Do you believe that "Evil" should be destroyed?

[rpgamerd00d]

Ground rules for this thread:

1) You can't debate what "is" and what "isn't" Evil. The discussion begins with the assumption that there is an identifiable "Evil", its clear and unambiguous, and you're facing it.

2) "Destroyed" means physically. As in, death. As in, killed. As in, taking a life. No pseudo-conceptual "destruction" such as "brainwashing" or "realigning their philosophy" or "reeducation". I mean kill.

Discuss.

[rpgamerd00d]

1. Ill go first.. Yes.

[annabanana]

2. spoken as a true "rpgamer"

And the question?. . Askable only in a pixilated world.

[Bonobo]

3. Stupid thread...sorry someone had to tell you.

On an open discussion board, it does little good to so narrowly define the parameters of the conversation as to "steer" it in the direction that you feel you are comfortable discussing.

So... there is no "evil" and there is no "death". There you go.

[notadmblnd]

4. No

if there were no evil, there could not be good. Keeping evil in check or under control is another argument, but destroyed? Besides if we were to look at it from a religious point of view... God created evil just as he created good, so in my opinion, it's up to god to destroy evil.

[rpgamerd00d]

5. Interesting.

So, as long as good and evil are in balance, you're ok with Evil living.

What if Evil starts to dominate a little? Can you kill some then?

[notadmblnd]

21. That's what we're all here trying to do now, isn't it?

get this evil little emperor and his minions in check?

[bluerum]

6. The definition provided is immoral and unethical. No. nt.

[rpgamerd00d]

7. I don't understand your post.

There was nothing in the original post that presented any opinions, therefore nothing in it could be seen as immoral or unethical.

Maybe you could elaborate.

[bluerum]

25. Unethical in that evil is not a simple concept. Evil for you may be

nirvana for someone else. And to demand that everyone sees evil as you see it is preposterous, and unethical.

There are alternate belief systems. Trying to maintain the position that the concept of "pure evil" exists is an exercise in self-negation. Your evil exists in your own mind.

Similarly, you cannot kill or destroy evil by killing people or destroying things. This is the immorality of what you proposed.

I am not saying that evil does not exist, only that what you had proposed in the OP is in my mind, extraordinarily barbaric.

[rpgamerd00d]

26. Ahh, you so took my post as a reference to Evilness itself.

In other words, your reply is that Evilness is a concept, and one can't kill a concept physically.

OK, I understand that.

What if a person was absolutely evil? I mean no doubt, no subjective vs objective analysis. Just hell-bent, murderous, raping, pillaging, destroying, rampaging all over the earth destroying everything in their path evil person.

Would you kill them?

[Jim Warren]

35. Ahh, here you're getting a bit more specific

You are referring to the violence of a sociopath.

[rpgamerd00d]

36. That was just an example.

If you substitute any other concept of evil, the answer should remain the same.

[bluerum]

44. I would ask you to do the honors!

:evilgrin:

How would killing the evil person wipe out all the evil that had be done by the evil person?

As an aside - how does an evil person like this come into being?

[rpgamerd00d]

45. It doesn't wipe out the evil that had been done.

It prevents further evil from occuring.

[bluerum]

46. No - it does not prevent further evil. Maybe the actions of this one

person have been stopped. I say maybe, because the evil person may have instilled anger and hatred in others that would drive them on to similar evilness.

But evil, in all it's variants will still exist.

You can't kill evil.

[rpgamerd00d]

47. So, do you believe that you can't fight Evil at all?

Or just that killing it isn't the way to "destroy" it?
Is there some other method you would use to "destroy" Evil ?

[bluerum]

49. Evil and good are two sides of the same coin. You will never be

able to eliminate them because they are simply a matter of perception and circumstance.

I do not think that evil is something embodied in and by others or in and by things. It is not a characteristic of something. It is a quality that the mind superimposes over perception and experience.

Having said that, societies and cultures deal with destructive/threatening individuals and circumstances in their own way. Incarceration, execution, rehabilitation, etc. There are times when something must be destroyed or transformed in order to preserve a greater good.

On a larger scale, war, is simply admitting that your diplomatic and political efforts have failed. It is easy to shoot something. Creating lasting meaningful solutions is hard.

[stillcool]

8. No.

because you can't kill everyone. I face a clear, unambiguous evil everywhere...sometimes in the mirror.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Most mass murderers believe(d) they were destroying "evil".

Hitler and his minions believed that they were destroying the "evil" of "Jewish Bolshivism".

Stalin believed he was killing "evil" counter-revolutionaries.

Pol-pot believed he was killing "corrupt intellectuals".

LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, all believed they were destroying "evil" communists.

Bush believes that he is destroying "evil" "Islamofascists".

Killing is evil.

[Mist]

10. It's been said that the most seductive idea throughout human history

is the idea of killing evil. Evil keeps rearing it's head. That said, if you mean "killing someone doing something evil like raping a six-year-old", well, yeah.

