Who was the most evil person?

[Helz]

Something I have been digging into for quite a few years is the nature of evil but it did lead me to a question. Who is the most evil person in history and more importantly why?

I am sure Hitler, Stalin, Columbus, Mao Zedong and Gangis Khan can easily be argued but I am specifically curious to hear 'why' and I think it could make for an interesting discussion into the nature of evil.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I'm afraid we have to answer the question "what is evil" first to answer this one... but that's what you want to know in the first place lol. If we rule out religious dogmas, evil would be... the act of intentionally causing harm of any kind to other human beings, or to cause harm in a way that is not intentional but that can be reasonably expected to be detected as harmful? I'm pretty sure you can light this definition on fire, but anyway.

[OzyWho]

My take..
Humans are social creatures. That means relying on cooperation to survive and thrive. Our subconscious minds might be constantly on the lookout for groups to fit, as well as judge every individual on their value with regards to being in a group with them.

I think "evil" is just a human way of expressing someone who feels repulsive with regards the aforementioned value. Someone who has a waaaaaaay negative value.

Does this make any sense?

[Light_Yagami]

Something I have been digging into for quite a few years is the nature of evil but it did lead me to a question. Who is the most evil person in history and more importantly why?

I am sure Hitler, Stalin, Columbus, Mao Zedong and Gangis Khan can easily be argued but I am specifically curious to hear 'why' and I think it could make for an interesting discussion into the nature of evil.

My Vote Is Stalin... He Was Simply The Worst & Was Responsible For More Deaths Then Hitler During His Reign.. Also Some Stuff About Columbus Is Simply Made Up... About Hitler Some Historical "Facts" Are Simply Lies..

[WrathCyber]

Evil is subjective as stated by Ozy. However, if we were to pin it on one entity, I would say humanity itself.

As someone once said:

"Demons do not exist. If they existed, they would be the human heart."

We are evil, outside of what we deem as themselves as such.

[Oberon]

Evil is subjective as stated by Ozy. However, if we were to pin it on one entity, I would say humanity itself.

As someone once said:

"Demons do not exist. If they existed, they would be the human heart."

We are evil, outside of what we deem as themselves as such.
Evil is not subjective.
And I would say Stalin.

[Oberon]

Evil is subjective as stated by Ozy. However, if we were to pin it on one entity, I would say humanity itself.

As someone once said:

"Demons do not exist. If they existed, they would be the human heart."

We are evil, outside of what we deem as themselves as such.
Evil is not subjective.
And I would say Stalin.
Genghis Khan also comes pretty close

[Oberon]

Actually Mao Zedong was probably worse than Stalin. But when you get to the number of deaths these guys did, it’s kinda hard to rank you. I say Stalin, Hitler, Mao were all just as evil.

[DJarJar]

See I dunno if it’s just about kill count I mean I feel like it’s much more evil if you know what you’re doing is wrong and do it anyway. So it’s difficult to rank the people mentioned because we don’t really know what was going on in their heads. Some of them may have been so delusional as to believe what they were doing was right.

[OzyWho]

See I dunno if it’s just about kill count I mean I feel like it’s much more evil if you know what you’re doing is wrong and do it anyway. So it’s difficult to rank the people mentioned because we don’t really know what was going on in their heads. Some of them may have been so delusional as to believe what they were doing was right.

This reminds me of Jordan Peterson's analysis of Hitler.
You see, post WW1 it was difficult times and no wonder that people were consciously or subconsciously looking for something to blame.
Peterson believes that Hitler's subconscious mind picked up on the increased reactions when even hinting on blaming Jews. Over time, this made Hitler dive stronger and deeper into until he's resolve was unyielding for his cause was just.

[OzyWho]

There's this YouTuber who claims that in the old times - going to war was looked at as something fun. With deaths so common and lives so boring, a different perspective on wars appears.

I'm not sure if judging people of the past by today's standards is fair when we call conquerers evil.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[NotPaopan]

Ender Wiggin

[OzyWho]

Ender Wiggin
He had no way of knowing what he was doing!

[DJarJar]

Ender Wiggin

nah bean was worse

[Oberon]

This reminds me of Jordan Peterson's analysis of Hitler.
You see, post WW1 it was difficult times and no wonder that people were consciously or subconsciously looking for something to blame.
Peterson believes that Hitler's subconscious mind picked up on the increased reactions when even hinting on blaming Jews. Over time, this made Hitler dive stronger and deeper into until he's resolve was unyielding for his cause was just.
I do not know what Peterson said, but Hitler was evil right from the start. You don’t just become a serial killer. You either are one or aren’t. Maybe he shifted from someone who just generally didn’t give a fuck into someone who actually wanted to hurt people over time, but he was always an amoral little bitch.

[NotPaopan]

He had no way of knowing what he was doing!

Precisely, the same thing could be said about Chairman Mao.

Now, some people here are mentioning that he was an evil person.

I view Chairman as the one who replaced the existing barren land into a strong foundation who was then used by Deng to construct the country and become strong as what it is today.

Now, some people here are going to argue about the great firewall, the social credit system, or the advanced deep learning AI for surveillance. I'm going to ask you a question. How the fuck can you govern and secure your country with over 1.4 billion pop?

US and China are almost the same in terms of land size. But China is like errr. Imagine Canada. Like Canada, which had most of its population living in the south. The same thing can be said in China where most people live on the eastern side. and the US, whose pop is around 330m~ was already having a hard time reducing its crimes in some areas. Don't believe it? Try living in Indiana or Detroit. I have a fair share of time living in Dolton, IL. So yeah, that's my opinion on the matter. It's a choice to be made. Security in exchange for "privacy" or Anarchy, but "free".

I got off-tracked. Fuck. Anyway, I just want to clarify that most of the deaths, particularly during the Great Famine in the late 1950s is "30% natural disaster, 70% man-made error". I'll repeat, manmade e-r-r-o-r.I also believe that he's 70% good and 30% bad. If you fucking think Mao and Deng, and the current Xi Jinping are bad leaders. I'll just say that the CN people have shown through its history that it wasn't true. Read about the dynasties of Ancient China and how they fell. OH! And also. Want living proof regarding this matter? check how Taiwan was founded.

But if you're thinking that death is directly proportional to how evil people are. Then people like Gilles De Rais or Max Robespierre aren't that evil eh?

[NotPaopan]

I do not know what Peterson said, but Hitler was evil right from the start. You don’t just become a serial killer. You either are one or aren’t. Maybe he shifted from someone who just generally didn’t give a fuck into someone who actually wanted to hurt people over time, but he was always an amoral little bitch.

In other people view. Yes they're evil. But if you look at their perspective post-ww1. You'll see a glimpse of how they feel. How the German Empire was ran by the powerful, rich Jews and betrayed Germany.

[Oberon]

In other people view. Yes they're evil. But if you look at their perspective post-ww1. You'll see a glimpse of how they feel. How the German Empire was ran by the powerful, rich Jews and betrayed Germany.
I do not give a shit about ‘other people’s view’. This is not subjective. He was evil. The ends do not justify the means, except in some very specific cases which have nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Like for instance I would kill 1,000 people to save my family, my family matters more to me than 1,000 random strangers. But other than those very basic primal instincts, nothing justifies what Hitler did.

[Voss]

In other people view. Yes they're evil. But if you look at their perspective post-ww1. You'll see a glimpse of how they feel. How the German Empire was ran by the powerful, rich Jews and betrayed Germany.

