Talk:Evil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evil article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Evil, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Social and political philosophy

Contents 1 Tattletale 2 Archive created 3 21st cen. 4 Tone 5 Irish Evil 6 Bush evil 7 Hacker jargon 7.1 Hacker jargon 8 Economic Evils 9 Nazis and evil 10 Objectivism and evil 11 Hardly any citations in the article 12 July 18, 2006 edit 13 definition 14 Is Evil Good? 15 R-41's political blog 15.1 Evil in Politics

[edit] Tattletale

I just reverted some major vandalism, but maybe someone who's an admin should look into scolding 67.191.105.243 sternly. The user also vandalised disco! For shame. 72.196.104.129 20:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget communism, materialism, satanism and totaliaranism. Fascism is the true evil in our society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.197.71 (talk) 14:43, December 29, 2006

Communism isn't "evil", it just hasn't been properly exercised yet. Materialism isn't "evil", maybe "unfair" as it might end up with one person owning "everything" and another owning "nothing", but not "evil". Satanism isn't "evil" either (ironicly enough), it just has different moral ethics than some other religions. Totalitarianism is not "evil" either, it's just a form of politics that we feel uncomfortable with. Same goes for Facism... Me, myself, I wish that the Earth's population would decrease with about 5 billion humans, does that make me "evil"? Nope, my reasons for wishing this kinda justifies the ends (that, and I wouldn't dream of causing a genocide to achieve those ends, I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it). 217.208.27.4 00:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Seriously, this user's comment submission is a bit scary to me. Perhaps its even a ironic display of evil?

"...I'd rather just see the world of humans slowly dissapear with them completely unaware of it". You know, we're quite capable of that. Toss a few thousand nuclear weapons all over the globe, or better yet, ship them remotely to all the places we just don't like, have them all go off simultaneously... Seems to meet your criteria. I'm sure the billions dying wouldn't be aware of the imminent death. Oh, you said "slowly"? Ok, we'll space out the events over the next hour, (that "slow" enough?) and remembering to knock out all satellite communications first.

What does them being unaware of their fates have anything to do with it?

Let me put some words in your mouth. Your statement really is a statement about your perception of an "ideal world". Who knows where the 1 billion number came from or why that's "ideal", but that's your ideal. Obviously, if we have 6 billion now, and we only want 1 billion for the future, we have a problem. You don't want to propose genocide (an obvious solution). But any transitory event that might precipitate transforming this world to your 1,000,000,000 people world wish that avoids the "evils" of genocide whatever you find "evil" would be welcome, (to you).

But, there's a problem. What if no path exists? What if there is no set of transitory states such that the limit point(s) fit some definition of the ideal world? If such a path cannot not exist, then surely there's some better ideal that exists that we can forge our efforts in closing producing a "better" spirit for Jesus/people/world/flying spaghetti monster/ etc. Otherwise, we'd be slaving away at something we cannot accomplish (if even partially). It would be much like that song, "Sixteen tons"

Sixteen tons, and what do you get,

Another day older and deeper in dept,

Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go

I owe my soul to the company store.

We'd be owing our "soul to the company store" for something we cannot get, and possibly get even worse off in the process. I'd argue that this is a form of evil that it would be hard to argue is not evil.

The same argument can be said if the problem is intractable rather than unsolvable. This wish to reduce the population is at the very least intractable.

The other scary portion about the 1,000,000,000 people world wish is, how random the goal is... I mean, why 1 billion. There's been no justification, other than "we'd like the world to be a bit smaller" to reduce pollution or whatever. If not 1 billion, why not 500 million? Why not 500,000 elite scientists? Does this not sound incredibly dystopian to you?

I'm sorry, I just find it incredibly funny that in a discussion page about "Evil" that I'm having to point out to you that your thought processes reek of it.

In my view, there are no evil people, only evil actions and evil thoughts.