[personman]

11. Not a rational question. nt

[Ian David]

12. I'm adding the following material as background for the debate

Review: Michael Shermer. 2004. The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule. New York: Times Books. 350 pp.

"The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14's moral indictment against atheism is presented self-servingly, overbroadly, melodramatically, and without a single shred of logical or empirical support--in other words, exactly the way monotheists prefer to hear it.

But today, in stark and refreshing contrast, we have popular authors like Michael Shermer--psychologist, science historian, publisher of Skeptic magazine, and monthly columnist for Scientific American--who recognize that moral issues, like all others, must be subjected to rational scrutiny.

Drawing from history, anthropology, science, and common sense in the finest tradition of intellectual eclecticism, Shermer adeptly demonstrates that ethics originate from neither gods nor religion, but rather from the same source as humanity itself--evolution. Religion, in its time, was partially successful in identifying universal moral and immoral thoughts and behaviors, and it may have been the first social institution to canonize moral principles, but despite the allegations of monotheists, it was hardly responsible for their genesis.

We evolved as a social primate, according to Shermer, "with an ascending hierarchy of needs from self-survival of the individual (basic biological needs), to the extension of the individual through the family (the selfish gene), to a sense of bonding with the extended family (driven by kin selection helping those most related to us), to the reciprocal altruism of the community (direct and obvious payback for good behaviors), to indirect altruism of society (doing good without direct payback), to species altruism and bioaltruism as awareness of our membership in the species and biosphere continue to develop" (20).

Moral sentiments and behaviors developed over hundreds of thousands of years. Our Paleolithic ancestors initiated the process that we inherited, our obligation being to "fine-tune and tweak" such sentiments according to our cultural preferences and unique historical context. "In this sense," Shermer argues, tossing a bone to pups with a craving for transcendence, "moral sentiments and behaviors exist beyond us, as products of an impersonal force called evolution" (19).

More:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kenneth_krause/shermer.html

[rpgamerd00d]

14. Excellent article, thanks.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. There is no such thing as Evil embodied, and even if there were,

as in the form of a traditional devil, you couldn't kill it. So your question makes no sense outside the world of RPG, anime, and manga. (You really need to get out more. :-) )

There are only people who have given themselve over to evil means to achieve their goals, evil or otherwise.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. Absosmurfley!

If confronted with that sort of clear and unambiguous evil, I'd plunge a dagger in its heart without a second thought.

[Avalux]

16. In your scenario, Evil would be in a concrete form that could be killed.

So debating whether or not evil should be killed, I'd have to know what exactly is the definition of this Evil, and who exactly has defined it? Can it be proven that it is truly Evil?

You're asking me to think and make decisions in a very narrow-minded manner. Can't do it.

[Marr]

17. You may as well be asking if we should leave cookies out for Santa Claus.

If you begin with the assumption that Santa is visiting you, and refuse to debate whether or not that is indeed true, then you've so rigged the debate that you can only get the answer you want. Even a rational adult would have to say, "yes, we should leave him cookies".

Your first assumption is the actual question. Evil isn't some objective thing-- it's a matter of interpretation. That's the whole point.

[haele]

18. It's rather difficult to understand without a little more clarification -

Are we talking about "in your face ready to destroy your life right now" evil or a concept that is more remote or more emotionally defined? Is the evil something that is directly controllable by you, or is it something that you require, say, legal assistance to control?

If faced with something that is a direct evil to me and mine, say, a unreliable car that is bleeding money from the family budget, a hateful, back-stabbing co-worker, soul-less dictators, zombies taking over the world, or surly teenagers who think that they know it all and should be allowed to do whatever they want, yeah, at some level deep inside me, I would probably want to see them destroyed. Mainly because I don't want to or like to deal pragmatically with any of them. But, that doesn't mean I can or should destroy them when given a chance...
I have found that in life, just destroying what is seen as an outside "evil" in my life is no more effective than bailing water out of a rowboat during a rainstorm. Evil is constant and all around. The only evils that can actually be destroyed is the evil that is inside any individual - and only then, by the individual itself.

Often, people see a situation is bad enough to be considered "evil" when faced with what they consider a manifestation of an inner evil within them.
Like, say, an addiction to drugs. An apparently irresponsible, drug addicted parent is an evil to be destroyed rather than treated, because many people personalize and project what it would take for them to become addictive onto that other person.
Look at Prohibition, the war against the "Evil Alcohol". Many people were for Prohibition because they were afraid of the affects of irresponsible alcohol use, and decided to punish the innocent along with the guilty instead of looking at ways to encourage responsible alcohol use and discourage abuse.
Look at the Death Penalty. The death penalty is a similar manifestation of projected fear or hate. It has not been proven to be a deterrent to deviant or selfish behavior, it is basically a form of ritualized institutional vengeance that in many cases has very little to do with justice. When stripped of the ritual aura, Vengeance is never pragmatic, and actually accomplishes very little in the way of positive resolution to a problem.
Vengeance simplifies a situation into "black and white" and never presents a way of keeping that situation from occurring again. It is a form of personal instant gratification, but does not address underlying emotions or actually fix anything that was broken or destroyed by the person or object that the vengeance is being met upon. Pursuing vengeance will often create more victims during the pursuit than were originally created by the "crime". Does this not make the pursuit of destroying evil an evil in itself?

