evil

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Because you were wrong as usual.

But hey, you are on a roll!

Carry On! 😛

Wrong about what?

Originally posted by Starrman
Wrong about what?

Yes Exactly!

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Yes Exactly!

Honest question; do you think the general behaviour you exhibit in the forums, demonstrated quite well in this thread, could be considered to be retarded?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Lack of empathy I consider mental illness. A contract killer must be without empathy. Therefore I think he is mentally ill.

Same goes for anyone that deserves to be called evil. Something has to be wrong with him. Like lack of empathy.

certainly a lack of empathy for the intended victim would help a contract killer perform efficiency. but he/she needn't have a general incapacity to feel empathy for anyone at all, which would be an indicator for anti-social personality disorder (i.e. sociopathy / psychopathy). the mindset is not all that different in many ways to that of a military sniper, but we don't call those evil. their actions can be similar, although they differ in motive. however, the sniper can't afford empathy for his victims any more than the hitman can.

Originally posted by Starrman
Honest question; do you think the general behaviour you exhibit in the forums, demonstrated quite well in this thread, could be considered to be retarded?

Who Me? 🙄 😛

Clean up your own backyard Son!

Originally posted by Very Rusty
Who Me? 🙄 😛

Clean up your own backyard Son!

Wut?


Answer to Starrman's question: Of course. Dead on.

Originally posted by Blackamp
certainly a lack of empathy for the intended victim would help a contract killer perform efficiency. but he/she needn't have a general incapacity to feel empathy for anyone at all, which would be an indicator for anti-social personality disorder (i.e. sociopathy / psychopathy). the mindset is not all that different in many ways to that of a military sniper, ...[text shortened]... otive. however, the sniper can't afford empathy for his victims any more than the hitman can.

In those cases, hitman V military sniper, wouldn't 'evil' be defined in the eyes of the beholder? For instance, the boss of the hitman would not consider the hitman evil when he wacks a rival? The military sniper wouldn't be considered evil by his company commander who ordered the hit would he? But if the sniper was captured by the enemy, chances are pretty good those people would consider him evil.
So we have a variable definition of both evil and empathy. A hitman may have a family, wife and kids, maybe even grandkids, I am sure he would feel empathy for them but have no empathy for his victims.
So we have someone like Pol Pot or Idi Amin who enjoys personally killing victims
and say later gets caught and tried, would it be correct for him to claim mental illness?
"I am certifiably nuts and therefore not responsible for the enjoyment I get when I kill"
Is that a reasonable defense for his reprehensible actions?
Someone who, like a hitman or military sniper, does his job without enjoyment and shows empathy for his loved ones, are they then less 'evil' than an Idi Amin who kills and enjoys it? How far can we take the mental illness defense?

Originally posted by sonhouse
In those cases, hitman V military sniper, wouldn't 'evil' be defined in the eyes of the beholder? For instance, the boss of the hitman would not consider the hitman evil when he wacks a rival? The military sniper wouldn't be considered evil by his company commander who ordered the hit would he? But if the sniper was captured by the enemy, chances are pretty han an Idi Amin who kills and enjoys it? How far can we take the mental illness defense?

i don't think we generally define 'evil' as whoever happens to be opposed to us - soldiers can and often are indoctrinated to think this way, but they think that the enemy really is evil (perhaps because they have been told that they commit atrocities), and not just because they are on the opposite side. but without this indoctrination and without believing that the enemy actually does commit atrocities or whatever, i don't think soldiers believe the guys on the other side are evil.

i guess the thing with the mental illness defence is that the accused has to convince an expert or panel of experts that they are so out of touch with reality that they were incapable of recognising that they were doing evil or telling right from wrong when they committed their crimes. someone incapable of that recognition isn't a moral agent, and can't be held responsible for their actions.

psychopaths, who display a generalised lack of empathy but otherwise have a grip on reality, don't presently qualify for this defence unless they have other mental problems. it's an open question as to whether psychopaths possess genuine moral concepts, and if they turn out not to have, it could have important legal ramifications.