Making Sense of Evil (Virginia Tech Massacre)

During the last few days of coverage about the massacre there have been two viewpoints about how to make sense of what happened that I believe are tacitly in conflict.On the one side their have been a plethora of psychologists saying how Cho was an acute state of mental illness involving depression, paranoia, and deep psychosis. On the other side, Cho has been called names such as monster, evil, idiot, and things to that effect. The former opinion stressing deterministic causes, or causes beyond Cho's control, and the latter stressing personal responsibility for the action.I believe there is an intrinsic conflict between these two conceptions and one of the crux's of the issue is free will, i.e, is the will free? Who is responsible for the deranged psyche of Cho? Can anyone really be blamed for this senseless act? What does it mean to say Cho was evil? Was there some "other" normal Cho inside this deranged psyche who was a sufferer of mental illness, or is the mental illness simply who Cho was?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "VT" to "Virginia Tech" in topic title.

Dude was obviously psychotic. Out of his mind. Not living in reality.Crazy people aren't evil, though they may do terrible things.True evil has to be lucidly chosen.

I agree completely. But I have heard the alternative opinions by some conservative and religious fanatics.From http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1819833/posts Basically, what does it mean to be evil or too "lucidly choose." Are people evil or are their actions evil?Wouldn't you say that all the most deranged serial killers that have lived were severely psychotic or severely mentally ill in some other respect, and if so, are they evil?Edited by JustinC, : added [or severely mentally ill in some other respect]

Well, if you describe them as "deranged", then by definition the serial killers were not choosing their actions lucidly.Timothy McVeigh, on the other hand, wasn't deranged. He wasn't mentally ill. He chose his evil lucidly.People who join the KKK and who participate in lynchings aren't psychotic, either.The vast majority of people who helped exterminate the Jews in Nazi Germany were quite sane.Thousands of rapists move through the world as otherwise normal workers, friends, partners, husbands, sons, and fathers.All of them choose evil lucidly.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Uh, ASchraf, instead of discussing the topic here why don't you decide if it should be promoted?

Whoops, thought I had. Wierd.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Let me be clear at the start - I strongly disagree with the actions of the people you mentioned - McVeigh, Choo, KKK members, they are all repugnant to me.However, are they "evil"?These people are making decisions to do their actions based on their worldviews. Their rationale may be incorrect, their logic may be faulty, but their actions come from these things.In otherwords, McV blows up Oklahoma City because of his view of Waco/ATF/whatever, but there is a reasoning there. He isn't choosing to do "evil", he's choosing to take an action which he feels is correct and just - even though 99.99% of the people would say "You are sooooo wrong."Personally, I think "evil" is when someone is taking actions that even they know are false. Televangelists like Oral Roberts claiming that "God said he was going to kill me if I don't raise 3 million" - that is Evil.The Neo-Cons falsifying scientific reports about Global Warming because they want to appease their Big Oil masters - that is Evil.A KKK member, poorly educated and raised in a world steeped in racism is merely acting on his established world view. He believes he is doing "good".

See I think there's a difference between "selfish" and "evil." The pollution magnate who puts an entire community at risk to save some money is selfish.The crusader with perfect devotion to his cause, for whom no sacrifice is too great to be asked of others in service to that cause, is evil. Of course he thinks he's doing good. They always do.The selfish guy you can stop, because his self-interest is the lever you can use to move him. You just change the payout schedule - you make undesired outcomes more costly and less profitable than desired ones. The crusader? No argument can sway a fanatic. Any opposition at all is proof that his cause is just. And the worst part is - you can just talk people into becoming crusaders, like that.Cho? I think he was mostly crazy. If you've seen his tape, or the transcript of it, it's pretty clear that he was pretty disjointed. But there's no denying that there's an element of religious crusade, too. He did say that he wanted to "die like Christ."

I haven't seen Cho's "manifesto" so I can't comment on his justifications.You make some good points, but I have to disagree.The crusader who believes he is doing good isn't evil, he's just coming from a different perspective.If McV is evil, or the 911 hijackers are evil, then we have to say that the Christian cruisades were evil or that the soldiers mislead into war are evil.On the other hand, when someone KNOWINGLY alters the facts for their own profit, or preaches to his television audience as a way of financing his blood diamond business, that's evil.You can pursuade the evil person, _because_ of their self interest. It's the person who thinks they are doing good that you can't pursuade.

Spiritually, its idolatry plain and simple. If one acts on a worldview that allows them to pick and choose what it is they will do, they are acting against the very nature of relationship with God which means that they no longer run the show. (Of course, psychotics can go berzerk based upon thinking that they [b]are[/be] hearing the voice of God.)I can't explain it to those who think that God is a product of the human imagination and nothing more, however.

I think that if you're following a crusade, or following orders, and never taking a moment to reflect on whether your orders are right or your crusade is just; if there's never that moment of "tentativity" and introspection, then yes, I think you're engaged in evil.If evil exists it's the tendency of humans to check their moral sense at the door just because they perceive authority, like in the Milgram experiments. I don't think those are the same thing. Pat Robertson, it's clear, believes his own bullshit. He has no problem with running a diamond mine off the proceeds of his charities because he genuinely believes that it is good for him to do so, and he never stops to wonder if perhaps it isn't.When people say things like "unswerving faith and devotion", I hear "evil." And that's why I believe that's what constitutes "evil." The selfish can be managed. The crazy can be treated. The evil can only be contained. (I guess I construe evil in this way because of how that relates to justifications for the use of force. The selfish give you options besides the use of force. The evil leave you no choice.)

Clearly the 911 hijackers were acting in accordance to a very strong belief in God, their actions were completely in line with their worldview as to what they thought he wanted them to do.Who are we to tell them they were wrong about God's desires?

Of course, for a different take on evil, there's They Might Be Giants:

quote:

---

Evil
Evil is his one and only name
Evil
In his mind there is no other game

​

When your name is Evil that is good
Or so you think
But you're so very wrong
It's evil

​

But being wrong is right
So then you're good again
Which is the evilest thing of all

​

Do you find his subtle ways invite you
Does he excite you?
If his contradictions should attract you
Should he distract you

​

Heaven help you then
You're finished, it's the end
There'll be no retrieval
From the evil
The evil he will do

​

He's evil
He's Dr. Evil
His name is Evil

---

that even brings in another option altogether. if he was crazy, he wasn't responsible. if he was evil, he was. if he was possessed, then he wasn't responsible and neither was anyone else. this is a weak, bullshit excuse for people who refuse to responsibly approach things like racism and child abuse that are huge problems within the christian community (among others) and could clearly be behind the deranged paranoia and seething violence within that boy. if they can blame it on satan, then they don't have to be responsible for correcting their own flaws and leading change in their communities.