Jump to content

Evil: tough to define? Hate: easily defined?


Recommended Posts

For years we've been told that the Islamist Radical Political movement is not evil. It's just that they have a different perspective(or some drivel see: ISIS). We've been told that poverty, not evil, is the source of terror...and for that matter, gang violence as well. Funny then, when we find out so many terrorist leaders are quite wealthy, and have never known poverty. Funny too that when gang members amass enough capital to do something else, they choose not to. IF the trouble is poverty, and poverty for the individual is solved, or never existed? Poverty may be correlative, but cannot be causal. What's left?

 

Whenever somebody tries to say that this shooter or that one, is evil, we are told no: "they are troubled, and if guns weren't legal, they wouldn't be able to do what they did". But, then, almost on cue, some guy drives a truck down the street killing people. Some other guy stabs a bunch of people, and of course, there are the constant bombings, all over the world. Nobody seems to call any of these people, whose actions were chosen, evil. Why? It seems we must run through gallons of nuance, and only after that hasn't cleared anything away, we can call someone evil. But, by that time, we're always told/forced to move on to the next story, and nobody ever gets "officially" judged as evil.

 

Evil, apparently, is either extremely hard to define, or, simply doesn't exist. Perhaps because it is too abstract a concept, perhaps because it's too scary for some to know it exists?

 

However, when it comes to Hate? The exact opposite is true. Hate seems to be the most easily defined thing in the world(and therefore not have any real definition at all): if I, entirely subjectively, don't like what you're saying, I can, by proclamation, call it hate. If you don't immediately accept my proclamation, then anything you say is hate as well. In fact, merely saying things like "welfare keeps people dependent on government, to their detriment" is now "hate speech", and the person saying it must be auto-condemned as a fascist(when, ahem, actual fascists BELIEVE in welfare, and the welfare state, so this is hilarious irony). 

 

So why the difference? I have some ideas. What are yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all capable of evil, whether you act out on it is a personal choice. Evil is as real as you or I. Is evil a mental illness? Can it be controlled by medication? Can we ever be free from the dark thoughts we carry deep inside? 

Hate on the other hand is an emotion. It maybe a distant cousin of evil. But in itself,  hate is not evil. I believe, in my own limited capacity, believe hate is likea wildfire. It can burn out of control, until it eventually dies out. Still smoldering, waiting for the next dry spell to reignite it.

Evil is something different. True evil is indifferent. It doesn't need hate. You can make a case true evil has no emotion whatsoever. In fact, I bet we would be hard pressed to recognize true evil when you come across it. Unlike hate, which you pretty much can recognize it immediately. 

 

I would say hate is easier to define than evil. But that's just my opinion. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you want for an answer?

 

the unrepentant and continual violation of The 10 Commandments?

 

we are really rats in a box with all actions  determined so nothing we do is our fault?

 

sex and drugs and rock and roll, is all my brain and body need?

 

try to be nice to people and stay in your spider hole and do your job?

 

 

 

 

Edited by row_33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...