What utter rot. There is no such thing as evil, in people, action or thought. Evil is nothing but pure fantasy. And besides, what does any of this have to do with the page itself? AngryStan 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine me, after I wrote that long piece I realized it had nothing to do with the article, and probably should have ignored the poster, who's comments are in a similiar reign. And frankly, you're trolling, (If evil is "pure fiction", what is this article? Hahaha... that's fucking hilarious Evil is pure fiction... HA HA HA HA HA!

(calming down)... ok, perhaps one of us should delete most of this section. I felt it necessary to warn against that kind of reasoning. Obviously, you don't agree, and probably never will. So be it.Root4(one) 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We all have thoughts exploring possibilities like this; it is human nature. But I think that there is enough wisdom available to realize that this chain of thought is not appropriate. I beg of you to reconsider your thoughts. Root4(one) 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As I see it Evil it's not a fictional or supernatural condition, yet it's not "fictional" as in terms of ferry-tale or film entertaiment goals but a very commonly used term for propaganda reasons, used either by state, religion or individuals, that has more or less specific definitions depending to the goals or the criteria of the user, and is reffering to acts, individuals, oppossing groups of people or as a supernatural power that push people or situations to "depravity" or opposses the divine laws (this form of "Evil" is fictional and has religius basis). Based on the perspective killing might be "Evil", stealing might be "Evil", liing might be "Evil", suicide might be "Evil", Yang might be "Evil", Satan might be "Evil", pre-marital sex might be "Evil", homosexuals might be "Evil", Cthulu might be "Evil", Cheese might be "Evil"; Fascists, Communists, Capitalists, Anarchists or Liberitarians might be "Evil"; Jews, Americans, Arabs, Canadians, Australians, Greeks, Polish or "those rotten rude French snobs" might be "Evil", Shaolin monks might be "Evil", the Pope might be "Evil", Barney the pink dinosaur might be "Evil", Smurfette might be "Evil" etc... I believe the main article is accurate enough to describe the use of "Evil" as a term of social ethics and to point out its subjectivity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodraco (talk • contribs) 15:09, August 8, 2007

Whoa, what do you mean, "The" sociopath? you know that the term "sociopathy" denotes a very diverse group of socially based disorders, right? Its also accepted wisdom that negative behaviour stems from mental/social maladjustment. And the Devil. But seriously, anything that we cannot hold in our hands, or see with our eyes, is a construct created by Us, as in "us" the species. No one can yet prove otherwise, but I only have to throw a book at my friend when he isn't looking to let him know that reality is not a figment of his imagination, that he seriously did NOT want me to do that. Only the action and the reaction exists. But what about the bible you say? or the other, more modern examples of miracles and what not? I see a book, or a TV screen. Also, on a more personal note, both communism and capitalism should at least be placed on the negative part of the "whats good for humanity" spectrum, what with their obsession with consuming resources. Does quality of life really make a political system good? (and I'm aware that I am calling capitalism a political system, it is a form of politics, and is the dominant form in certain parts of the world.) communism creeps me right out, with marx's talk about his ideal society entering into a state of "simple communism" which is described quite similarly to the lives of the cavemen proto-humans... and capitalism, well...its kind of obvious now, isn't it? they have nothing left to burn in their furnace to rotate that donut tray, so they're stealing more. Wow, that got really off topic... Evil..right...No such thing, just positive and negative impulse, the circumstances of their creation, and the quantifiable results. Also, an article on Evil should contain the major definitions, scientific and otherwise, and thats about it, right? examples are kind of superfluous. Lonegrigori (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive created

I've gone ahead and archived all the old posts here. If you wish to continue any of the discussions found in the archive, please create a new topic here instead. Do not edit the archive.

The dates are a bit off, but I didn't want to leave this page with only one or two topics showing. Later, when it comes time to archive again, we can move the last few posts dated October into Archive 1, and create Archive 2 for the next segment. -- Kesh 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Per above, I have moved the last few October comments to Archive 1. -- Kesh 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is bandalizing a discussion page Evil? ^^—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodraco (talk • contribs) 15:18, August 8, 2007

[edit] 21st cen.

