I have been writing a book and I have come to a point where I need a conflict a villain no not a villin the protein but an adversary of my “hero”. Then I ran into a problem I truly cannot say I understand with all my philosophy and theology – what good is and what evil is. Why is he/she/it evil? Why do they choose or born to be this way or do these things etcetera? What is evil to start we understand good for the things we find pleasurable but in other thoughts we find that these pleasurable things can be of ways of evil that being like sex. A very touchy subject matter to most Americans a little more open-minded are the Europeans on the subject but just the same. That being said for example if we go toward the all too common Christian route an example of good and evil per say.

What is it to kill another instead to murder another? What really defines this? Are you avenging the death of your wife is this then killing? Or is it murder because you take the life of another from their family? Making more or less the eye for an eye theme. Or another example from a different approach would be to say to kill for food or is it murder because you are still taking a life? How extreme is it?

So the question in its simplest form I can come up with is what is TRULY evil and what motivates one or something to be this way (apart from the flawed idea of the first sin)?

RULES OF THIS TOPIC
First off- these are the rules of this discussion as I see fit to attempt to stop meaningless badgering and false insight toward a goal or an idea.

1. BE OPEN-MINDED!!! Proof, not opinion. Your argument needs proof to be a fact- so if you do not have proof to show that your opinion is a fact then I recommend you leave this discussion before a moderator deletes your from the forum or thread by the least for you not being open-minded.

2. Reasonable arguments. Do not throw in the idea that because you are catholic you are right. We all come from different backgrounds and don’t be a pompous fool to think that because you come from that background that you know where that background even comes from. How much about the REAL history do you know not of what you are told- but for this example at play can you read Hebrew? Or by that matter Greek?

3. Descript examples. Be descriptive make sure you are clear of what you mean to not start a flame war or argument.

4. This is not a debate whatsoever to prove one idea wrong from another- this is the attempt to gather the ideas that there are in place and then find the fallacies of the ideas given to attempt to find something that even at this extent may not be able to understand at this point in our adaptation of this world.

Post and be friendly please.

[This message has been edited by faytmorgan (edited 12-21-2006).]

It doesn't answer your question about the definitions of good and evil, but some food for thought for your book.

Watch Smallville.

One of the shows great strengths is how Lex Luthor is portrayed. He's not a generic evil or malevolent person. To his mind he chooses the right course of action. Does that make him evil, or just misguided?

Consider Lex and Superman eventually becoming mortal enemies. To Lex, Superman represents a grave threat to humanity by virtue of his super powers and you cannot allow that power to be used against you. In that regard, Lex would see himself as the hero fighting against impossible odds to protect humanity.

If the story of Superman was told from the perspective of Lex Luthor, then Clark would be an alien who comes to earth with virtually unilimited power to do whatever he wants - dispensing his idea of justice on the world. Do you surrender to this seeming omnipotent being, or do you fight to remain self governing?

My theory, now called, Daniel's Theory of the Good and Evil Concept of Reality.
Evil is completely 100% social constructed. Usually by the majority of the society. What the majority feels is evil, is just that evil and will be considered evil until somebody/thing has enough influence to change it. This is only the foundation, as both everything good and evil are constructed this way. What is right and wrong are all social constructed, if there is no majority or dominate 'law, guide,rule, etc. then the instinct and society will constructed them, and as a majority will keep them in power.

Forgive me but just got done writting a paper in my SOC class, guess im still in the mood after 13 pages

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It doesn't answer your question about the definitions of good and evil, but some food for thought for your book. Watch Smallville. One of the shows great strengths is how Lex Luthor is portrayed. He's not a generic evil or malevolent person. To his mind he chooses the right course of action. Does that make him evil, or just misguided? Consider Lex and Superman eventually becoming mortal enemies. To Lex, Superman represents a grave threat to humanity by virtue of his super powers and you cannot allow that power to be used against you. In that regard, Lex would see himself as the hero fighting against impossible odds to protect humanity. If the story of Superman was told from the perspective of Lex Luthor, then Clark would be an alien who comes to earth with virtually unilimited power to do whatever he wants - dispensing his idea of justice on the world. Do you surrender to this seeming omnipotent being, or do you fight to remain self governing?

