Can someone be inherently evil?

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="Woeler"][Morality] ... is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.[/quote]

Isn't it?

There's a simple algorithm to determining whether or not something is right or wrong.

Would you want someone to [action] to you, given [list of circumstances that apply to the specific action]?

If no, then [action] is wrong.

If yes, then [action] is right.

As long as every possible term and condition is accounted for, this cannot possibly fail.

Ethics is nothing but logic. That's why what is called right and wrong, is called right and wrong.[/quote]
Who determines what ''wrong'' is? Where is the line? Do we judge actions by their intentions or their consequences? Your morality is not my morality. There might be things you would see as ''wrong'', but I would see them as ''right''. Neither of us has the right answer because neither of us can ultimately prove what ''wrong'' is.

You are now applying a certain way of reasoning to morality, which might be morally justifiable in your mind and in your way of thought, but not in the minds of others.

Nothing is ultimately ''right'' or ''wrong''. Morality is a certain way of judging actions, this way, again cannot be right or wrong.

[quote="Nietzsche's Daybreak. S20"]Whoever has overthrown an existing law of custom has always first been accounted a bad man: but when, as did happen, the law could not afterwards be reinstated and this fact was accepted, the predicate gradually changed; - history treats almost exclusively of these bad men who subsequently became good men.[/quote]

[cleargreenwater]

[quote="Azdgari"]Maybe a better question is, can someone be evil at all? What makes someone 'evil'?[/quote]

Theoretically no, but in response to Woeler, I think denying the existence of morality- or value-driven judgments in favor of essential absolutes because it was constructed and a relative truth isn't completely accurate, either. Yeah, there are no absolutes, serial killers are beloved parents and Hitler helped Germany recover, but there ARE dangerous and/or deranged people who should be recognized as such that decisions and appraisals must needs be made of. It's a difference of if you're involved enough to make a judgment, if you were the person getting murdered, you wouldn't be thinking "there's no value in this action they are taking because it is subjective". Regardless of any other details. If you are getting killed, the person killing you is evil. That really is universal.

I personally don't like the word evil, it implies a black and white dualism that IS imaginary and a bit simplistic, but it serves a function to a person so it's also real. If someone's thought/language complex supplies the word evil to a fact pattern that is habitual and intrinsic to another person that is more dangerous than their concept of "bad", then they are evil because that's what gets applied to the accumulation of things present in another person.

Concepts don't exist in creatures that aren't capable of having them. Because we have them it's never absolute to say they don't exist because they're intangible, either.

But I'm sure y'all have danced around that bush a thousand times already in other threads I wasn't eyeballing.

That said, I like other words a lot better when commenting on things I find repulsive/reprehensible/horrible

< / two cents from the cubicle. >

[DGFone]

Also remember that in the end, every single human being has those instincts that prevent us from being truly evil. Yes, you can override these instincts, and people have done so plenty of times, but that's no longer "inherently".

[Woeler]

[quote="cleargreenwater"]Regardless of any other details. If you are getting killed, the person killing you is evil. That really is universal.[/quote]

What if the victim is Anders Breivik? Would he perceive his killer as evil? Yes. Would most of the world? Not necessarily. Empathy for innocence plays a great role. A person who morally believes the innocence of the victim matters will have a different opinion than a person who morally believes all human life is sacred.

But to reply to your situation: Euthanasia.

Morality is an illusion. You can't touch morality, you can't perceive morality, you can't define morality. It is a creation of the conscious mind, like coincidence. We believe and act like it's there, but it really isn't. It surely doesn't serve a greater purpose. The universe will continue to be, with or without us. The universe has never cared nor has it ever shown to be capable of caring.

We can however give certain definitions to ''good'' and ''bad''. We know certain things are good for the well-being of a creature and we know certain things aren’t. That way morality can be linked to facts. They will now correspond to certain emotions, laws, impulses and relationships.

But then again we are defining ''morality'' which is still a relative term.
''Good'' and ''evil'' are relative terms within the relative practice of ''morality'' within the relative study of ''ethics''. It doesn't matter how deep you go, it will never be true.

[Regulus]

[quote="Woeler"]You are now applying a certain way of reasoning to morality[/quote]

Exactly. Reason *is* an ultimate truth, grounded into reality.

If there is no reason for something to be wrong, then it isn't.

You can try to argue with that, but it's pointless and, ultimately, unreasonable.

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="Woeler"]You are now applying a certain way of reasoning to morality[/quote]

Exactly. Reason *is* an ultimate truth, grounded into reality.

If there is no reason for something to be wrong, then it isn't.