Could you give sources for how Jews betrayed Germany?

[NotPaopan]

I do not give a shit about ‘other people’s view’. This is not subjective. He was evil. The ends do not justify the means, except in some very specific cases which have nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Like for instance I would kill 1,000 people to save my family, my family matters more to me than 1,000 random strangers. But other than those very basic primal instincts, nothing justifies what Hitler did.

I'll get a quote from somewhere around the 1960s~

"People ask me who my heroes are. have only one -- Hitler. I admire Hitler because he has pulled his country together when it was in a terrible state in the early thirties. But the situation here is so desperate now that one man would not be enough. We need four or five Hitlers in Vietnam."

Good or bad. Evil or virtuous... is subjective. It's all about perceptions of the mind.

What we know as "bad" today was known as "good" in 1941. Or in the future where it would be revealed that Hitler was abducted and controlled by the Aliens. Hence he was innocent after all. As far as we know, Hitler personally never killed anyone.

Muslims believes that if they killed someone and asked for forgiveness from Allah, their sins will be forgiven.

Christianity condemns suicide as "God" gave you a timeline and knows when you should die (like Death Note). But when you committed suicide, you are not following the timeline given to you and that is a sin. But to the Japanese Shinto, committing suicide (seppuku) is honourable.

Many people condemn the killings that happened at Auschwitz or Treblinka. But don't give a fuck when a slaughterhouse that kills about 100 million+ chickens per day worldwide.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJXSYMhtwvU

So yes. It is subjective.

[NotPaopan]

Could you give sources for how Jews betrayed Germany?

The German Army in WW1 was stabbed in the back. This is a statement that came from Hindenburg.

Why asking for a source? Can't use google?

This isn't an academic forum. Not gonna spoonfeed.

[NotPaopan]

Could you give sources for how Jews betrayed Germany?

Stabby Stabby

28165

[Voss]

The German Army in WW1 was stabbed in the back. This is a statement that came from Hindenburg.

Why asking for a source? Can't use google?

This isn't an academic forum. Not gonna spoonfeed.

you've been known to say unproven statements, so forgive me for expressing some doubt here.

[NotPaopan]

you've been known to say unproven statements, so forgive me for expressing some doubt here.

Like what?

[Oberon]

The German Army in WW1 was stabbed in the back. This is a statement that came from Hindenburg.

Why asking for a source? Can't use google?

This isn't an academic forum. Not gonna spoonfeed.
Jews were the ethnic group with the highest participation in the Imperial German Army...

[Marshmallow Marshall]

The German Army in WW1 was stabbed in the back. This is a statement that came from Hindenburg.

Why asking for a source? Can't use google?

This isn't an academic forum. Not gonna spoonfeed.

Ah yes, the Dolchstoßlegende...
and LITERAL NAZI PROPAGANDA is not a proof...

I'm pretty sure we are excluding religious dogmas from the discussion, because else, this would be theology, not philosophy, and the question would have been worded as "what truth does X divine being teach us about the nature of evil?", which I'm pretty sure is not Helz's idea.

Also, the fact people disagree on a topic does not mean the topic is subjective, it means the answers human beings give are. If I say something is hot and you say it's cold, it doesn't change the objective fact this thing's temperature is 15 Celsius degrees. Same goes for evil: it's not because people disagree on what it is that it does not exist as an objective reality. Maybe it doesn't, but you can't just assume that.

Chicken slaughter is a good point, though. Do we consider harm against non-humans evil? Why?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

There's this YouTuber who claims that in the old times - going to war was looked at as something fun. With deaths so common and lives so boring, a different perspective on wars appears.

I'm not sure if judging people of the past by today's standards is fair when we call conquerers evil.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This assume evil is purely subjective, which cannot be assumed straightaway

[Voss]

Like what?

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/49151-Withdrawal-from-Afghanistan?p=944033&viewfull=1#post944033

look at me, backing up my claims with evidence.

[ZZorange]

Everyone is saying hitler was pretty evil but I read a thread on here that said Voss is worse than hitler, so using the source of this website. Then logically it must b Voss. Plus he's trying to front on Paopan

[Oberon]

If evil was so subjective, you would not be sitting here justifying yourself to us.

[Oberon]

I'm afraid we have to answer the question "what is evil" first to answer this one... but that's what you want to know in the first place lol. If we rule out religious dogmas, evil would be... the act of intentionally causing harm of any kind to other human beings, or to cause harm in a way that is not intentional but that can be reasonably expected to be detected as harmful? I'm pretty sure you can light this definition on fire, but anyway.
Evil is to break the rules that each of us internally follows. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe good vs evil however is a principle that exists independently of us.

[OzyWho]

This assume evil is purely subjective, which cannot be assumed straightaway
My cat loves to catch mice just to bites their heads off because she thinks it's fun for whatever reason. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think she's evil. She doesn't agree with me.:sad:

You might say that a cat's perspective and a human perspective are not one and the same and call it subjective. But so too is the perspective different for people from different times and places. Would you judge the first Homo Sapiens by todays viewpoints and standards? If not then where do you draw the line?




Chicken slaughter is a good point, though. Do we consider harm against non-humans evil? Why?
If evil is not subjective, then yes. On the basis that humans are not the center of the universe and we've other options.
If evil is subjective, then no. On the basis that for humans "evil" would be limited to their own perspective, presumably something like described in #3.


Question: is this a double standard?
vegans and vegetarians refuse to eat meat in order to not support those animals having terrible lives and deaths. But when given the choice to support the opposite, by buying meat of animals who had a paradise life and as humane deaths as possible, they refuse. :huh:

[SuperJack]

Im evil

[OzyWho]

Im evil
I want to agree.

[rumox]

Semantics time, time to assert positions.

Evil is subjective, as is morality since to be evil is to be immoral. I find anyone who disagrees with me immoral.

[NotPaopan]

Jews were the ethnic group with the highest participation in the Imperial German Army...


Ah yes, the Dolchstoßlegende...
and LITERAL NAZI PROPAGANDA is not a proof...

The German Army is still fighting strong in WW1 (To be honest this is hard to evaluate considering how the trench warfare system works. Basically, it's like TvT where both sides are playing marines and siege tanks exclusively). Then one side types GG whilst having 180/200 army supply.

Then the ones who typed GG" are Hindenburg and Ludendorff who was manipulated by the conservatives powerful jews who represented rich landowners and industrialists.

Oh course the SCVs would not know what's happening in the front lines right? After the siege tanks and marines came home. They didn't understand why they surrendered... or lost. Hence the blame game. They formed their own thinking and the stabby thing would make sense.

When you are a commoner, starving... and then there's a man named Hitler who promises you that you can eat and make Germany great again (Ohhh remember this statement from Cheeto in chief). The German people believed him, and he delivered. He literally made Germany great again. Oh, I'm talking about the great depression here. Things are tough around that time.

So yeah... Again, the whole world started to suffer economically, the German are starving, Hitler became the Fuhrer, and everything changes in a positive way. Connecting the dots now?


I'm pretty sure we are excluding religious dogmas from the discussion, because else, this would be theology, not philosophy, and the question would have been worded as "what truth does X divine being teach us about the nature of evil?", which I'm pretty sure is not Helz's idea.

It's hard to exclude religion. I mean... There are people who view things equally. Here's an example.

"I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."

