Evil mind, evil deeds?

[SilentCom]

To my understanding, 'evil' is defined by opposition to morality and the harm it presents to others. Considering morality is relative to the society in which it encompasses, doesn't that make the notion of evil also relative in most circumstances?

Also, evil is typically defined through action but how often can evil be defined as a state of mind? I ask this because people's intentions are based around their thoughts. Often people are more forgiving toward someone who has committed a wrong if it was unintentional, however the same could not be said of someone with bad intentions, therefore could someone be viewed as evil for having only evil intentions or thoughts but do not act upon them? I guess what I'm asking is could the mind be considered evil or is it purely on the basis of action?

 

[gabe12301]

Evil is defined as an amplification of a combination of the least desirable of all commonly undesirable human traits.

Evil will change definition as time goes on.


I cannot be bothered with you any longer mortal.

 

[Arcticflame]

Evil intentions != Evil thoughts, separate them from the start.

If someone has evil intentions but is too much of a coward to act upon them, I would say they are still evil.

If someone has evil intentions, but doesn't carry them out due to their morality, (E.g. Angrily want to kill someone, but fight it due to their morals) they are not.

An evil thought is just a thought, an intention is something different altogether, intention implies motivation.

Also of course whether someone is evil is relative, but I would say it is relative to the society they are being viewed from and affecting.

Our morality is somewhat dependent on the inbuilt emotions which function as a mechanism to facilitate our own survival, through facilitating pack mentality. Each Pack (society) may have differing morals from another, and within societies they vary also, but to less of a degree, for the truest morality (which is of course, a bit of an impossibility) you would need to take an average of each societies morals.

So the notion of evil is both subjective and relative, but I would argue, only partially.

 

[Sir Broccoli]

In my opinion there is no such thing as an evil action. It's all about intention. If I give you $100,- thinking: "Gee, I bet he'd be really sad if I offered him $100,-" then that's evil, no matter what your thoughts on the situation are.
If you have evil intentions or thoughts but don't act on them that shows that either you also have good intentions or thoughts that make you not act on your evil ones or you're just afraid of the consequences. Both are okay in my book.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Ah, yes, the whole "Evil vs Good" debate. How I wished we lived in a fantasy world.

1) Detect Evil
2) Smite Evil
3) ???
4) Profit

I think evil is based on intent, to a degree, but also actions. Anything that deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is evil, in my mind.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

Question 1: from the perspective of the individual, those around that individual, society, or a society whose values do not adhere to the society from which that individual is drawn?

Question 2: moral or ethical?

Evil is an entirely artificial construct that we develop and everyone's definitions of it are different. Of more relevance, it depends on whether the individual believes in the expression 'the ends justify the means'.

Morally, evil 'ends' = evil, regardless of means, while evil 'means', good 'ends' is ambiguous and is heavily context based.

Ethically, thought of transgression immediate marks you for guilt. Under the precepts of (most) ethics, humans are guilty of an act once they think about it, regardless of intent. However, does this necessitate 'evil'? (Personally, I don't think so.)

 

[MercurySteam]

Go watch Megamind. You'll get a whole new look on what evil is, and is also a great watch to boot.

 

[Griffolion]

To my understanding, 'evil' is defined by opposition to morality and the harm it presents to others. Considering morality is relative to the society in which it encompasses, doesn't that make the notion of evil also relative in most circumstances?

Also, evil is typically defined through action but how often can evil be defined as a state of mind? I ask this because people's intentions are based around their thoughts. Often people are more forgiving toward someone who has committed a wrong if it was unintentional, however the same could not be said of someone with bad intentions, therefore could someone be viewed as evil for having only evil intentions or thoughts but do not act upon them? I guess what I'm asking is could the mind be considered evil or is it purely on the basis of action?

I think you've pretty much got it right there. Evil is only really perceived in the eye of the beholder (be that a person or a society).

I personally think it's a lot about the thoughts behind the action. An evil 'action' may have come from good intentions that just turned sour along the way. But evil thoughts will 99.9% of the time spawn evil actions.

 

[Revolutionary]

Evil is a subjective judgement made by the human mind when evaluating consequences of actions. Perfect example: Stalin killed millions of people, however his planned economy and brutal enforcement tactics repaired the Russian economy (Some might argue the end justify the means). So was he evil...I'd say yes, but again, refer to original point.

 

[Brandon237]

Evil intentions != Evil thoughts, separate them from the start.

If someone has evil intentions but is too much of a coward to act upon them, I would say they are still evil.

If someone has evil intentions, but doesn't carry them out due to their morality, (E.g. Angrily want to kill someone, but fight it due to their morals) they are not.

An evil thought is just a thought, an intention is something different altogether, intention implies motivation.

Also of course whether someone is evil is relative, but I would say it is relative to the society they are being viewed from and affecting.

Our morality is somewhat dependent on the inbuilt emotions which function as a mechanism to facilitate our own survival, through facilitating pack mentality. Each Pack (society) may have differing morals from another, and within societies they vary also, but to less of a degree, for the truest morality (which is of course, a bit of an impossibility) you would need to take an average of each societies morals.

So the notion of evil is both subjective and relative, but I would argue, only partially.

This, just about everyone will have evil thoughts at some point in their lives (if you don;t who the hell are you?) but most of us would never want to carry out such horrible actions.

 

[SilentCom]

Go watch Megamind. You'll get a whole new look on what evil is, and is also a great watch to boot.

I've already seen it, good movie but not exactly the best example seeing that its not too realistic and the protagonist is more of a crazy party guy than a real "villain."

Evil is a subjective judgement made by the human mind when evaluating consequences of actions. Perfect example: Stalin killed millions of people, however his planned economy and brutal enforcement tactics repaired the Russian economy (Some might argue the end justify the means). So was he evil...I'd say yes, but again, refer to original point.

This sort of reminds me of the villain from Fable II.