Have you ever interacted with a truly evil person?

[Alan McDougall]

Have you ever personally interacted with a truly evil person?

(Disregard the despots of history)

In my case the answer is only one time, when a person who I knew as very bad, even evil tried to murder my with a large knife?

What about you guys?

 

[Rook]

I have never met a person who would be considered "evil".

I have met two con artists who tried to trick me out of my money, but that's about it.
There are individuals I have interacted with who have a violent streak, but this is usually only a problem when drunkenness besets them.

In our modern society, with rampant morality and stringent laws, the only people who are truly evil are those with severe mental problems or those who have grown so deluded with humanity that they resort to violence (The evilness here being based on actions, and not nature).

There are functioning psychopaths too, but they usually hide or fight against their nature, and are thus rarely driven towards action.

Thus not many people are exposed to true evil.

 

[Cognisant]

Priests and hippies, the fuckers are everywhere.

 

[TimeAsylums]

rampant morality and stringent laws

"band-aids band-aids band-aids band-aids band-aids"

Just because you fear god and don't want to go to hell in the after life and you "TRY" to act Good, does not make one in fact, Good

 

[Jennywocky]

I've known a lot of "screwed up" people, some in my family. Not sure if that counts as "evil," since to me I could psychologically track where they were and why and what was up. If you could "psychologically messed up" and "ultimately self-absorbed" as evil, then I guess; but they weren't archetypically evil.

I did meet one guy at college years back. He scared me. He was very angry, very bitter, liked to cause harm to others, and unapologetic.... he actually could sound like a shooter mindset, except I don't think he felt so powerless that he felt the need to suicide by cop after killing a bunch of strangers. He was more the type that I could see mindfully and sadistically killing other people because he wanted to, and felt himself powerful enough to not get caught.

He worked out a lot and was pretty solid and fit. He would do crazy art for his classes -- one of his projects, he made a black chair with twisted spikes sticking up out of the seat and created a bloody mess with various shades of red and claimed all that would have made it better is if he could have used aborted fetuses instead of paint. From someone else, it would have sounded like grandstanding or sick artsy-fartsy pretension, but with him, he seemed to mean it and not to send any kind of message but simply to disgust as many people as he could and revel in the joy of the dead fetuses.

There was a Christian guy I knew and this guy would torment him -- abuse him for his faith, spray disgusting stuff on this door, nail dildoes to his door. It was horrific bully-ness. He vocally despised religious faith.

He was pretty solitary and usually kept his entire room dark even in the daytime. He usually seemed to be very much in control outwardly but every so often if you could get far enough in, he would erupt in various angers at people he knew (parents, peers, etc.)

He had two gerbils, Sodom and Gamorrah (Honestly! I can't make this stuff up, lol!) who he would torment. Finally he got really mad at them and threw them out a window at the top of a four-story building. I hope for their sake they survived and found a happier home.

So if you're talking "evil," well, I think most human evil is less downright malevolence and more a twisting of perceptions or extreme self-absorption or a lack of forgiveness, etc. The only time I remember meeting someone who made my skin crawl because he seemed to revel in death and pain and brutality for its own sake, consciously and purposefully, was this guy I knew in college.

 

[nanook]

i think evil is an unfortunate mismatch of soul and mind. little soul + little mind is very dangerous, but you can still pity it, while you toast it on the chair*. little soul + big mind is just too damn spooky, so we like to disown it, which is probably what the word evil is supposed to do for us.

though "ignorant" would be a more neutral interpretation of the word, which would imply that all of us are sinners, but big mind + little soul is the most extreme example of ignorance.

i think hitler had a mediocre soul, he did still seem to care about quite a number of human concerns, so he isn't even the most radical example of evil. i'm thinking some war weapon dealers may sooner fit that profile. and i don't do businesses with such folks.

you know, for some reason the face of the boss of nestle comes to mind. he is like a perfect movie villain. "water must not be a human right"


(*i am actually against death penalty, in the context of a civilized society)

 

[nanook]

and since i'm bringing up the word soul i know what some of you are thinking.

i don't want to troll, but i honestly have a hard time not perceiving people as somewhat evil/ignorant, who say (or i'm thinking they just pretend) that they do not even understand what the word soul means.

the word has a very specific meaning, that does in no way depend on someone's metaphysical ideas or absence of such.

a soul is simply the ability of consciousness to be considerate of it's content in a balanced manner, one might think of it as the tendency to be unconditionally accepting of what is, all of it, it's what appears to unite consciousness into a conscious being, what allows one state to communicate with another or to transition, it means you give a shit.

in contrast, the soul appears to have holes or be rather small, when consciousness becomes narrowly concerned with agendas for no higher reasons, other than those agendas, like when you ask a killer why he committed a murder and he says: "i don't know, because i could, i guess." such a man has virtually no soul, in his current state, if it ever existed it must have fallen prey to dementia. the soul, according to this common sense definition, can be detected neurologically. likewise, the modern citizen is compelled by caffeine, sleeplessness and peer pressure to destroy his soul.

and a weak or poor soul could be someone's inborn nature, could be due to a physical accident or intoxication, but can in some cases also be tracked back to psychological sentiments, to what is called ignorance, a concept that should be understood as purely descriptive, since freedom of will is illusion.

in a different perspective, your soul is your whole subjective life-experience and memory, your whole experience of reality, your unique SELF (as integral jargon calls it), which is your unique perspective, which includes everything. or rather, it's what gives (or is) the appearance of coherency and animation to all of it. it's just you, to whatever extend you can be you.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Priests and hippies, the fuckers are everywhere.

you're still not a movie character

 

[QuickTwist]

Yes I have met several evil people. People who do not respect any level of danger and who carelessly throw caution out the window. It is better to keep you distance from them unless you can finish them or make them give up.