- Winston Churchill

The same thing can be said about Chairman Mao. But for Mao, he really did well. To tl;dr my last post about him. His achievements outweigh his sins.


https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/49151-Withdrawal-from-Afghanistan?p=944033&viewfull=1#post944033

look at me, backing up my claims with evidence.

LOL okay. Still can't accept that the US military is corrupt.

Blindness is an unfortunate handicap but true vision does not require the eyes.


Everyone is saying hitler was pretty evil but I read a thread on here that said Voss is worse than hitler, so using the source of this website. Then logically it must b Voss. Plus he's trying to front on Paopan

I mean yeah... They hated Hitler or Mao cos they committed genocide. But then there's the former US president Andrew Jackson who does the same thing to Native Americans. Trails of tear, Sand Creek, Fort Mims, etc; for reference on Voss :P


Semantics time, time to assert positions.

Evil is subjective, as is morality since to be evil is to be immoral. I find anyone who disagrees with me immoral.

Well... You guys are probably the hardest hitters regarding the genocide of the ratite family. You are very immoral! :P

[Voss]

The German Army is still fighting strong in WW1 (To be honest this is hard to evaluate considering how the trench warfare system works. Basically, it's like TvT where both sides are playing marines and siege tanks exclusively). Then one side types GG whilst having 180/200 army supply.

Then the ones who typed GG" are Hindenburg and Ludendorff who was manipulated by the conservatives powerful jews who represented rich landowners and industrialists.

Oh course the SCVs would not know what's happening in the front lines right? After the siege tanks and marines came home. They didn't understand why they surrendered... or lost. Hence the blame game. They formed their own thinking and the stabby thing would make sense.

When you are a commoner, starving... and then there's a man named Hitler who promises you that you can eat and make Germany great again (Ohhh remember this statement from Cheeto in chief). The German people believed him, and he delivered. He literally made Germany great again. Oh, I'm talking about the great depression here. Things are tough around that time.

So yeah... Again, the whole world started to suffer economically, the German are starving, Hitler became the Fuhrer, and everything changes in a positive way. Connecting the dots now?



It's hard to exclude religion. I mean... There are people who view things equally. Here's an example.

"I hate Indians. They are beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits."

- Winston Churchill

The same thing can be said about Chairman Mao. But for Mao, he really did well. To tl;dr my last post about him. His achievements outweigh his sins.



LOL okay. Still can't accept that the US military is corrupt.

Blindness is an unfortunate handicap but true vision does not require the eyes.



I mean yeah... They hated Hitler or Mao cos they committed genocide. But then there's the former US president Andrew Jackson who does the same thing to Native Americans. Trails of tear, Sand Creek, Fort Mims, etc; for reference on Voss :P



Well... You guys are probably the hardest hitters regarding the genocide of the ratite family. You are very immoral! :P

I mean, if you make outlandish claims and can't support them, your words should mean less, right?

[OzyWho]

Helz be like let me just casually start a Hitler discussion here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nice
https://emoji.gg/assets/emoji/ok_hand.gif

[oops_ur_dead]

Donnie D. King, CEO of Tyson Foods, for perpetuating a holocaust against millions of not billions of animals, is the most evil person in history.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Evil is to break the rules that each of us internally follows. Nothing more, nothing less. I believe good vs evil however is a principle that exists independently of us.

Per that definition, suicide would be the ultimate form of evil (the ultimate breach of "internal rules" being to go against survival instincts). I'm not sure that's what you really believe.

@ ozy: The part about ancient viewpoints and standards would have a role to play in defining what is evil and what isn't, but not due to the nature of evil itself changing: it would simply mean intents were completely different back then. There's also the option to define evil as "immorality" in a world where morality = the rules that hold societies together, in which case you could say Gengis Khan was absolutely not evil (but a great man).

@ paopan: I... am not interested in continuing this discussion in this thread lol, sorry. It will derail the discussion anyway.

[Oberon]

Per that definition, suicide would be the ultimate form of evil (the ultimate breach of "internal rules" being to go against survival instincts). I'm not sure that's what you really believe.

@ ozy: The part about ancient viewpoints and standards would have a role to play in defining what is evil and what isn't, but not due to the nature of evil itself changing: it would simply mean intents were completely different back then. There's also the option to define evil as "immorality" in a world where morality = the rules that hold societies together, in which case you could say Gengis Khan was absolutely not evil (but a great man).

@ paopan: I... am not interested in continuing this discussion in this thread lol, sorry. It will derail the discussion anyway.
You misunderstood what I meant by internal rules :P When you think of someone who committed suicide, do you feel morally repulsed by their action? If so, then congrats its evil lol. Its that simple. (You don’t, do you?)

[OzyWho]

You misunderstood what I meant by internal rules :P When you think of someone who committed suicide, do you feel morally repulsed by their action? If so, then congrats its evil lol. Its that simple. (You don’t, do you?)
I hear you loud and clear.
You're saying that furry fandom are evil. I agree.

[ZZorange]

I mean, if you make outlandish claims and can't support them, your words should mean less, right?

a little bit weird coming from the voss ster

[Oberon]

If evil was so subjective, you would not be sitting here justifying yourself to us.
In fact, if it was subjective, you would not be able to explain yourself at all to begin with. Don’t confuse having different interpretations of the same situation with morality being subjective. We all follow or at least recognize the same rules, but our interpretations of events differ.

If morality was so subjective, we would literally be unable to explain what repulses or attracts us (if you will) morally at all. But you LITERALLY are: the examples with the backstab myth show a very clear application of moral rules that everyone can understand (if not agree with). This heavily attacks the idea of a subjective morality.

[rumox]

Donnie D. King, CEO of Tyson Foods, for perpetuating a holocaust against millions of not billions of animals, is the most evil person in history.

What about dog owners?

[NotPaopan]

Donnie D. King, CEO of Tyson Foods, for perpetuating a holocaust against millions of not billions of animals, is the most evil person in history.
There's a saying...

When a human dies, there is a bridge they must cross to enter into Heaven.

At the head of the bridge waits for every animal that humans encountered during their lifetime.

The animals, based on what they know of this person, decide which humans may cross the bridge...and which are turned away.

[Oberon]

What about dog owners?
Dog owners are modern day slave holders and should be purged from our genome.

[Helz]

Dog owners are modern day slave holders and should be purged from our genome.

I had a pretty funny conversation a year or so back about the ethics of owning dogs. They argued that service animals are a form of slavery and I pointed out that 'pet owners' are basically servants to their pets. If I had a person wash me, feed me and open doors for me I do not think I would look at them as my 'owner' but its all a question of perspective.

Im kinda surprised that while conversation on evil is about it being subjective conversation about 'who' was evil is centered around deathcounts and such. If Hitler's actions were to protect his people could it be said that he was more moral than many serial killers? Is a hedonistic motivation to the determent of others objective evil or do results matter more than intentions?

[OzyWho]

I had a pretty funny conversation a year or so back about the ethics of owning dogs. They argued that service animals are a form of slavery and I pointed out that 'pet owners' are basically servants to their pets. If I had a person wash me, feed me and open doors for me I do not think I would look at them as my 'owner' but its all a question of perspective.

Im kinda surprised that while conversation on evil is about it being subjective conversation about 'who' was evil is centered around deathcounts and such. If Hitler's actions were to protect his people could it be said that he was more moral than many serial killers? Is a hedonistic motivation to the determent of others objective evil or do results matter more than intentions?

