Define "Evil" to me in one sentence

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="theone86"]I do agree that humans naturally judge, I just don't think evil is a very useful term.  What situation can you use it in where other words can't suffice?  Selfish, hateful, domineering, despotic?  Those are all sufficient for their respective situations, and better yet they're more accurate and specific than evil.  A combination of them perhaps?  That seems to basically fit the description of sociopathic, the only differences being in individuals displaying sociopathic tendencies who are able to receive help and those that aren't, and in their differing ability to impact others negatively (a Manson versus a Hitler for instance).  I think that labelling them all as evil tends to whitewash things and hinder our understanding.  If we call Manson and Hitler evil and just say that's the end of it then we glaze over important differences in their respective psyches.  Calling their behavior sociopathic explains their psyches sufficiently while still leaving room to differentiate between their specific differences.  In short, I don't believe the term evil serves any real purpose than to incite an emotional reaction, and with the prevalence of the term in our modern parlance I think that serves to hinder understanding.

theone86

The labelling of your cat and a human who is extremely selfish (to a point you might call evil) as selfish can facilitate greater understanding as a differentiation must be made.  I think the word evil tends to whitewash things, and it tends to push people away from understanding why these people do these things.  Someone's evil, let's dust off our hands and close the book because that's all that needs to be said.  Let's not ask why they did it, let's not try to recognize patterns that can be put towards a greater understanding that could possibly help us to prevent something like that in the future, let's just call it evil and walk away.  I don't think that's constructive.

Evil does seem to mean sociopathic in the sense you're using it in.  Breaking social norms, little remorse for victims, over-inflated sense of self, that all says sociopathic behavior to me.  The difference really only seems to be the degree to which certain people act out their sociopathic behavior.  It's also not a matter of sociopathic being longer to say, it's more specific and capable of examination.  Evil, on the other hand, is highly subjective and variable in definition.

Let's say, for the moment, that something like what Hitler did was actually evil, then what else is evil?  Is Manson evil?  If we start breaking them down and comparing the two then we see similar behavioral patterns, but as you said evil isn't a personality disorder.  I don't think you can rightly call Manson evil then, as you said the difference is about sixty million people and Manson doesn't even come close to that.  But Manson was a sick individual, he didn't care about his victims, well that just goes back to sociopathic tendencies.  As I said, the difference is in degree.  Evil is too variable and subjective for me to see any use in it.  Someone who really considers its usage might actually come up with a nuanced definition, but most people are just going to throw the word around at whatever gets them personally worked up, which can lead to a lack of comprehension and understanding, which is not constructive.

As for emotions, I'm not for being coldly illogical, but I think there are better ways to express emotions that don't preclude logic.  I have no problem with describing what Hitler did as detestable, that's a strong emotional word.  One of the benefits, though, is that it is more specific and, if applied to someone who is not as objectively detestable as Hitler is capable of being debated.  One of my problems with evil is that people just throw it around too often, and it's so subjective that there's no way to really debate it.  With detestable you have specific feelings that you are associating with the person in question, and if someone is using the word you can investigate why those feelings are being evoked, not to mention seperate it from other words like sociopathic.  We can call Hitler sociopathic and detestable, we can call someone with sociopathic tendencies who seeks help simply sociopathic.  With evil there is no such seperation, and someone who doesn't take the time to consider the nuances of these words (which means a lot of people in society) could label both as such.  Evil just doesn't seem to serve much use to me.

Evil is inducing fear to the masses, creating anarchy and causing mass panic, reducing humanity to it's most desperate instance, and relishing in it.

So basically, be Loki. Or The Joker... Yeah, be The Joker.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] My cat is selfish. People on the internet are hateful. A nagging wife is domineering. Evil is an extreme or a perceived extreme. You capture people and keep them as rape slaves? You're evil. It's just a word as I said and it is subjective in what society it is used in, but it is a useful word and the fact it is everywhere and used so often shows that it has its use. For whatever reason you are bringing up sociopaths. Evil does not mean you are a sociopath and being a sociopath doesn't mean you're evil. All you're advocating is the replacement of the word evil with sociopathic in the mistaken belief that a word is anything other than what we have it be. You start calling what Hitler did sociopathic in the same way you'd say what he did was evil and all you're doing is making it take longer to say or write a word we already use as well as removing a term that has it's own meaning by making it something else. You say the term evil serves no purpose other than to incite an emotion reaction. Good. That means its a good word, that means it carries weight and understanding of what it means. Understanding in a raw logical sense is not the only reason language exists, communicating emotion is equally important as we're emotional beings and we often use emotion to learn. Hitler didn't view other humans on the same level as himself and effectively had no conscience, he was sociopathic. Hitler broke international law raised a powerful army, invading his neighbouring countries after declaring he wouldn't, ignited a war that cost tens of millions of lives, and exterminated various groups because he saw them as no better than insects. Hitler was evil. There is a difference between a personality disorder and evil, it's about 60 million people.Ace6301

The labelling of your cat and a human who is extremely selfish (to a point you might call evil) as selfish can facilitate greater understanding as a differentiation must be made.  I think the word evil tends to whitewash things, and it tends to push people away from understanding why these people do these things.  Someone's evil, let's dust off our hands and close the book because that's all that needs to be said.  Let's not ask why they did it, let's not try to recognize patterns that can be put towards a greater understanding that could possibly help us to prevent something like that in the future, let's just call it evil and walk away.  I don't think that's constructive.

