Who is the Most Evil

[Guest Ruinus]

Oh. My. God. You are STILL not getting what I am saying. I wholeheartedly agree that *insensitivity* is a bad thing, but people back then obviously didn't think so, and my moralistic beliefs are no more sound than theirs are.

 

Yes it is. Because not only do you know r ape is wrong, but you live and support a society that does not tolerate it. Current day morality is superior to the one used in the past.

[Guest force_echo]

Yes it is. Because not only do you know r ape is wrong, but you live and support a society that does not tolerate it. Current day morality is superior to the one used in the past.

How? Exactly, it isn't. They're humans, I'm human, its no difference.

[Guest sirmethos]

Again, who the hell cares what the society thinks if acceptable or not?

 

Again, is the ra pe not:

unnecessary

violent

unwanted

can lead to severe complications? STDs and pregnancy

 

Seriously, how is this so hard? The action, no matter the society, is a basic violation of human rights, violates the person's sense of freedom, can cause physical and psyhological scars and is an unnecessary act of violence against another human being. I mean really, it's acceptable because the people at the time were too stupid to realize what they were doing?

 

the 'human rights', you're talking about, is a list of rules that have been written by humans, ie. the fact that all humans have those rights is a Subjective point of view, thus they should have no impact, whatsoever, in a debate about whether 'evil' is objective or not, infact, using the 'human rights' as an argument, is a good point towards the fact that evil is Subjective.

 

 

but lets stick with the idea of 'human rights' for a moment, since we have written laws that declare that humans have certain basic rights, and violating those rights is evil.

 

wouldn't r ape, or slavery, among animals be evil as well? after all, we have written 'animal rights' as well, and have laws against cruelty towards animals.

[Guest God-Speed_88]

My choice would be Stephen Kings It.

[Guest Ruinus]

the 'human rights', you're talking about, is a list of rules that have been written by humans, ie. the fact that all humans have those rights is a Subjective point of view, thus they should have no impact, whatsoever, in a debate about whether 'evil' is objective or not, infact, using the 'human rights' as an argument, is a good point towards the fact that evil is Subjective.

 

Mankind making morals doesn't mean morals can't be objective. All humans everywhere can agree that they would not like r ape, slavery and murder forced upon them. Not only that, but those three have objective results that you can look up anywhere at any time (slavery leads to violent revolutions more often than peaceful ones, r ape leads to several medical and psychological issues and other things, and murder removes an able bodies person from the workforce (among the basic thing of it terminating a person's life).

 

Mind, I'm not saying that morality is objective in the sense that there is some higher being or power that makes rules. I'm saying some acts are objectively wrong in that you can see their results and they are always in the negatives unless under very contrived situations.

 

Or, basically you can sum up my line of thinking like this.

 

What are the benefits of r ape, and how is it helpful to society? Answer: none. (Unless you can show otherwise, in which case, I'd be very surprised.

 

Hence, r ape has no benefit or upside. It is purely a harmful act. That means that it is, in and of itself, a harmful/evil/wrong act. That someone might have been brought up to view it as an acceptable thing matters not, in the same way that someone saying 1+1=7 in China is also wrong.

 

but lets stick with the idea of 'human rights' for a moment, since we have written laws that declare that humans have certain basic rights, and violating those rights is evil.

 

wouldn't r ape, or slavery, among animals be evil as well? after all, we have written 'animal rights' as well, and have laws against cruelty towards animals.

 

No, because those rights are in our interaction with animals, how we should treat animals, not how animals are supposed to treat each other. Again, animals are amoral, they don't have the mental capabilities to find other methods of food, reproduction, etc.

[Guest sirmethos]

No, because those rights are in our interaction with animals, how we should treat animals, not how animals are supposed to treat each other. Again, animals are amoral, they don't have the mental capabilities to find other methods of food, reproduction, etc.

 

wait a minute...(i'll get back to your other points later, but i'm about to head to bed)

 

what you're saying is, that since animals are incapable of knowing right from wrong, incapable of seeing that what they're doing is 'evil', thus they are incapable of being evil?

 

 

does that mean then, that there are some humans who are also incapable of being evil?

 

i mean, there are some psychological disorders that causes the 'victim' to be amoral, incapable of feeling guilt or remorse, and/or incapable of differentiating right from wrong.

 

likewise, the victims of mental retardation can also be incapable of knowing right from wrong, and are essentially without morals.

 

 

by your definition on why animals are incapable of being 'evil', there are also a lot of humans that would go under the same category.

[Guest Ruinus]

wait a minute...(i'll get back to your other points later, but i'm about to head to bed)

 

what you're saying is, that since animals are incapable of knowing right from wrong, incapable of seeing that what they're doing is 'evil', thus they are incapable of being evil?

 

 

does that mean then, that there are some humans who are also incapable of being evil?

 

i mean, there are some psychological disorders that causes the 'victim' to be amoral, incapable of feeling guilt or remorse, and/or incapable of differentiating right from wrong.

 

likewise, the victims of mental retardation can also be incapable of knowing right from wrong, and are essentially without morals.

 

by your definition on why animals are incapable of being 'evil', there are also a lot of humans that would go under the same category.

 

Sure. If they honestly have some mental defficiency (is that the right word?) then yes, they are also amoral. Similar to how they cannot make sound legal decisions (and require a guardian to do so for them), or the like. They can still do evil acts (like... I dunno. Maybe one of them accidentally shoots someone? I dunno how that could possibly happen, but whatever), but they themselves have no responsibility. They'd be as responsible as a tree falling on a man and killing him.

 

We're talking about people like Terri Schaivo or similar right? That's what I'm picturing.

 

However, for those with the disorders you mention where they cannot "tell" the difference between right and wrong, ie cannot see why, say, stabbing someone is "bad",they can still be told by others or they simply lack empathy, but are otherwise "normal" people, then even if they themselves cannot process the information they can still read and hear what other people tell them no? They can still break the law, and be punished, albiet (IMO) on a lesser scale, since they do have an honest claim to an insanity plea.

 

BTW: I dunno where this is going. My argument is that some acts (the aforementioned three) are wrong/evil in an off themselves, no matter the intent or person carrying them out.

[Guest LoneWolf]

Most evil, non-fictional, single handed (ie not a dictator or drug lord) mass murderer.

 

Gilles de Rais.

 

Killed hundreds of children in medieval Europe, also a satan worshipping, torturing, necrophile... his crimes were truly unspeakable.

 

Also Albert Fish because of the completely loathsome nature of his crimes. He murdered and cannibalized children, even sending a stew made of a dead child to the victim's family.

[Guest ricrery]

 

No one here has done anything as evil as him, no one!