Talk:Evil

Evil in other religions

I'm heavily disappointed in not seeing Islam and numerous other religions interpretation of evil. Why the ignorance on such a great site? Great example of evil in itself. Marcelino (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish Evil

I seem to remember this page having content useful for documenting the phenomenon of Irish Evil. Why has someone removed it? This is practically begging for the entire discussion to be re-ignited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.248.36 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Evil Good?

I am sorry for vandalizing this section and also the Amphetimine article. I will not vandalize wikipedia anymore. However I want to talk about the "Is Evil Good?" section on the talk page. I do not think that evil is good. I actually think that evil is terrible. It is terrible. What I think of evil is commiting sins to the extreme. I think of "evil" as things like terrorism, murdering of innocent people ect. I will not vandalize wikipedia anymore but I want you to respect my comments because I am at least putting it on the talk page. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)21:36 Febuary 6, 2008

That's nice. Please read WP:FORUM. This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not your personal opinions. -- Kesh (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious.

99.232.29.227 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC):I have read the wikipedia forum and also the page about vandalism on wikipedia and I now know what exactly vandalism is and I won't do it again. So anyways, that thing about "Is Evil Good?" Do you think that evil is good? 22:48, February 7, 2008 (talk)

You are still missing the point. This article is not an editorial. It reports what others have said on the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? 99.232.29.227 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC) 16:32, Februay 8, 2008

It means this is not a place for discussing your opinion on the subject. All we're doing is making an encyclopedia article of what people have written about Evil in philosophy, history and religion. This is not a forum for us to talk about whether evil is good or not. -- Kesh (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. But should the section be deleted? I am not going to delete it right now but I want to see what people think about it. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 07:21, February 9, 2008

You should not delete something because you disagree with it. You should only delete something because it is inaccurate. In other words, you should not delete a reference to Anton LaVey because you disagree with what he said. You should only delete it if you can demonstrate that he did not in fact say it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm not going to delete it and I see what you are saying, but maybe the neutrality of the section is disputed. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 12:42, February 9, 2008

The section would fail the neutrality test if Anton LaVey's views were presented in a biased manner. LaVey himself is not supposed to be neutral, only the presentation of his views. In short, the purpose of the section is not to provide information about evil, but information about one particular view of evil. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right. I understand what you are trying to say. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 19:50, February 9, 2008

Just one thing. Could you give me an example of Anton LaVey's views being presented in a biased way? 99.232.29.227(UTC) 21:46, February 9, 2008

Sure. If I said, "Anton LaVey is a great guy and was right in everything he said," that would be biased. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Now I see, Thanks. 99.232.29.227 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) 9:23, February 10, 2008

I think evil is opposite of good. Per definition. That means the section name "Is evil good?" is rhetorical only, since the real question "is evil good?" is like "is small big?", the formal answer being "no!" by language structure, not by consideration. The topic presented in the section is interesting, but it actually treating topics more like "is there any real/objective evil?", pointing back to the "Is evil universal?" question. The topics might need redistributions between the sections, maybe... (Personally I incline to the sociological kind of answers). ... said: Rursus (mb_ork³) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

R-41's political blog

I decided to move this communist apologetic blog to the talk, because its entirely unsourced, non neutral and pretty is just an opinion of one student. If there is anything at all to salvage with sources, then please feel free to re-add some.

Gennarous (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody else: ignore that stmt! That guy is not on WP anymore. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Evil in Politics

In modern-day liberal democratic societies, many associate evil in politics with authoritarian, imperialist, racist, and totalitarian regimes and with leaders who are demagogues. Adolf Hitler in Germany, is a primary and common example throughout the world of an evil politician, as he permitted the persecution and mass genocide of Jews, opposition figures and other minorities in the Holocaust, allowed the deliberate destruction of civilian areas of cities and had blatant disregard for the life of his own citizens in the final months of World War II. Hitler is so universally infamous in both western and eastern societies that comparisons of individuals to Hitler or to Nazis is a common epithet that equates to declaring that someone is evil. Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union is often considered evil in the west and by reform-minded communists for his purges and his persecution of the Kulaks, and his demand of absolute loyalty from his citizens. In the West, Mao Tse Tung in China is considered evil, for the devastation brought on by the Cultural Revolution. Ferdinand II of Aragon, who led Spain and began the Spanish Inquisition has been considered evil for the inquisition's harsh repression of Muslims, Jews, and other dissenting populations.