On the Hitler part - I think he could have won the war easily if he used Jews as a resource instead. I believe the more objective conclusion from that is that he's intents weren't so pure as he led to believe?

[rumox]

Hitler was dad to all Germans, he was just trying to save his family.

[Helz]

On the Hitler part - I think he could have won the war easily if he used Jews as a resource instead. I believe the more objective conclusion from that is that he's intents weren't so pure as he led to believe?Im not sure on that. For him to win he really needed to either conquer the Russia front or never fight them in the first place. Historians have argued for quite some time if he was an idiot for taking on Russia or if it was simply a preemptive strike given Russia was building up troops at the border. We like to credit ourselves with beating the Nazi's but imo Russia won WW2 both by wrecking Germany and Japan..

To my point its not so much about Hitler as it is the nature of evil. The same could be said for Stalin or Mao Zedong while such thinking could argue a simple murderer who caused a tiny fraction of the suffering they did as less moral.

[Oberon]

Hitler was dad to all Germans, he was just trying to save his family.
Yes. And Stalin was the mother. They had a rocky divorce

[Oberon]

Im not sure on that. For him to win he really needed to either conquer the Russia front or never fight them in the first place. Historians have argued for quite some time if he was an idiot for taking on Russia or if it was simply a preemptive strike given Russia was building up troops at the border. We like to credit ourselves with beating the Nazi's but imo Russia won WW2 both by wrecking Germany and Japan..

To my point its not so much about Hitler as it is the nature of evil. The same could be said for Stalin or Mao Zedong while such thinking could argue a simple murderer who caused a tiny fraction of the suffering they did as less moral.
Russia would’ve lost the war on their own. Sure they had a high population but they were dependent on American companies to develop their industry. Ford pretty much built Soviet industry from nothing. Without him, the Soviets would’ve lost.

[Stealthbomber16]

Arsonist

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Yes. And Stalin was the mother. They had a rocky divorce

And Poland was the poor child sent to the orphanage

Is evil really just based on the results, though? We're talking about people who had the power to commit horrible things on a very large scale, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have done worse if they had the power to do so.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

You misunderstood what I meant by internal rules :P When you think of someone who committed suicide, do you feel morally repulsed by their action? If so, then congrats its evil lol. Its that simple. (You don’t, do you?)
This encompasses way too many things to describe evil accurately lol. Would you really say everything you're morally repulsed by is evil, without exaggeration? I can't think of a good obvious and relatable example to prove my point, but I think you can see what I mean.

I hear you loud and clear.
You're saying that furry fandom are evil. I agree.

xD that may be an example although its a little trolly

[Oberon]

This encompasses way too many things to describe evil accurately lol. Would you really say everything you're morally repulsed by is evil, without exaggeration? I can't think of a good obvious and relatable example to prove my point, but I think you can see what I mean.


xD that may be an example although its a little trolly
Yes. Everything you are morally repulsed by is evil by definition.

[OzyWho]

Yes. Everything you are morally repulsed by is evil by my definition.
Fixed that for you.
https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/source/skype/289/thumbs-up_1f44d.png

[Marshmallow Marshall]

lol ozy, I can't decide whether your snarky comments are praise-worthy or slap-worthy. I certainly laughed though.

That's basically it, though: you can't say something is true by the definition of the concept you are trying to define, since the definition is what you're trying to find.

[Oberon]

And Poland was the poor child sent to the orphanage

Is evil really just based on the results, though? We're talking about people who had the power to commit horrible things on a very large scale, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have done worse if they had the power to do so.


I hear you loud and clear.
You're saying that furry fandom are evil. I agree.


Alright so I think there’s no difference in the moral rules that we follow here, merely a difference in the interpretation of the event. Physics is a good analogy. To analyze a system you need to have an interpretation of the laws controlling the system. We can have multiple different interpretations and arrive at different conclusions, but that doesn’t mean that we follow different rules. It just means one (or both) of us misunderstood the system. Its the same with furry fandom. Is it evil? Me personally, I could care less whether or not some guy is into furries heavily or not. Maybe you just think people who are into furries are also degenerates who live in their mommy’s basement and just leach off of society? :P I guess that’s where the evil part may be coming into play.


lol ozy, I can't decide whether your snarky comments are praise-worthy or slap-worthy. I certainly laughed though.

That's basically it, though: you can't say something is true by the definition of the concept you are trying to define, since the definition is what you're trying to find.
Thing is, its not my definition, and its not even a definition at all. It is a literal description of what we find evil, and what we find to be evil is what we are repulsed by morally. We ALL have the same idea of what is evil and what is not. Sure, we can argue about utilitarianism and whatnot forever, but nobody actually follows those moral codes internally lol. They’re just tools for thinking and reasoning about morality. Nothing more.

[Oberon]

You think Paopan has a different moral code? No, he’s got the same one we do, he’s just a douchebag.

[OzyWho]

Morally repulsive is a good take for a definition tbh.
But you need to replace "all" by "majority" because that all thing doesn't exist.

[rumox]

How someone can say we all have the same moral code is beyond me.

Abortion, homosexuals, capital punishment. Are the people on the opposite side of these topics just taking part in thought experiments, or are they just being douchebags?

Abortion on its own has thousands of positions being put forward regarding the morality of it, for and against.

[Oberon]

How someone can say we all have the same moral code is beyond me.

Abortion, homosexuals, capital punishment. Are the people on the opposite side of these topics just taking part in thought experiments, or are they just being douchebags?

Abortion on its own has thousands of positions being put forward regarding the morality of it, for and against.
You know whats also beyond me? Your reaction whenever I put forward an argument you do not agree with. :shrug:

[rumox]

What's incomprehensible about it?

[Helz]

Is evil really just based on the results, though? We're talking about people who had the power to commit horrible things on a very large scale, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't have done worse if they had the power to do so.

This is a very valid point. Why isn't the serial killer who rapes and murders to embrace his own hedonistic pleasure worse morally than the dictator that kills large amounts of people because he believes its in the best interest of their society? If the intention behind the action defines the morality of the action than just focusing on results takes a very narrow view of morality. Such principals are well founded within structures of law establishing very different treatment for someone who accidentally and negligently kills someone (manslaughter) vs the person who sat around and plotted the death of someone (first degree murder.)
Thing is, its not my definition, and its not even a definition at all. It is a literal description of what we find evil, and what we find to be evil is what we are repulsed by morally. We ALL have the same idea of what is evil and what is not. Sure, we can argue about utilitarianism and whatnot forever, but nobody actually follows those moral codes internally lol. They’re just tools for thinking and reasoning about morality. Nothing more.

I disagree and I think this belief is you projecting the way you think onto how you believe others think. There have been plenty of times in my life I have felt obligated to argue a point I disliked or take an action I really didn't want to on principal based on my ethics. Its frequently outlined in stories as the 'evil mad scientist' doing unspeakable things for a greater good others don't understand while the idealistic hero steps in arguing the surface level 'This action is independently bad so stop.' For real life implications just look into accounts of how Immanuel Kant lived vs Jeremy Bentham. Kant in particular functioned radically on principal for the individual to an extreme while Bentham focused more on the large scale of humanity and society and what would be appropriate in governing a populous.

[rumox]

Helz if you were to label your meta-ethical doctrine, where would you fall?

[Helz]

Helz if you were to label your meta-ethical doctrine, where would you fall?

Labels are kinda rough. Whatever that human drive to simplify complex beliefs and put them into a category is just kinda unnatural to me.