Well you catch my problem then- to make a character that is actualy evil. Because in the opinion of evil they are doing the RIGHT thing- and in a non-boased point of view could see why they think it is right.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: Well you catch my problem then- to make a character that is actualy evil. Because in the opinion of evil they are doing the RIGHT thing- and in a non-boased point of view could see why they think it is right.

Then just make them a sociopath who has no concept of right and wrong, or a psychopath who actually enjoys inflicting pain. I find those characters more one dimensional and less interesting, though.

X-Men is another example of what I was talking about. Magneto is presented as a sympathetic bad guy in that he does evil, but is driven by what he considers a noble cause.

oops

[This message has been edited by Uaana (edited 12-22-2006).]

Back to your original request..

Evil because you can be.

[This message has been edited by Uaana (edited 12-22-2006).]

i am not espsicically lookign for a architype- i apologize but the answer to the tpoc what is evil and why would one choose to be or is born to be this way. ir repeat.

There is no good and evil. Just shades of grey. I am of the firm belief that no one alive or dead is pure evil or pure good. Its impossible to be far on either end of the spectrum.

But what is evil? I think evil is just being different and doing things that society does not approve. Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Is that evil? By my definition, yes, genocide is not an acceptable practice by most societies of our planet. But what is evil is relative to the society that deems what is acceptable. Many countries in the Middle East would call women who walk around in normal clothing evil. Here in the U.S. many people think that abortion is evil, or gay sex is evil? Is it right for them to think that? I wouldn't say its wrong, but its wrong for them to enforce that as fact. Most judgements of Good or Evil is based off opinion.

BTW, love your avatar!

[This message has been edited by Tinton (edited 12-22-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Tinton: There is no good and evil. Just shades of grey. I am of the firm belief that no one alive or dead is pure evil or pure good. Its impossible to be far on either end of the spectrum. But what is evil? I think evil is just being different and doing things that society does not approve. Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Is that evil? By my definition, yes, genocide is not an acceptable practice by most societies of our planet. But what is evil is relative to the society that deems what is acceptable. Many countries in the Middle East would call women who walk around in normal clothing evil. Here in the U.S. many people think that abortion is evil, or gay sex is evil? Is it right for them to think that? I wouldn't say its wrong, but its wrong for them to enforce that as fact. Most judgements of Good or Evil is based off opinion. BTW, love your avatar!

your the second to mention the avatar- thanx! i rather be different- curly's is the only other one i think is self creativeness of DOOM!...... yeah.....

anyhoo- well i think you are right about people (realisticaly) are not all the way on either spectrum. But i do have a problem with the society thing- you are right yet i think there is more to it then that- and i am trying to find an answer to that. yes it is society that makes evil BUT this evil tha tsociety makes- is sudo- its not real.

with that said- what is real? trully evil- non- biased thought that evil is as evil does as it were.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: your the second to mention the avatar- thanx! i rather be different- curly's is the only other one i think is self creativeness of DOOM!...... yeah..... anyhoo- well i think you are right about people (realisticaly) are not all the way on either spectrum. But i do have a problem with the society thing- you are right yet i think there is more to it then that- and i am trying to find an answer to that. yes it is society that makes evil BUT this evil tha tsociety makes- is sudo- its not real. with that said- what is real? trully evil- non- biased thought that evil is as evil does as it were.

There is no true evil. Judgement of what is evil and to what degree of evil is left to the opinion of the judge. There is no scientific basis for evil, no way to measure it. Two different people may see different shades of evil in the same person/event/object.

quote Originally posted by Tinton: There is no true evil. Judgement of what is evil and to what degree of evil is left to the opinion of the judge. There is no scientific basis for evil, no way to measure it. Two different people may see different shades of evil in the same person/event/object.

does gravity exist? hmmm... then were did i drop that graviton.......(no pun intended) we can not feel touch or even technically proove what causes gravity and we no its there.

Working from a species standpoint, evil hurts the survival of the species. Stalin destroyed roughly 20,000,000 soviet citizens. Evil? more were left alive and in his opinion mankind was better without all those farmers reproducing.
The USA developed and used nuclear bombs against citizens of a country whose soldiers they were at war with. Evil? more USA solders got to live.

