Who was the most evil person?

[NotPaopan]

This 20 or 30 yo Chinese man enjoys a power sex fantasy of rape and revenge of a Japanese cartoon whose ancestors did the same thing to his great-uncle and aunts.

CRINGE.

Iz all in the past

[Apocist]

evil is purely perspective.

good and evil changes definition according to the individual, culture, dimension, sect, group, country, religion, race, political party, species, gamer guild, forum, financial tier, family, state, circle of hell, room, planet, team that you're on. moral compasses change from culture group to culture group and anything that can oppose a belief can be deemed as something evil.

in apo's eyes, oops is clearly the most evil. obviously

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

Iz all in the past

Tell all your friends and co-workers you like that show for a one-way trip to social suicide.

I like how many troll answers there are in this thread, but only Helz harassed me about posting something serious to contribute here. Another sign of biasedness against yours truly.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

This thread was once great and got derailed by posts that half-relate to the concept of "evil" but that are incredibly incoherent. Can you please reply to the thread's topic guys lol

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

This thread was once great and got derailed by posts that half-relate to the concept of "evil" but that are incredibly incoherent. Can you please reply to the thread's topic guys lol

No one has put forward any sort of response to my definitive answer to this thread so far.

Hitler is the most evil because his passionate hate led to directly bullying, seizing private property, enslavement, famine, torture, and mass killings.

Mao is next because his kill count is the greatest even though killing the sparrows had good intentions (they were suspected of eating their grains and fruits; Mao wanted to maximize agricultural yields for his agrarian utopia), the unintentional byproduct was a mass famine.

Stalin is last and could be moved to #2 if it's been proven the Holodomor was intentional. However, because of its ambiguity, can only assume it was unintentional and therefore this is why he's #3 because less people died in the Holodomor compared to the disastrous policies and later the culling of Mao's Cultural Revolution.

And no, I don't think it's fair to say that dumb saying where hate is another form of love and is better than indifference. I'd rather be with my family and starve together than be forcefully separated, never learning of what happened to them, working 16 hours of hard labour a day, and slowly succumb to death by exhaustion and hunger.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

No one has put forward any sort of response to my definitive answer to this thread so far.

Hitler is the most evil because his passionate hate led to directly bullying, seizing private property, enslavement, famine, torture, and mass killings.

Mao is next because his kill count is the greatest even though killing the sparrows had good intentions (they were suspected of eating their grains and fruits; Mao wanted to maximize agricultural yields for his agrarian utopia), the unintentional byproduct was a mass famine.

Stalin is last and could be moved to #2 if it's been proven the Holodomor was intentional. However, because of its ambiguity, can only assume it was unintentional and therefore this is why he's #3 because less people died in the Holodomor compared to the disastrous policies and later the culling of Mao's Cultural Revolution.

And no, I don't think it's fair to say that dumb saying where hate is another form of love and is better than indifference. I'd rather be with my family and starve together than be forcefully separated, never learning of what happened to them, working 16 hours of hard labour a day, and slowly succumb to death by exhaustion and hunger.

This is eluding the necessary question of the definition of evil, though. In the Stalin part, you seem to be giving a lot of importance to intent, but you also put Hitler as the worst without addressing the absolutely possible reality of him being good-willed. And what about the serial killer killing for "pleasure" that was mentioned earlier in the thread?

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

This is eluding the necessary question of the definition of evil, though. In the Stalin part, you seem to be giving a lot of importance to intent, but you also put Hitler as the worst without addressing the absolutely possible reality of him being good-willed. And what about the serial killer killing for "pleasure" that was mentioned earlier in the thread?

No, it doesn't because I already defined earlier that evil is based on action severity, consequence severity, intention, and remorse.

Your inherent assumption is that Hitler was good-willed, but that was for German Aryans only. The measure of good will should be looked at from a whole to ensure that those intentions are holistically good-willed. Does his Aryan utopia justifiably achieved through the extermination of an entire race that is innocent counteract each other? No, it doesn't!

What about serial killers? A serial killer, although they've killed dozens of people and defiled their bodies (order doesn't matter), their consequence severity doesn't come close to causing millions of deaths. And even then, a sociopathic serial killer is slightly better than a psychopathic killer because a psychopathic killer is aware that what they're doing is wrong, but choose to do it anyway whereas sociopathic serial killers do not understand that feeling.