Other evils in the world are tools and processes used by others - items such as land-mines, nuclear weapons, Hummers, puppy mills, crystal meth, et all. These tools began as supposedly "good" - defensive or protective devices developed for specific purposes, home economic projects working with much-loved creatures, chemicals and drugs developed for specific conditions.
These tools became evil when abused by other people with ulterior motives or social agendas. Are the tools themselves evil, or have they been warped into something evil?

After all this discussion, my vote would have to be "no", I would not "Destroy" evil except in direct self-defense.
IMO, defining, refining, and mitigating evil is far more effective to be just in this world. One person's evil is usually another's non-issue - what defines a balance between an evil and, say, "just making due"?

Haele

[rpgamerd00d]

20. Great post.

[SmokingJacket]

19. Unfortunately your ground rules make answers impossible. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

22. True evil? Yes.

True evil is by definition a focused intent to harm someone or everyone. In that case it becomes a matter of self-defense.

True evil rarely exists.

[madmusic]

23. Throughout history, the greatest evil was always the zealots...

... out to destroy evil. The Crusades, the witch hunts, the Inquisition, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, you name it. All these evil fighters make the worst criminal look like Mary Poppins. And all of them had devoted followers, the good people.

[rpgamerd00d]

24. So, is that a "no" then?

[Jim Warren]

27. Oh silly thinker of binary logic

Evil is what we do, not what we suffer.

[rpgamerd00d]

28. Ok, but that doesn't answer the question.

If something/someone evil is directly in front of you, and you have the option to destroy it, do you?

[Jim Warren]

29. Given my reply you are responding to

what does "something/someone evil" mean?

[rpgamerd00d]

30. Someone who "does" Evil things.

Since you said "its what we do".

[Jim Warren]

32. So you are wondering if

you need to punish yourself then.

[rpgamerd00d]

34. Exclude yourself from consideration.

Do you destroy an external evil that you perceive?

[Jim Warren]

37. So, by excluding myself

or you excluding yourself for example......would that mean this evil is not
what we do but what we suffer?

[rpgamerd00d]

39. Evil exists outside ourselves.

Because evil exists within each person, therefore another person can be evil.

The question is, if you encounter another person (not yourself) and that person is evil, would you destroy (kill) them?
Then, think of it less as a person, and more as an object, or even concept, and see if your answer remains the same.

This is not a question of practical reality, its a psych test of sorts.

[Jim Warren]

40. Sorry then

You seem, in being determined to make your point, to be missing mine.

Good luck on the crusade.

[leftofthedial]

31. no

that is an absurdity

without "good" there can be no "evil."

withoug "evil" there can be no "good."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

33. How do you destroy evil

without becoming evil in the process? And upon becoming evil, do you destroy evil, or start justifying your own existence?

It makes my brain hurt. Maybe I'll just roll an evil joint and destroy it by fire.

[jus_the_facts]

38. !

[Jack Rabbit]

41. Let's ask Captain Ahab about it.

Classics Central

There is something magnificent and noble about the idea, but it is ultimately doomed to failure.

Evil is an abstraction, an idea. It is intangible. No matter how it is personified, it cannot be destroyed.

[mondo obscurius]

42. killing makes sense only if

The choice to kill only makes sense if you don't have all the facts. Follow out the thread of "evil" far enough and you'll discover finally it's attached to your own little ass end.

And that's a fact.

mo

[rpgamerd00d]

43. That makes no sense.

[mondo obscurius]

52. May you live long

Hopefully when you're older this will make more sense. Someday you may be lucky enough to get an unobstructed glimpse of your own backside and live to tell about it.

Not everyone is so lucky.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Why, yes, and while we're at it, I want magnets to have only a North pole. -nt

[porphyrian]

50. Your first rule makes the conversation meaningless.

"Evil" isn't clearly and unambiguously identifiable. It's a relative term, not a universal one. With your rules, we're just writing a story.

[sweetheart]

51. The fundamental problem in this world...

'..is the failure of people to stay at home.'

After 6 years of crusaders destroying, there could be another way of organizing societal dialectic,
the canard that its always a conflict with somebody to the death somewhere.

[w4rma]

53. No. Evil is an idea. You can only deter evil by making it unpopular. (nt)

[Lilith Velkor]

54. Killing is killing, whether it's for duty, for profit or for fun.

:shrug: