It makes them disgusting, vile, sadistic, and evil.

But you're right about the insane part. It gives them an excuse which they shouldn't have.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

I agree that the "insane" word is not the proper term to use, but I disagree with your usage of evil. If it was their nature to commit such acts, and they had no choice in the matter, then it no longer becomes evil... it simply becomes their nature. Thats like saying a lion is evil for killing an antelope in order to eat it. Then it becomes more "they were compelled to do this" rather than "they made a choice".

A lion is predatory by nature. They kill other animals to eat them, and they have no choice in the matter. Nobody expects a lion to start eating grass because it would be entirely against its nature. They don't have the capacity to commit acts of vegetarianism.

I believe we imply the same thing by calling somebody evil. An evil person commits evil acts because its their nature, similar to the lion. Nobody expects an evil person to do anything but evil, because it goes against their inherrent evilness.

I really don't want to sound like a, to quote Jack Black, "fucking naysayer" in this thread, I've just been trying to rack my brain for words that I can use that convey the nature of the people involved while retaining the potency of the old terms. So, I dunno, help me invent a new word? I guess thats what I'm asking. Either that or help I_Like_Swordchucks here prove me wrong.

[notasfatasmike]

The problem with your entire quandry is a linguistic one: words, contrary to popular belief, do NOT have fully defined meanings. There are general agreements on what any given word means, but your question deals with shades of interpretation: You believe that "evil" has the connotation of it being a part of someone's nature, negating the possiblity of choice, while I_like_Swordchucks believes that it has the connotation of being the *result* of someone's choice, i.e. someone chooses to do something evil, hence they are evil. (I apologize if my interpretation of either of your points is incorrect.)

And the thing is that neither of you are wrong, in the linguistic sense. It's a highly relativistic field by its very nature; For you, Mannix, there isn't a word in the English language that properly conveys the idea you want to convey, while one exists for I_Like_Swordchucks, and neither of you are wrong.

It's a highly philosophical question you've brought up; then again, most questions about language tend to be that way. Personally, I lean more towards I_Like_Swordchucks' interpretation, but that's just me.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Well instead of making this a linguistic debate, I'll attempt to offer an alternative.

Ignoring the concept of 'good vs evil', the word 'immoral' may be more definitive of what you are looking for. Morality certainly implies that there is a choice, for being a moral creature implies that you have the capacity for both good and evil.

The lion example I gave earlier, as well as your idea of evil being the 'nature' of the person, falls into the realm of a different word being 'amoral', meaning they don't have the capacity of moral reasoning.

Immoral fits your definition, my only problem with it is that it doesn't seem to convey the strength of the bad that was guys like Hitler and Stalin. So I guess you could say 'very immoral' or 'extremely immoral'. The point is however, that saying they have a capacity for morality indicates that they do indeed have choice. And I believe that was what you wanted.

Hope that worked for you.

[Massacre]

I'm a man who knows what evil is, or at least I have engrossed myself into what is conceived of as evil.

Evil is not something that comes naturally. It is, by its 'nature' an unnatural trait...which is a bit confusing, so stay with me on this. This is something that must be born of circumstance. To be evil, the start of it is definitely being immoral or amoral. A lack of ethics or simply deciding to ignore them makes you a horrible person as is. You know... An asshole. That touch of evil comes from enjoying it. It's that sadistic streak that, I think, makes evil. If you've just riddled a man full of bullets and you like it...you might be evil. if you dream of carving the world a new hole because it pisses you off and you want to make people bleed for the sheer satisfaction of it, planting human against human in an orgy of violence...you're probably barking mad, but I think evil gets in there too. Evil is a fleeting thing, but I think this gives us a good idea about what real evil in real life can be.

[The Kneumatic Pnight]

Originally Posted by Mannix

A lion is predatory by nature. They kill other animals to eat them, and they have no choice in the matter. Nobody expects a lion to start eating grass because it would be entirely against its nature. They don't have the capacity to commit acts of vegetarianism.