You know, for an admin obsessed with returning to the main topic, you sure have missed a lot of the good points I've already discussed.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

No, it doesn't because I already defined earlier that evil is based on action severity, consequence severity, intention, and remorse.

Your inherent assumption is that Hitler was good-willed, but that was for German Aryans only. The measure of good will should be looked at from a whole to ensure that those intentions are holistically good-willed. Does his Aryan utopia justifiably achieved through the extermination of an entire race that is innocent counteract each other? No, it doesn't!

What about serial killers? A serial killer, although they've killed dozens of people and defiled their bodies (order doesn't matter), their consequence severity doesn't come close to causing millions of deaths. And even then, a sociopathic serial killer is slightly better than a psychopathic killer because a psychopathic killer is aware that what they're doing is wrong, but choose to do it anyway whereas sociopathic serial killers do not understand that feeling.

You know, for an admin obsessed with returning to the main topic, you sure have missed a lot of the good points I've already discussed.

According to Hitler, the "inferior races" were not innocent, though. The part about the Jews is an obvious counterexample. Past that, correct me if I'm wrong (and I well may be), but the "inferiors" were "corrupting" mankind and causing its downfall, being a nuisance to the naturally "better" people. That + something about strong defeating the weak being natural perhaps? It seems accurate to say that to him, being anything but good-willed towards non-Aryans was not evil, because those people were not worthy of any good will, just like how insects that are a nuisance to agriculture do not seem worthy of good will to us. Now yes, that is a terribly torn and horrible mindset, but it's one many people adopted...

So again, it brings us back to the definition of evil. Evil against who? All living beings? Human beings? Conscious beings, which may include more than just human beings?

Also, sorry if you felt like I was attacking you, that was not my intention. I'm just pointing out that you're taking your own definition for granted, and it is not proven in any way that your definition is the right one. Defining evil is a hard task, so it's perfectly fine not to have a perfect definition lol. To further my point against your definition: what if a child who has no idea what he's doing presses a button that launches 1000 nuclear warheads towards big cities (assuming such a button exists, which it probably doesn't)? The severity of the action and of the consequences is huge, but would you call that evil? Or does the intent totally nullify the evil in this case? If it does, then what about Hitler if we assume he was 100 % good-willed?

[Loldebite]

[Adolf Hitler's] views on the Jews are not unwarranted, but they turned to be right.

Wait, let me read that again.
unwarranted : not having a good reason and therefore annoying or unfair
Okay, what the fuck ?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Wait, let me read that again.
unwarranted : not having a good reason and therefore annoying or unfair
Okay, what the fuck ?

A severe infraction was given.

[Voss]

We should moderate these kind of posts.

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

Wait, let me read that again.
unwarranted : not having a good reason and therefore annoying or unfair
Okay, what the fuck ?

LMAO, what a piece of fucking work. 20-30 yo Chinese man living in a Western country enjoying Japanese power rape fantasy cartoons and justifying antisemitism through current events of a very complex geopolitical situation in the Middle East originally caused by British border divides. You quenched from that 4chan /pol/ kool-aid, Paopan?

I find it hilarious that if you read the literature, 1% of the German population were Jewish and they had a high-range estimated wealth of 1.6% of the entire country. Real fucking smart on Hitler's behalf, even though he campaigned hard as fuck to scapegoat them. You do realize most of his policies for the nation were good because he privatized many of their national companies, high investment in public infrastructure, and stopped paying their burdenous reparations, right?

Again, I have to give admins credit here again for deleting such disgusting vitriol and nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself, Paopan.

According to Hitler, the "inferior races" were not innocent, though. The part about the Jews is an obvious counterexample. Past that, correct me if I'm wrong (and I well may be), but the "inferiors" were "corrupting" mankind and causing its downfall, being a nuisance to the naturally "better" people. That + something about strong defeating the weak being natural perhaps? It seems accurate to say that to him, being anything but good-willed towards non-Aryans was not evil, because those people were not worthy of any good will, just like how insects that are a nuisance to agriculture do not seem worthy of good will to us. Now yes, that is a terribly torn and horrible mindset, but it's one many people adopted...

So again, it brings us back to the definition of evil. Evil against who? All living beings? Human beings? Conscious beings, which may include more than just human beings?

Yeah, and he was wrong from an ethical standpoint. It doesn't matter if what Hitler believed (or convinced himself through self-reinforcement), it violates Aristotelian ethics. That is that people should strive to achieve a virtuous character. Again, any sort of benefits their society benefited from (1.6% of the country's Jewish wealth) is completely negated or grossly overcompensated by the horrific war crimes and acts they performed on this vulnerable population based solely on genetics - something in most cases NO ONE has any control over.

