Which person is worse?

[Dude111]

The one who believes that their evil acts are good,or 1 who knows their being evil?

I recently watched a vid that compared two different types of evil characters. It discussed the villains who know they are evil,but act evil anyway for the sake of it,vs. the villains who actually believe that their evil acts are good and they are good people for doing them. It led to raise this question.

Which type of evil person is worse? One who knows they are being evil but do it anyway,or one who is convinced they are being good by doing evil things?

I know this is an interesting question,but any thoughts?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Dude111

The one who believes that their evil acts are good,or 1 who knows their being evil?

I recently watched a vid that compared two different types of evil characters. It discussed the villains who know they are evil,but act evil anyway for the sake of it,vs. the villains who actually believe that their evil acts are good and they are good people for doing them. It led to raise this question.

Which type of evil person is worse? One who knows they are being evil but do it anyway,or one who is convinced they are being good by doing evil things?

I know this is an interesting question,but any thoughts?

It is an interesting question. I believe that after we leave this physical existence that there will be compensation and retribution for all good and evil deeds done whilst we are in this realm.

If someone has done bad things on purpose, it's fairly simple for the first example. But what if, say, someone murders someone whilst mentally ill?

A disability should never be punished as it won't have been done on purpose (but the public would need to be protected from them). They may not have even known that they were doing it or were suffering from hallucinations or delusions.

I personally think that various of our Prime Ministers have done terrible things, but if they genuinely believed that it was the right thing to do for the greater good then they won't face retribution (but will possibly be given education though).

So, in answer to your question, the first example is definitely the worst.

[admars]

fantasy, or real life?

fantasy, it's like comparing say Joker (who sometimes is killing with "good" reason but is generally unstable and likes chaos) to Dexter (although he knows he's bad, but "has to kill" so it's damage control who he targets ).

In real life you have say Westboro Baptist Church, aka The Most Hated Family in America, who knowingly do horrible thing, but justify them by saying they're preaching the word of god
Vs the murderers etc we hear about on the news.

hmnn it comes down to point of view, ppl not in westboro baptists church could say they're just bad people so no different to the bad bad ppl

I look at it from the victims’ viewpoint - if something evil is done to you, you don’t care if it was done out of enjoyment (evil person) or for what they believe are good reasons (good(?) person); to the victim, they are both equally as bad.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I look at it from the victims’ viewpoint - if something evil is done to you, you don’t care if it was done out of enjoyment (evil person) or for what they believe are good reasons (good(?) person); to the victim, they are both equally as bad.

Yes, there may well be different viewpoints from the various people in the scenario.

I was speaking as an observer, but the victim is likely to hold a viewpoint that is tainted by anger, fear or resentment etc.

This is why decisions (on this Earth) in civilised countries take into account victim statements, but the final decision as to whether someone had diminished responsibility or was simply being evil and what action should be taken rests with people independent of the situation.

The Yorkshire Ripper was deemed by experts to have killed due to diminished responsibility and, therefore, by default, was not evil, but i'm sure that the victims and their families wouldn't have cared about this (it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them to be impartial and reasonable in the circumstances) and they would have wanted him to be severely punished.

The irony is that had he been deemed to have done something out of badness, there would have been more of a chance that he wouldn't have spent his last years locked up.

[Carth]

In a worldwide sense it depends on where you are, the religion, and cultural beliefs/practices.

Kill and eat a dog in much of the western world and you're in trouble . .

People are still 'executed' by stoning in some countries . . and the crime they've committed can be no crime at all in others.

In wars, there are thousands/millions killed yet both sides believe they're in the right . . . with God on their side.

[RichardCoulter]

Very good points.

If a 17 year old lad has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend in the UK he's (incorrectly) labelled a paedophile.

In some American states this would be totally legal; in Mexico (as long as there are no complaints) it would be fine if she was 12!

Fun fact: only one of the three principal charges (“crimes against peace”) levelled against senior members of the Nazi Party after the war had any basis in pre-existing international treaties. The other two, namely “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” were in effect presented as self-evidently unacceptable behaviour. The ethical basis for this was Natural Law, a system developed by a medieval theologian called Thomas Aquinas.

At the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, 12 people were convicted of, and executed for, these crimes, and the concept of “war crimes” remains potent to this present day, regardless of whether or not there is a governing treaty in operation. Appealing to Natural Law might have been an expedient way of dealing with those who had set Europe alight but their legacy has been to elevate the concept of virtue ethics, particularly in international law. Thomas drew a primary precept from his ethical system, which is that good must be pursued and done and evil must be avoided. He believed that the system could work because humans are rational beings. In effect, there will always be enough rational people available to judge whether good or evil is being done in a particular situation.