You can try to argue with that, but it's pointless and, ultimately, unreasonable.[/quote]
No, because ''what is wrong?''. Your wrong is not my wrong. Your morality is not my morality and thus it can not be universally determined. There are thousands and thousands of other ways to interpret, to judge and to comprehend actions. There is no reasoning in morality, only exploring.

You can not determine my morality. You can not determine what I think is wrong and what I think is right. You can only tell me what I should think is wrong and what I should think is right.

Your way of experiencing and exhibiting morality only applies to you, and nobody else.You can think something is wrong, but you can never ever claim to know that something is ultimately wrong.

You are trying to create an absolute morality, which by definition does not exist.

This person is evil. False.
I think this person is evil. True.
This person is good. False.
I think this person is good. True.

[Regulus]

[quote="Woeler"]No, because ''what is wrong?''. Your wrong is not my wrong. Your morality is not my morality and thus it can not be universally determined.[/quote]

Logic is a universal language. It is the only universal language.

You are refusing to acknowledge the fact that there is logic behind morality, in its purest form.

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="Woeler"]No, because ''what is wrong?''. Your wrong is not my wrong. Your morality is not my morality and thus it can not be universally determined.[/quote]

Logic is a universal language. It is the only universal language.

You are refusing to acknowledge the fact that there is logic behind morality, in its purest form.[/quote]
Alright, I'll demonstrate it.

Person X kills Anders Breivik.

Person X is evil because he or she killed a human being
Person X is good because he or she has taken care of a mass-murderer

No matter what option suits you best, there will always be people who will think of moral theories as to why the other option is better because logic can be applied to both answers. The majority on this planet believes (they don't and can't know) killing is ''wrong''. Does that make killing ''wrong''? As much as the majority believing in God makes God real.

[cleargreenwater]

[quote="Woeler"][quote="cleargreenwater"]Regardless of any other details. If you are getting killed, the person killing you is evil. That really is universal.[/quote]

What if the victim is Anders Breivik? Would he perceive his killer as evil? Yes. Would most of the world? Not necessarily. Empathy for innocence plays a great role. A person who morally believes the innocence of the victim matters will have a different opinion than a person who morally believes all human life is sacred.

But to reply to your situation: Euthanasia.

Morality is an illusion. You can't touch morality, you can't perceive morality, you can't define morality. It is a creation of the conscious mind, like coincidence. We believe and act like it's there, but it really isn't. It surely doesn't serve a greater purpose. The universe will continue to be, with or without us. The universe has never cared nor has it ever shown to be capable of caring.

We can however give certain definitions to ''good'' and ''bad''. We know certain things are good for the well-being of a creature and we know certain things aren’t. That way morality can be linked to facts. They will now correspond to certain emotions, laws, impulses and relationships.

But then again we are defining ''morality'' which is still a relative term.
''Good'' and ''evil'' are relative terms within the relative practice of ''morality'' within the relative study of ''ethics''. It doesn't matter how deep you go, it will never be true.[/quote]

Yeah, I was thinking "involuntarily being killed", not euthanasia, that's with the consent of the person dying.

I still can't call concepts like "evil", "good" or "bad" non-existant though just because they're individually and socially invented and defined. They exist because humans need them to exist to make judgments, potentially survival ones.

I know what you're saying. The concepts are illusory, and what any given person defines them as is a moving target that doesn't matter.

But how can you say they don't exist when you use them multiple times in a day and will continue to do so throughout your life, and it gives real benefits to adhere to and potentially watch out for if someone isn't?

Sure, it doesn't matter if you, me, or anyone else exists or not to the universe, or what we find moral at any set moment. But the concept of mores and morals are human concepts so why should their existance depend on any but human standards, according to their human social usefulness in a human's set place on earth? They developed for a reason, so they exist.

I guess it's the difference between being younger and absolute truth being THE most absolute truth, and starting in on middle age where absolute truth is things you absolutely know are used and true around you.

E.g. Whether god is real or not, I know other people think he is therefore I am going to have to deal with him/her/it until I die because that's the paradigm that exists, even though the concept of dieties is invented. Same thing with "evil", "good" or "bad", the personal and larger human repercussions of the concepts are undeniable.




...and sorry if this crosses anyone else's posts in the time it took me to type it, I'm looking busy at work.

.........JESUSCHRIST I MISSED HALF THE THREAD. Nevermind, carry on at the speed of the internet.

[Woeler]

Alright, this is how I put it when I am expressing myself at the university (study of politics and philosophy). This a quick one because I need to get going for the night.

There is no morality of any kind.
If there was, you couldn't learn it.
If you could learn it, you could never communicate it.
Objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.