Im certainly lean more twards Deontology than Consequentialism. My previous response to what MM said makes that pretty clear. I find the idea of focusing on results absurd because it puts the serial killer who rapes and murders for his hedonistic desire on the same ethical footing with the aircraft mechanic who failed to catch a problem with an engine killing people on a flight. Thats just insane to me.

In contrast I am somewhat altruistic. I try to measure my impact on others lives by if they were better off for having had me in their life. Its not very healthy and I am unsure if thats just the main way I validate myself but there are certainly times I struggle between having meant well but with poor end results in regards to an individual.

I embrace Kants Categorical Imperative. Especially the side of treating others as having intrinsic value and not as a means to achieve an end. Transactional relationships have always disgusted me and its honestly why I moved out of Austin. That 'culture' was becoming more and more like that LA attitude with superficial social interactions and people using etch other for advantage.

On the large scale I certainly argue for Utilitarianism. One of the largest problems I have with society is how its geared to benefit the 'few at the top' to the determent of the majority. One point that caught me recently was how we fight 'socialist' programs that would benefit the masses at great cost yet we bail out faceless corporations regularly at equal or greater cost.

I could probably keep rambling but I suppose my lack of ability to pick a label is partially due to the nature of labels but also partially due to how I somehow function on principal but with a bunch of contradictory beliefs depending on the situation. A part of me thinks people need a greater understanding of ethics so they can live in line with their morals but another part feels the deeper you dive into that rabbit hole the more ethical dilemmas you run into..

[rumox]

It is rough yeah. I'm pretty well aligned with Mackie and Joyce for the most part.

[NotPaopan]

Russia would’ve lost the war on their own. Sure they had a high population but they were dependent on American companies to develop their industry. Ford pretty much built Soviet industry from nothing. Without him, the Soviets would’ve lost.

All the Ruski needs is their factories in the eastern Urals along with their patriotism to Mother Russia. They would win the eastern front with or without US help. The US entering the scene just hasten the inevitable. The Nazi's relied on speed, but their logistics can't keep up. Why do you think they invaded Russia despite having a goodie-goodie with Stalin when they both invaded and split Poland.

I'm just going to assume these "dependencies" you're talking about is the lend-lease in 1941. Sure, it was approved by Roosevelt if that's what you're talking about "helping". But the fruits of labour came around 1943 onwards, in which the Soviets already turned the tide of the war. You really underestimate the cyka blyats around that time... Zhukov might give you a slap to reality when he sees you in the afterlife.


You think Paopan has a different moral code? No, he’s got the same one we do, he’s just a douchebag.

Sure sure. When all you did was attack someone personally instead of counter-arguing. Yepppp. Like this, or whether you play Arcade or FM.

[Oberon]

This is a very valid point. Why isn't the serial killer who rapes and murders to embrace his own hedonistic pleasure worse morally than the dictator that kills large amounts of people because he believes its in the best interest of their society? If the intention behind the action defines the morality of the action than just focusing on results takes a very narrow view of morality. Such principals are well founded within structures of law establishing very different treatment for someone who accidentally and negligently kills someone (manslaughter) vs the person who sat around and plotted the death of someone (first degree murder.)

I disagree and I think this belief is you projecting the way you think onto how you believe others think. There have been plenty of times in my life I have felt obligated to argue a point I disliked or take an action I really didn't want to on principal based on my ethics. Its frequently outlined in stories as the 'evil mad scientist' doing unspeakable things for a greater good others don't understand while the idealistic hero steps in arguing the surface level 'This action is independently bad so stop.' For real life implications just look into accounts of how Immanuel Kant lived vs Jeremy Bentham. Kant in particular functioned radically on principal for the individual to an extreme while Bentham focused more on the large scale of humanity and society and what would be appropriate in governing a populous.
The fact of the matter is, we can argue till the sun dies, because you will never convince someone to change their ‘moral code’, if there is such a thing. Morality is INBORN. It’s that feeling you get when something immoral happens or something very moral. People buy self help books because they want to change their lifestyle and these books really don’t help at all. You think reasoning about your morality will, when a book and training programs don’t? They won’t lol.

All the small differences we get in ‘morality’ arise from different interpretations of EVENTS, not from laws. The laws are the same. That is why you sometimes have different motivations, because you don’t know how to interpret a given scenario. There is some feedback from your own morality when you take an action that may be immoral because you don’t know if the action you took is correct. But that doesn’t mean that morality isn’t ultimately just... you know, in your head. Specifically INBORN. Its like the ability to see.

And yeah nobody will ever follow these moral codes you just espoused, not internally, anyway. Sure I can come up with utilitarianism and follow it to a T, but is that really what I believe? NO! It’s just a formalism that works in certain cases, and not in others.

And aside from this, people have sometimes other motivations that drive them, not just moral ones. Are you sure you are not guilty of hubris when stating you argued things you knew to be wrong? That’s the speck of hubris if I ever saw one lol

[Oberon]

What's incomprehensible about it?
You’re extremely aggressive *especially* towards me to the point where I’m wondering if you’re just disagreeing because you don’t like me or something instead of actually believing what you say

[Oberon]

Labels are kinda rough. Whatever that human drive to simplify complex beliefs and put them into a category is just kinda unnatural to me.

Im certainly lean more twards Deontology than Consequentialism. My previous response to what MM said makes that pretty clear. I find the idea of focusing on results absurd because it puts the serial killer who rapes and murders for his hedonistic desire on the same ethical footing with the aircraft mechanic who failed to catch a problem with an engine killing people on a flight. Thats just insane to me.

In contrast I am somewhat altruistic. I try to measure my impact on others lives by if they were better off for having had me in their life. Its not very healthy and I am unsure if thats just the main way I validate myself but there are certainly times I struggle between having meant well but with poor end results in regards to an individual.

I embrace Kants Categorical Imperative. Especially the side of treating others as having intrinsic value and not as a means to achieve an end. Transactional relationships have always disgusted me and its honestly why I moved out of Austin. That 'culture' was becoming more and more like that LA attitude with superficial social interactions and people using etch other for advantage.

On the large scale I certainly argue for Utilitarianism. One of the largest problems I have with society is how its geared to benefit the 'few at the top' to the determent of the majority. One point that caught me recently was how we fight 'socialist' programs that would benefit the masses at great cost yet we bail out faceless corporations regularly at equal or greater cost.

I could probably keep rambling but I suppose my lack of ability to pick a label is partially due to the nature of labels but also partially due to how I somehow function on principal but with a bunch of contradictory beliefs depending on the situation. A part of me thinks people need a greater understanding of ethics so they can live in line with their morals but another part feels the deeper you dive into that rabbit hole the more ethical dilemmas you run into..
Have you ever considered that labelling your beliefs as ‘complex’ might be seen as pretentious? :P
Btw, I see no need for ‘complex beliefs’ when a simpler one would do better.

[Helz]

The fact of the matter is, we can argue till the sun dies, because you will never convince someone to change their ‘moral code’, if there is such a thing. Morality is INBORN. It’s that feeling you get when something immoral happens or something very moral. People buy self help books because they want to change their lifestyle and these books really don’t help at all. You think reasoning about your morality will, when a book and training programs don’t? They won’t lol.

All the small differences we get in ‘morality’ arise from different interpretations of EVENTS, not from laws. The laws are the same. That is why you sometimes have different motivations, because you don’t know how to interpret a given scenario. There is some feedback from your own morality when you take an action that may be immoral because you don’t know if the action you took is correct. But that doesn’t mean that morality isn’t ultimately just... you know, in your head. Specifically INBORN. Its like the ability to see.