We should point to our own atrocities in World and US History. It's far too easy to ignore our own history of evil. It's better to have a neutral view point and make this a good learning point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.71 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In general imperialism has been seen as evil since the collapse of colonialism. British, Portugese, and Spanish imperialist repression of aboriginals in the Americas led to the deaths of millions of aboriginals, and the displacement of their population to make way for colonial expansion. British actions in South Africa during the Second Boer War have been considered evil, such as his armed forces' establishment of concentration camps for Boers and his repression of the Boer people.[1] Italy's imperialist agenda in Africa during the 1930s under Fascism led to the repression and segregation of Ethiopians, such as the deliberate destruction of Ethiopian settlements in Addis Ababa in 1937. Some of the final examples of the negative aspects of imperialism which have been deemed evil were demonstrated during Algeria's struggle for independence from France, where the French brutally repressed the Algerian independence movement.

The political writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, in The Prince, explore the relationship between politics and the moral norms of good and evil. Notoriously, Machiavelli makes the case that morality can sometimes be a hindrance in the pursuit of power, because in the political realm "the ends justifies the means". Machiavelli argues that a ruler may have to act immorally to protect both his personal power and the interests of the state.

In common parlance, the term Machiavellian is used to describe politicians or political policy that is amoral. Machiavelli did not make a case for evil, but rather argued pragmatically that a prince could not practically follow the moral codes of the common people. He is explicit in stating that politicians who choose or are forced to commit evil acts must be prepared to face the moral consequences of their actions.

Gilbert and Sullivan satirize this view in The Pirates of Penzance, where the Pirate King sings

For many a king on a first class throne

If he wants to call his crown his own

Must manage somehow to get through

More dirty deeds than ever I do.

In contrast to the views expressed above, authoritarian, totalitarian, and theocratic states often consider western democracies to be evil. Totalitarian states under communism or fascism believe that liberal democracy allows for the exploitation of the people, that democracy is actually a regressive force for society, that individualism is bad because it favours materialism over values common to the people. Theocracies criticize liberal democracy because it allows women to exercise strong influence and express themselves provocatively, allows the consumption of intoxicating substances (such as alcohol and tobacco), and allow materialist individualism to to supplant the enforcement of holy writ.

In the light of controversial conflicts in places Vietnam and Iraq, even supporters of liberal democracy, especially from the left and also the libertarian side of the political spectrum, have claimed that democratically elected leaders of the United States, especially Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush have been evil or have followed evil principles in their support of such wars. These three US Presidents have been accused of lying to their people on important issues, using murder and torture to support US business interests, allowing war crimes such as Mei Li and Abu Ghraib, and continuing unpopular wars against the will of the people.

One wide-spread form of political evil that is universally denounced is corruption, where politicians enrich themselves at the expense of their country and its people.

I just can't resist pointing out what happens when you click on the hyperlink to "Mei Li" above. Presumably, it's not what the author of this polemic intended to link to!

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the author meant the My Lai Massacre? Emma li mk (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moral obligation

Isn't there a well-defined philosophical essay that discussed evil and the philosophical idea of moral obligation? If so, it should be included. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask on the Humanities Reference Desk. Probably someone on there could help figure out what essay you're referring to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

pictures. too boring to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.90.249 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Design and Evil

"Evil" is also a term used about design. For example, when talking about the programming language C, the POV that "Pointers are Evil" is often promoted. In these cases, "Evil" is synonymous with "Bad Practice" or "Not Really Beneficial While Potentially Harmful". Something for the article? - Soulkeeper (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for it. Really though, people use evil as a euphemism for "things I don't like" all the time. It might be worth having a section on the euphemistic uses of the word in general (again, requiring a source). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Jargon File on Evil: http://catb.org/jargon/html/E/evil.html - Soulkeeper (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that it's been mentioned before on this talk page. - Soulkeeper (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, maybe a relativist view on good/evil actually justifies referring to that usage of "evil", so that "evil" being a kakophemistic usage (not an euphemistic in this case, since the extremenesss is strengthened, not weakened) is as precise and accurate as any other, if just by adjusting the input filtering strength... ... said: Rursus (mb_ork³) 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in the United States