Evil is subjective by the standards of the current corrupt societies of the modern era as this article expresses. I am sure the article only reflects most people today anyway. Poor article, not fit for an encyclopedia. --Margrave1206 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand you. I think the concept of evil is certainly eminently suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Or do you mean the article is poorly written? This I agree with, in part. With the exception of the final two paragraphs in the "Is evil good?" section, I think the page should end after the second paragraph of the "Is evil a useful term?" section. The rest of it is a strange and irrelevant meandering, only vaguely related to the subject at hand. The fact that evil is a subjective concept is in any case inescapable, as are articles that "only reflect most people". AngryStan 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

On the first line of the article : In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings - "bad" seems a bit informal. Is there any objection to me changing this to negative? SparrowsWing _(talk) 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but not sure "negative" is the right word either - idleness, for instance, could be viewed as "negative", but hardly as "bad" or "evil". "Negative" doesn't necessarily have the moral connotation that "evil" or "bad" does. Maybe "objectionable" or "morally objectionable" would be better? AngryStan 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "morally objectionable" is definitely the better alternative. I'll make the change. SparrowsWing _(talk) 20:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Evil

I've been annoyed with this particular vandalism for quite some time. Finally found out that this comic is the source of that particular gem. It's getting tiresome and it's not even as funny as what Stephen Colbert has been doing. -- Kesh 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Darn. I was hoping it had something to do with leprechauns. AngryStan 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, that comic is what got me interested in editing Wikipedia. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 03:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So is there any chance we could get semi-protection on this article for a few months? This Irish Evil thing has been going on for over a year now. Rpresser 16:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I updated an internal comment that Rpresser added to be a little less aggressive. Here is what is displayed when you view the comments.

If you are about to replace all instances of "evil" with "Irish Evil", as suggested by the comic at http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=816, don't. It's been done, many many times before, is considered vandalism, will be reverted and may result in a block of your account and or IP.

I think that should help. Slavlin 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. WP:BEANS states that we should not do this warning, so I removed it. Rpresser 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS is an essay not a policy or guideline, so I restored the note. Slavlin 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we maybe get a page where the edit has already been done, for those of us who would like to see what it looks like?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.162.41 (talk) 20:17, June 14, 2007

Try this diff. It's not even very inventive vandalism. -- Kesh 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Now absolutely no one has any right to complain: This link will automatically download and vandalize the page for you, without ever having to mess with Wikipedia (cheap PHP regex script ;-) Any questions? Martin Ultima (talk•contribs) 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I want you fuckers to know I was going to put "Irish Evil" into this article, but I checked the talk and now you've made me feel uninventive.

So, from the bottom of my heart, fuck you for ruining a good thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.21.132 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush evil

There is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil. The school that wrote this obviously did not yet know of the the Bush Administration. Looks like a joke to me, but I may have missed something. Garrick92 12:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacker jargon

I removed the following information from the article as there is no citation for it and it does not directly relate to the philosophy concept of evil. If documentation can be shown that this is a valid usage, then I would support adding it back, possibly as Evil (jargon) or something like that.Slavlin 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is straight out of the Jargon file. Rpresser 19:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it definately should not be used as it would be a copyvio. Slavlin 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is "Evil" not "Evil (philosophy)". I would imagine this could cover all English uses (especially jargon) and its meaning through the ages... If you're concerned about page length, or improper coverage of the use of the word, that's a different issue. Secondly, as Eric S. Raymond is the current maintainer of the current Jargon File, I doubt there's much issue of copyright violation, given his relationship to open source. Plagiarism, maybe, yes.

