Is being evil wrong if you don't act on it?

[retyopy]

So this is something I think about a lot. If someone is evil, but does not act on their whims, are they evil? Say someone genuinely wishes to rape someone, and almost goes through with it, but never actaully does? Or if someone is attracted to shildren, but never actaully molests them? If you really wish to murder someone, truly, but don't? Now, just think about that. And post your answer. I'll just wait here. Go on.

Are you done? No? Ok. Take your time.

Ready? LIES! POST!

Alright, now edit your post and think about this: What if you only don't act on it for selfish reasons? If you're afraid consquences? I mean, you could argue that the person is just a coward and is still evil, but no harm, no foul, right?

 

[retyopy]

Oh, I feel like I should post my opinion, and I'm going to use it as a bump, so shut up! Erm... Well, alls well that ends well, I guess, so no to the orginal question in the title.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Usually thoughts lead to actions, and the deeper in the mind those thoughts are, the more easily such thoughts are physically conflated. Therefore, the more superficial those thoughts are, the less likely they are to become an action.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

e·vil

adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

It's right there in 1. Yes, evil, by definition, is wrong. Just BEING evil is wrong. Saying "Is being evil wrong" is essentially saying "Is being evil evil?"

 

[retyopy]

Usually thoughts lead to actions, and the deeper in the mind those thoughts are, the more easily such thoughts are physically conflated. Therefore, the more superficial those thoughts are, the less likely they are to become an action.

But you didn't actaully answer my question. What if these thoughts truly are deep? What then?

 

[retyopy]

e·vil

adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

It's right there in 1. Yes, evil, by definition, is wrong. Just BEING evil is wrong. Saying "Is being evil wrong" is essentially saying "Is being evil evil?"

But is simply being evil wrong? Let's face it, most of us are racist on some level, even if it is simply fear of that which is different and unknown. That's just human. But you never do anything racist, are you still racist?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But is simply being evil wrong? Let's face it, most of us are racist on some level, even if it is simply fear of that which is different and unknown. That's just human. But you never do anything racist, are you still racist?

Again, your question is answering itself. By the culturally accepted definition of evil, being evil is wrong, because evil is wrong. In order to get into semantics about "what is wrong" you have to stray from the accepted, commonplace definition of the word and start applying your own subjective measures to it, at which point any discussion becomes functionally worthless.

You asked "is being evil wrong". The answer is unequivocally "yes", as much so as if you asked whether or not fruit is fruit, or air is air.

 

[Anarchemitis]

If the thoughts are deeply evil, then it would only make sense that one would act on these thoughts. If they did not, they would likely have some kind of goal, truth claim, objective or other governing reason why they wouldn't; such a goal would probably either be another evil thought, which means truly that they are acting evil-like, just with an appearance of good, or a good thought, and the evil thoughts are still not deep enough to govern their actions.

 

[Unfairestsquid]

How does one unselfishly rape someone?

 

[Grospoliner]

If you never act on what you want to do you can hardly be considered evil. Not that it has stopped people from murdering others before for some perceived infraction of morality (Inquisition, Puritans, Sharia Law).

 

[Bobic]

I'd say if they think evilly but don't act on it for moral reasons they aren't evil, as their good side is clearly stronger, so it averages out to be good. Everyone has selfish or angry thoughts on occasion doesn't mean they are a big enough dick to act on them.

If the only reason they don't do it is fear of being caught then yeah, I'd count that as being evil.

 

[JochemDude]

No. Someone is evil if he is intentionally the cause of harm to someone.
In that content most of us are evil, although the degree is (to me) mostly determined by the motives and not by the act itself.

 

[Jacob Haggarty]

Oh lord, not you again... weren't you the one who was talking about feeding people to pirhannas? And eating their fingers?

If not, then sorry... but you do have the same picture.

OT: Yes i supose it would. The thought would express the desire to do something despicable, and yes i think that's enough to be evil. Just because you showed some restraint wouldn't mean you didn't WANT to do it.

 

[theheroofaction]

I don't know about your definitions, but from my dictionary it's: the process of acting in a way that brings harm, without concern for the harm it brings.

So no, no it isn't.

But it IS a slippery slope

 

[daemon37]

No. Despite what Christians might tell you, it isn't "evil" to fantasize about such things. If evil thoughts could condemn a person, we would all be evil. Since mind-police do not exist yet, your mind is your safe haven. It is only your actions that count.

For example, if you've ever played a violent video-game you have most definitely fantasized about murder. Watching Marcus Fenix chainsaw a Locust in half is fantasy murder(no actual people are involved). If you then walk around town imagining chainsawing people in half in a similar fashion, that is no different. Just don't go the Home Depot and buy a chainsaw with the intent of realizing your fantasy. That would make Jack Thompson far too happy.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Evil is as evil does.

Trust me.

 

[Biosophilogical]

If the thoughts are deeply evil, then it would only make sense that one would act on these thoughts. If they did not, they would likely have some kind of goal, truth claim, objective or other governing reason why they wouldn't; such a goal would probably either be another evil thought, which means truly that they are acting evil-like, just with an appearance of good, or a good thought, and the evil thoughts are still not deep enough to govern their actions.

Pretty much. The most dominant thoughts will govern your actions, so if you are evil, but don't act on them, then you aren't actually evil, because the reasons not to be evil outweigh the reasons to be evil, thereby making you more good than not. Alternatively, you don't do something evil for selfish reasons, in which case you are evil, but have non-moral motivations to not act on it. Alternatively alternatively, you don't do something evil for evil reasons, in which case the non-action (or alternative action) is evil by virtue of being caused by evil motivations. Now whether any of this is 'wrong' is a matter of both perspective and action. It isn't wrong to do something that causes no harm, even if you did it for bad reasons[footnote]Though wouldn't that be odd. "I'm so evil that I'm going to jump in an evil fashion, but not actually in a way that negatively influences anyone else". It actually seems impossible[/footnote], but it can be wrong to do something bad for good reasons (maybe you tried to help someone, but ended up tripping and hurting them, or maybe they didn't want help and you help actually made things worse), though it is only wrong in revealed retrospect[footnote]You can look back and go "I didn't know *underlying context*, so it was wrong to do that in retrospect, but right to try (because you could only act on what you did know)[/footnote]. But that's more about what is right/wrong in terms of productivity, not right/wrong in terms of morality/ethics.