Evil does seem to mean sociopathic in the sense you're using it in.  Breaking social norms, little remorse for victims, over-inflated sense of self, that all says sociopathic behavior to me.  The difference really only seems to be the degree to which certain people act out their sociopathic behavior.  It's also not a matter of sociopathic being longer to say, it's more specific and capable of examination.  Evil, on the other hand, is highly subjective and variable in definition.

Let's say, for the moment, that something like what Hitler did was actually evil, then what else is evil?  Is Manson evil?  If we start breaking them down and comparing the two then we see similar behavioral patterns, but as you said evil isn't a personality disorder.  I don't think you can rightly call Manson evil then, as you said the difference is about sixty million people and Manson doesn't even come close to that.  But Manson was a sick individual, he didn't care about his victims, well that just goes back to sociopathic tendencies.  As I said, the difference is in degree.  Evil is too variable and subjective for me to see any use in it.  Someone who really considers its usage might actually come up with a nuanced definition, but most people are just going to throw the word around at whatever gets them personally worked up, which can lead to a lack of comprehension and understanding, which is not constructive.

As for emotions, I'm not for being coldly illogical, but I think there are better ways to express emotions that don't preclude logic.  I have no problem with describing what Hitler did as detestable, that's a strong emotional word.  One of the benefits, though, is that it is more specific and, if applied to someone who is not as objectively detestable as Hitler is capable of being debated.  One of my problems with evil is that people just throw it around too often, and it's so subjective that there's no way to really debate it.  With detestable you have specific feelings that you are associating with the person in question, and if someone is using the word you can investigate why those feelings are being evoked, not to mention seperate it from other words like sociopathic.  We can call Hitler sociopathic and detestable, we can call someone with sociopathic tendencies who seeks help simply sociopathic.  With evil there is no such seperation, and someone who doesn't take the time to consider the nuances of these words (which means a lot of people in society) could label both as such.  Evil just doesn't seem to serve much use to me.

You're mistaken, my problem is the connotation they carry.  Evil and sociopathic can express the same sentiment, yet carry vastly different connotations.  Sociopathic is a tool that carries with it a specific definition and set of circumstances, evil is vague and meant to evoke emotion.  One helps to foster understanding, the other allows people to slip into meaningless accusations that give them emotional satisfaction.  Also, sociopathy is not necessarily a medical condition, it is a set of behavioral traits that is marked by extremely anti-social and destructive behavior along with a lack of empathy, so again, basically everything you're calling evil.  I don't see how that doesn't speak to morality.  Also, being a dick is different than being a sociopath.

When you're speaking about literature it's a different matter.  Of course words in creative works are meant to carry certain emotions and that's not the problem.  The problem is people throwing the word around in normal conversation and non-fiction writing and basically creating and perpetuating this idea that has no reference to anything real.  A word like sociopathic is real, it references real behavior, real patterns, it can be examined and discussed.  Evil is just some inspecific, vague phrase that carries an emotional connotation and is useful for basically nothing except to make people emotionally charged and get them to ignore constructive conversation.  While I don't necessarily have a problem with the word evil in writing, it is interesting to contemplate if and how the word would survive if society ever got rid of it as a commonly-used term.

Honorable, just, and heroic all have definitions that are more specific than evil.  Good is extremely vague, but I also think that gets thrown around far too much these days, it is extremely inspecific.  To me the phrase "he/she is a good person," carries about the same amount of meaning with or without the word good in it.  What sets evil apart is that it actually carries a lot of meaning, unlike good which I feel carries almost zero meaning.  Evil has all this baggage of indicating something intrinsically wrong with that person, of representing some inherent force.  As I said before, it's just superstition.  It's derived form an archaic conception of how the world functions and today it serves mostly to prevent people from obtaining a better conception by appealing to their emotions, which can be useful in writing but not so much in everyday conversation.

There is no evil we are only human

redrum, redrum, evile=live

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="theone86"]

The labelling of your cat and a human who is extremely selfish (to a point you might call evil) as selfish can facilitate greater understanding as a differentiation must be made.  I think the word evil tends to whitewash things, and it tends to push people away from understanding why these people do these things.  Someone's evil, let's dust off our hands and close the book because that's all that needs to be said.  Let's not ask why they did it, let's not try to recognize patterns that can be put towards a greater understanding that could possibly help us to prevent something like that in the future, let's just call it evil and walk away.  I don't think that's constructive.

Evil does seem to mean sociopathic in the sense you're using it in.  Breaking social norms, little remorse for victims, over-inflated sense of self, that all says sociopathic behavior to me.  The difference really only seems to be the degree to which certain people act out their sociopathic behavior.  It's also not a matter of sociopathic being longer to say, it's more specific and capable of examination.  Evil, on the other hand, is highly subjective and variable in definition.

Let's say, for the moment, that something like what Hitler did was actually evil, then what else is evil?  Is Manson evil?  If we start breaking them down and comparing the two then we see similar behavioral patterns, but as you said evil isn't a personality disorder.  I don't think you can rightly call Manson evil then, as you said the difference is about sixty million people and Manson doesn't even come close to that.  But Manson was a sick individual, he didn't care about his victims, well that just goes back to sociopathic tendencies.  As I said, the difference is in degree.  Evil is too variable and subjective for me to see any use in it.  Someone who really considers its usage might actually come up with a nuanced definition, but most people are just going to throw the word around at whatever gets them personally worked up, which can lead to a lack of comprehension and understanding, which is not constructive.

