Evil is essentially actions that denounce or reject good intentions. It can also be sometimes supernatural, and represents diligent immorality.
It also embodies selfishness and ignorance. Evil can be debated and based on one’s political and social background. This depends of course if you believe in true evil or not. It has many meanings, and can be compared to many things. One can also wonder if people are truly evil, or their actions are. It creates many questions, and I’d like to address them.


What creates true evil? Might evil be born from good intentions? Could war heroes be considered evil as well? What qualifies? Share your interesting thoughts. Your assistance is appreciated.

I recently did a presentation on this subject as part of my national testing, I find it pretty interesting so I may as well share those thoughts here. I'd like to pose a counter question, does there really exist such a thing as evil and if so how is it defined?

I'd say it's relative. there's always two sides to the coin. I'd argue what we perceive as good and evil is a product of our culture and time growing up. Think about it. It's a concept ingrained into our society, the conflict between good and evil is brought up in everything from religious texts (fight between heaven and hell, karma, the golden rule) to children shows ,litterature, video games etc like how most movies ultimately boil down to the good guys trying to beat the bad guys.Basically found in everything from Tom and Jerry, Macbeth to the Bible. Because of that we never really spend much time questioning the concept since it's something that seems to go without saying because we've been exposed to it for so long.

An example would be sacrificing humans to divine powers. Obviously something that would be seen as barbaric and unacceptable by 99.99% of people in western society. But it was a common practice just a few hundreds years ago, seen as good by many because you were honoring the gods. A product of how society was set up during that time as the culture and values they had grown up with were different.

You may argue that there are some things we can at least agree are evil actions. Take Adolf Hitler for example, he was responsible for the deaths of millions. Obviously evil actions of an evil person right? But he also rebuilt Germany after ww1 improving the living standard for many germans. Is he evil just because the majority today thinks so? He spent a lot of time explaining the ideology of nazism in the book he wrote Mein Kampf and he suffered through a lot to try and set his plan in motion. I think it's pretty clear it was something he had spent a lot of time thinking about and he really did seem to think he was doing what was most benefitial for the world. So could someone so convinced they were doing the right thing really be an evil person? Not to mention there's still perfectly healthy people who agree with what he did, would that make them evil? I think that shows that no matter how black and white something may seem there's still always going to be another side to it.

Here's a scenario, 10 people are in a dire state because they've been infected by a specific heart disease. A doctor has cures to two different diseases, one which would cure the disease and one which would do nothing he needs to act fast. Giving a person both would nullify the effect of the cure. But here's the choice, by examining the heart of one of these people he can determine which disease it is but it would kill the person in the process. So what would be the good or evil thing to do here? Do you let that one person die, stripping them from their right to life to save the others, a sort of greater good mentality. Or do you give everyone a equal chance of surviving with a nearly certain result that more people will die? An argument could be made for either, some people would argue neither is good and evil.

This leads to my point, we can't effectively label things as either good or evil unless we accept a majority rules mentality. In that case what Hitler did was good by the standards of most german people during ww2. Even if we try to define what's good and what's evil, say selfless and selfish actions what is and what isn't can be viewed differently by different people. It's all relative and depends on the way you see things. So my answer would be, objective good and evil does not exist, only differing opinions. The whole concept is a human construct.

I feel that the biggest influence on what makes someone evil is simply experience. You can't be born evil, so something has to happen to you. You grow up and bad things happen to you as a child or older and you use that, or you look out in the news or in your own place and you see wars and fights, and violence, and you grow up with that being the only thing that you know.

I'm going to analyze this from my religious standpoint. I believe no person, even the Devil, is utterly evil. While he spends all his time doing evil now, there will come a day when he has no power at all over others. Then how could he do evil? If the Devil himself isn't completely evil, then no one is. Basically, people can do evil, but that doesn't make them evil incarnate.

To start out, what is evil? What is good?
It's not something we start with. Our moral compass is what differentiates use from other animals, even though we are animals our self. What is evil in one culture can be seen as good to another. It's a matter of perspective. Evil and good are subjective. What is chaos and misery to a fly is just a snack for the spider.

Trust me. There is no such thing as good. Or evil for that matter. They're made up. You can't find these subjects in nature.

Am I saying we should all go out and kill each other? Of course not.

I guess what I am trying to say is to truly be evil is to be seen in the eyes of the correct person. The only way someone can be evil is if someone else witnesses their actions and draws their own conclusion. It's subjective.

I believe that society tends to portray inviduals as good or evil by the actions they make in life. Which brings me to question are smokers any different from murderers? Both have made a poor decision in life but only one is considered evil amongst society. Which leads me to believe that it is impossible for a ordinary human to judge what's good or evil. Humans can only believe whether someone is evil or not based on their morals however a individual may have good intentions but make evil choices in life. It's best not to even define people as good or evil but the choices they make in life because they might unintentionally do good or evil although the individual may have intended it to be good or evil. 

I'm going to make this topic even more confusing by saying that we don't really know anything about life. Good and evil is human made that we want to accept if our kind sees us doing anything odd we call them out. Yet our animal creatures don't care what we humans do, we have locked them in cases, breed them, study them, everything to the animals and their kind never care about who got killed for a crime that we call it.

so yea we don't know anything about what good or evil or life, we don't even know why animals do certain things. We all know that they do understand what is happening but none of them will do anything.