In a virtue-ethics system the question of “who is more evil?” becomes a secondary concern. The system is very much focused on whether behaviour is virtuous or not, as rationally judged by those who govern the system, not on whether the perpetrator of an act believed their actions to be good or evil. To bring it back round to the Nazis (and therefore also prematurely to fulfil Godwin’s Law); Hitler and his closest circle undoubtedly believed that they had right on their side and that they were correcting historic injustices against their people. Yet they are arguably the best example of pure evil in recent human history. To argue whether they were less evil than someone who believed they were in the wrong but went ahead anyway seems to be missing the point somewhat.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Very good points.

If a 17 year old lad has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend in the UK he's (incorrectly) labelled a paedophile.

No he isn't, he's labeled a sex offender, if his 'crime' is investigated at all

---------- Post added at 23:57 ---------- Previous post was at 23:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Fun fact: only one of the three principal charges (“crimes against peace”) levelled against senior members of the Nazi Party after the war had any basis in pre-existing international treaties. The other two, namely “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” were in effect presented as self-evidently unacceptable behaviour. The ethical basis for this was Natural Law, a system developed by a medieval theologian called Thomas Aquinas.

At the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials, 12 people were convicted of, and executed for, these crimes, and the concept of “war crimes” remains potent to this present day, regardless of whether or not there is a governing treaty in operation. Appealing to Natural Law might have been an expedient way of dealing with those who had set Europe alight but their legacy has been to elevate the concept of virtue ethics, particularly in international law. Thomas drew a primary precept from his ethical system, which is that good must be pursued and done and evil must be avoided. He believed that the system could work because humans are rational beings. In effect, there will always be enough rational people available to judge whether good or evil is being done in a particular situation.

In a virtue-ethics system the question of “who is more evil?” becomes a secondary concern. The system is very much focused on whether behaviour is virtuous or not, as rationally judged by those who govern the system, not on whether the perpetrator of an act believed their actions to be good or evil. To bring it back round to the Nazis (and therefore also prematurely to fulfil Godwin’s Law); Hitler and his closest circle undoubtedly believed that they had right on their side and that they were correcting historic injustices against their people. Yet they are arguably the best example of pure evil in recent human history. To argue whether they were less evil than someone who believed they were in the wrong but went ahead anyway seems to be missing the point somewhat.

Nuremberg was tainted for me by the deals done, it should have been above side deals for super powers considering the enormity of what happened. Interesting about Thomas Aquinas though, a name I'd not heard for decades

[RichardCoulter]

I actually meant labelled by the public, not as defined by law.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It is an interesting question. I believe that after we leave this physical existence that there will be compensation and retribution for all good and evil deeds done whilst we are in this realm.

If someone has done bad things on purpose, it's fairly simple for the first example. But what if, say, someone murders someone whilst mentally ill?

A disability should never be punished as it won't have been done on purpose (but the public would need to be protected from them). They may not have even known that they were doing it or were suffering from hallucinations or delusions.

I personally think that various of our Prime Ministers have done terrible things, but if they genuinely believed that it was the right thing to do for the greater good then they won't face retribution (but will possibly be given education though).

So, in answer to your question, the first example is definitely the worst.

So, just a couple of points on this.

1. Highly, highly unlikely (nearly impossible) that someone whose mental health played a direct part in someones death would result in a murder conviction. it would be manslaughter, or manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

2. You're not punishing the disability, you're punishing the offence committed. having a disability does not give a get out of jail free card. If someone's disability/mental health presents such a threat to themselves or to society then you have to ask should these people be in general society??

No, they should not. If they were in control of their actions, they are a danger to society and their liberty must be removed from them for society’s safety. If they were not, then there is hard evidence that their diminished responsibility is a danger to society. The only difference is whether they are sent to jail following a conviction or sent to a secure hospital following a judge’s ruling.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, they should not. If they were in control of their actions, they are a danger to society and their liberty must be removed from them for society’s safety. If they were not, then there is hard evidence that their diminished responsibility is a danger to society. The only difference is whether they are sent to jail following a conviction or sent to a secure hospital following a judge’s ruling.

Quite right...

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I actually meant labelled by the public, not as defined by law.

So did I, perhaps I just have a higher opinion of the public than you do

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

So did I, perhaps I just have a higher opinion of the public than you do

I disagree, in my experience any sexual interest in those under 16 is labelled as paedophilia by most people whether it is or not. I think that this is partly because of ignorance of the subject matter and partly because the term paedophile makes the offence sound worse for effect.

Also, if you look on YouTube, there are lots of videos where people trying to pick up underage boys/girls are incorrectly referred to as paedophiles, sometimes by people who should know better.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

No, they should not. If they were in control of their actions, they are a danger to society and their liberty must be removed from them for society’s safety. If they were not, then there is hard evidence that their diminished responsibility is a danger to society. The only difference is whether they are sent to jail following a conviction or sent to a secure hospital following a judge’s ruling.

Totally agree. The former will usually do their time and get out, whereas the latter would go into a secure hospital and may never come out.