Ether action left uncontrolled undoubtedly would have been considered evil by the degradation of the gene pool, so limited evil or merely misguided? What doesn't destroy you makes you stronger? Since we still exist has evil actually ever been experienced?

http://www.churchofsatan.com/

This may have the answers you seek... seriously.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
Since nothing in this world is black and white, evil is a hard thing to define. Is the character actually choosing to be evil or just perceived that way... motives are what make people interesting more so than their actual actions. Someone acting Machiavellian for the better good or because it's quick easy or profitable?

E.E. Doc Smith had gun toting scientist heroes that over and over stuck their noses into alien civilizations and occasionally committed genocide on a galactic scale... for the better good. Asimov's Foundation novels had a similar theme where a group actually helps push civilization over the edge into the dark ages in order to make the bad times shorter. Piers Anthony's Bio of a Space Tyrant, A.A. Attanasio where he explores potential and metamorphisis or characters and point of view makes all the difference sometimes. Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice...

I think it comes down to the author having to define good and evil or at least setting up a framework for the reader to ponder unless it's as simple as The Punisher or the Executioner type series... GOOD fiction makes the reader think, ponder views/choices they probably/hopefully won't have to deal with in the real world. It's not really about good vs. evil... it's about conflict. Remember... man vs. self, man vs. man, man vs. society, man vs. nature, man vs. machine. Those about cover it.

If you can capture what Frederic Brown did in "Knock" you've got a chance... Here is an entire sci-fi story for you with conflict, a protagonist and antagonist...

quote Frederic Drown wrote The last man on earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door…

quote Frederic Drown wrote The last man on earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door…

Excitedly opening the door, he saw the last grizzly bear.
He wasn't evil, he was hungry.

[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 12-22-2006).]

Good is the act of conscious and unconscious thoughts without regard to self. It's not so much what "I get" but what "we share." Not all of us are good but we work at it very hard and at times it is very difficult.

Good relies on faith that all will work out. It's a learned process that takes time, patience, awareness and the ability to understand that all is not as it seems to be on the surface. Eventually it leads to the feeling of never knowing who what where when or why but at the same time knowing.... IE faith. It's not religious but at the same time religions are very much based on this premise.

Evil is the same but with regard to self. Everything is about me me me. Mine all mine. Even the best of us has this touch to a degree. Evil is very easy to see at times but it can change like a chameleons skin. Good knows evil and evil knows good.

All in all we are all evil because this "place" is wrought evil.
Let me explain. We all are animals with a strong sense of survival and "self" preservation which is really no different than any other animal in the world. What sets mankind apart from the animal world is we KNOW we are going to die one day... It's a fact.. We "know" this. Thanks Eve! you just had to bite the apple didn't you! <------ sorry had to throw that in there.
Anywho. We have a choice to make when it comes to our survival. Act alone for ones own self or put faith in our fellow man along with some intangible notion that we know everything will work out even when it seems it's not working; we are not surviving. That’s one of the "tests" of good and evil.

Starve them and see who thinks for only themselves and who thinks about others over himself. The good will question why there is so little but will share.. Evil will just take the food and stash it for later for himself. After the good has died or been killed off evil will be left standing alone.

Your heros adversary will be one that he never expected yet always knew. If your hero has a faith of some kind he will detect the "glitch in the matrix" so to speak yet it will seem out of place... confusing. Like a bad day and the usual escape does not seem satisfying, if anything it adds more aggravation to the hero when evil is present.

Your hero will not fear his adversary but it will cause him to question his faith. It will make him weak then exploit him when he is down and out then try to defeat him. The question is will his adversary kill him or let him live. The ultimate question will then be does your hero live by killing his adversary thus becoming an evil all it's own.... Who lives and who dies doesn't really matter... The question is what happens after death. Neither good nor evil people really and truly know.

Questions you need to answer

What is motivating your heros adversary, what does he gain by eliminating your hero?

What strength does your hero draw upon and does it give him true strenght or abandon him?
They say "what doesn't kill you makes you stonger" so if his faith "empowers him" every single time it's not real. Strength comes from within as well as from thin air... like for example "a sign from god" "a vision" Ya know.. that "it was there when I needed it and not when I truely didn't and that in itself was what I really needed" kind of thing.

