evilness

[bubbles4920]

what is your take on someone being evil? ie a murderer or something less evil like stealing. is one born with it or is it learned behaviour?

[laurence2]

Christ.

That could be a numerous things, but i suspect child molesters, terroist, serial killers would be at the top of most peoples list.

I think the term ''evil'' is used to often these days, as you pointed out, would someone stealing be classed as ''evil''?
Low life {yes} but stealing a mars bar from the corner shop and a terroist blowing innocent people up surely cannot be classed as both ''evil''.

In regards to being born with it or learned behaviour, i would side with learned behaviour as don't believe you can be ''born with it'' tho the phrase ''born evil'' does spring to mind.

Interesting question mind you

[jake-the-peg]

Perhaps someone who deliberatly inflicts pain and suffering for no better reason than his or her own enjoyment.

Or someone who could prevent pain and suffering but does not.

Oh scrap that last one, that's God isn't it?

[Hellyon]

My take is this;
A person with mental health problems may carry out an 'evil' act but they are not evil as the inability to see what they are doing is wrong is part of the illness. I would class this as horiffic but not evil.
An intelligent person such as the Doctors in Glasgow or the 7/7 bombers and some paedophiles who have no mental illness but carry out an act intended to kill or maim are genuinely evil as they have full knowledge of what they are doing and the consequences but do it anyway, that is true evil.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Acts can certainly be evil. Flying a plane into a building full of innocent people is evil. Rape is evil. Child abuse is evil. Playing football with cats is evil etc.

I've long felt that one of the problems with the word evil when applied to a person is that it distances that person from everyone else; 'He's not like *us*, he's *evil*'. If you say a youth who sets light to a cat and plays football with it is evil, all this does is close the discussion. We don't need to think about *why* they did what they did because they're 'evil'. End of conversation.

I'm not suggesting that for everyone who commits and evil act there is simply a need to pacify the inner child who wasn't loved enough; it would be far too trite to think that the world opperated so simplistically (I don't think the 9/11 terrorists were a result of a lack of childhood love, for instance). On the other hand, we do know that children who are not loved do not develop the same neural pathways as those of us who are, and are more predisposed to commiting acts that we might call evil because their capacity for empathy is lacking.

If we understand what differentiates those who do evil from those who do not, then maybe we're better placed to stop it. Being satisfied with 'they're evil' as an explanation is a cop out.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think you can include the 7/7 bombers in that list.

I think you have to consider motivation - The bomb conspirators who tried to assassinate Hitler ended up killing others and doubtlessly may people would have approved if Hitler had died even if innocent civilians had also been killed.

The 7/7 conspirators would have similar motivations, you may not agree with them, but that's not the point their actions were not motivated by their own selfish purposes.

I'd suggest that's a critical factor if you want to use the 'E' word.

[Romeo]

I would define evil as the deliberate, conscious act of harming other people. There is a world of difference between the mischievous kid cutting a neighbour's clothes line and Heinrich Himmler sending people to the gas chambers, but they are different degrees of the same thing. Disregard for others, ignorance and selfishness. We are all born with it, though society can shape it. We can learn to control it or otherwise.