Baddest of the Bad?

[Draklar]

Originally posted by zanzibar
The fact that no reason was given doesn\'t mean there was an utter lack of reason and intention and design.

Well since you don\'t give any, we can assume that
a) There are none
b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given
And the fact that you keep avoiding giving any, quite frankly points me to the first option.

Originally posted by zanzibar
And who says there always has to be personal gain in the form of money or power?

Those were just examples. But there has to be some kind of reason for anything someone does. Even if not logical, there must be a reason. You don\'t go around harming people because you are evil. Rather you are evil because of something.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by seperot
Evil is not killing someone - Evil is killing someone, Framing some other chump, winning the court case to own all there property, then visiting them once a week in prision just to laugh at them.

Evil is not making people angry - Evil is making friends become enemys by carefully construction opinions into daggers and handing opposing ones to each side then driving on each side to a messy battle, then when they look to you to fill there void of a friendship that once was abuse that for profit and personal gain

Evil is not a job - its a damn fun way of life!


(This advertisment was brought to you by the socity of guys who burn down orpahages so they can have slave childeren)

And some would argue that evil doesn\'t exist at all except as a social construction.

Originally posted by Draklar

Originally posted by zanzibar
The fact that no reason was given doesn\'t mean there was an utter lack of reason and intention and design.

Well since you don\'t give any, we can assume that
a) There are none
b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given
And the fact that you keep avoiding giving any, quite frankly points me to the first option.

Originally posted by zanzibar
And who says there always has to be personal gain in the form of money or power?

Those were just examples. But there has to be some kind of reason for anything someone does. Even if not logical, there must be a reason. You don\'t go around harming people because you are evil. Rather you are evil because of something.

Like I said, it\'s silly to assume that an action has no reason simply because you don\'t already know what the reason for that action is.

Can\'t you just say that one person harms another out of amusement, or perhaps because that person feels it serves a greater goal, or perhaps because that person feels it\'s a more effective technique than being pleasant?  There\'s any number of ways to explain such behaviour.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by zanzibar
Like I said, it\'s silly to assume that an action has no reason simply because you don\'t already know what the reason for that action is.

I\'m sorry, can you read?
\"b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given\"

Originally posted by zanzibar
Can\'t you just say that one person harms another out of amusement, or perhaps because that person feels it serves a greater goal, or perhaps because that person feels it\'s a more effective technique than being pleasant?  There\'s any number of ways to explain such behaviour.

So out of a sudden a character decides to harm a random person just for his amusement... (because?) That\'s not a reason. Like the rest of it.

Look at Seperot, who has his character planned to the bits. With no problem he could give reason to any of his behaviour.


And one more thing,
Evil: [n]  morally objectionable behavior

So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.

[Sangwa]

Previously posted by Draklar:
So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.

The objectiveness of Morals and Law is limited to the social group they are being discussed in. Both Moral and Order are fruits of our Superego, and therefore social concepts.

Previously posted by zanzibar:
And some would argue that evil doesn\'t exist at all except as a social construction.

Evil does exist. As a social concept. Keep in mind that social behaviour plays a great role in humanity and in alot of life forms.

PS: If Draklar\'s sarcasm sounds rightful, it is because of the underestimating use of the word \"construction\" present in the sentence (i.e claiming murder is simply something people constructed sounds outrageous.) Just a matter of rhetoric ^^.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by Sangwa

Previously posted by Draklar:
So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.

The objectiveness of Morals and Law is limited to the social group they are being discussed in. Both Moral and Order are fruits of our Superego, and therefore social concepts.

Yes, yes, you explained what I meant quite well in further part. Only (or rather \"doesn\'t exist at all\", but you know what I mean) is the keyword, which I disagreed with.

Mwah! Colorized :P

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Draklar

Originally posted by zanzibar
Like I said, it\'s silly to assume that an action has no reason simply because you don\'t already know what the reason for that action is.

I\'m sorry, can you read?
\"b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given\"

Originally posted by zanzibar
Can\'t you just say that one person harms another out of amusement, or perhaps because that person feels it serves a greater goal, or perhaps because that person feels it\'s a more effective technique than being pleasant?  There\'s any number of ways to explain such behaviour.

So out of a sudden a character decides to harm a random person just for his amusement... (because?) That\'s not a reason. Like the rest of it.

Look at Seperot, who has his character planned to the bits. With no problem he could give reason to any of his behaviour.


And one more thing,
Evil: [n]  morally objectionable behavior

So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.