What happens to your hero in the end?
Now theres the one thing you can leave unaswered. Let the reader question where he himself would be...

Do that and it should be a damn good book.

Perspective.
What does your hero stand for? He cant be a hero without a cause so evil would be something that conflicted with that cause.

My goal in life is to own my own house and drive a V8 Fiero to my great job. The oil companies raise oil prices, the insurance companies make my premiums go up so I cant afford my home and a young hot shot that knows how to talk but couldn’t format a hard drive takes my job. They are the true definition of evil

If you can pull your reader in to your story, make them associate with your hero and believe in his cause then creating evil should be easy. It helps if the evil effects more than just your evil. Its going to be easier to pull in your reader if the hero’s cause is one they can believe in as well.
I have been working on a book for a long time. I haven’t touched it in a while. Its not that I don’t have ideas, I have too many ideas. I get fragmented and end up taking the story in 10 different directions. Its ok I just organize them into different chapters but its a job tying them all together.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It doesn't answer your question about the definitions of good and evil, but some food for thought for your book. Watch Smallville. One of the shows great strengths is how Lex Luthor is portrayed. He's not a generic evil or malevolent person. To his mind he chooses the right course of action. Does that make him evil, or just misguided? Consider Lex and Superman eventually becoming mortal enemies. To Lex, Superman represents a grave threat to humanity by virtue of his super powers and you cannot allow that power to be used against you. In that regard, Lex would see himself as the hero fighting against impossible odds to protect humanity. If the story of Superman was told from the perspective of Lex Luthor, then Clark would be an alien who comes to earth with virtually unilimited power to do whatever he wants - dispensing his idea of justice on the world. Do you surrender to this seeming omnipotent being, or do you fight to remain self governing?

Another example on TV like Lex: Gius Baltar (Battlestar Galactica). He certainly does not BELIEVE he is doing wrong (although he may begin to question himself at this time now that he is living with the Cylons).

The Cylons themselves would be seen as evil by the Colonials, yet to the Cylon mind the war is retribution for slavery and attempted genocide by the Colonials. Cylons see themselves as ridding the universe of an evil and self centered race of war mongers.

Another TV sci fi example: The Daleks (Doctor Who). They are evil in that they believe all life other than Daleks should be exterminated, yet they are the sad result of something done to them by Davros and have no choice but to follow their "designed nature."

The Time Lords, generally thought of as good and "keepers of order" yet in the days of their founder, Rassilon, they kidnapped different races throughout time and made them fight to the death in "the game of Rassilon" in Gallifrey's "Death Zone." The Doctor himself is responsible for the mass genocide of both his own people and the Daleks in order to end the Third Great Time War.

Good and evil are shades of gray.

To quote the Doctor from the Doctor Who Christmas Invasion episode:

"I should have told them (the Sycorax) to run, run for their lives, the monsters are coming. The human race."

[This message has been edited by tutnkmn (edited 12-22-2006).]

From Heinlein "The only sin (evil) is hurting others unnecessarily, hurting yourself is not sinful, just stupid"

The previous poster who stated something to the effect that there isn't any evil, must have lived a sheltered life. I'll give an example, from my personal experience, a 15 yr old girl, kidnapped, never to be seen again, her suspected killer never convicted, dies in jail 40yrs later while serving life (commuted from death by a liberal governor) for raping and killing someone else's 14 yr old girl. The 15yr olds mother turns to alcohol for solace and stops nurturing her two other teenage children. They end up taking care of her more than she does them. She dies in her late 70's. While cleaning her room, her family discovers she still had a box with clippings from it seems every newspaper and magazine article ever published abpout her missing daughter. Even in her 70's, she would sometimes see a face in a crowd and demand the car be stopped for her to see if she had seen her missing daughter.

First you construct a society. Since you're writing a book, that society might be one made up of Smurfs or Demons in Hell. The definitions of good and evil, for THOSE TWO SOCIETIES, would be very different and, in fact, 180° apart, most likely. If you are using a recreation of our US Society today, then you have a problem indeed since many would have you believe that there is no distinction between good and evil, only shades of gray. That's not the view I hold, but it is seemingly becoming the most common point of view.

Regardless of what either your hero, or villian, have to think or say on the subject, what should guide you on determining good vs. evil is what is acceptable in the society you've constructed. If your society thinks that having red roses on the table is a sign of blood sacrifice to the devil, the a red rose salesman would be the epitome of evil. It all depends on how you have constructed your society in your book.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: Well you catch my problem then- to make a character that is actualy evil. Because in the opinion of evil they are doing the RIGHT thing- and in a non-boased point of view could see why they think it is right.

stabbing or burning children
putting M-80's inside any living things orifices

Of course, the problem with THAT definition is who decides what is "unnecessarily".

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by 88 Formula: From Heinlein "The only sin (evil) is hurting others unnecessarily, hurting yourself is not sinful, just stupid"

I don't think there truly is any such thing as "evil". As defined by Websters:

tymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE <an evil odor> c : DISAGREEABLE <woke late and in an evil temper>
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY

The probelm with that definition is all of the qualifying components are completley subjective. Even if a maojirty of people agree on an invisible subjective line, that still doesn't define any specific fact. A mojrity of people in the US still think Jesus was born on December 25th, but that doesn't make it a fact. But even then, you couldn't hope to get a majority of any population to ever agree on anything like that. You could dredge up a hundred topics from this board that would easily illustrate how diverse the opinion here is about what actually qualifies as evil. That ALONE to me proves that there is no way possible to specify a 100% quantifying fact that would define what "evil" truly is. Hitler wasn't evil, he was merely doing what he thought was right for himself and his country. Even the terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Centers can't (in my opinion) be considered evil. They really believed what they were doing was "right". Even though most rational people can't possibly understand how they could believe it was the "right" thing to do, it doesn't change that fact.
Just as there is a differnt opinion about what "evil" might actually be for each person on this board, there is a line each individual will cross to accomplish a goal. And for each of those people, there is another would say that line is too far out, or not out far enough.
I think in every story, where a there is an "evil" person, as has been decribed earlier, aside from just mindless mayhem (which could be attributed to mental disorder, still not "evil") I would say every character has a motive that drives them to believe their actions are somehow justified.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 12-22-2006).]

quote Originally posted by tutnkmn: Another example on TV like Lex: Gius Baltar (Battlestar Galactica). He certainly does not BELIEVE he is doing wrong (although he may begin to question himself at this time now that he is living with the Cylons).

The main difference with Baltar is he doesn't care about good and evil - he only cares about himself. Whatever fullfills his desires is what he'll do, and he'll delude himself if necessary to avoid any problems of conscience.

It's like he has a conscience and knows good from evil, but chooses to lie to himself about what's really going on so his conscience doesn't care. A good example was him allowing 6 access to the defense mainframe. He's not so obtuse as to not know she was up to no good, yet he refused to see it.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: The main difference with Baltar is he doesn't care about good and evil - he only cares about himself. Whatever fullfills his desires is what he'll do, and he'll delude himself if necessary to avoid any problems of conscience. It's like he has a conscience and knows good from evil, but chooses to lie to himself about what's really going on so his conscience doesn't care. A good example was him allowing 6 access to the defense mainframe. He's not so obtuse as to not know she was up to no good, yet he refused to see it.

Sex is a POWERFUL manipulator, and it seems Six (aphrodite?) was created at least in part to play such a role. Colorful plumage on a predator.

I believe evil has more to do with consciously knowing you are going "against the grain", then your actual actions. ex: Mantis is NOT evil when it catches its prey. Even a cat, playing with its catch, is not evil... but someone doing something KNOWING it is hurting the other person... That's pretty evil, imo... be it mental or physical suffering.

Know what I mean?

I am currently in a period where I am swimming with Camus and Joseph Campbell and Jung and Rob Brezsny and a few other people...some GREAT stuff there.

Going to read the rest of this thread now, don't wanna rant.

check yer PMs, faytmorgan ...

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 12-22-2006).]

There is no good or evil, right or wrong there are only consiquences to actions.

Your looking for definitions to abstract, man made ideas that are wholely subjective.

So a rapist that never gets caught, never suffers any consequences for his actions, has committed no Evil?

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist."

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Phranc: There is no good or evil, right or wrong there are only consiquences to actions. Your looking for definitions to abstract, man made ideas that are wholely subjective.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: So a rapist that never gets caught, never suffers any consequences for his actions, has committed no Evil? "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist." John Stricker

Just because a person doesn't pay a price that you are aware of, or that satisfies your desire for revenge or vengeance, doesn't necessarily mean that a person pays no price. And if he feels no remorse, then in his mind, did he really do anything wrong?
I read your comment a second time, and it actually makes no sense (to me) It looks like you're relating punishment with the definition of "evil".

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 12-22-2006).]

Since many here are interjecting fiction, let me apply what they think is also fiction (yet has een the accepted moral compass for hundreds of years):

1 Cor 6:9-11a: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way.

This is how the bible, via Paul, views evil. Generally, whatever is purely self gratifying is evil. Similar to what Bill said, but a bit more pointedly. And, Paul leaves room for redemption, indicating that many of his readers formerly fit that list.

So, what is good?

i Cor 13:4-8a: Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.

Again, like Bill's post, those things that benefit "us" or "you" are deemed good.

If we look at characters of fact and fiction, those who are what we would generally call "evil" create shades of gray, as does society. Adolph Hitler sought the "greater good" in eugenics, wishing to create the "perfect (master) race," but, in doing so, made it acceptable (gray) to kill Jews and experiment on the handicapped. Lex Luthor, similarly, wishes to act as savior to the human race, but it is evident that his motives are self serving.

Currently, society says that "it is bad to kill a child." But what is a child? This is a gray that was introduced only in the last hundred years. Margaret Bayer Sanger wished to develop her procedure, "abortion," to keep Jews and Hispanics in their respective ghettos (nearly a quote, but I have ot get ready for work, and I can't chase down a citation). That, of course, would not be palatable. Those who took on her fight had to redefine what a "child" is from society's accepted norm. If you seperate "fetus" from its defenition ("little one").... Today, many believe that a child is not a child until she has passed entirely out her mother. 100%. This didn't happen overnight. It took court fights and commandeering the government to put "right to choose" and "private matter" into the public school system over a thirty year period. Most people younger than me accept these terms as "de facto," but it was not alsways the case. The new argument will be "six months." You can have the baby (but she will be called a "neonate"), then, if you find "it" inconvenient (what baby isn't), you can have it terminated. This was forwarded about five years ago, so we have, I guess, 25 years left to where a "neonate" becomes another shade of gray.

Yes, I believe that good and evil are white and black, respectively. Am I entirely white? No way. That's why I am thankful that One was. What a way to end a post in this season....

The best villians are those that have traits that the hero has, and has been battling internally throughout his/her quest.

External personificication of inner struggle.

I like my heros dirty, and my villians to have some decency. Makes things less "cut and dry", and adds to the depth of the character development.

"Pure Evil" tends to be boring. I like my bad guys to be a bit more complex then that. Like the story of the saint of killers in the "preacher" series. Or the Joker story in "The killing joke".


Coming to peace with the enemy,or defeating him/her brings the hero that much closer to conquering his/her inner turmoils.

(Note, I didn't say "inner demons".)
What motivates the hero? Self cleansing? Cleanse the entire world? Repair a tear in the balance of things? "Improve" things somehow?


Good thread...!

Consider the consequence, then, to be Remorse instead of a societal punishment. Since your example specifically says the person feels no remorse, has he/she done no evil? (In his own mind)

IOW, what is your definition of "consequences" or "price"?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Just because a person doesn't pay a price that you are aware of, or that satisfies your desire for revenge or vengeance, doesn't necessarily mean that a person pays no price. And if he feels no remorse, then in his mind, did he really do anything wrong? I read your comment a second time, and it actually makes no sense (to me) It looks like you're relating punishment with the definition of "evil".

Can someone be "Evil" if they have no contact with anyone else?


Satan McEvil(locked inside a cube of "awayfullness"): "Ohhh, I'm thinkin' SUCH baaaaad thoughts"
*chews on a piece of bacon*


Ant on a wall: "So what?"

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 12-22-2006).]

I would like to keep relgion as the belife out- and i am not going to get into what i believe as in a relgious text or thought process. there is no need for RELIGION religion is a misused word on too many accounts. what you just described is a relgious point of view- but again. a goverment in all its different forms- technically if you find that that organization to be wholy right it is your religion.

there are many falicies in all relgions- and i am not going to get into that for the lack of upseting people. so lets stay off that please. hence the rules.