I believe we imply the same thing by calling somebody evil. An evil person commits evil acts because its their nature, similar to the lion. Nobody expects an evil person to do anything but evil, because it goes against their inherrent evilness.

Most people are of relative certainty that evil is neither natural nor usual. This is why we call such people 'insane', because we like to believe that such a mindset is essentially alien and unlike the mindset that we "normal" people have.

I could, here, go into the various ins and outs of whether or not this is true, but that's not the point.

The point is that people, in general, do not believe that evil is a nature (at least, not much anymore). And most people, in my experience, do not see evil in nature itself. Natural disasters, predatory animals, various viruses are not, to most people, things we can define as evil. However, the terrible things they do, if immitated by a man, is evil.

Is this evil, suddenly, inherently natural in a man if not in a storm? Doubtful.

At least in the minds of most people, evil is a choice--this being the essential core of what makes it evil.

Defining someone as 'evil' does not mean we are saying it is in their nature to be evil.

This would be like saying a murderer commits murders because it is in their nature. Murderers inherently murder, ergo, if one is a murderer, they must murder and have no choice.

Instead, it comes from the other direction. I would set it up like this.

-Because one is a murderer, one murders. (No, this is quite wrong.)

-Instead: Because one murders, one is a murderer. (This one makes more sense.)

Simmilarly:

-Because one is evil, one commmits evil acts. (Again, only in Shakespearean plays.)

-Instead: Because one commits evil acts, one is evil.

I mean, I could go into, here, definging evil itself, but that's really not the point.

It also occurs to me the consideration of the very idea of defining things thusly--the idea of putting "labels" on things. But, frankly, I'm going to say 'evil guy', not 'guy who does evil things occasionally' because, I mean, preciseness of language aside, it's shorter.

Which is pretty much why this all happens.

[Darth SS]

Just tossing this out there...


In my Theory of Knowledge class we've been discussing the nature of evil. The conclusion we've come to is that there is no single definition for evil. When we say that someone is evil, we are merely saying "This person is really bad according to the standards of myself and my peers." At the end, the best we could come up with was "Someone is evil if they hurt someone for no reason, or very poor reasons."

Take Hitler. He was not insane. He was very calculated and logical. In his mind, he was doing the right thing. However, we was hurting people for a poor reason.

Just keep in mind whenever you say "evil" that that is what it means. They are bad by your standards, and the standards of your peers. That should make discussions less irksome.

[Azisien]

Just thinking it over real quickly, I would differentiate it as such on the concept of "evilness":

Insane: In some way lacking or possessing damaged moral facilities. May not have a concept of right and wrong, or thinks wrong is right, etc.

Evil: Has functional moral facilities (a normal human being does), chooses or performs acts with the conscious intent of being immoral.

Random examples! The lion hunts the antelope for food. I wouldn't categorize it as insane, nor evil. A neutral or good act. I liken it to vegetarians being forced to resort to eating meat for survival. They aren't being immoral if it's about survival.

Man tosses a nut softly at a squirrel. Neutral, perhaps even a good act. Man throws a nut at a squirrel with the intent of scaring or harming the squirrel. Evil act.

Course making war/genociding millions vs. throwing nuts at squirrels, there are clearly gradients of evil acts. :P

[Mannix]

First of all I want to apologize for taking so long to reply - I was in the process of moving to a new apartment and the internet guy came a little sooner than I expected to disconnect the internet at my old place. After that I had a bunch of shit to do. So, here we go...

There's a difference for me between somebody that does evil and somebody that is evil. It's kind of like the difference between being Scottish and acting Scottish. You can walk around in a kilt eating hagus all you want, but if you weren't born Scottish you aren't Scottish.

So I guess with that in mind, the word 'evildoer' is close to what I'm looking for, which just kind of dawned on me. However, thanks to comic books, that word is very, very cliche' and holds almost none of the seriousness that such a term should imply.