A social interactionist would say that moral values are social constructions arising from group concensus through human agency.  While those definitions have no objective existence, the group gives those definitions an objective existence through actions, institutions, the law, etc.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by zanzibar
A social interactionist would say that moral values are social constructions arising from group concensus through human agency.  While those definitions have no objective existence, the group gives those definitions an objective existence through actions, institutions, the law, etc.

A rationalist would say that all this is irrelevant, since Seperot addressed a speciffic behaviour, which no matter whether called \"evil\" or \"good\" remains the same behaviour.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Draklar

Originally posted by zanzibar
A social interactionist would say that moral values are social constructions arising from group concensus through human agency.  While those definitions have no objective existence, the group gives those definitions an objective existence through actions, institutions, the law, etc.

A rationalist would say that all this is irrelevant, since Seperot addressed a speciffic behaviour, which no matter whether called \"evil\" or \"good\" remains the same behaviour.

Now you\'re just changing the subject.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by zanzibar

Originally posted by seperot
Evil is not killing someone - Evil is killing someone, Framing some other chump, winning the court case to own all there property, then visiting them once a week in prision just to laugh at them.

Evil is not making people angry - Evil is making friends become enemys by carefully construction opinions into daggers and handing opposing ones to each side then driving on each side to a messy battle, then when they look to you to fill there void of a friendship that once was abuse that for profit and personal gain

Evil is not a job - its a damn fun way of life!


(This advertisment was brought to you by the socity of guys who burn down orpahages so they can have slave childeren)

And some would argue that evil doesn\'t exist at all except as a social construction.:)

I quoted the above just so you see what we\'ve been talking about in the last few posts.

[zanzibar]

I gave an explanation of why evil can be a social construction yet still have an objective reality.  This conversation has derailed so I\'m not really sure where we are.

[Annah]

Evil, as I see it, is pure apathy. Evil is to do what you want and not care how it affects others. No matter what example you can cook up it can be fitted into this model. To have acted evilly is to have acted without regard to the effects on fellow creatures. Whether driven by the noblest motives or the basest instincts it is always evil to disregard the fallout. Think a bit and you will see.

Well spoken my dear friend, well spoken. Of course, as always. Seeing those words, I guess I fit very well in that category didn\'t I?

You know, Atticus\' list was sure very interesting, and true. Draklar, Devoted was the founder and leader of the Forsaken Ones.

Hm, the little princess\' words were also interesting, \"great things happened before\". Yeah, maybe it is time to leave the shadows I live in. The community needs something that means evil around.

[Draklar]

Evil, as I see it, is pure apathy. Evil is to do what you want and not care how it affects others. No matter what example you can cook up it can be fitted into this model. To have acted evilly is to have acted without regard to the effects on fellow creatures. Whether driven by the noblest motives or the basest instincts it is always evil to disregard the fallout. Think a bit and you will see.

Ohh... didn\'t notice that. Ok, I can turn that down.

First of all, I often do what I want to do and don\'t think how it may affect others. But I don\'t want to do \"bad\" things, since it\'s just not me. When I help someone to pick things up, I don\'t think how it may affect someone, I simply do it. Only because I want to.
I don\'t behave well for other people, I do it for myself. For all I care most of the people on Earth could just go to hell.

But I don\'t think I\'m evil... I am chaotic-neutral actually >.>

Oh, and pure apathy? Haha, if evil people were apathic, they wouldn\'t be successful lawyers :P

[Annah]

But I don\'t think I\'m evil... I am chaotic-neutral actually >.>

 Yeah, no one said you\'re evil.



Oh, and I almost forgot. Suno Regin, grab a history book, you\'ll need it, end of time is near.

)

[Sangwa]

Evil can be apathic. It isn\'t apathy though.

Sangwa for instance is lawful evil. However, he is not doing all he pleases, since he is following orders and rules. Also, he is conscious of other people; being a diplomat he is aware that people are an imense source of power.
While not being a displeasant person, Sangwa aims all his efforts towards the forceful domination of Yliakum.
Sure, most of you wouldn\'t consider him as Lawful Evil. But, with the same certainty, most of you have no idea what he thinks or achieves.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by Sangwa
Evil can be apathic.

That sentence although true, doesn\'t say much ;)

All evil, good and neutral can be apathic, it isn\'t depending on alignment.

And yeah, lawful-evil is often unnoticed. Maybe because when hearing \"evil\", people think about people who cause disorder and break the law.