---------
that being said i am finding a common theme.

to care more about yourself or motives than you do others or even at a fact that your motives are more imporant thn yoru own being. this might be the description of evil. not that many acts- but the intention behind the act.

if one intends a thing to be evil- its is evil. hitler was not evil. but the buzz light year vs zurg is the best descript of evil. buzz is good zurg is evil simply put- a funny thought from a childrens story.

to make a character REAL they can not be wholey evil nor good- no being is as such other than delving into the supernatural.

as for my main character if you have not guessed it Fayt Morgan- he is Fayt - that is the best way to describe him with out have reading my book or all the hostories i have made to make the universe that he lives in to be scientifically philliso. and theologi. and mathamatically correct. the definition of my unverse as it stands is over XXX (for me to know and you to read ) pages long in computer script thank you microsoft word! so describe my charcater would again be pointless. unless you want to read my book. the point in the description of the univers btw is not for readers but for me to keep my head strait in the undeniably complicated world i have desgined especficaly for my characters.

so to say that well base it off the charcter would not be right- there is a definition to the word i think it has been lost over time of corrupt people to enhance their own power in the universe by controlling others- the crusades cough cough

quote Originally posted by jstricker: So a rapist that never gets caught, never suffers any consequences for his actions, has committed no Evil?

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Just because a person doesn't pay a price that you are aware of, or that satisfies your desire for revenge or vengeance, doesn't necessarily mean that a person pays no price. And if he feels no remorse, then in his mind, did he really do anything wrong?

I believe the victim might be able to offer an opinion.

Am I being overly simplistic, here?

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: Well you are saying that it does not exist and that you say what evil is- well that being said- you still not say what you thought was more or less evil is.

What I am saying, an action/person/thing whatever is not evil unless the society which it is in deems it evil. Everything good and evil is social constructed and is considered 'good or evil' by the majority of that society. Think about it, if someone goes to a place where every child born has one of its fingers chopped off and is considered normal for them, then by that society that isnt evil. Judging by the vistiors society that is evil, aka social constructed. For an outside person it is hard to judge evil from anything but there own society's views placed upon that person.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: -------- that being said i am finding a common theme. to care more about yourself or motives than you do others or even at a fact that your motives are more imporant thn yoru own being. this might be the description of evil. not that many acts- but the intention behind the act.

I disagree. I can give several examples of someone caring more for themselves than others, but that is not evil. For instance, because I don't put ALL of my money into the Salvation Army kettle (because I'd like to eat and make my mortgage this month) does not make me evil.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: if one intends a thing to be evil- its is evil. hitler was not evil. but the buzz light year vs zurg is the best descript of evil. buzz is good zurg is evil simply put- a funny thought from a childrens story.

Again, I disagree. Using your example, regardless of whether or not Hitler thought himself evil, the holocaust was most definitely evil perpetrated by him. What he thought of himself is meaningless, it's what the society around him thought of him and his actions.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: to make a character REAL they can not be wholey evil nor good- no being is as such other than delving into the supernatural.

In real life, it might be impossible to make someone wholly good or evil. For instance, even the most heartless mass murderer might give up his life for his mother. In a fictional book, however, I can easily see someone being wholly evil. A Devil personna, if you will.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: as for my main character if you have not guessed it Fayt Morgan- he is Fayt - that is the best way to describe him with out have reading my book or all the hostories i have made to make the universe that he lives in to be scientifically philliso. and theologi. and mathamatically correct. the definition of my unverse as it stands is over XXX (for me to know and you to read ) pages long in computer script thank you microsoft word! so describe my charcater would again be pointless. unless you want to read my book. the point in the description of the univers btw is not for readers but for me to keep my head strait in the undeniably complicated world i have desgined especficaly for my characters.

Without a knowledge of the universe/society you have created for Fayt to live in, it is impossible to determine what is good or evil in that universe.

quote Originally posted by faytmorgan: so to say that well base it off the charcter would not be right- there is a definition to the word i think it has been lost over time of corrupt people to enhance their own power in the universe by controlling others- the crusades cough cough

There is NOT a fixed definition. Over time, what is good and evil changes. Take torture, for example. The definition now has included demeaning language. Torture is considered evil. 60 years ago the inclusion of words as torture would be laughed at, therefore that would not have been evil.