As for emotions, I'm not for being coldly illogical, but I think there are better ways to express emotions that don't preclude logic.  I have no problem with describing what Hitler did as detestable, that's a strong emotional word.  One of the benefits, though, is that it is more specific and, if applied to someone who is not as objectively detestable as Hitler is capable of being debated.  One of my problems with evil is that people just throw it around too often, and it's so subjective that there's no way to really debate it.  With detestable you have specific feelings that you are associating with the person in question, and if someone is using the word you can investigate why those feelings are being evoked, not to mention seperate it from other words like sociopathic.  We can call Hitler sociopathic and detestable, we can call someone with sociopathic tendencies who seeks help simply sociopathic.  With evil there is no such seperation, and someone who doesn't take the time to consider the nuances of these words (which means a lot of people in society) could label both as such.  Evil just doesn't seem to serve much use to me.

theone86

You're mistaken, my problem is the connotation they carry.  Evil and sociopathic can express the same sentiment, yet carry vastly different connotations.  Sociopathic is a tool that carries with it a specific definition and set of circumstances, evil is vague and meant to evoke emotion.  One helps to foster understanding, the other allows people to slip into meaningless accusations that give them emotional satisfaction.  Also, sociopathy is not necessarily a medical condition, it is a set of behavioral traits that is marked by extremely anti-social and destructive behavior along with a lack of empathy, so again, basically everything you're calling evil.  I don't see how that doesn't speak to morality.  Also, being a dick is different than being a sociopath.

When you're speaking about literature it's a different matter.  Of course words in creative works are meant to carry certain emotions and that's not the problem.  The problem is people throwing the word around in normal conversation and non-fiction writing and basically creating and perpetuating this idea that has no reference to anything real.  A word like sociopathic is real, it references real behavior, real patterns, it can be examined and discussed.  Evil is just some inspecific, vague phrase that carries an emotional connotation and is useful for basically nothing except to make people emotionally charged and get them to ignore constructive conversation.  While I don't necessarily have a problem with the word evil in writing, it is interesting to contemplate if and how the word would survive if society ever got rid of it as a commonly-used term.

Honorable, just, and heroic all have definitions that are more specific than evil.  Good is extremely vague, but I also think that gets thrown around far too much these days, it is extremely inspecific.  To me the phrase "he/she is a good person," carries about the same amount of meaning with or without the word good in it.  What sets evil apart is that it actually carries a lot of meaning, unlike good which I feel carries almost zero meaning.  Evil has all this baggage of indicating something intrinsically wrong with that person, of representing some inherent force.  As I said before, it's just superstition.  It's derived form an archaic conception of how the world functions and today it serves mostly to prevent people from obtaining a better conception by appealing to their emotions, which can be useful in writing but not so much in everyday conversation.

IMO, socipath has a connotation of: evil bastard.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I think when you get down to it your problem is the combination of letters, not the meaning. You're still trying to come up with other labels while avoiding the E word off a mistaken belief that someone it cheapens. Sociopathic: You're diagnosing someone, not giving a statement on their morals. All you're doing is saying "this person demonstrates themself as a sociopath". Okay, and? Where do you go from that? If I ever saw that in a book I'd just stare at it and go "I used to have a co-worker who was a sociopath and sure he was a dick but whatever he didn't hurt anyone". Describe someone as evil and people want to know WHY. It's a hook. Sociopathic isn't. It's an objective word with a set meaning because it stems off a medical condition. It doesn't invest. It's boring and to me that's a cardinal sin in the realm of writing. The last few lines in my previous post were using evil as an emotion word like I had described in the line above it, not as an actual part of the argument of what evil is. As I've already said evil is merely an extreme immorality, regardless of what morals the person saying it may have. It's useful because it is subjective. If someone sees something described as evil and doesn't question what actions make that description valid then that reader is an idiot. If a writer describes something as evil and never gives a reason for why then the writer is an idiot. There's many, many other words like that out there that are used all the time: honourable, good, just, heroic. To fault just evil for being the word it is strikes me as a very odd thing and more a complaint about language than anything philosophical or inherent to reality.Ace6301

You're mistaken, my problem is the connotation they carry. Evil and sociopathic can express the same sentiment, yet carry vastly different connotations. Sociopathic is a tool that carries with it a specific definition and set of circumstances, evil is vague and meant to evoke emotion. One helps to foster understanding, the other allows people to slip into meaningless accusations that give them emotional satisfaction. Also, sociopathy is not necessarily a medical condition, it is a set of behavioral traits that is marked by extremely anti-social and destructive behavior along with a lack of empathy, so again, basically everything you're calling evil. I don't see how that doesn't speak to morality. Also, being a dick is different than being a sociopath.