Also, sorry if you felt like I was attacking you, that was not my intention. I'm just pointing out that you're taking your own definition for granted, and it is not proven in any way that your definition is the right one. Defining evil is a hard task, so it's perfectly fine not to have a perfect definition lol. To further my point against your definition: what if a child who has no idea what he's doing presses a button that launches 1000 nuclear warheads towards big cities (assuming such a button exists, which it probably doesn't)? The severity of the action and of the consequences is huge, but would you call that evil? Or does the intent totally nullify the evil in this case? If it does, then what about Hitler if we assume he was 100 % good-willed?

You guys are overthinking this bullshit and that's why this topic is taking so long and hard to discuss. It's also not helped by other trolls and devil's advocates. This definition is based on my ethics class of theoretical and tacit knowledge considering the ethics of utilitarianism, Aristotle ethics, Kant's ethics, good will (intention), impact, and fairness. You're welcome to create your own criteria for measuring evilness if you think there's a better one out there. But I am confident in my criteria.

A child is developing their identity and their viewpoints of life. Therefore, until they're in their late teens (16-17), I'd discount whatever things they say or actions they take because they're not fully conscious of their actions. In your example, a child that launches 1000 nuclear warheads, while causing massive damage and casualties, therefore cannot be held responsible to the same degree a fully developed adult. Yeah, throw them in juvie or rehab to reform them into proper citizens, but no they would not be considered evil to me unless they were like 16-17 and they were completely aware of the consequences of their actions.

[NotPaopan]

Current events of a very complex geopolitical situation in the Middle East originally caused by British border divides. You quenched from that 4chan /pol/ kool-aid, Paopan?.

Yeah sure, blame the British. India & Bangladesh OR Egypt & Sudan borders caused a lot of confusion because of the British. But they didn't grab lands and shoot rockets to each other like those land-grabbers backed by the US Iron Dome.

On the other hand, I'm deeply saddened that one's views are silenced for the good of the few.

Was heavily infracted and the post was removed.

This thread would've been interesting to keep participating in.

Oh well, freedom of speech is oppressed.

Guess I'm stepping out.

[SuperJack]

The worst thing the British empire did is cause the creation of USA.

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

Yeah sure, blame the British. India & Bangladesh OR Egypt & Sudan borders caused a lot of confusion because of the British. But they didn't grab lands and shoot rockets to each other like those land-grabbers backed by the US Iron Dome.

You do realize Hamas launched rockets at Israel first? Every year since 2006? And that these activities are sanctioned by Gaza's government because they're ruled by Hamas? I don't see anything wrong with retaliation in self-defence, though there are probably better diplomatic ways to go about this conflict. But again, I'm not an expert and it seems you need to have a team of democratically elected politicians, academic experts, and the best diplomats in the world to solve this conflict.

Yeah, because India and Bangalesh didn't have kill-on-sight border rules. Or have a border 1.8x longer separated by a literal desert between the two for your example of Egypt and Sudan.

[DJarJar]

LMAO, what a piece of fucking work. 20-30 yo Chinese man living in a Western country enjoying Japanese power rape fantasy cartoons and justifying antisemitism through current events of a very complex geopolitical situation in the Middle East originally caused by British border divides. You quenched from that 4chan /pol/ kool-aid, Paopan?

I find it hilarious that if you read the literature, 1% of the German population were Jewish and they had a high-range estimated wealth of 1.6% of the entire country. Real fucking smart on Hitler's behalf, even though he campaigned hard as fuck to scapegoat them. You do realize most of his policies for the nation were good because he privatized many of their national companies, high investment in public infrastructure, and stopped paying their burdenous reparations, right?

Again, I have to give admins credit here again for deleting such disgusting vitriol and nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself, Paopan.



Yeah, and he was wrong from an ethical standpoint. It doesn't matter if what Hitler believed (or convinced himself through self-reinforcement), it violates Aristotelian ethics. That is that people should strive to achieve a virtuous character. Again, any sort of benefits their society benefited from (1.6% of the country's Jewish wealth) is completely negated or grossly overcompensated by the horrific war crimes and acts they performed on this vulnerable population based solely on genetics - something in most cases NO ONE has any control over.