I'm not sure about this sentence in the article: "Less than 150 years ago the United States of America, and many other countries practiced brutal forms of slavery." When one considers the vast history of slavery in the world, its existence in civilizations throughout time and across all continents, as well as its continued existence in various forms (including "brutal" forms) in the world today, I don't know that I agree with this sentence having a place in the article. For one thing, it makes it sound as if slavery - or "brutal forms of slavery" - was somehow unique to the United States (yes, in spite of also saying "many other countries"). It thus makes it sound like its coming from a biased, American perspective. It also makes it sound like slavery and brutal forms of slavery basically have been non-existent for 150 years or so, which is totally untrue. Harry Yelreh (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence should be deleted. This article discusses the concept of evil; it is not the place to discuss specific instances of evil. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we can use instances of evil, but they must have occurred in a context where a certain philosopher, theologist, or some similar, discusses evil, and uses it as an illustrative example. This is not the article where everyone should list every evil that have occurred, if it was then this article will grow exponentially with time, burning Wikipedia's servers down to oblivion. That would be evil, indeed. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Off topic/OR

I moved this here:

Some sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists have attempted to construct scientific explanations for the development of specific characteristics of an "antisocial" personality type, called the sociopath. The sociopath is typified by extreme self-serving behavior and a lack of conscience as well as an inability to empathize with others and to restrain from, or to feel remorse for, harm personally caused to others. However, a diagnosis of antisocial or sociopathic personality disorder (formerly called psychopathic mental disorder), is sometimes criticized as being, at the present time, no more scientific than calling a person "evil". There is much debate over this, however. Some, most prominently Robert Hare, author of "Without Conscience", consider psychopathy to be a widespread disorder quite distinct from antisocial personality disorder.

What critics perceive to be a moral determination is disguised, they argue, with a scientific-sounding name but no complete description of a mechanism by which the abnormality can be identified. In other words, critics argue, "sociopaths" are called such because they are first thought to be "evil" - a determination which itself is not derived by a scientific method.

Research into sociopathology has also been investigated biologically,[9] Are there biological reasons why people are evil rather than moral? Are there physical underpinnings of behaviors that societies reject as sociopathic? Most neurological research into sociopathology has focused on regions of the neocortex involved in impulse control. Some other research seems to indicate that sociopathy may at least partially be related to a lack of ability to realize the true consequences of one's actions.

______

While i'm sure it was added in good faith, it seems to have only a tenuous link with the topic. I think very (very) few sociologists/psycologist/scientists of any type would call a person "evil" based on a medical diagnosis. An in depth discussion of sociopathy should not be included unless the view that this is equivalent to evil is detailed. I left a brief mention, so links are still in place, and the only (uncited) combination of the 2 (although this is still the title of a pop-science book, so hardly authoritative). The second paragraph at minimum needs some citations - who thinks this? YobMod 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Amusing fact

Why does searching for "Scientology" on Wikipedia turns "Evil" as a result? How is that NPOV? I know Scientology doesn't have many friends on the Internet but that seems a bit over the line... RUL3R (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea. You should ask at the Village Pump technical section. Law _{type! snype?} 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe it's quite amusing how people automatically assume scientologists are evil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.158.124 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I am a scientologist myself but I don't think I am inherently "evil" just because of my religious beliefs (in the same fashion as a Satanist cannot be considered "evil" just labeling himself as such). I also believe this article should include our views on "evil" (not just scientology, but new religious movements in general), since "evil" is a philosophical issue defined by different cultural aspects. But it's just my 2 cents here. RUL3R (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

either that, or just make sure searching for scientology does not return evil as a page anymore. that has already been taken care of. ThomasPolder (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn’t mean that you are evil just because you are a member of Scientology. Scientology is an evil cult, because its sole purpose is to defraud gullible fools out of there hard earned money. Therefore you are not evil, you are a gullible fool

comment added by Rphb (talk • contribs) 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved section needing cites/research

I moved this here, as i think it is a very bad idea to add sections with no citations at all, that sound like original research, to articles that are already templated as being OR and needing cites.YobMod 11:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Evil in fiction

The fight against evil is prominent in all forms of fiction, manifesting in virtually any form of literary/narrative conflict, e.g. Man vs. Nature and Man vs. the Supernatural in Star Wars (the dark side of the Force,) Man vs. Self and the supernatural in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle Earth (Morgoth, Sauron, and the One Ring), and Man vs. Machine in The Matrix films (the matrix and it's creators.)

