I have been kicking this idea around for some time:
Does an “evil” mindset or evil deeds stem from selfishness or an egocentric nature?
Not necesarily. Evil can have many causes and take many forms. As a recent example, the actions of the terrorists on 9/11 were undeniably evil, but it is difficult to describe the suicide pilots as “selfish” or “egocentric” because they gave their lives for a cause they believed in, however twisted their logic. I believe that a truly egocentric person would have valued self preservation.
Well, I suppose that all depends on how one defines “selfishness.” (Ow! stop hitting me.)
Seriously, though, although I don’t think evil necessarily springs out of selfishness (after all, enlightened self-interest is tragically necessary in this world) I do think that evil by its very nature is selfish, because it thinks only of itself:
Evil: If I perform act X, I will receive optimal result Y. Therefore, I will do act X. I will not stop to consider the effects on other people, or if I do I will not take that into my final accounting.
Not-Evil: If I perform act X, I will receive optimal result Y. However, I will simultaneously cause sub-result Z, which will cause difficulty/suffering for other people. Therefore, even though it is in my best interest to perform act X, I will instead perform act A, because the negative results for others will be minimized (preferably eliminated completely), while the end result for me will be better than act X because I won’t have hurt anyone.
I suppose in some ways I consider sloth (not laziness, but out-and-out sloth) to be more of a cause of evil than selfishness, or egocentrism. After all, considering the effects of one’s actions on others takes a lot more work than not doing so, and finding a compromise takes the most effort of all.
After all, babies are selfish, and with very few (like one, and he was fictional anyway) exceptions I don’t think babies are evil. It takes a conscious effort (I believe) to do real evil.
Depends on how you define “selfish?” how about we define “evil” first! 
It kind of becomes a circular arguement, doesn’t it?
from dictionary.com
**
[sup]I’ve chosen to look at evil only in its adjectival form[/sup]
So in order to discuss the first definition we have first to define “morals.” For the sake of arguement, let’s define morals as some variation of “an it harm none, do what you will.” Given that, an evil act would be anything that causes harm to any creature, the self included. This sort of harm, however, is not necessarily caused by selfishness or egocentrism; it is not in the self’s best interest to cause itself harm, regardless of the harm to other people.
I think #2 is pretty self-explanatory, and again, not necessarily caused by selfishness. Of course, using this definition evil can be accidental; I tend to think of it as being intentional. YMMV.
I’m not quite sure how #3 applies to the discussion at hand; I’m going to choose to ignore it.
#4 is a matter of the subjective opinion of those who do the reporting, and in this case may indeed have to do with selfishness or egocentrism if (and only if) the perceiver’s definition of evil includes selfishness. Which is somewhat circular, and probably not as clear as I mean it to be.
#5 Gets us back into a discussion of the seven deadly sins, and the difference between simple anger and wrath. Again, though anger or maliciousness is not necessarily motivated by selfishness; one can get angry or be spiteful on behalf of someone one loves who has been harmed by another.
Better, eris? 
{fixed code. --Gaudere}
[Edited by Gaudere on 11-20-2001 at 08:47 PM]
Back in the 60’s there was a book titled I’m Okay, You’re Okay. The idea was that there were four states from which persons dealt with the world. The ideal one was the title of the book. If you think you’re OK and everyone around you is too then you will always do what is best. The state that most of us deal from is You’re OK, I’m not OK. Problems start with people with the attitude I’m OK, You’re not OK, which of course would be dealing out of selfishness. The truly evil people however are the You’re not OK, I’m not OK which means that they have no reason to hold back.
And so ends my book report for the day.
It really depends on how we look at evil, I personally think the definition from dictionary.com that SisterCoyote provided is much to broad.
Basically though you seem to ask if something can only be evil if it has evil intent (selfishness, which in whatever form seems to cause most “evil behaviour”).
My personal opinion on the matter is, “Who knows? What does it matter?”
How about evil stem from seeing people as things? Wasn’nt it Stalin(I think we all agree, he was an evil man) who said something along the lines of “Killing a person is murder but killing 100000 is statistics(sp?)”
I think it is much easier to do horrible things to people if you see them as things more then people. And thats evil in my mind.
Well, that makes me about as evil as they come, Jocke.
I agree that dictionary definitions are fine conversationally but usually pretty stinky otherwise, but the first on in Sis’s list is obviously, IMO, the one we would want to tackle.
To the OP I might mention there are those who consider that not being selfish is evil. Are the people that think this evil?
eris,
I would say that all depends on the context of the selfishness.
Try reading Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness” for more interesting views on this. (not trying to convert y’all into Objectivists here)
that’s obvious.
For instance… (all reactionaries who are going to take what I’m about to say out of context and warp it to mean something it doesn’t, just don’t, ok?) “evil” itself. I have been uncomfortable since Day One with the characterization of Osama as the Evil One. While the act was evil, I do not agree that the people who are responsible for it are evil. Because IMHO, true evil, not hyperbolic evil (which I have been known to use) requires that the one committing the evil act do so for the happiness or pleasure of a mind which engages in the act specifically for that purpose, if you follow.