You guys are overthinking this bullshit and that's why this topic is taking so long and hard to discuss. It's also not helped by other trolls and devil's advocates. This definition is based on my ethics class of theoretical and tacit knowledge considering the ethics of utilitarianism, Aristotle ethics, Kant's ethics, good will (intention), impact, and fairness. You're welcome to create your own criteria for measuring evilness if you think there's a better one out there. But I am confident in my criteria.

A child is developing their identity and their viewpoints of life. Therefore, until they're in their late teens (16-17), I'd discount whatever things they say or actions they take because they're not fully conscious of their actions. In your example, a child that launches 1000 nuclear warheads, while causing massive damage and casualties, therefore cannot be held responsible to the same degree a fully developed adult. Yeah, throw them in juvie or rehab to reform them into proper citizens, but no they would not be considered evil to me unless they were like 16-17 and they were completely aware of the consequences of their actions.

A full-grown adult presses a button, having no clue what the button does. The button push causes millions of people to die. Is this person evil?


Edit: added
The trolly problem fits perfectly here as well. A trolly is speeding down a track. Three people are trapped on the track and will die if you do nothing. There is a lever next to you and if you pull it, the trolly will be diverted, saving their lives. However, there is 1 person trapped on the track in the other direction.
So if you don't pull the lever, 3 people will die and 1 will survive.
If you do pull the lever, only 1 will die and 3 will survive. But you will have actively chosen to kill that one person.
Of course, doing nothing is effectively the same as choosing to kill those 3 people.

So, are you evil no matter what in this situation? You didn't ask to be put into that spot but no matter what you do, someone will be dead based on your decision.


Now let's expand this to macro scale to compete with a murderer. Say there are 10 people on the left track and 30 people on the right track. You choose to pull the lever, killing 10 to save 30. Are you more evil than someone who knows what they are doing is wrong and commits a pre-meditated murder? Personally I would say the pre-meditated murder is worse.

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

You do realize Hamas launched rockets at Israel first? Every year since 2006? And that these activities are sanctioned by Gaza's government because they're ruled by Hamas? I don't see anything wrong with retaliation in self-defence, though there are probably better diplomatic ways to go about this conflict. But again, I'm not an expert and it seems you need to have a team of democratically elected politicians, academic experts, and the best diplomats in the world to solve this conflict.

Yeah, because India and Bangalesh didn't have kill-on-sight border rules. Or have a border 1.8x longer separated by a literal desert between the two for your example of Egypt and Sudan.

LOL VOSS: "removed toxic speech"

I can't tell conservative snowflake extremists they have a shitty opinion or that they're a damn donut? This is tame shit compared to what the volatile leftists and even the original vets (if they were alive) would use for a Hitler sympathizer. Yet you guys clearly use "goofy" all the time here to rouse anti-Canadianisms against me?

A full-grown adult presses a button, having no clue what the button does. The button push causes millions of people to die. Is this person evil?

No because you cannot be faulted for something you did NOT intend to do! Have we lost our minds and lost sense of what an "accident" is?

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

Trolley problem

This is an easy problem. Save the most lives always even if that 1 or 10 people you kill are your family and friends.

There's also options C and D, which is to divert the track so that 1 or 10 people die and either:

• Option C: kill yourself as atonement for having to make this choice. So I'd flick the switch and lay down with the other or 9 other people to be killed. If this cannot be physically done, I'd kill myself afterwards.
• Option D: survive and fulfill on the wishes of the person(s) who did die so that you will earn their posthumous forgiveness and to find salvation for one's self.

In such a scenario, I'd go with Option C or D depending on the guilt of this action and based on the wishes of the victims' surviving family (or friends) who knew them best.

If you were forced in such a scenario, you would not be evil because again you have no intention to kill these people originally.

Again, this same logic applies to the Hitler-Mao-Stalin order. Mao didn't want to cause a famine and kill his people, but unfortunately he stopped it too late - 1959-1961 were some of the worst famines (not to mention the 550k people who disagreed with him about this plan that he ordered killed) and that's what makes him evil. Because he didn't feel immediate remorse or the need to correct his mistakes quickly in pursuit of his grander plan and prolonging this suffering.

Stalin is lower than Mao for lower deaths, but similar situation based on the ambiguity of reception. However, he tried to stop journalists and other foreign powers from discovering this famine and rejected foreign food aid. Again, trying to pursue his plans of industrialization at the cost of human suffering and lives makes him evil.

[DJarJar]

This is an easy problem. Save the most lives always even if that 1 or 10 people you kill are your family and friends.

