:rolleyes:
I’m an atheist, you can view my definition of evil earlier in the thread.
If that is the case then the concept of evil is evil in itself. Luckily that is not the case because breakfast is easy to define.
Read a few true crime books like I do and you will KNOW that there ARE evil people!!!
I voted yes.
I have knew a couple of people who make it a point to make life difficult for people, just for kicks.
Thinking about doing something is different from doing something. It is the doing that defines whether you are good or evil.
:dubious: If there is objective moral truth, then show me a few reputable scientific studies that have discovered what these truths are or may be. What physical facts are observed in order to observe the moral truth of the universe? What experiments have been used to determine the moral truth hard-coded into existence? What laws govern the important physical quantities involved in determining a moral truth? Show me a list of all the moral laws in the universe that have been objectively verified through rigorous experimentation.
Oh wait, what’s that? The only guide to understanding the objective moral truth to existence is a bunch of disparate religions that constantly spout that they have the monopoly on what the objective moral truth of the world is?
Oh, come again? The reason that there seem to be a few underlying beliefs that are common amongst all religions could be because all humans evolved from a small social group in Africa a few million years ago, and certain behaviors got programmed into us genetically because it benefited our survival? Interesting!
Or perhaps there just seems to be a misunderstanding on what the word “objective” means. Let’s go with: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. So now, which part of moral truth matches any of that?
Moral truth is the purview of philosophy, not science. Science does not deal with morality.
Definitely, there are evil people, and most if not all of them will do evil things, and will keep doing them until stopped or killed. I’ve met quite a few of them over the years, as a prosecutor and now as a magistrate. Some, I think, are born evil, due to some genetic or brain abnormality, but some become evil due to abusive treatment in childhood, poor role models and the lack of any kind of moral education, either by a parent, guardian, family, school, church or anyone else.
Hitler has become such a cliched figure of evil because he did really evil things on a relatively recent international stage, so awful and so inescapably part of human history that virtually every adult alive today knows about him. “Hitler” is now shorthand for horrifying mass evil, but unfortunately he’s not alone. Read any history, criminology or sociology, and you’ll find all too many examples of people like him, some more horrible, secretive or ambitious than others, on all points along the ideological, religious, racial and ethnic spectrum.
I flip flop on this question as it depends on the ontology of morality - are moral facts real? Does objective morality exist?
If objective morality exists then it seems to me that there are people who do supremely evil acts and I would label those people evil.
If morality is simply a product of evolution and the interaction of sentient minds, then in one sense, there are no truly evil people. There are people who are deemed evil because of what a society considers evil. If this is the case, then it is still of value in some sense, since as sentient people we have to live some way.
So I picked ‘no’, ‘maybe’, and ‘I don’t know’. 
So you believe that philosophy is the study of objective truth? :smack:
Philosophy of Science - Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify a scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. [Taken from wikipedia but I doubt people are really going to disagree with this]
So if moral objectivity has ANY validity, science should be able to determine what moral truth there is to the universe, assuming these 3 points about science.
This thread has really done well at answering the question, “Are there condescending people?”
I said “No” predictably enough. No such thing as good & evil, just stuff you like and stuff you don’t. There are some people whose choices are reviled by most, but that’s just a matter of personal taste. The actors in such circumstances are clearly doing what they feel is appropriate.
It could be argued that those who incarcerate others, thereby impairing free will, are perpetrators of evil.
More evil than the murderers they lock up?
Morality is not the purview of science. That’s why scientists stay away from it.
Depends on who’s ox is getting gored, doesn’t it? Prisoner and society disagree over key elements of each other’s aesthetics, the answer depends on which side of the bars you’re on.
Prisons are full of innocent men, aren’t they?
Yes, because I get to define evil, and believe me, there are a lot of people who qualify. And not just people who talk at the theater.
Some I have direct experience of, some I’ve seen the effects of, some I’ve only read about.
Full of people who play by their own rules and have lost their freedom as a result.
You’re contradicting yourself, whether you realize it or not. The average hardened criminal takes away the freedom of others to “play by their own rules.” Stealing money or items belonging to another person, or taking a person’s life, is impinging upon/removing the victim’s freedom. Why, then, shouldn’t the thief’s/murderer’s freedom also be removed?
Do you think it’s best to simply allow crime to go on without incarceration?
Yes. I knew one.
.