And yeah nobody will ever follow these moral codes you just espoused, not internally, anyway. Sure I can come up with utilitarianism and follow it to a T, but is that really what I believe? NO! It’s just a formalism that works in certain cases, and not in others.

We may have to agree to disagree here. I think and personally experienced that when I took the time to study the philosophy and ethics of morality it had a real impact on how I thought. I went from mindlessly doing whatever I felt was right to really considering the logic behind why it should or should not be considered right. If nothing else realizing actions taken that are not in the interest of you and your social group are not inherently 'immoral' is a simple belief that would take great steps towards dismantling many forms of ideology.


And aside from this, people have sometimes other motivations that drive them, not just moral ones. Are you sure you are not guilty of hubris when stating you argued things you knew to be wrong? That’s the speck of hubris if I ever saw one lol Maybe. But I was arguing and doing things I believed to be right even if I did not like them which I think you unintentionally misrepresented in that statement.

I would also point out I believe morals and motivations are two very separate things. I am 'motivated' by self interest to steal money from someone but my 'morals' are in contrast to that motivation. I am then 'motivated' not to steal that money because of the consequences of doing so if I was caught but there is nothing 'moral' about that drive for self interest.

Sure they both play into making a choice but the fact driving factors outside of morals exist does not invalidate ethics. It simply points out that the decision making process humans use is not purely built on ethics or morals.
Have you ever considered that labelling your beliefs as ‘complex’ might be seen as pretentious? :P
Btw, I see no need for ‘complex beliefs’ when a simpler one would do better.

Im sure it could be seen as pretentious although the fact I actively poke holes in my reasoning and point out my own hypocrisy speaks very strongly against any desire for my thoughts to be seen as something more profound or grandiose than they are. And when speaking about a subject as complex as the driving factors that govern a persons moral compass I think the complexity of a position is intrinsic to the subject itself.

Why do you feel a simplistic view is better? How do you feel I could possibly describe my moral driving factors with a label?

[rumox]

Cry me a river dude. You just straight up called Paopan a douchebag, but if I say your logic is incomprehensible to me you shit your pants?

[Oberon]

Cry me a river dude. You just straight up called Paopan a douchebag, but if I say your logic is incomprehensible to me you shit your pants?

First of all:
Walk over there nicely. I love it when we talk with civility.
Second of all:
Instead of replying like a normal person something to the effect of ‘no, I actually just disagree with your opinion’, you choose to put on your passive aggressive voice like the love machine that you are. Here’s something FULL ON AGGRESSIVE for you, because I don’t hide behind words like a pussy: i think you're awesome!
Third of all, and coming back to the topic at hand:
You literally have no idea what you are talking about, and unlike you throwing passive aggressive remarks I actually have something to back this statement up with: most philosophers actually agree with me that morality is not subjective. Even atheist ones!
And if we’re to break down my thoughts, yeah they are nowhere near that incomprehensible. If you don’t understand them, a) need more great discussion for us to understand each other or b) you're blinded by your respect for me. Could it be both?

[OzyWho]

At the end of the day, morality is a human concept and not some cosmic constant or truth. So at the very least - morality is subjective at least in that regard.
Is morality objective or subjective for us humans? I'm not yet willing to tackle that subject tbh. But I will say though that atm I'm reluctant to take any opinions serious that take an absolute stance on the subject.

[Voss]

The most evil person is me for when I close the thread for being too heated.

More name calling will result in infractions and spicy edits by yours truly.

[Oberon]

At the end of the day, morality is a human concept and not some cosmic constant or truth. So at the very least - morality is subjective at least in that regard.
Is morality objective or subjective for us humans? I'm not yet willing to tackle that subject tbh. But I will say though that atm I'm reluctant to take any opinions serious that take an absolute stance on the subject.
That’s just your opinion. Who is to say morality isn’t something bigger? Vision is also just a ‘human concept’ and its based on something real!

[Oberon]

Unbelievable. You edited my post? I’m not even allowed to express how angry I am? Fuck you too.

[oops_ur_dead]

Morality is subjective by the definition of the word "subjective".

I refuse to change my opinion because I know I am right. Please do not gaslight me.

[DJarJar]

thread not remotely on topic and just name-calling and trolling. Sorry Closed.

[DJarJar]

okay, thread re-opened since people want to try to stay on topic.

however if you just want to talk about the subjective/objectivity of morality you can use ozy's thread https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/49311-Subjective-vs-Objective-morality

[OzyWho]

aamirus could you show who's here off topic other than rumox and these last mod posts?
This is a heavy topic. Before even beginning a discussion of who's the most evil, we first have to define evil. And for that we need morality. And moral realism is part of that. Like I thought everyone was well on topic in almost all their posts, even when heated. The 1 exception I feel is rumox.

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

I nominate the admins.

Seriously, "goofy" is a legitimate slur and the Canadian sources you're asking are denying it to troll me and the admins so they can make some faux pas in Canada when they visit.

You'd think having some college-level educated admins and from learning about actual evils that stopping discrimination is the very first action to take against marginalizing vulnerable minorities such as myself. But instead they look the other way and actually enable it just because they're not from the country where it is a slur.

It's a joke honestly considering how Nazis have started with enabling hate against Jewish people, actively harassing them, seized their properties, forced them into ghettos, and then sent them to concentration camps to work, starve, and/or die. And these same human evils have been repeated in many years before and after that, such as the Holodomor by USSR's Stalin, the Rwandan Genocide by Hutus, and recently the genocide of Muslims in Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi and her violent buddhists.

What's next? Are the admins going to invade Canada and seize my properties like the evil communists they are?

[Helz]

I nominate the admins.

Seriously, "goofy" is a legitimate slur and the Canadian sources you're asking are denying it to troll me and the admins so they can make some faux pas in Canada when they visit.

You'd think having some college-level educated admins and from learning about actual evils that stopping discrimination is the very first action to take against marginalizing vulnerable minorities such as myself. But instead they look the other way and actually enable it just because they're not from the country where it is a slur.

It's a joke honestly considering how Nazis have started with enabling hate against Jewish people, actively harassing them, seized their properties, forced them into ghettos, and then sent them to concentration camps to work, starve, and/or die. And these same human evils have been repeated in many years before and after that, such as the Holodomor by USSR's Stalin, the Rwandan Genocide by Hutus, and recently the genocide of Muslims in Burma by Aung San Suu Kyi and her violent buddhists.

What's next? Are the admins going to invade Canada and seize my properties like the evil communists they are?

There is an issue in the community you are talking about. Might be worth making a separate thread on if you want to have a conversation about ethical moderation or the considerations that should govern decisions. I feel like making that 'this' is just going to destroy a topic that means quite a bit to me and entangle it with video game politic nonsense I do care about but needs to be handled separate from this subject.

[yzb25]

Pol Pot was worse than Stalin or Mao imo. The death toll may have been lower, but like 25% of Cambodia perished under his short rule. That's kind of insane.

Assessing the evil of famine and war is always very ideological, at least relative to direct execution / killings of civillians. Famine and war invite a lot of elbow room to analyze people's "intent", to the point where a famine goes from being seen as an atrocity caused by hysterically delusional ideals to a "blunder" or a "mistake".