 

[Helvete]

Priests and hippies, the fuckers are everywhere.

Is this a joke?

@OP define truly evil please.

 

[Pyropyro]

Have you ever personally interacted with a truly evil person?

(Disregard the despots of history)

In my case the answer is only one time, when a person who I knew as very bad, even evil tried to murder my with a large knife?

What about you guys?

Hmmm I think this experience of yours is more about being capable of remorselessly inflicting violence rather than being truly evil.

In that vein, me and my friend was accosted by two seemingly drugged people when I was younger. My "friend" run away leaving me there to deal with the pair. They asked me my name and when I hesitated, one of them started reaching out for something behind his back. I blurted my name. They then laughed and walked away. I managed to catch up with my friend who I think told me "You okay?"

 

[Vrecknidj]

I have encountered a handful of people who would, I think, willingly, abuse, manipulate, etc., anyone for their own ends. I'm not sure what the intended definition of "evil" is in this thread, but, if what's intended matches up with the behaviours I've described, then, perhaps I have encountered some evil people.

 

[StevenM]

I once have gotten to know an anti-social pretty well, and after many months of mind games, I almost had my family and I killed. This particular one was very sly and cunning, and for some reason, took an interest in me. It was very similar to 'playing' with hannibal lecter without the cannibalism. I often referred to such people as anti-human.

 

[Jaffa]

I got married.

Yes, I have.

 

[Hadoblado]

Spoiler

and since i'm bringing up the word soul i know what some of you are thinking.

i don't want to troll, but i honestly have a hard time not perceiving people as somewhat evil/ignorant, who say (or i'm thinking they just pretend) that they do not even understand what the word soul means.

the word has a very specific meaning, that does in no way depend on someone's metaphysical ideas or absence of such.

a soul is simply the ability of consciousness to be considerate of it's content in a balanced manner, one might think of it as the tendency to be unconditionally accepting of what is, all of it, it's what appears to unite consciousness into a conscious being, what allows one state to communicate with another or to transition, it means you give a shit.

in contrast, the soul appears to have holes or be rather small, when consciousness becomes narrowly concerned with agendas for no higher reasons, other than those agendas, like when you ask a killer why he committed a murder and he says: "i don't know, because i could, i guess." such a man has virtually no soul, in his current state, if it ever existed it must have fallen prey to dementia. the soul, according to this common sense definition, can be detected neurologically. likewise, the modern citizen is compelled by caffeine, sleeplessness and peer pressure to destroy his soul.

and a weak or poor soul could be someone's inborn nature, could be due to a physical accident or intoxication, but can in some cases also be tracked back to psychological sentiments, to what is called ignorance, a concept that should be understood as purely descriptive, since freedom of will is illusion.

in a different perspective, your soul is your whole subjective life-experience and memory, your whole experience of reality, your unique SELF (as integral jargon calls it), which is your unique perspective, which includes everything. or rather, it's what gives (or is) the appearance of coherency and animation to all of it. it's just you, to whatever extend you can be you.

I like your thinking, though I don't think you should be surprised when people don't think as you do on this. You've redefined soul to be a useful descriptor regardless of ontological perspective, which is great, but there are still people who believe in souls who would reject your definition, and they would outnumber you.

I think rather than claiming old terms from people that are well entitled to them, you may want to consider a new name to go with the distinction. Philosophy can be difficult enough to navigate as it is without having no way of distinguishing terms.

Off the top of my head: reductionist soul, materialist soul, monist soul. After all, you are describing the same area of reality by invoking different mechanisms, and therefore it would probably be best to distinguish the term by the mechanism that's used to explain the perspective.

 

[Hadoblado]

As for evil people:

That of course depends on the definition, something the OP may want to keep in mind for next time they start a thread.

The definition of evil I find most useful is whether or not one systematically acts in such a way that harms the interests of others, particularly when the benefits are negligible or redundant. People that do one bad thing aren't evil, they're confused or sick. This definition does imply that ignorance can be evil, but only when it is acted on.

By this definition there is a lot of evil in the world. I see it every time I leave the house.