Perhaps the section could be rewritten. I don't know if I have time today. Root⁴(one) 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who kept taking this paragraph out originally. Neat to see people discussing it-- new to wikipedia editing and it's neat to see it in action Will try to be more constructive in future edits SedatedGodzilla 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacker jargon

As used by computer hackers, the jargon term evil implies that some system, program, person, or institution is sufficiently maldesigned to the point that the hacker(s) shouldn't worry about it. Unlike the adjectives in the cretinous/losing/brain damaged series, evil does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's, and often acts as a synonym for the word difficult. This usage is more an aesthetic and engineering judgement than a moral one in the mainstream sense. "We thought about adding a Blue Glue interface but decided it was too evil to deal with," or "TECO is neat, but it can be pretty evil if you're prone to typos." Often pronounced with the first syllable lengthened, as /'i:::v¿l/. Compare to evil and rude. evil, among hackers, is often used when describing any corporation or entity that espouses conformity, rather than community, especially in regards to computer software and information flow.

[edit] Economic Evils

A monopoly is "evil"? Give me a break. The fact that people claim Microsoft or other businesses are evil, has to do with the activities of those firms, and their unfair business practices. It is not just because they are monopolies. Many monopolies have reasonable business practices. Many monopolies even serve the greater good. Northern Bear 15:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree one hundred percent. A monopoly does not imply malevolence in and of itself. --70.78.18.102 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest we change in the article? Specifics. (Patricia Op 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Nazis and evil

Okay, don't everyone jump down my throat, but not sure about 'The Nazis, during World War II, considered genocide acceptable...' I'm not arguing that they didn't practice genocide, I'm just not sure whether they actually considered it acceptable, in that not only did they wring their hands a lot about how hard it was on them having to kill all those people, they also did their damnedest to make sure that the rest of the world didn't get to hear about it (cf Mark Roseman's 'The Villa, The Lake, The Meeting' on the Wannsee conference, not to mention Hilberg's 'Destruction of the European Jews, etc etc). You notice also that neo-Nazis tend not to argue 'yes, the Nazis killed six million people and good thing too', but try to persuade people that it never happened at all. The Nazis argued not that genocide was acceptable, but that it was a bad thing that was nevertheless necessary and which should remain as their little secret (cf Himmler's speech at Poznan in Oct 1943 in which he called it 'a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.'). Still it's a moot point and I'm not sure whether it warrants changing the wording. Lexo 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazis are a good example of the objectivity of morality; they thought that what they were doing was "good" or at least the only way to bring themselves out of poverty. However, everyone else considered it "evil" and thus tried to stop them; so who is right? Is something "good" just because a bunch of people think it is, and is something "evil" just because a bunch of people think it is?24.118.227.213 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit more too it. showing that the Nazi's did not find genocide acceptable was the fact that they did try to off load the jews on the US of A and even sent a boat load to Palestine. Both were turned back by the British and Americans. 1000 years of jew hating in europe and the fact that no one else wanted them, plus the fact that no one made a stink over 9 million armenians being butchered in WWI, lead the Nazi's to conclude that no one would raise an out cry over the extermination of the jews either. Much of non-nazi europe, including France and Italy were all too happy to get rid of their jews as well. Jiohdi (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivism and evil

no view of evil would be complete without a view that turns the concept on its head Jiohdi (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in its current state, devoting an entire section to it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. What should really be done with the section is that it should be merged with the rest of the article. Based on the "Ayn Rand on Evil" template, it would also be logical to put stuff like "Lenin on Evil" or "George W. Bush on Evil". The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just merged "Ayn Rand on Evil" section.The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hardly any citations in the article

Please see subject!69.254.93.246 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) I concur. The article looks more like a term paper then an encylopedia entry

[edit] July 18, 2006 edit

On July 18, 2006, when I edited the page and put under "See also" "Conservatism", it was because I had a poor concept of what evil actually was, and I instead thought that anything that had a second-rate effect was evil (e.g., how a Hulver poll of the most evil people listed Richard Simmons as one of the options). Now I realize that only what is deliberately harmful or wrong is evil. So, in response to what a user said above, I'd have to say Cheney, not Bush, is the evil one. User:Gmeric13@aol.com —Preceding comment was added at 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] definition

