PDA

View Full Version : Is evil thought required for evil acts?



disrupter
11-30-2007, 10:06 AM
Sort of philosophical, theoretical question:

Is it possible that someone does some [self-perceived] evil deed as a set of small, non-connected, non-comprehensive, small thoughts that do not foresee the evil totality of all those acts combined?

Or is there a threshold before some final step where that final act of implementation is unavoidably, pre-requisitely, a conception of evil, for any rational, thinking person?

Seemingly obviously exception, with schizophrenic people their actions are driven by neurosis that may be [is?] devoid of coherence to reality?
They act without a totality of comprehension?
Do they have piece-meal or spotty/discontinuous conceptions that this is vile or evil? I have seen where they sort of intermittently recognize evil, but much of the time are driven by their neuroses to act anyway.
If religious belief rises to neurosis, shouldn't we take strong exception to that?
Isn't religion the short-cutting of a rational thought process? the Fiat of divine edict supposedly evading by faith, the rational thought process?
Some religions study theology, trying to parse out fine details,
but the edicts to lay people alternately become shortcuts from thinking.
[Theologians doing people's retail thinking for them? imo troubling]

For non-schizophrenic people,
is it possible that a set of small, [locally] apparently rational acts can result in some larger construct that equates to an evil construct, acts,
before they are capable of seeing the whole & recognizing it as evil.

Is it just one more apparently rational act? Or is it unmistakable even in the immediate, local case?

Or [likely?] is there some small flaw of logic that gets amplified by additional constructs to create a larger resulting action(s) that are evil?
ie. a well pre-action thought process is never worked/thought through?
Like an elaborate tinkertoy construct that has some unstable foundation that will result in the whole thing collapsing?

Can fundamentally [seemingly?] decent people commit horrible acts without the registering of the fact that 'this' 'from here' is evil?

Legally negligent homicide is still homicide, if not murder, so legally conception is not required for responsibility, so presumably there is some expectation of forethought prior to acting on some idea/notion.

Legally simple dull-wittedness is NOT a justification. It must rise to the level of a non-responsible entity, someone not entirely capable of responsibility for their actions. ie. insanity or legally incompetent.

Interestingly people presume that religious 'justification', rationalization, will be in effect when they meet their presumed 'higher' power.
Religion is an 'acceptable' excuse? for us mortals?

Simplistically we usually presume that people have actual evil intent,
But much/most [all?] of the time the person themselves sees their actions as somehow rationalized or 'justifiable'?

Is it possible that they are just lousy thinkers?
Who are incapable of fine granular thought in the first place?
Who can not see to sweep out the pea below the mattress prior to the princess resting upon it?

Are dull-wits likable people? Who get elected to public office because they are agreeable with no screening for fine-granular, coherent thinking, so that any thought constructs they create have been, are well foundated?
And are these people easily led around by others who either have evil or more likely flawed, if more elaborate, thinking?

I guess then, if one accepts the proposition that most evil deeds are not done as a promotion of evil itself, but as the result of flawed thinking, should we feel a need to act based on evil results, regardless of intent?

Instead of fine granularly weighing whether they intended evil, should we accept the 'legally sufficient standard', where irresponsible, negligent thinking is enough to intercede when someone has acted or proposes acting in an evil manner?

Are we allowing the pennies on the track to derail the freight train of overall objective?

Do we simply not have a clear, if general overall objective?

Why do we not intercede when fools take power?

Why do we count angels on the head of a pin, instead of simply saying this is stupid, and no good can come of it, and we must & will stop it?
Or more often now, this is evil & only compounding evil can result through further action, & decency compels us to act to stop it.

anubis
12-03-2007, 10:36 PM
evil acts originate from the nature of an evil mind. It follows that an evil mind functions to generate evil thoughts.

Lovelynice
12-04-2007, 04:07 AM
No, because others may be gullibly fooled into doing those acts, and need not be evil - just naive.

disrupter
12-06-2007, 08:35 AM
anubis, have you ever personally met someone who you are familiar with who you think is genuinely 'evil'?
Don't you usually think they are misguided?

I suppose there could be people who are gleefully or sanctimoniously wicked. I suppose we all do at least a little bit of that, but most people would self-reject themselves if they considered themselves to be evil, wouldn't they?

Can a really staunch machoism have one enjoying being wicked, like a demarcation of machismo?

I guess in my mind we are all capable of evil, destructive, and the real trick/task is trying not to be so, inadvertently.

Sanctimony seems more likely to veil our own evil actions from us.
That is one of the reasons i think the spinning of something as 'moral' usually has disastrous consequences.
Actions where no thinking is needed, like some factory product, has & DOES lead people to do terrible, irresponsible, unnecessarily inhumane things.

anubis
12-09-2007, 04:17 PM
No, because others may be gullibly fooled into doing those acts, and need not be evil - just naive.


no, it is called stupid, meaning TOTALLY MINDLESS and is the MOST DANGEROUS SORT. THese are the ones that shoot up the schools and malls and then just suddenly realize: "oh, shit, what have I done, doesn't seem/feel too cool after all. However, they seemingly do society a favor by offing theirself. Probably trhe ONLY intelligent and responsible thing they have ever done in their f---ed up, irresponsible life!
Why do they do it mostly? Because they become so engrossed in their endless ever day life pursuit of manupaliting their game controllers and gazing at flat screens that they loose the ability to equate reality with virtual circumsyances. Dangerous, stupid b----ards, that's all. But never the less EVIL originating from EVIL MINDS!

anubis
12-09-2007, 04:23 PM
anubis, have you ever personally met someone who you are familiar with who you think is genuinely 'evil'?
Don't you usually think they are misguided?

I suppose there could be people who are gleefully or sanctimoniously wicked. I suppose we all do at least a little bit of that, but most people would self-reject themselves if they considered themselves to be evil, wouldn't they?

Can a really staunch machoism have one enjoying being wicked, like a demarcation of machismo?

I guess in my mind we are all capable of evil, destructive, and the real trick/task is trying not to be so, inadvertently.

Sanctimony seems more likely to veil our own evil actions from us.
That is one of the reasons i think the spinning of something as 'moral' usually has disastrous consequences.
Actions where no thinking is needed, like some factory product, has & DOES lead people to do terrible, irresponsible, unnecessarily inhumane things.

yes, I have met such people. Too convuluted and extensive dialogue to indulge in. But, believe me, they are out there. I don't know your age, but eventually you will meet someone/ones that you have that knowing feeling are EVIL INCARNATE. And no one will have to help you to identify such when you have an encounter with them - if you survive.
However, although of not personal association, as others I am referring to, as a matter of suggetion: Allister Crowley and John Wayne Gayce for starters.
Also, the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" material was taken from actual life circumstance of such a family that abducted, raped, murdered individuals in the most henious ways. Then ate their flesh, sold their flesh at a sevice station as Bar-be-que and made lamps and other articles from skin and body parts to decorate their "home". If you call this "misguided" which suggest a measure of innonence, I honestly don't see it!