When you're speaking about literature it's a different matter. Of course words in creative works are meant to carry certain emotions and that's not the problem. The problem is people throwing the word around in normal conversation and non-fiction writing and basically creating and perpetuating this idea that has no reference to anything real. A word like sociopathic is real, it references real behavior, real patterns, it can be examined and discussed. Evil is just some inspecific, vague phrase that carries an emotional connotation and is useful for basically nothing except to make people emotionally charged and get them to ignore constructive conversation. While I don't necessarily have a problem with the word evil in writing, it is interesting to contemplate if and how the word would survive if society ever got rid of it as a commonly-used term.

Honorable, just, and heroic all have definitions that are more specific than evil. Good is extremely vague, but I also think that gets thrown around far too much these days, it is extremely inspecific. To me the phrase "he/she is a good person," carries about the same amount of meaning with or without the word good in it. What sets evil apart is that it actually carries a lot of meaning, unlike good which I feel carries almost zero meaning. Evil has all this baggage of indicating something intrinsically wrong with that person, of representing some inherent force. As I said before, it's just superstition. It's derived form an archaic conception of how the world functions and today it serves mostly to prevent people from obtaining a better conception by appealing to their emotions, which can be useful in writing but not so much in everyday conversation.

Sociopaths are generally evil make no mistake about it.

They may not all be killers, but usually thats because it doesn't serve their interests at the time to do so,

Sociopaths are generally evil make no mistake about it.

AFBrat77

The government.

Powerful, opinionated and remorseless.

The idea of a sociopath seems apathetic instead of evil. No morals is different than bad morals.BranKetra

There is much much more to sociopaths then that.....

not all are thoroughly evil, but most are. Learned quite alot in Abnormal Psychology class.

Female sociopaths, while rare, are even worse. I'm pretty sure we have one where I work. She's incredibly charming, sexy, VERY sexually charged, but thoroughly evil. She is a master of making herself appear to be the innocent victim as needs be, and she will not hesitate to play with her victims when they fall into her trap. They mean absolutely nothing to her. I'm intelligent enough to see through her mask. I won't go into any more of her sociopathic attributes, but they are major if you pay attention and aren't caught in her web.

I want to feel sorry for her because I'm sure she will never feel love, but then I realize she's fine with things as they are, with just seeing people as objects to be manipulated and nothing more.

Very pretty, very poisonous.

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

Sociopaths are generally evil make no mistake about it.

Ace6301

thats Narcissists...there is a difference

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]The idea of a sociopath seems apathetic instead of evil. No morals is different than bad morals.AFBrat77

There is much much more to sociopaths then that.....

not all are thoroughly evil, but most are. Learned quite alot in Abnormal Psychology class.

Female sociopaths, while rare, are even worse. I'm pretty sure we have one where I work. She's incredibly charming, sexy, sexual, but thoroughly evil. She is a master of making herself appear to be the innocent victim as needs be, and she will not hesitate to play with her victims when they fall into her trap. They mean absolutely nothing to her. I'm intelligent enough to see through her mask. I won't go into any more of her sociopathic attributes, but they are major if you pay attention and aren't caught in her web.

I want to feel sorry for her because I'm sure she will never feel love, but then I realize she's fine as is, with just seeing people as objects to be manipulated and nothing more.

Very pretty, very poisonous.

thats Narcissists...there is a difference

AFBrat77

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

There is much much more to sociopaths then that.....

not all are thoroughly evil, but most are. Learned quite alot in Abnormal Psychology class.

Female sociopaths, while rare, are even worse. I'm pretty sure we have one where I work. She's incredibly charming, sexy, sexual, but thoroughly evil. She is a master of making herself appear to be the innocent victim as needs be, and she will not hesitate to play with her victims when they fall into her trap. They mean absolutely nothing to her. I'm intelligent enough to see through her mask. I won't go into any more of her sociopathic attributes, but they are major if you pay attention and aren't caught in her web.

I want to feel sorry for her because I'm sure she will never feel love, but then I realize she's fine as is, with just seeing people as objects to be manipulated and nothing more.

Very pretty, very poisonous.

Ace6301

thats Narcissists...there is a difference

AFBrat77

but spend time in prison, or aren't caught

whats with the mozzarella reference, I don't get it. If somehow you mean I was involved with her, I wasn't, but I watched her flies (the guys that buzz around her and are caught in her web). I can't deny shes incredibly attractive and alluring, but I have someone better anyhow.

Narcissists are usually those guys that go around acting like d*cks. Sociopaths are much more clever.

but spend time in prison, or aren't caught

whats with the mozzarella reference, I don't get it. If somehow you mean I was involved with her, I wasn't, but I watched her flies (the guys that buzz around her and are caught in her web). I can't deny shes incredibly attractive and alluring, but I have someone better anyhow.

Narcissists are usually those guys that go around acting like d*cks. Sociopaths are much more clever.

AFBrat77

[QUOTE="AFBrat77"]

but spend time in prison, or aren't caught

whats with the mozzarella reference, I don't get it. If somehow you mean I was involved with her, I wasn't, but I watched her flies (the guys that buzz around her and are caught in her web). I can't deny shes incredibly attractive and alluring, but I have someone better anyhow.

