What is EVIL?

[Dicecaster]

Negative implies that it detracts from natural flow, or in other words, it damages or destroys. A willful act means you KNOW full well what you are doing, and do it anyway. So doing something that destroys or damages in any way, great or small, with the direct intention of malice or hatred, especially with regards to the design, is evil.

 

The design is basically a setup according to a Lorenz Attractor. A series of cascades of chain reactions that cause individual ripples that magnify in effect due to intricacies of physics along the multi-planear formation of entirety, or as stated, existence. Existence being the summation of this universe and all other possible things. I could explain the phylogeny of this, but that would be of little use, as I'd be blasting you with hours of reading, diagrams, and theorems.

 

Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

Alright, so is it okay to destroy, damage, or detract from something if you are not doing it out of malice or hatred? For one example, suppose a lion is charging at you with the full intent to kill you; you would have left it alone, but it's not evil to kill it to save your own skin, no malice intended, correct? However, as another example, suppose you are a hit man, you illegally kill people for money; to you it's just a job, no hatred whatsoever, but you're still killing innocent people.

[Kuraikiba]

Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

Would the act they do be considered evil even if the person doing the act is not considered evil?

 

If so, are there two different definitions?

 

No, it's still evil. Being willful action, it means the person KNOWS the detrimental nature of their action. The fact they decide to do it, and don't exhibit restraint, resulting in the malignant action, denotes evil. It's because they choose to do these things, purposefully choosing to do what they know they shouldn't.

[marharth]

Essentially, evil is when someone does something because they know full well it will be detrimental in some way. Essentially, a willing act of destruction, regardless of how they paint it.

Would the act they do be considered evil even if the person doing the act is not considered evil?

 

If so, are there two different definitions?

 

No, it's still evil. Being willful action, it means the person KNOWS the detrimental nature of their action. The fact they decide to do it, and don't exhibit restraint, resulting in the malignant action, denotes evil. It's because they choose to do these things, purposefully choosing to do what they know they shouldn't.

If a person was sleepwalking, and killed someone, that would mean the person was not evil.

 

That would still mean that the act of killing the person would be evil, even if they were not aware right?

[Flintlockecole]

"Those who do not draw swords still fall upon them". That's all I have to say.

[Kuraikiba]

If a person is not aware of their actions, they are not evil. Unless you would call people with mental conditions evil needlessly...

[marharth]

If a person is not aware of their actions, they are not evil. Unless you would call people with mental conditions evil needlessly...

But can the act in itself be evil even if the person is not?

[draconix]

I think that "Evil" is just a term that we place on things or people that rub us the wrong way. These things change depending on where you are, and can change over time. A good example of this would be age of consent. Today, impregnating a 14 or 15 year old girl is considered pedophilia, and therefore evil. However, go back 2000 years, and you'll find that it was perfectly acceptable for 40 year old men to marry girls this young, see: Mary and Joseph. Regardless of whether or not Christianity is true, which I will not be getting into, this is a fine example of a very popular story that reflected the actuality of morality at the period of time in which the story was based. So, clearly something that was acceptable back then is now evil. How odd.

 

Now that I wrote my decoy argument, I'll hide the truth inside this inconspicuous spoiler tag...

 

Women are Time and Money

women = time x money

 

And we all know that time is money

women = money x money

 

Also, money is the root of all evil, right?

money = square root of evil

 

By squaring both sides of the equation,

money squared = evil

 

Now go back to the equation

women = money x money

 

women = money squared = evil

So what is evil? Women are evil.

 

 

[Kuraikiba]

Wow, wonderfully sexist comment in the spoiler...

 

As I've stated, evil is defined. It is an act of a nature opposite binary truth. We may not know ALL that is evil, but whatever isn't of truth would be false.

[ginnyfizz]

You don't have to go back that far. As recently as the 19th century, in England, the age of consent was twelve years of age.

 

With regards to what Kuraikiba and marharth are saying about evil and insanity, it is interesting to bring in here what counts as the definition of the legal defence to insanity in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, India and most states of the USA

 

"the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong."

 

Thus it is that a particularly clever and evil psychopath killer can still be convicted of murder and would not succeed with a defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity". The Yorkshire Ripper and Harold Shipman, two of Britain's more infamous serial killers, were both definite psychopathic personalities with massive superiority complexes, but were both jailed for life for murder. The former was transferred to Broadmoor Special Hospital . The latter hanged himself in gaol.

 

Very few people would have protested had either of them had an appointment with a real hangman.

[Kuraikiba]

With every killing, the chance of EVERY one being of completely unsound mind decreases.