Also, this sentence, as it has been tagged on and off since about forever, and again seems like pure OR. (Who are these amoralists?, who says the live like this? Do they really even exist?:

Amoralists tend to apply a homo economicus style of making decisions in their lives.

Evil in Western Philosophy

This part should be rewritten- Jung is portrayed on the same level as Spinoza whilst Spinoza is one of the founders of the enlightenment and one of the great philosophers while Jung's ideas are almost all outdated and based on dogma rather then ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.52.159 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Short definition of evil

The short definition given on this page about evil is that it is subjective. Whether or not you think evil is actually absolute or relative, I think the word "evil" refers to a belief in moral absolutes - you would not refer to behavior as evil unless you thought it universally evil, and not just inconvenient to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.247.241 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but Wikipedia does not work on personal opinion. We use verifiable citations from reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the definition of the current intro. "Evil is subjective" wouldn't qualify as a definition by my standards. And as said earlier, we need secondary sources for such a "definition", if we really considered using it in the article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be nice to have a comprehensive working definition of evil. One could list its characteristics ( like perhaps a lack of compassion, a perceived lack of ability and so on ). Aside from acacdemic discusssions this definition is of prime importance considering the rampage of power and greed now and perhaps ever since the dawn of civilization and it is a DEFINITE gap in knowledge to not have a working definition or guidance to identify the occurence of evil

Nty tyagi (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, there is no comprehensive definition. It's not a measurable thing. Also, Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide guidance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Evil|p00547g3}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

• Added. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I'm sorry, I'm sure its been discussed, but is that really the best that you can do for a picture? Why Satan? Why that specific piece of art? It looks silly. 207.159.180.63 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an ancient piece of artwork. Primitive, yes, but not silly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anon. The image is silly and out of place. When modern, 21st century people discuss the nature of "evil", they do not think of "Satan" or ridiculous drawings of some bogeyman. The picture needs to go. There is consensus in the year 2010 among thinking people everywhere that whatever can be called or described as "evil" comes not from the actions of a mysterious supernatural agent, but from the very hands of man. It's time to put childish notions of blaming invisible entities aside and deal with the problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is evil universal?

I noticed that the "Is evil universal?" section was written from a non-universalist perspective. I added intercolating information from the universalist perspective to restore neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biosoulcial (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

M. Scott Peck and Alain Badiou

I really think that these two's definitions of evil should be presented in the Western Philosophy section.

Peck's book "People of the Lie" provides a very different perspective than Spinoza and Jung: "It is not their sins per se that characterize evil people, rather it is the subtlety and persistence and consistency of their sins. This is because the central defect of the evil is not the sin but the refusal to acknowledge it." (p. 6)

Badiou, in "Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil" reads like this: 'The Good is Good only to the extent that it does not aspire to render the world good. Its sole being lies in the situated advent [l'advenue en situation] of a singular truth. So it must be that the power of a truth is also a kind of powerlessness. Every absolutization of the power of a truth organizes an Evil. Not only does this Evil destroy the situation (for the will to eliminate opinion is, fundamentally, the same as the will to eliminate, in the human animal, its very animality, i.e. its being), but it also interrupts the truth-process in whose name it proceeds, since it fails to preserve, within the composition of its subject, the duality of interests (disinterested-interest and interest pure and simple).' (

I'm not sure I'm communicating this properly, but a wikipedia page on evil that does not contain a discussion like this about power and refusal, Peck or Badiou scares me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article quality

The article has degraded to a barely comprehensible level of nonsense. The page history shows far more cogent versions from several years ago. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It's difficult to ascertain what needs fixed with such a general comment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe he means that such articles over time become victims to a tug of war between opposing ideological viewpoints, all carefully concealed of course. Thus Spake Good (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that assumptions do us no good. Without specific examples, I have no idea what he wants done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hes right though, in that the page is fairly dire. Wiki does not do articles like this very well, and your not helping by being so dismissive and sour. Ceoil 17:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) If you're not going to give specific issues we can fix, I have no problem being dismissive. Simply saying "It stinks" doesn't help us at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Without consequences?