Narcissists are usually those guys that go around acting like d*cks. Sociopaths are much more clever.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]He was hung after all.Zeviander

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I think when you get down to it your problem is the combination of letters, not the meaning. You're still trying to come up with other labels while avoiding the E word off a mistaken belief that someone it cheapens. Sociopathic: You're diagnosing someone, not giving a statement on their morals. All you're doing is saying "this person demonstrates themself as a sociopath". Okay, and? Where do you go from that? If I ever saw that in a book I'd just stare at it and go "I used to have a co-worker who was a sociopath and sure he was a dick but whatever he didn't hurt anyone". Describe someone as evil and people want to know WHY. It's a hook. Sociopathic isn't. It's an objective word with a set meaning because it stems off a medical condition. It doesn't invest. It's boring and to me that's a cardinal sin in the realm of writing. The last few lines in my previous post were using evil as an emotion word like I had described in the line above it, not as an actual part of the argument of what evil is. As I've already said evil is merely an extreme immorality, regardless of what morals the person saying it may have. It's useful because it is subjective. If someone sees something described as evil and doesn't question what actions make that description valid then that reader is an idiot. If a writer describes something as evil and never gives a reason for why then the writer is an idiot. There's many, many other words like that out there that are used all the time: honourable, good, just, heroic. To fault just evil for being the word it is strikes me as a very odd thing and more a complaint about language than anything philosophical or inherent to reality.Ace6301

You're mistaken, my problem is the connotation they carry.  Evil and sociopathic can express the same sentiment, yet carry vastly different connotations.  Sociopathic is a tool that carries with it a specific definition and set of circumstances, evil is vague and meant to evoke emotion.  One helps to foster understanding, the other allows people to slip into meaningless accusations that give them emotional satisfaction.  Also, sociopathy is not necessarily a medical condition, it is a set of behavioral traits that is marked by extremely anti-social and destructive behavior along with a lack of empathy, so again, basically everything you're calling evil.  I don't see how that doesn't speak to morality.  Also, being a dick is different than being a sociopath.

When you're speaking about literature it's a different matter.  Of course words in creative works are meant to carry certain emotions and that's not the problem.  The problem is people throwing the word around in normal conversation and non-fiction writing and basically creating and perpetuating this idea that has no reference to anything real.  A word like sociopathic is real, it references real behavior, real patterns, it can be examined and discussed.  Evil is just some inspecific, vague phrase that carries an emotional connotation and is useful for basically nothing except to make people emotionally charged and get them to ignore constructive conversation.  While I don't necessarily have a problem with the word evil in writing, it is interesting to contemplate if and how the word would survive if society ever got rid of it as a commonly-used term.

Honorable, just, and heroic all have definitions that are more specific than evil.  Good is extremely vague, but I also think that gets thrown around far too much these days, it is extremely inspecific.  To me the phrase "he/she is a good person," carries about the same amount of meaning with or without the word good in it.  What sets evil apart is that it actually carries a lot of meaning, unlike good which I feel carries almost zero meaning.  Evil has all this baggage of indicating something intrinsically wrong with that person, of representing some inherent force.  As I said before, it's just superstition.  It's derived form an archaic conception of how the world functions and today it serves mostly to prevent people from obtaining a better conception by appealing to their emotions, which can be useful in writing but not so much in everyday conversation.

Again, I don't think evil exists.  Evil can describe certain real situations, but in the end the idea of evil itself is just a holdover from a period where scientific understanding was trumped by superstition.  Sociopathic is more accurate, more descriptive, and carries less emotional weight.  And yes, sociopathic describes behavior, evil describes behavior as well.  That's part of why I prefer sociopathic, whereas evil insinuates some intrinsic flaw in the person in question, sociopathic examines their behavior and possible causes.

It's not my problem if the separation between differing sociopaths isn't made.  I specifically said that there are sociopaths who are able to seek treatment, then there are sociopaths who commit genocide.  That's another part of why sociopath is a better word, because it can show us behavior patterns and help us to successfully treat people who begin to manifest them.

If you're saying that evil is useful for labelling sociopaths who are successful at harming other people then I disagree on that as well.  If we take two modern teens displaying sociopathic tendencies and one is treated the other isn't and shoots up a school, then between those two the second is the victim (taking into account that he also had victims of his own).  The point is that by calling the second evil in the first place you're going to vilify someone who needed help and didn't get it while simultaneuosly not levelling the same criticism against someone who was in the same situation and had the benefit of help.  Secondly, even if we're not being sympathetic to the killer in the slightest we're still stigmatizing sociopathy by labelling him as evil and having a public conversation on how horrible a person he was instead of having a public conversation on how to recognize and treat sociopathic individuals.

Sociopaths also aren't simply jerks.  Most if not all sociopaths harm other individuals in a fairly profound manner, be it murder, rape, or simply criminal activity committed without remorse.  I agree that's different from commiting genocide, but there's also a word we use for people who are willing to commit genocide, it's called genocidal.

People already throw the term sociopathic around too much and not a lot of people really know what it means.  If we stopped using evil and started referring to these people as sociopaths, or extreme sociopaths, then we would be facilitating a greater public understanding of what sociopathic means.

honor, justice, and heroism are more specific than evil.  Yes, definitions will change from person to person, but that doesn't mean they're just as subjective as evil.  Besides, those terms all refer to real concepts, evil refers to nothing.  Evil is an archaic idea based in superstition and has been replaced by terms that facilitate greater understanding, such as sociopathic.  Also, tu quoque much?