The definition of evil that begins this article seems far, far too broad. Minaker (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is all wrong. "Evil" is a religious concept. "Bad" is the secular concept. To use myself as example: The Christian morality labels me as evil, as well as a sinner. I have no compunctions about that. The words "evil" and "sinner" have no meaning to me. As a free spirit I can do no evil, nor can I sin. I carry those labels as badges of honor since I do know what they mean to Christians. I can do bad, though, but chose not to. But doing so I exercise what the Christian morality labels as "evil"--free will. See how silly this "evil" thing is?

You're absolutely wrong when you say that free will is labeled as evil. Free will gives us the opportunity to choose evil -- but it was given to us by God and hence cannot be inherently evil. It can be misused, just as anything God has given us can be misused -- but nothing God has given us can be evil. Rpresser (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I am in a tiny minority on this. But that is no fault of mine. It is the fault of conformist "freethinkers" who have never had an independent thought in their lives and coward atheists who are Christians in all but faith. How I loathe those sheep in wolf clothing.

One of Nietzsche's objections was that the death of God had given the 19th century Europeans new freedoms, people still pretended nothing had changed. They still pretended the Christian morality applied. Nietzsche called them mad. What do you call the people who more than a century later still delude themselves?

I know I cannot win this. I know the cowards and conformists outnumber me a billion to one. Instead this is a call to any freethinker out there worthy the name, preferably on the Wiki crew.

Everything I wrote here goes for the religious question of Good and evil, which, again, is good and bad in the secular world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I don't want my point to be associated with the above rant. The argument that the concept of evil is a purely religious one and that the highly vague term "bad" is the secular equivalent could be described as a simple oversimplification, but I think it's just plain wrong. In either case, the above comments are clearly more about the user's personal passions and have very little to do with objective encyclopedic definitions. Minaker (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I made no claim of neutrality. I speak from a secular, not neutral, POV. Other than that, and that it is a rant, you are wrong.

Classic example: Nazi Germany.

The Nazis were not evil. They were rational and ethical. Rational means to take optimal action based on what you know and want. Ethics is merely a system to justify immoral acts. The most often used ethic is the "good of the many." The "good of the many" justified the immoral Tuskegee Syphilis Study in America from 1932 to 1972. It's highly unlikely that the people in the Tuskegee Study were not aware they were doing "evil." But the ones in charge knew they acted ethically. And those who followed orders had their defense: they "just" followed orders. But somehow the Nazis were different. They were just "evil."

The Africans welcomed the Nazis because they treated them better than what the British did. The Nazis, the British, the Americans, etc. of the 1930s-40s did "evil" by today's standard.

My point is not that an atheist cannot accept the Christian morality, at least a cherry-picked Christian morality. After all, the atheist is a sinner according to Christianity, which I doubt the atheist agrees with. I just can't stand their hypocrisy and cowardice. Same goes for the people who call themselves "freethinkers."

My point is that you cannot make a secular argument for the concept of "evil." You can only argue "evil" by resorting to a higher (divine) good. "Secular evil" is a logical contradiction.

I'm not deluding myself. I know the secular voice can never win. The secular society is the ultimate utopia. And maybe that's a good thing. We (and I include me) are a much too primitive race. The Iraqi war is proof enough of that. But then, they are "evil" and God is on our side. No logic--i.e. "evil relativism"--is needed.

I changed the opening definition; it still needs some work, but it's much more accurate than the previous definition. Minaker (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

on a different note, on my exodus from religious faith, the origin of evil was not immediately apparent, but after several years of zen like practices and studying psychology, it occurred to me that evil cannot exist but in the presence of an ideal. Consider that reality seems to be made of dynamic energies which become atoms, molecules, cells, plants, bugs, people, etc... and no evil exists at any of those levels. It is only when the mind enters the picture and compares what is reality to what is ideal that good and evil can come into existance... ideals are either possible potentials for the future, or complete rejections of reality in total ignorance of how reality works. It seems obvious to me that no all knowing god can judge a human as a sinner for not living up to a fantasy ideal that being always knew to be a lie. Labelling someone for not actualizing one potential over another seems to be rooted in ignorance or the nature of reality as well as no one really understand how we humans make the choices we make. The myth of freewill is oxymoronic on its face as no action uncaused can be at the same time willed and no caused action is free. Consciousness has beeen demonstrated, since the 1960s, to trail what we actually do, rather than initiate it and so saying we made a conscious choice is false on the face of the evidence. essentially, if one gives up the myths and religious lies, one is left with reality being perfect until compared to what it is not. our judgements about it being cruel, uncaring, etc. are simply our minds ability to compare and contrast reality as we experience it, to fantasy realities as we wish we could experience. All of these seem to trace back to simple bio-programming that tells us that pain is to be avoided and pleasure to be sought. Pragmatically this seems to be rooted in the obvious need to avoid bodily damage and seek biological goals such as feeding, procreating, etc. The human mind, with its vast abilities as apparently added to this the goals of self-image protection and enhancement as well as our fantasy ideals. we feel pain and pleasure when these mental fictions are harmed or acheived the same way other animals feel it for their bodies alone.Jiohdi (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Evil Good?

I am sorry for vandalizing this section and also the Amphetimine article. I will not vandalize wikipedia anymore. However I want to talk about the "Is Evil Good?" section on the talk page. I do not think that evil is good. I actually think that evil is terrible. It is terrible. What I think of evil is commiting sins to the extreme. I think of "evil" as things like terrorism, murdering of innocent people ect. I will not vandalize wikipedia anymore but I want you to respect my comments because I am at least putting it on the talk page. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)21:36 Febuary 6, 2008

That's nice. Please read WP:FORUM. This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not your personal opinions. -- Kesh (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

99.232.29.227 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC):I have read the wikipedia forum and also the page about vandalism on wikipedia and I now know what exactly vandalism is and I won't do it again. So anyways, that thing about "Is Evil Good?" Do you think that evil is good? 22:48, February 7, 2008 (talk)

You are still missing the point. This article is not an editorial. It reports what others have said on the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? 99.232.29.227 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 16:32, Februay 8, 2008

It means this is not a place for discussing your opinion on the subject. All we're doing is making an encyclopedia article of what people have written about Evil in philosophy, history and religion. This is not a forum for us to talk about whether evil is good or not. -- Kesh (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. But should the section be deleted? I am not going to delete it right now but I want to see what people think about it. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 07:21, February 9, 2008

You should not delete something because you disagree with it. You should only delete something because it is inaccurate. In other words, you should not delete a reference to Anton LaVey because you disagree with what he said. You should only delete it if you can demonstrate that he did not in fact say it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm not going to delete it and I see what you are saying, but maybe the neutrality of the section is disputed. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 12:42, February 9, 2008

The section would fail the neutrality test if Anton LaVey's views were presented in a biased manner. LaVey himself is not supposed to be neutral, only the presentation of his views. In short, the purpose of the section is not to provide information about evil, but information about one particular view of evil. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right. I understand what you are trying to say. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 19:50, February 9, 2008

Just one thing. Could you give me an example of Anton LaVey's views being presented in a biased way? 99.232.29.227(UTC) 21:46, February 9, 2008

Sure. If I said, "Anton LaVey is a great guy and was right in everything he said," that would be biased. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Now I see, Thanks. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 9:23, February 10, 2008

[edit] R-41's political blog

I decided to move this communist apologetic blog to the talk, because its entirely unsourced, non neutral and pretty is just an opinion of one student. If there is anything at all to salavage with sources, then please feel free to re-add some.

Gennarous (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evil in Politics

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(March 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

This article does not cite any references or sources. (March 2008) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

In modern-day liberal democratic societies, many associate evil in politics with authoritarian, imperialist, racist, and totalitarian regimes and with leaders who are demagogues. Adolf Hitler in Germany, is a primary and common example throughout the world of an evil politician, as he permitted the persecution and mass genocide of Jews, opposition figures and other minorities in the Holocaust, allowed the deliberate destruction of civilian areas of cities and had blatant disregard for the life of his own citizens in the final months of World War II. Hitler is so universally infamous in both western and eastern societies that comparisons of individuals to Hitler or to Nazis is a common epithet that equates to declaring that someone is evil. Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union is often considered evil in the west and by reform-minded communists for his purges and his persecution of the Kulaks, and his demand of absolute loyalty from his citizens. In the West, Mao Tse Tung in China is considered evil, for the devastation brought on by the Cultural Revolution. Ferdinand II of Aragon, who led Spain and began the Spanish Inquisition has been considered evil for the inquisition's harsh repression of Muslims, Jews, and other dissenting populations.

In general imperialism has been seen as evil since the collapse of colonialism. British, Portugese, and Spanish imperialist repression of aboriginals in the Americas led to the deaths of millions of aboriginals, and the displacement of their population to make way for colonial expansion. British actions in South Africa during the Second Boer War have been considered evil, such as his armed forces' establishment of concentration camps for Boers and his repression of the Boer people.[1] Italy's imperialist agenda in Africa during the 1930s under Fascism led to the repression and segregation of Ethiopians, such as the deliberate destruction of Ethiopian settlements in Addis Ababa in 1937.^[1] Some of the final examples of the negative aspects of imperialism which have been deemed evil were demonstrated during Algeria's struggle for independence from France, where the French brutally repressed the Algerian independence movement.

The political writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, in The Prince, explore the relationship between politics and the moral norms of good and evil. Notoriously, Machiavelli makes the case that morality can sometimes be a hindrance in the pursuit of power, because in the political realm "the ends justifies the means". Machiavelli argues that a ruler may have to act immorally to protect both his personal power and the interests of the state.

In common parlance, the term Machiavellian is used to describe politicians or political policy that is amoral. Machiavelli did not make a case for evil, but rather argued pragmatically that a prince could not practically follow the moral codes of the common people. He is explicit in stating that politicians who choose or are forced to commit evil acts must be prepared to face the moral consequences of their actions.

Gilbert and Sullivan satirize this view in The Pirates of Penzance, where the Pirate King sings

For many a king on a first class throne

If he wants to call his crown his own

Must manage somehow to get through

More dirty deeds than ever I do.

In contrast to the views expressed above, authoritarian, totalitarian, and theocratic states often consider western democracies to be evil. Totalitarian states under communism or fascism believe that liberal democracy allows for the exploitation of the people, that democracy is actually a regressive force for society, that individualism is bad because it favours materialism over values common to the people. Theocracies criticize liberal democracy because it allows women to exercise strong influence and express themselves provocatively, allows the consumption of intoxicating substances (such as alcohol and tobacco), and allow materialist individualism to to supplant the enforcement of holy writ.

In the light of controversial conflicts in places Vietnam and Iraq, even supporters of liberal democracy, especially from the left and also the libertarian side of the political spectrum, have claimed that democratically elected leaders of the United States, especially Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush have been evil or have followed evil principles in their support of such wars. These three US Presidents have been accused of lying to their people on important issues, using murder and torture to support US business interests, allowing war crimes such as Mei Li and Abu Ghraib, and continuing unpopular wars against the will of the people.

One wide-spread form of political evil that is universally denounced is corruption, where politicians enrich themselves at the expense of their country and its people.

I just can't resist pointing out what happens when you click on the hyperlink to "Mei Li" above. Presumably, it's not what the author of this polemic intended to link to!

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)