There's also options C and D, which is to divert the track so that 1 or 10 people and either:

• Option C: kill yourself as atonement for having to make this choice. So I'd flick the switch and lay down with the other or 9 other people to be killed. If this cannot be physically done, I'd kill myself afterwards.
• Option D: survive and fulfill on the wishes of the person(s) who did die so that you will earn their posthumous forgiveness and to find salvation for one's self.

In such a scenario, I'd go with Option C or D depending on the guilt of this action.

If you were forced in such a scenario, you would not be evil because again you have no intention to kill these people originally.

Again, this same logic applies to the Hitler-Mao-Stalin order. Mao didn't want to cause a famine and kill his people, but unfortunately he stopped it too late - 1959-1961 were some of the worst famines (not to mention the 550k people who disagreed with him about this plan that he ordered killed) and that's what makes him evil. Because he didn't feel immediate remorse or the need to correct his mistakes quickly in pursuit of his grander plan and prolonging this suffering.

Stalin is lower than Mao for lower deaths, but similar situation based on the ambiguity of reception. However, he tried to stop journalists and other foreign powers from discovering this famine and rejected foreign food aid. Again, trying to pursue his plans of industrialization at the cost of human suffering and lives makes him evil.

Ok, what if you volunteered to be the person standing at the lever? You still didn't put the people on the tracks or start the trolley but you chose to be the decision maker. Still not evil as long as you always kill the smaller number of people?

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

Ok, what if you volunteered to be the person standing at the lever? You still didn't put the people on the tracks or start the trolley but you chose to be the decision maker. Still not evil as long as you always kill the smaller number of people?

Why the fuck would you volunteer to stand at the lever? What - is this like an office potluck party or some shit? "Oh, Dale said he'd bring in chicken pot pie, Ahmed for shawarmas, and Samantha will make cheesecake! Lastly, Cindy volunteered to be the person who decides the lives of the best cook or the remaining subpar cooks!"

If you were forced against your will, the onus of evil is the person who created the scenario in the first place. Go watch Squid Game if you haven't already; this is the exact same scenario the main character finds himself in.

[DJarJar]

Why the fuck would you volunteer to stand at the lever? What - is this like an office potluck party or some shit? "Oh, Dale said he'd bring in chicken pot pie, Ahmed for shawarmas, and Samantha will make cheesecake! Lastly, Cindy volunteered to be the person who decides the lives of the best cook or the remaining subpar cooks!"

If you were forced against your will, the onus of evil is the person who created the scenario in the first place. Go watch Squid Game if you haven't already; this is the exact same scenario the main character finds himself in.

i'm bridging to a government leader, who essentially volunteers to put themselves in many repeated trolly-ish scenarios. If, given all the info I have, I genuinely believe my choice will harm the fewest number of people, am I evil? Even if in later hindsight you can see that a different choice would have harmed fewer?

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

i'm bridging to a government leader, who essentially volunteers to put themselves in many repeated trolly-ish scenarios. If, given all the info I have, I genuinely believe my choice will harm the fewest number of people, am I evil? Even if in later hindsight you can see that a different choice would have harmed fewer?

Then just ask about government leaders directly instead of all this philosophical nonsense.

If a government leader gets off of causing suffering of people, whether they're in the majority or minority, then they're evil. Again, you need to incorporate the main ethical viewpoints (utilitarianism, Aristotle, Kant, etc.), along others, and come to a holistic ethical solution that seems to be the best among the other options. And even then, the sole onus on one politician being evil shouldn't be the case if you have a proper democracy with several checks and balances to ensure the executive branch does not control the legislative and judicial branches and their respective quasi-legislative / quasi-judicial committees and counterparts. If they do, you're in a totalitarian government and then you could make the case for the leader calling the shots to be evil.

Let's say theoretically that Nazi Germany did come out of their hyperinflated economy from seizing 20% of the country's wealth and genociding 1% of their population for being Jewish. Even though the majority of Aryans are quite happy with this policy, it comes at the great expense of the others through marginalization and war crimes that makes committing to this action evil. That is why you don't straight into violence and genocide. Instead, simply tax everyone making significantly more income higher like any sane politician would do today.

And no, you cannot be faulted for making the best decision at the time even if it turned out to be wrong years later. However, if you deliberately ignore valid and legitimate info that would lead to a better scenario, then there lies some fault there in your reasoning and your inability to come to the best decision you can make.