If you really want to convince me then tell me what evil is.  Tell me exactly what separates it from sociopathy, and don't simply say degrees.  You're saying that we need to separate sociopaths who actually harm people from ones who don't, and I don't see the reason.  Why do we have to call "successful" sociopaths evil?  They are the same as sociopaths who do not harm people in the sense that they are both sociopathic.  Once we accept that then we can begin to better understand what sets the two apart and how to ensure there are more of the latter.

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"][QUOTE="lamprey263"]in gaming, it's that which one fights to save the world... mostlylamprey263

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="theone86"]

You're mistaken, my problem is the connotation they carry.  Evil and sociopathic can express the same sentiment, yet carry vastly different connotations.  Sociopathic is a tool that carries with it a specific definition and set of circumstances, evil is vague and meant to evoke emotion.  One helps to foster understanding, the other allows people to slip into meaningless accusations that give them emotional satisfaction.  Also, sociopathy is not necessarily a medical condition, it is a set of behavioral traits that is marked by extremely anti-social and destructive behavior along with a lack of empathy, so again, basically everything you're calling evil.  I don't see how that doesn't speak to morality.  Also, being a dick is different than being a sociopath.

When you're speaking about literature it's a different matter.  Of course words in creative works are meant to carry certain emotions and that's not the problem.  The problem is people throwing the word around in normal conversation and non-fiction writing and basically creating and perpetuating this idea that has no reference to anything real.  A word like sociopathic is real, it references real behavior, real patterns, it can be examined and discussed.  Evil is just some inspecific, vague phrase that carries an emotional connotation and is useful for basically nothing except to make people emotionally charged and get them to ignore constructive conversation.  While I don't necessarily have a problem with the word evil in writing, it is interesting to contemplate if and how the word would survive if society ever got rid of it as a commonly-used term.

Honorable, just, and heroic all have definitions that are more specific than evil.  Good is extremely vague, but I also think that gets thrown around far too much these days, it is extremely inspecific.  To me the phrase "he/she is a good person," carries about the same amount of meaning with or without the word good in it.  What sets evil apart is that it actually carries a lot of meaning, unlike good which I feel carries almost zero meaning.  Evil has all this baggage of indicating something intrinsically wrong with that person, of representing some inherent force.  As I said before, it's just superstition.  It's derived form an archaic conception of how the world functions and today it serves mostly to prevent people from obtaining a better conception by appealing to their emotions, which can be useful in writing but not so much in everyday conversation.

theone86

Again, I don't think evil exists.  Evil can describe certain real situations, but in the end the idea of evil itself is just a holdover from a period where scientific understanding was trumped by superstition.  Sociopathic is more accurate, more descriptive, and carries less emotional weight.  And yes, sociopathic describes behavior, evil describes behavior as well.  That's part of why I prefer sociopathic, whereas evil insinuates some intrinsic flaw in the person in question, sociopathic examines their behavior and possible causes.

It's not my problem if the separation between differing sociopaths isn't made.  I specifically said that there are sociopaths who are able to seek treatment, then there are sociopaths who commit genocide.  That's another part of why sociopath is a better word, because it can show us behavior patterns and help us to successfully treat people who begin to manifest them.

If you're saying that evil is useful for labelling sociopaths who are successful at harming other people then I disagree on that as well.  If we take two modern teens displaying sociopathic tendencies and one is treated the other isn't and shoots up a school, then between those two the second is the victim (taking into account that he also had victims of his own).  The point is that by calling the second evil in the first place you're going to vilify someone who needed help and didn't get it while simultaneuosly not levelling the same criticism against someone who was in the same situation and had the benefit of help.  Secondly, even if we're not being sympathetic to the killer in the slightest we're still stigmatizing sociopathy by labelling him as evil and having a public conversation on how horrible a person he was instead of having a public conversation on how to recognize and treat sociopathic individuals.

Sociopaths also aren't simply jerks.  Most if not all sociopaths harm other individuals in a fairly profound manner, be it murder, rape, or simply criminal activity committed without remorse.  I agree that's different from commiting genocide, but there's also a word we use for people who are willing to commit genocide, it's called genocidal.

People already throw the term sociopathic around too much and not a lot of people really know what it means.  If we stopped using evil and started referring to these people as sociopaths, or extreme sociopaths, then we would be facilitating a greater public understanding of what sociopathic means.

honor, justice, and heroism are more specific than evil.  Yes, definitions will change from person to person, but that doesn't mean they're just as subjective as evil.  Besides, those terms all refer to real concepts, evil refers to nothing.  Evil is an archaic idea based in superstition and has been replaced by terms that facilitate greater understanding, such as sociopathic.  Also, tu quoque much?

If you really want to convince me then tell me what evil is.  Tell me exactly what separates it from sociopathy, and don't simply say degrees.  You're saying that we need to separate sociopaths who actually harm people from ones who don't, and I don't see the reason.  Why do we have to call "successful" sociopaths evil?  They are the same as sociopaths who do not harm people in the sense that they are both sociopathic.  Once we accept that then we can begin to better understand what sets the two apart and how to ensure there are more of the latter.

1. 1. e·vil  

      /vl/ AdjectiveProfoundly immoral and malevolent. NounProfound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force. Synonymsadjective.  wicked - bad - ill - vicious - malign - sinisternoun.  harm - ill - mischief - wrong - disaster - wickedness.                     From Google. Didn't copy over well.