"Evil" is not a thing. It's an absence. "Dark" does not exist; it is only the lack of lightwaves. "Cold" does not exist; it is the lack of heat energy. So the problem of evil is that there is a lack of goodness. "Evil" itself is not a thing.

This is important when considering God. People say God created everything and God is all good. However, if evil is a thing, and God created every thing, then God created evil. Thus he's not all good. However, if evil is an absence, then evil doesn't begin with God.

Instead, evil begins with whatever removes the good. The thief removes someone's justly earned property. The adulterer separates the two partners of a relationship. The murderer unjustly removes the life of the victim. The coveter creates an improper disjunct between what they have and what they want (thus do evil to themselves).

So the things we call "evil" are privations between what is and what ought to be. So, there is the means, the result, and the intention that must be looked at in context of circumstance. If intention and result are good, but the means is bad (save many by murdering a few), the action is evil although the result and intention are good. If the intention is bad but the means and result are good (give to the poor, but only doing so to inflate your ego and manipulate others to think you're generous), the intention is evil although the action and result are good. If the result is bad, but the means and the intention good (Politician refuses to vote for certain but bad bill, wants what's best for the country, but by doing this he doesn't garner political favor and the bill still passes), then the result is evil but the means and intention are good.

But here's the kicker - a person is not responsible for evil results. People are not morally required to control the future. That's ridiculous. However, we can reasonably say a person is responsible for what they choose to do (means) and what they want to happen (intention). Evil results, such as war, famine, little Timmy doesn't get a lollipop, whatever. Evil results are always due to something other than human action. If a king's method and ideals are good, who could blame him for any war? Even one they knew they would lose? You can't. It's not the king's fault. He would have to sacrifice his method or ideals to force a better result. And often, that doesn't even solve the problem.

Those are really just subjective terms. Today's Good can be tomorrow's Evil. But riddle me this: How can there be Good if there is no Evil? Evil is just as necessary as Good. If we all become good,we will like those movies when we turn into weak little sissies. (Demolition Man) If we all become evil,we kill ourselves out of existence. (insert random apocalypse movie here) Evil comes from many sources;environment,abuse,seeing the wrong movies,seeing a savage act,mental illness,forced to become evil,general hatred of humanity,and so on.

The only sure thing about evil is this. The only thing evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing. Think about when Kim Jong Il died. Anyone with half a brain would cheer for his death. Not the North Koreans,they have been conditioned to believe he was righteous and a noble person. And now the world has to worry about Kim Jong Un would could potentially be more evil than his father.

From a gamers' stance,I will point out a line from Metal Gear Solid. "It is easy to forget what a sin is in the middle of a battlefield."

What a passionate response! Good and evil really rather do depend on who's perspective it is. Honestly, I believe evil exists because mass murder just seems so wrong (Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and using force, corruption, or manipulation to gain power or destroy the object of your hatred, despite somewhat honorable intentions,  is just sick. While you are entitled to your own opinion, I believe there is a huge difference between selflessness and selfishness. I'm exploring this topic because some things go way too far in the name of change or control (Terrorism), and I believe some actions are completely intolerable and usually can't be truly reasoned with or justified. Simply put, the ability to kill is undesirable, and doing it in the name of personal or economic gain is totally inconceivable. Death can bring about change, but also unearth destruction, which is why I firmly believe in good and evil. Anything related to death, crime, or manipulation, and abuse is also evil in my book.  I'd think religious sacrifice is illogical because it benefits nobody. Hitler did rebuild Germany, but in the process ruined the lives of many others with actions that are universally known ( Invading France, The Holocaust, etc). Germans now can't stand the guy and refuse to acknowledge his existence by censoring Nazi references in modern entertainment media. Anyone's perspective and viewpoint can change over time, so anyone who killed many and was formerly considered a hero can be seen as a villain now (Andrew Jackson). The people who agreed with Hitler, while not truly loathsome, I would consider strange, because though Hitler had good intentions, what he was willing to do to satisfy those intentions was barbaric. Saving one country at the cost of dismantling others is truly undesirable. Perhaps it depends on if he seems sympathetic or not.
 
Regarding the poison scenario, I would try the antidote on everyone frantically because I don't wan't to endanger everyone's lives and I'm strapped for time. The good or evil aspect of this would depend on the person's viewpoint of what actions seem merciful or cruelly merciless. Though, in my opinion, none of the actions would be evil, as they were all trying to work for a solution in an unstoppable crisis, so every action could be seen as morally correct, as they were all in the name of human relief. 

I wasn't trying to label it (sorry if it might seem so), i was wanting to explore the concept faithfully. A better question would be; Does evil exist? What counts as evil?  Though, I am a firm believer in the concept, as I view some atrocities as completely unacceptable (Murder, rape, etc). 

Whilst some would spill on how evil is subjective or that there is no good or evil, I instead head to my own personal belief.
'True Evil is an action in which there is no (reasonable) gain I.e killing Joe Shcmoe because he has blue hair (now if he's a ginger that would be a whole different story :v).

That's a very good question. I wasn't able to come and be able to post saying my thoughts about it. To be honest anything can make someone evil it could be out of jealousy or maybe because one is better than the other. There are so many ways that evil can build up to resound within someone making them to think dark thoughts and do things that they shouldn't do...