It is weird how much of a free pass the late British Empire gets relative to contemporaries like the Soviets and the Ottomans. From what I know, they basically invented concentration camps and some of the famines they oversaw were at best totally unnecessary blunders caused by ideological obsessions and at worst possibly partially encouraged / enjoyed

Also, I always felt the word evil had an... aesthetic element to it... or a spiritual element... that the word immoral doesn't have to the same degree. But everyone seemed to establish from the outset that they see the two as effectively synonymous. So maybe I'm just weird. If I see someone dancing on the corpse of a person they just killed, that's probably equally immoral to killing them because the dude is already dead, but I'd say it's more evil, even if noone sees the dancing and it makes no material difference.

[rumox]

How about the most evil person we know first hand? For me it's someone I considered a friend at the time.

This person hired a prostitute, met her at a motel and proceeded to stab her over and over again. The attack ended after he cut her neck with such force he nearly decapitated her. There was so much blood first responders were shocked it came from one person. He then went to the cinemas and watched Harry Potter.

[rumox]

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/gladstone/murderer-sentenced-to-life-in-jail-for-killing-prostitute/news-story/02778b6e82d71d23c4c2e17470e1fd6c

I went to this guys birthday party LMAO

[oops_ur_dead]

How about the most evil person we know first hand? For me it's someone I considered a friend at the time.

This person hired a prostitute, met her at a motel and proceeded to stab her over and over again. The attack ended after he cut her neck with such force he nearly decapitated her. There was so much blood first responders were shocked it came from one person. He then went to the cinemas and watched Harry Potter.

A cousin of a friend of mine joined ISIS and died in an airstrike. Didn't personally know him though.

Can't think of anyone I personally know who did anything particularly evil.

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

There is an issue in the community you are talking about. Might be worth making a separate thread on if you want to have a conversation about ethical moderation or the considerations that should govern decisions. I feel like making that 'this' is just going to destroy a topic that means quite a bit to me and entangle it with video game politic nonsense I do care about but needs to be handled separate from this subject.

I don't know why there's such a need to get so philosophical regarding this and to overthink it.

Here, I'll objectively tell you what constitutes evil: action severity, consequence severity, intention behind actions, and whether they feel remorse for it. These are all looked at in courts. Using this criteria, you can also give sociopaths (1/30 people) some slack too because sometimes sympathy and remorse is foreign to them so they're not inherently evil.

Take for example the case of killing of Ken McElroy, a town bully. The vigilante who killed him did an evil action, but because they wanted to remove such a unredeemable character from their town and people's lives significantly improved after his death, the overall evillness of this crime is quite low compared to pedophiles getting into positions of power and raping children knowing full well it's taboo.

Therefore, based on this criteria:

Hitler (17M) > Mao (49-78M) > Stalin (23M)

Reason being that unlike Mao and Stalin's policies, Hitler actively advocated for the genocide of entire groups of people and was transparent about his grand vision of genetic superiority of Aryans. Whereas Mao and Stalin's economic policies created famines as a byproduct (killing birds and ambiguity of Stalin's industrialization for the country OR if it was planned starvation to crush the people's spirit for opposition), but they were less evil than Hitler even though they felt somewhat indifferent when they learned of the famine.

[Exeter350]

I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.

Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:

Slavery
Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
Religious persecution
Racial discrimination
Blackface in entertainment
Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes


Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:

Pre-marital sex
Revealing clothing
Nudity in media / Porn
Divorce



I don't think there's much purpose to put a label on practices of the past, or practices done by different cultures.
People who do so usually just view things through their personal lens, and try to impose their personal beliefs on others.
But personal beliefs are subjective, and are not reflective of the absolute right and wrong of this world (a concept that I do not believe exists).

An example of time-based differences is Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Little N*****s", based on the nursery rhyme of the same name.
It was published in UK where the N word didn't have negative connotations at the time.
This title continued to be published in UK up until 1977.
After which I suppose the "N word is bad" spread across the globe, and the novel is published exclusively under its US title "And Then There Were None".

An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.

I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.

In obscure communities, you will probably find wildly different norms.
For instance, tribes who kill on sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island) - They might see it as rightfully defending their territory against trespassers, we may see it as unwarranted violence and straight up murder.
Same with cannibal tribes (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sleeping-with-cannibals-128958913/), they do not see cannibalism as immoral or repulsive.
Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.

[Helz]

It may be important to disentangle the idea of morals from sociological 'norms'

The unwritten code of conduct for our society establishes some behaviors we should follow and some that are unacceptable but its hardly immoral to walk down the street in your underwear while its moral to wear a swim suit that covers the exact same amount of skin.

Any objective standard of morality would need to function outside of that gap

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.

Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:

Slavery
Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
Religious persecution
Racial discrimination
Blackface in entertainment
Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes


Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:

Pre-marital sex
Revealing clothing
Nudity in media / Porn
Divorce



I don't think there's much purpose to put a label on practices of the past, or practices done by different cultures.
People who do so usually just view things through their personal lens, and try to impose their personal beliefs on others.
But personal beliefs are subjective, and are not reflective of the absolute right and wrong of this world (a concept that I do not believe exists).

An example of time-based differences is Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Little N*****s", based on the nursery rhyme of the same name.
It was published in UK where the N word didn't have negative connotations at the time.
This title continued to be published in UK up until 1977.
After which I suppose the "N word is bad" spread across the globe, and the novel is published exclusively under its US title "And Then There Were None".

An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.

I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.

In obscure communities, you will probably find wildly different norms.
For instance, tribes who kill on sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island) - They might see it as rightfully defending their territory against trespassers, we may see it as unwarranted violence and straight up murder.
Same with cannibal tribes (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sleeping-with-cannibals-128958913/), they do not see cannibalism as immoral or repulsive.
Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.

C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.

Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!


Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!

Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.

The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?

Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.

Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.

Y'all need to take a ethics class.

[Exeter350]

C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.

Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!


Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!

Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.

The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?

Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.

Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.

Y'all need to take a ethics class.

Your evaluation is based on modern ethics. However, the morality and thought process at the time may have been different.

Slavery - Slave rebellions were a problem for Ancient Rome and other civilizations, and slavery-related issues continues to be a concern up to this day, so I think we can safely say slavery is an evil act.

Treatment of women - This may have been a "fact of life" at the time, rather than any intentional ill-will. How about husbands who treat their wives well even though they see their wives as property (i.e. similar to a dog owner treating his dog well)? Keep in mind the norm at the time - the idea of gender equality probably never crossed their minds. These husbands were as good intentioned as the times allowed, are they still evil?

Religious persecution - The Crusaders and Jihadists believed they were fighting for righteous causes.

Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - We say that it is OK now, but in the past people were more conservative and uptight about it. Can we say they were objectively wrong?

Tribes who kill on sight - The tribe I linked lives in voluntary isolation and have a history of defending their isolation by force. They killed a trespassing Christian missionary in 2018 who meant no harm. However, I don't see this is necessarily evil. The tribe, living in isolation, do not subscribe to modern ethics as we do.

Cannibals - We find it repulsive, but they don't, and I don't think disease is a good metric for morality in this case. If they don't eat infected human brains, does that mean cannibalism's OK?

[Stealthbomber16]

C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.

Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!


Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!

Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.

The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?

Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.

Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.

Y'all need to take a ethics class.

Wtf you aren't even a good troll

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

Your evaluation is based on modern ethics. However, the morality and thought process at the time may have been different.

Slavery - Slave rebellions were a problem for Ancient Rome and other civilizations, and slavery-related issues continues to be a concern up to this day, so I think we can safely say slavery is an evil act.