WiiRocks66

Definition of EVIL 1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked Get a dictionary. thegerg

Evil doesn't exist outside of us.  Just a construct.  Any act just is.

Evil doesn't exist outside of us.  Just a construct.  Any act just is.

MirkoS77

I think this is correct. Look at nature and the "evil" it contains by human standards. Most social constructs were designed by smarter humans to give them advantages over dumber humans. Not that I'm complaining.

I think evil is pure relativity.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You say your problem is the connotations but you're trying to turn a term like sociopathic into a replacement for evil. Sociopathic literally just means relating to behavior of a sociopath. That is all it means. As I said unlike evil the definition will not change unless you change what a sociopath is because it is just a word that stems off sociopath. You also have a really bad side effect here of not separating typical sociopaths from the extreme ones. Most sociopaths just come off as jerks in the end, most aren't out there seeking to commit genocide. That's why having words to describe extreme circumstances are good. You complain that evil is just thrown around and loses all meaning (I've never seen this but for the sake of argument I'll take your word for it) but then throw sociopathic around in such a way that it means absolutely nothing. I may as well call my cell-phone provider sociopathic, they certainly are a callous bunch of dicks. Honour, justice and heroism are again subjective terms relating to the morals of the person saying them, just like evil. Just would in fact be pretty much the exact opposite of evil. I see you defending the definitions of these and the use of them in language despite the exact same arguments you're using against evil applying to them. At this point you've only convinced me what I said was correct. Side comment on how we're throwing the term sociopath around so much when it has actually fallen quite a bit from favour in part because it became such a broad thing to call others that it lost all meaning.Ace6301

Again, I don't think evil exists.  Evil can describe certain real situations, but in the end the idea of evil itself is just a holdover from a period where scientific understanding was trumped by superstition.  Sociopathic is more accurate, more descriptive, and carries less emotional weight.  And yes, sociopathic describes behavior, evil describes behavior as well.  That's part of why I prefer sociopathic, whereas evil insinuates some intrinsic flaw in the person in question, sociopathic examines their behavior and possible causes.

It's not my problem if the separation between differing sociopaths isn't made.  I specifically said that there are sociopaths who are able to seek treatment, then there are sociopaths who commit genocide.  That's another part of why sociopath is a better word, because it can show us behavior patterns and help us to successfully treat people who begin to manifest them.

If you're saying that evil is useful for labelling sociopaths who are successful at harming other people then I disagree on that as well.  If we take two modern teens displaying sociopathic tendencies and one is treated the other isn't and shoots up a school, then between those two the second is the victim (taking into account that he also had victims of his own).  The point is that by calling the second evil in the first place you're going to vilify someone who needed help and didn't get it while simultaneuosly not levelling the same criticism against someone who was in the same situation and had the benefit of help.  Secondly, even if we're not being sympathetic to the killer in the slightest we're still stigmatizing sociopathy by labelling him as evil and having a public conversation on how horrible a person he was instead of having a public conversation on how to recognize and treat sociopathic individuals.

Sociopaths also aren't simply jerks.  Most if not all sociopaths harm other individuals in a fairly profound manner, be it murder, rape, or simply criminal activity committed without remorse.  I agree that's different from commiting genocide, but there's also a word we use for people who are willing to commit genocide, it's called genocidal.

People already throw the term sociopathic around too much and not a lot of people really know what it means.  If we stopped using evil and started referring to these people as sociopaths, or extreme sociopaths, then we would be facilitating a greater public understanding of what sociopathic means.

honor, justice, and heroism are more specific than evil.  Yes, definitions will change from person to person, but that doesn't mean they're just as subjective as evil.  Besides, those terms all refer to real concepts, evil refers to nothing.  Evil is an archaic idea based in superstition and has been replaced by terms that facilitate greater understanding, such as sociopathic.  Also, tu quoque much?

If you really want to convince me then tell me what evil is.  Tell me exactly what separates it from sociopathy, and don't simply say degrees.  You're saying that we need to separate sociopaths who actually harm people from ones who don't, and I don't see the reason.  Why do we have to call "successful" sociopaths evil?  They are the same as sociopaths who do not harm people in the sense that they are both sociopathic.  Once we accept that then we can begin to better understand what sets the two apart and how to ensure there are more of the latter.

There are better words to describe acts or individuals that fly in the face of cultural norms.  Bad, malevolent, harmful, murderous, selfish, etc.  Basically any word you could substitute as a synonym for evil would be more descriptive.  Evil inherently carries the connotations from its superstitious origins and with them a lot of emotional weight, which again, I think makes it a very unconstructive term in modern rhetoric.

I'm not saying that all people who do bad things are sociopaths, I'm saying that sociopath is a good substitute for evil.

Sociopath:

A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience

Evil:

Profoundly immoral and malevolent

They basically mean the exact same thing, only sociopathic is more scientific.  I also don't mean to say socipaths are evil, that's the complete opposite of my point.  I mean to say that evil is a poor descriptor and sociopathic carries less emotional weight.  The fact that you're getting worked up over the association between sociopaths and evil proves my point, you don't like the negativity inherent in the word evil being associated with sociopaths.  That negativity is part of my problem with the word evil.

