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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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)_/¯

[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

[Oberon]

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

[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.

[NotPaopan]

Ender Wiggin

[OzyWho]

Ender Wiggin

He had no way of knowing what he was doing!

[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?

[DJarJar]

Ender Wiggin

nah bean was worse

[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

[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/showt...l=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?

[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

[OzyWho]

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

Nice

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[rumox]

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

[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

[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.

[Stealthbomber16]

@Arsonist

[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.

[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.

[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]

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