 

[nanook]

I like your thinking, though I don't think you should be surprised when people don't think as you do on this. You've redefined soul to be a useful descriptor regardless of ontological perspective, which is great, but there are still people who believe in souls who would reject your definition, and they would outnumber you.

that's a strong point, it can hardly be argued that language has a strong democratic element and i can not be surprised about how it's being used, but I will still teach my take on the language, just like they will release oxford, because: 1) those people mean what i mean, they just have additional ideas about what that thing is (immortal, has wings, can fly away from the body) and sometimes they don't even know what they mean at all, but they still mean the same thing at the essence, they can't help it. almost all ideas of soul are interpretations of what i call soul. 2) what is the price of giving power to the masses? my perspective on what a souls is has more weight, because i have better insight. the parents teach language to kids, the integral philosopher teaches language to the people. i'm feeling bold today

higher interpretations of soul are possible, but they should integrate mine (in order to be higher, more integrative, not reductionistic) and thus they compete for the same old word.

(i don't think my interpretation is materialist, but i was probably sloppy enough to make it sound that way, btw. mater is spirit and evolution is intelligent, in the integral worldview, this puts a transcendent twist on the origin and nature of the soul, but integrates the material fact of how it lives as an aspect of the brain, in the exterior quadrant. i think i'm intentionally downplaying this, to increase resonance of my ideas with a rational audience)

>reductionist soul, materialist soul, monist soul.

you yourself always use the word: soul, so i take it you agree

yes, using additional qualifiers like this makes good sense in a comparative discussion. like discussing the differences of tribal god, mythic membership god, cosmological god, personal god, integral god, different interpretations of god ... different interpretations of the same thing. these words, soul or god, are way too powerful to deprecate them. they tie the whole chaos of babylon together.

 

[EditorOne]

I've met people who were despicably ambitious, back-stabbing, lying corporate ladder climbers; I had an acquaintance, in the neighborhood, who committed murder and robbery twice while stupefyingly drunk. I'd put the first group in the "evil" category and the killer in the "unfortunate" category.
So I can't answer your question in the context you've framed it.
I think evil is self-aware and a deliberate choice, whereas sociopaths are not aware, at some level, that their perspective is abnormal.
Equally dangerous, though.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Have you ever interacted with a truly evil person?

Only every time I look into the mirror.


The majority of the above posters seem to be inclined to give moral absolution and embrace the idea that no one can truly be evil. Everyone has reasons for what they do, and everyone has a complex backstory. That is simply part of life, but it does not absolve the individual of their actions.


Like many discussions, this one is hindered by the ambiguity of language. If you define evil as mindless, pointless, destruction and the interminable infliction of self interest onto external entities... Well, then I've never met a human who didn't qualify. Plus, the average human is very capable of atrocity given a bit of psychological conditioning.

Alas, that definition remains untenable. 'Good' and 'Evil' are meaningless and rely on limited perspectives. We're all sinners and saints.

 

[Latte]

Evil in the sense of not valuing other people's wellbeing in the slightest, with a co-occurring inclination towards wanting to dominate or destroy others.

One in physical space. His tendencies were primarily towards psychological abuse and control, mostly directed at partners.
Online, I don't know, but probably there have been some. It is hard to ascertain through text alone for me.

Most people who do terrible things to others do seem to value other people's wellbeing to some extent, but in a repressed or de-prioritized way. There are some people who don't, at all.

 

[Alan McDougall]

Evil in the sense of not valuing other people's wellbeing in the slightest, with a co-occurring inclination towards wanting to dominate or destroy others.

One in physical space. His tendencies were primarily towards psychological abuse and control, mostly directed at partners.
Online, I don't know, but probably there have been some. It is hard to ascertain through text alone for me.

Most people who do terrible things to others do seem to value other people's wellbeing to some extent, but in a repressed or de-prioritized way. There are some people who don't, at all.

I agree!
An evil person lacks a conscience, unlike most people although they sometimes do bad things, in their hearts have the wellbeing of others intrinsically imprinted. They are positive altruists.

 

[Yellow]

I dunno.

Many people are exactly as "evil" as opportunity and the situation at hand will allow. Some people go a step further to increase their chances of finding opportunity and getting away with things through manipulation. Others refuse to take advantage of their potential for evil and certainly do not try to increase it. I think that if "good" and "evil" were on a spectrum, then the amount of effort taken to cause harm and damage caused [to another person or entity capable of experiencing the damage] would be the prevailing factors in evilness.

I have had extensive interaction with more than one person who went out of his/her way to increase opportunity and reduce obstacles to his/her malevolence, with the destruction itself (and the feelings of power and control that come with it) being the end goal.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

The judge that ordered me to rehab. He locked me up and had me experience withdrawal for the first time then made me clean for a couple months. Evil bastard.

 

[Sockrates]

I've been called evil, but I'd never harm anyone or anything, unless my life was threatened by such things.

My dad is a functioning psychopath. His mom is as well. They're interesting characters.

 

[Alomoes]

Truly evile? Hrrm. No. But I've met the Stalin type, that guy who says F the world. Twice. Once in person, once on the internet. I don't know, but one was in his normal state, the other was depressed.

 

[Grayman]

I agree!
An evil person lacks a conscience, unlike most people although they sometimes do bad things, in their hearts have the wellbeing of others intrinsically imprinted. They are positive altruists.

I could hurt you and not feel guilty about it, is that what you mean? It's this empathy thing that makes me do irrational things.