Most people who commit atrocious acts are sociopathic.  You pretty much have to be to be able to rationalize atrocious acts.  When we call them sociopathic we are diagnosing them, which helps us better understand them and hopefully prevent recurrences.  Just like any other diagnosis there are going to be people who exhibit the same behavior patterns but don't actually commit atrocious acts.  People who understand this can make the distinction between sociopaths who commit heinous crimes and sociopaths who are able to lead normal lives through treatment.

What does evil say that other words do not?  Murderer, bloodthirsty, avaricious, mass murderer, genocidal, these words are all more specific and all denote someone who commits atrocious acts.  Evil is just a word that is used for the purposes of histrionics and embellishment.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Again, I don't think evil exists.  Evil can describe certain real situations, but in the end the idea of evil itself is just a holdover from a period where scientific understanding was trumped by superstition.  Sociopathic is more accurate, more descriptive, and carries less emotional weight.  And yes, sociopathic describes behavior, evil describes behavior as well.  That's part of why I prefer sociopathic, whereas evil insinuates some intrinsic flaw in the person in question, sociopathic examines their behavior and possible causes.

It's not my problem if the separation between differing sociopaths isn't made.  I specifically said that there are sociopaths who are able to seek treatment, then there are sociopaths who commit genocide.  That's another part of why sociopath is a better word, because it can show us behavior patterns and help us to successfully treat people who begin to manifest them.

If you're saying that evil is useful for labelling sociopaths who are successful at harming other people then I disagree on that as well.  If we take two modern teens displaying sociopathic tendencies and one is treated the other isn't and shoots up a school, then between those two the second is the victim (taking into account that he also had victims of his own).  The point is that by calling the second evil in the first place you're going to vilify someone who needed help and didn't get it while simultaneuosly not levelling the same criticism against someone who was in the same situation and had the benefit of help.  Secondly, even if we're not being sympathetic to the killer in the slightest we're still stigmatizing sociopathy by labelling him as evil and having a public conversation on how horrible a person he was instead of having a public conversation on how to recognize and treat sociopathic individuals.

Sociopaths also aren't simply jerks.  Most if not all sociopaths harm other individuals in a fairly profound manner, be it murder, rape, or simply criminal activity committed without remorse.  I agree that's different from commiting genocide, but there's also a word we use for people who are willing to commit genocide, it's called genocidal.

People already throw the term sociopathic around too much and not a lot of people really know what it means.  If we stopped using evil and started referring to these people as sociopaths, or extreme sociopaths, then we would be facilitating a greater public understanding of what sociopathic means.

honor, justice, and heroism are more specific than evil.  Yes, definitions will change from person to person, but that doesn't mean they're just as subjective as evil.  Besides, those terms all refer to real concepts, evil refers to nothing.  Evil is an archaic idea based in superstition and has been replaced by terms that facilitate greater understanding, such as sociopathic.  Also, tu quoque much?

If you really want to convince me then tell me what evil is.  Tell me exactly what separates it from sociopathy, and don't simply say degrees.  You're saying that we need to separate sociopaths who actually harm people from ones who don't, and I don't see the reason.  Why do we have to call "successful" sociopaths evil?  They are the same as sociopaths who do not harm people in the sense that they are both sociopathic.  Once we accept that then we can begin to better understand what sets the two apart and how to ensure there are more of the latter.

theone86

There are better words to describe acts or individuals that fly in the face of cultural norms.  Bad, malevolent, harmful, murderous, selfish, etc.  Basically any word you could substitute as a synonym for evil would be more descriptive.  Evil inherently carries the connotations from its superstitious origins and with them a lot of emotional weight, which again, I think makes it a very unconstructive term in modern rhetoric.

I'm not saying that all people who do bad things are sociopaths, I'm saying that sociopath is a good substitute for evil.

Sociopath:

A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience

Evil:

Profoundly immoral and malevolent

They basically mean the exact same thing, only sociopathic is more scientific.  I also don't mean to say socipaths are evil, that's the complete opposite of my point.  I mean to say that evil is a poor descriptor and sociopathic carries less emotional weight.  The fact that you're getting worked up over the association between sociopaths and evil proves my point, you don't like the negativity inherent in the word evil being associated with sociopaths.  That negativity is part of my problem with the word evil.

Most people who commit atrocious acts are sociopathic.  You pretty much have to be to be able to rationalize atrocious acts.  When we call them sociopathic we are diagnosing them, which helps us better understand them and hopefully prevent recurrences.  Just like any other diagnosis there are going to be people who exhibit the same behavior patterns but don't actually commit atrocious acts.  People who understand this can make the distinction between sociopaths who commit heinous crimes and sociopaths who are able to lead normal lives through treatment.

What does evil say that other words do not?  Murderer, bloodthirsty, avaricious, mass murderer, genocidal, these words are all more specific and all denote someone who commits atrocious acts.  Evil is just a word that is used for the purposes of histrionics and embellishment.

Tim Burton's hair. 

Tim Burton's hair. 

soulless4now

god

When someone steals your cupcake. 

A subjective term that arose as a result of humans becoming social animals. To me, the best/broad way to describe evil is anything that infringes on other peoples' rights. Rich3232

[QUOTE="soulless4now"]

Tim Burton's hair. 

Ace6301

When someone steals your cupcake. 

CHOASXIII

[QUOTE="CHOASXIII"]

When someone steals your cupcake. 

soulless4now

Yep