Going back further in history it was not uncommon for the victors of battles to display the heads of the conquered on pikes to dissuade others from attempting to do battle or to ferment terror. At that time, that was not evil, that was a condition of victory. Now it would most definitely be considered evil.

John Stricker

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 12-22-2006).]

i am looking for - the higher evil for the time periode that fayt lives in- i have another book based on the same universe but it is a different evil- mostly based on the opinions of the characters i had made to make the world. instead of this i have desided with this book. that the characters are themselves and that some people namly fayt- for example does not let the world around him influence him as much as most others would.

he doesn't give a fuke- so i am trying to find somthing for him to fuke about. if you get my gist and i can not do this in my opinion without definining evil. so that being said-

its not done yet. duh.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Consider the consequence, then, to be Remorse instead of a societal punishment. Since your example specifically says the person feels no remorse, has he/she done no evil? (In his own mind) IOW, what is your definition of "consequences" or "price"? John Stricker

I think the remorse is the "punishment" itself. I know that I have done things in my life that at the time, I didn't think were "bad", either because of emotional state, or social conditioning, or whatever else you might attribute it to. However, today, no matter how hard I try I can't get those things out of my head. I sometimes find myself in tears over some of the things I've done. The punishment I subject myself to is worse than any punishment society could ever impose on me. I wasn't "evil", although there may people who would have judged me that way at the time. And just because I didn't feel any remorse or regret at the TIME, doesn't mean I would never grow to realize that the things I did were not in alignment with my highest good. I wasn't EVIL, meaning, I wasn't defined by my actions. My actions may have been 'unacceptable" by predominant social standards, but in my mind, I was just doing what I thought I needed to. Looking back, I would give anything to be able to undo some of the the things I did. That's *my* punishment, is having to live with those things I've done that I no longer consider to be acceptable.

So to me, the short answer is, no, the person who does something that's "socially unacceptable" but feels no remorse, has not really done anything "wrong", because he doesn't believe he has.

Taiji,

When you say "socially unacceptable" you may or may not be talking about evil. I might break foul wind in crowded elevator and while that is socially unacceptable, I certainly wouldn't call it "evil". Perhaps others would.

I do understand what you're saying, but I disagree. Let's take a hypothetical case of a rapist, who does the deed having deluded himself into thinking that "she's asking for it" and because of that delusion, feels no remorse. Regardless of his feelings on the subject, what he has done has subjected evil onto another person. I don't think that what that person is thinking at the moment really has much bearing on whether evil is being perpetrated or not.

Another, stickier, example would be the person that would actually HAVE to drop a nuclear weapon on a city, or launch a missile, or something of that nature. The person that does the act has free will not to do it, even though they are under orders to do so and may even be executed on the spot for disobeying those orders. Are they evil? I don't know, but it's something to think about. How about the launching of nuclear weapons? Are you evil if you are the one to execute the first strike, or is it less evil if it is defensive or retaliatory?

Interesting conversation, unfortunately I have to leave for the rest of the day.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: I think the remorse is the "punishment" itself. I know that I have done things in my life that at the time, I didn't think were "bad", either because of emotional state, or social conditioning, or whatever else you might attribute it to. However, today, no matter how hard I try I can't get those things out of my head. I sometimes find myself in tears over some of the things I've done. The punishment I subject myself to is worse than any punishment society could ever impose on me. I wasn't "evil", although there may people who would have judged me that way at the time. And just because I didn't feel any remorse or regret at the TIME, doesn't mean I would never grow to realize that the things I did were not in alignment with my highest good. I wasn't EVIL, meaning, I wasn't defined by my actions. My actions may have been 'unacceptable" by predominant social standards, but in my mind, I was just doing what I thought I needed to. Looking back, I would give anything to be able to undo some of the the things I did. That's *my* punishment, is having to live with those things I've done that I no longer consider to be acceptable. So to me, the short answer is, no, the person who does something that's "socially unacceptable" but feels no remorse, has not really done anything "wrong", because he doesn't believe he has.