How do you define evil?

[satyrlovesong]

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it like this

Comments

[teamnoir]

Evil is anything which opposes "Good".

And "good" is defined as whatever benefits the social group.

Hence, anything independent or self centered is evil.

I've been around several times on my definition of evil. One of my favorite clues is the movie, "The Ghost and the Darkness", which showed me one route by which man may have invented the concept of evil. "Those aren't lions. Lions don't behave that way. Those are demons."

[satyrlovesong]

Hmm. I would have characterized "for the benefit of the social group" as lawful rather than good, but I've been influenced by half a lifetime playing D&D.

[teamnoir]

Lawful is, to me, doing so according to some set of rules, usually blindly, but potentially with mindful discipline

[teamnoir]

ps, I've played a lot of games too. My favorite alignment so far was the "balance" alignment from Powers & Perils. Essentially, a "balance" person has some access to any of good, evil, law, and chaos skills at some premium. They have access to some unique skills which tend to boost the underdogs and cut the majority. And they tend to take on the role of whichever alignment is under represented in any particular group. They are not neutral. They're simply whatever isn't well represented at the time.

I so identify with the balance alignment....

[paradisacorbasi]

I think the dictionary definition is pretty close to how I'd define it, and yes, "lawful" would be "what benefits the social group," because society in general is not good, but the laws are intended for the good.

[teamnoir]

That's a common myth. Laws are intended to reassure. That's all. Satanists are highly rule bound as well as extremely selfish as are many politicians.

In contrast, robin hood, ghandi, rosa parks, and many other revolutionaries were both counter to law as well as working toward the greater good.

There's a very grey line where "law" becomes "oppression" and "criminal" becomes "revolutionary". Some people simply view all law as oppression or vice verse.

[elisandra]

Well, this is a different issue - behaving within social norms and 'knowing right from wrong' are different arguments. There are people who don't do things because they are unlawful, but don't really think or care about if what they do is right or good. Then there are people who care more about right and good and realize that laws are there to protect societies, not to define good and evil.

[paradisacorbasi]

See, I think anyone who views all laws as oppression and vice-versa is an extremist.

I tend to be a little to the left of moderate.

[elisandra]

I've always maintained that to be 'on the side of evil' rather than just selfish or misguided, you have to be insane. A villain or person who is actually looking to hurt others for the sake of causing pain or sorrow must be nuts. That's why most villains usually *think* they are not evil - doing what everyone else is afraid to attempt for the common good, etc.

Know what I mean?

[teamnoir]

If "sane" means "thinking inside the box", then I completely agree. Of course, all geniuses and all innovation must necessarily come from evil in that case. And I might just agree with that perspective. Prometheus, stealer of innocence and all.

[elisandra]

I don't mean that everyone who is insane is evil, though.

[cedyeus]

I came across this definition years ago in a piece of Planescape fiction (which I'd love to find again at some point). They (and I) define evil as the willful disregard of the wants and needs of other beings.
The nice thing about this is by adding the willful clause, it removes selfishness/self-centeredness and moves them from being considered evil to just being asshats.

[cedyeus]

I would add, that by "beings" I mean sentient beings (aka us humans). As Animal Planet has shown, the "need" of a predator to eat vs a prey animal's "need" to not be eaten does not equate to an evil act.

[teamnoir]

I point again to the movie, "The Ghost and the Darkness" in which a pair of lions were hunting and killing humans, not just for food, but also for sport.

Does this qualify as "evil"? I'm not sure. But I think it's a fascinating perspective on how the concept of evil may have developed.

ihnjh;ijls

[elisandra]

“I am an evil giraffe, and I shall eat more leaves from this tree then perhaps I should, so that other giraffes may die!"

[akumadaimyo]

I say bull that evil is always selfish. What about neutrals? They are sometimes selfish. That doesn't make them evil. I see evil as more willing to hurt others to get what you want. Just about everyone, to some degree is selfish in one way or another. Does that make them evil? No. Even good people can be selfish. In a good gooders zeal to do good, isn't it somewhat selfish to force his belief on others? You can make others pay for their crimes but you can't force them to be good

[caligeekgrrl]

That makes me think of 1984 by George Orwell.