This means I kinda agree with the OP, because the way it works is this:
Jeffrey Dahmer was evil (whether it was his fault or not is beside the point, and it could be easily argued that he had no control over it). He engaged in repulsive, cruel, painful and murderous acts, which he enjoyed indulging in. He took pleasure in the act. The acts themselves were the point. Why murder and chop up and have sex with the bodies? Because of the selfish pleasure it brought him to do that. He liked it, not for any higher or more complex purpose than that he just did. That’s evil.
Osama, on the other hand, committed an evil act, but I don’t believe that he was sitting around jacking off to the idea of thousands of people suffering and dying. He committed the act because he felt, in a severely warped and misguided way, that this was the correct thing to do. That this was what God as he understands him wants. That in order to save the souls of Muslims, they must be protected from us, and the way to do that is to do things like he did on 9/11.
In other, simpler words: Some do evil knowingly, and not only don’t care, but like it. They can then be said to be evil themselves. Others do evil in the belief that the evil they do is actually good, or at the very least, is evil done in the service of good. (Which sounds impossible, but really isn’t.) Which means that they are not truly evil.
Now, just don’t even try to turn this into me supporting these acts, m’kay? All I’m saying is that evil is about motive. For Osama, however fucked up and wrong his understanding is, it’s still about loving God and doing what he thinks (in his screwed up world view) God wants. I don’t consider that evil. I consider it incredibly screwed up, and still not forgivable, but also not evil.
Dahmer was evil.
Bundy was evil.
Serial killers in general are evil.
People who take pleasure in the pain and suffering of others, both human and animal, for no good reason, real or imagined, are pretty much evil.
I hope I have been clear.
It seems you contradict yourself…
But I suppose it rests on one’s definition of ‘good reason’…
Also it is a big leap of conjecture to state:
It could easily be argued that Osama’s motivation is to rule Saudi Arabia (power and wealth).
But I suppose that rests on what one considers ‘the correct thing’.
=)
No.
Self-interest, when coupled with a good analysis of self and of where one’s ultimate long-term best interests lie, is the ultimate key to the ultimate good. By definition, in fact. (Think it through).
“Evilness” comes from laziness and short attention span. People sacrificing (or not bothering to figure out) their long-term best interests and going for the here-and-now quick selfish fix.
No.
Selfishnes != “Self-interest, when coupled with a good analysis of self and of where one’s ultimate long-term best interests lie”
=)
Well, I will attempt to not mangle your intentions, Stoid, but nonetheless I prefer concise generalities over specific examples meant to imply the general principle. If there’s a principle there I want to hear it (if at all possible).
So while I’m keeping your two examples in mind, along with your little list at the end, I am pretty much going to focus on the following:
Ok, not too bad. The person we would claim as evil simply enjoys their acts. This means that people are evil if and only if we judge their habitual actions (you may replace habitual with other words like “repeated” or “goal-oriented” and retain my sense here) as evil.
Now, actions themselves cannot be evil because of selfishness, unless we are talking about actions which are ends in themselves like breathing (breathing serves to stimulate the act of breathing). I am not certain we can say that breathing is, in fact, evil.
So if I am both reading you right, Stoid, and properly extracting principles from your post, it seems, in fact, that selfishness has the following relationship to evil:
All evil people perform evil acts.
At least some evil acts are selfish acts.
Not all selfish acts are evil acts.
Now I wonder, are all evil acts selfish acts? Again, by your apparent intention they are, but I would think you would actually agree with this outright, even including context. I would query the Salem Witch Trials, for example, as actions taken in a state of extreme paranoia not for self pleasure (per se, though we may possibly contrive a scenario such that selfish pleasure precipitates out) but simply self preservation (which I hope you don’t automatically regard as evil!).
See, eris? I told you we needed to define selfishness.
FWIW, I’m inclined to agree with AHunter3.
Well, I get the sneaky feeling that our definitions of selfishness aren’t really all that intuitive but simply beg the evilness question here.
In my mind evilness and selfishness are not a priori linked.
Well, our culturally-embedded connotations for both “selfish” and “evil” tend to revolve around the belief that it is evil to start off with a primary consideration for your own personal happiness; that to do so is to become evil, indeed, to virtually embody it. “Good”, on the other hand, had to do with putting aside such selfishness and instead making the “good of society”, the “will of God”, “duty”, or just plain “what the folks around you want” the primary consideration. If none of this matches any of the ideas you grew up with, feel welcome to raise your hand and say so.
Distinctions, therefore, between “selfishness” and “enlightened self-interest” or (as I put it in my post above) “self-interest, when coupled with a good analysis of self and of where one’s ultimate long-term best interests lie”, represent a departure from those culturally-embedded connotations. So in the absence of a definition for “selfish” to use for the duration of this thread, I think it is fair to use the word as it has been conventionally used in ethical and moral discourse in our culture over the last few centuries, in which case my answer of “no” stands intact. The very same “selfishness” that has conventionally been described as evil is the one that I am saying is, by definition, the ultimate key to the ultimate good.