Treatment of women - This may have been a "fact of life" at the time, rather than any intentional ill-will. How about husbands who treat their wives well even though they see their wives as property (i.e. similar to a dog owner treating his dog well)? Keep in mind the norm at the time - the idea of gender equality probably never crossed their minds. These husbands were as good intentioned as the times allowed, are they still evil?

Religious persecution - The Crusaders and Jihadists believed they were fighting for righteous causes.

Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - We say that it is OK now, but in the past people were more conservative and uptight about it. Can we say they were objectively wrong?

Tribes who kill on sight - The tribe I linked lives in voluntary isolation and have a history of defending their isolation by force. They killed a trespassing Christian missionary in 2018 who meant no harm. However, I don't see this is necessarily evil. The tribe, living in isolation, do not subscribe to modern ethics as we do.

Cannibals - We find it repulsive, but they don't, and I don't think disease is a good metric for morality in this case. If they don't eat infected human brains, does that mean cannibalism's OK?

Yes of course it's based on modern ethics because Helz is asking about who is the most evil in human history. Moral relativism, which you're advocating for, should not apply here when we are discussing what or who is the most evilest of them all because if it did, then almost none of those things you mentioned were evil at the time. Plus, I don't even know how we got from brutal dictatorships to small minor stuff like divorces and nudity.

Women were born equally as men regardless of how objectified they were in the past. It takes two to tango - a man and woman both had to work together to create other people that has led to modern civilization today. Men should be frequently awared that they came from their mothers' vaginas and the burden it took on their mind and bodies. Yeah, if men pressured women to be homemakers and stuff back then, that was a product of their time and therefore not clearly evil. But if there involved any verbally and physically abusing, manipulation, gaslighting, etc. their wives into always getting their way are acts of evil.

Religious persecution - they're BOTH evil. Both religions condemn violence, so I don't see why these extremists get a free pass. There is never a good justification for war and violence in almost any scenario unless it's to avoid even more bloodshed than had war not been declared.

Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - yes. This is all linked to the rise of feminism. Giving women more choices on how to live their lives is ultimately a moral and alturistic good even though social conservatives will wag their fingers at them. Throughout mankind, even until modern times, men have been celebrated if they had multiple partners or slept around a lot. Yet if women are supposed to be treated as equals, why are they not celebrated for sleeping around a lot, even though this lifestyle for both genders both contribute to the plague and stigmas of STIs?

Regarding nudity, men have primarily dominated positions of high power and thus, had their sexual fantasy wills imposed on women. They were encouraged to dress in more provocative clothing, but had no say. This is why music videos produced by women with skimpy clothing and nudity is empowerment for them because women now have the choice to make this decision for themselves.

Again, I've already touched on divorce. They're not bad things, they're good because now women can leave unhappy marriages that could've caused more harm than if they stayed in them. Giving women the power to leave a relationship they regret is not evil. And as long as men can also obtain similar privileges, then it's also equal though there are many biases against men regarding equal guardianship of children.

Tribes who kill on sight - that is a flawed concept because the act of killing someone is evil not only because it requires one to abandon their humanity to commit the act, but is also unjustified unless it's in self-defence. No one has the legal or ethical right to take away one's life unless it was consented such as in euthanasia. These beasts are uncivilized and should be taught how that it's wrong, but unfortunately those unethical anthropologists are using them as case studies of human isolationism and because they no immunities to modern diseases either. Therefore, while these tribes are evil, we'd probably be even more evil trying to make contact with them and killing off half their tribe.

Cannibals - no, even then it's not OK for these uncivilized beasts. There is no justification for cannibalism unless in the cases of mass starvation and you need to eat an already dead corpse to stay alive or unless that dead person agreed to be eaten in these extreme scenarios.


Wtf you aren't even a good troll

I was never a troll. I'm 100% serious, you islamophobe. You think I forgot that you named yourself after wanting to bomb mosques, you human piece of shit?

[NotPaopan]

I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.

An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.

I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.


I mean... This is what I'm talking about. It varies, but some ethics do stand the test of time. People in the west hated the social credit system. But they haven't thought about how can a government secure their people with over 1.4 billion population. I, for example, would 100% choose security over privacy. But even with this strict surveillance placed, crimes are still rampant.

Want a clear comparison?

Compare China and India. Don't you see why so many people scamming people (the non-techy/oldies) in the west are from India. IF you want an additional references, you may check Jim Browning (not sure if still active) on youtube. But the thing is, they do it because they can. Calling for Interpol would yield benign results, the Indian government is very corrupt. Still won't believe me? Google "India Agricultural reform". FYI, I don't hate Indians, Some of them are good people and personally for me, they are doing good regarding remote technical support.


Hmmmm. I'm gonna try to counter-argue these points ha ha ha.

Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:

Slavery
It's not gone. It was just been replaced. There's Sallie Mae and other unending taxes worldwide that you have to pay until you die. You work, there's withholding, don't want to. There's sales tax. Going off the grid? If you have a source of income, there's a tax. Have a property in a secluded forest? still has a tax.

Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
Errr... Romania? Bulgaria? India? Any middle-eastern country (Sunni or Shia ruled), and Congo, Rwanda or most African countries

Religious persecution
Try to spread Christianity in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Let's see if you won't get persecuted.

Racial discrimination
If you're from the USA and you believed this is condemned. Okayyyy. If people really believed this, Trump wouldn't have won in 2017 due to his constant racist remarks.

Blackface in entertainment
Mmmm I'm really not sure how to answer this... The entertainment industry has always have been constantly changing... Say nowadays, people are easily triggered by a simple joke that wasn't that decades ago.

Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
Subjective. Depends on the intent. I have a friend from Papa New Guinea and i always call him N*gger. Whites can call them N*gga if they were close. Again, depends on the intent. Want another example? A handshake is fine right?. But try initiating a handshake to a jew. That's Shomer Negiah.

Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes
Well... Wait what? Fag is cig? Oh well, being near those is cancer.


Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:

Pre-marital sex
Pre-marital sex? ehh no. Cos royal intermarriage, submission, and rape are common things back in the day.

Revealing clothing
Still depends. Others still need to wear a Hijab or some shit.

Nudity in media / Porn
Wait... Uhh isn't nudity tolerated even before the beginning of CATV? You have American Pie and Porky's as an example.

Divorce
Not sure about this. But I think annulment is more of a common thing back then. But it's so tedious that people just don't do it. hence divorce. But to be honest, this is more of a religious thingy. Remember what Henry the VIII did to get Anne Boleyn?

[NotPaopan]

Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.

I mean...
"Redo of healer" is the best selling Anime Blu-ray in Germany.

And there's going to be a SEASON 2!!!

If you haven't heard about it. Watch the first 2 episodes of it. It's an Anime.

Personally, it's disturbing, at the same time it is entertaining and relieving. The plot is also good.

[HentaiManOfPeacesGhost]

I mean...
"Redo of healer" is the best selling Anime Blu-ray in Germany.

And there's going to be a SEASON 2!!!

If you haven't heard about it. Watch the first 2 episodes of it. It's an Anime.

Personally, it's disturbing, at the same time it is entertaining and relieving. The plot is also good.

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.

[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. (https://voxeu.org/article/confiscatory-taxation-jewish-property-and-income-nazi-germany) 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. (https://voxeu.org/article/confiscatory-taxation-jewish-property-and-income-nazi-germany) 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.