Is this correct? It seems to imply that something is not evil if the perpetrator had a consequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxantos (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so good definitions

The intro provides a dubious definition of evil talking about intention of violating a moral code. Yes, that's one of worlds possible kind of "evils", but natural catastrophes may also be regarded as evil, such as for example 1755 Lisbon earthquake, which had a great effect on society and philosophy, especially regarding theodicy ("how come a good omnipotent God allows horrible earthquakes?"). I also suspect "evil" as opposite of "good" is neither very universal, since a "trichotomy" of {evil, neutral, good} is easily imaginable.

The section Philosophical definitions doesn't provide definitions really, although the example from Gen. 2:18 provides something bordering to one. The only trouble is that Christianity is not automagically classifiable as "Western philosophy". Maybe there's actually a definition in the Spinoza section, but I'm not quite sure. The Carl Jung section contains some rhetorical simile or symbolism of a kind, but it doesn't pass my definition test, which is that it should read like a dry:

• N, also called the natural numbers, is the set of all integer numbers from 1 and upwards.

Furthermore: using "evil is everything non-good", how is then "good" defined?

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In your first example, the disaster itself isn't evil in that it's an inanimate object; in that situation, "God" is blamed and therefore evil in that theological reaction. To borrow a popular idiom, "Bullets don't kill, people do."

Christianity is considered a Western religion by basically all respected scholars in the field. Philosophical definitions often aren't as dry as you seem to prefer.

Your last point is pretty spot-on, though, and that should be updated. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm too not sure about the definition of evil. The first sentence says "Evil is the violation of, or intent to violate, some moral code."

The moral code says people should not run naked in the street. Who does it, is than evil?
To me is evil much more than "bad" as opposed to "good". --Dia^ (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why

isn't there a page for good, only evil? 192.5.109.34 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

what happens to people who are evil ?

they are destroyed in Hell Thor cherubim (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

They are doomed to edit Wikipedia for all eternity. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

According to thousands of NDE experiencers, what happens is that you become aware after death of all the positive and negative effects of what you did on earth (and all their repercussions on everyone) for all eternity. If there's a "hell", it's a very private one. There seems to still be opportunity for redemption but it seems our present state of gross ignorance is partly a way to tease out our true nature. How would you act if one day you actually felt how you made everyone else feel around you in your entire life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lectrick (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Indian Genocide?

I'm not too happy with the reference to genocide in the USA perpetrated by the American Army. My impression from here in England is that there never was any directed policy by either the US Army or Government to kill all native Americans, or even to kill all members of some tribes. No doubt some individuals may have wished to do so, and there certainly were several massacres of indians. But a charge of genocide requires rather more proof than murder, and incitement to murder, by a relatively few individuals. Indeed the creation of reservations and treaties provides ample evidenc that the aim of the US was emphatically NOT genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.4.1 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on history a bit more. Native Americans were systematically killed or driven from their homelands without recourse. Treaties were worthless, as the many "relocations" show, and reservations were not established in a humane manner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The genocide of redskin nations was really industrialized by the USA. In order to eliminate them, the american indians first had to be stripped of their entire food source. For that end, white riflemen killed over 80 million bisons all over the CONUS, taking nothing from the 1500lbs corpses but the tongues! As soon as the bisons disappeared, redskins lost their sustainement basis and became weak, ill, easy to subdue and eliminate.

Considering the red indians viewed bisons as beings equally spiritual to people, that event can be considered the largest genocide in history, one that belittles even Stalin's, Mao's and Hitler's actions. As late as the end of 1890's still there were 30-yard high piles of bison skulls nearby US railway stations, as some enterpreneur discovered the skull litter can be collected, carted away and grinded up for use in artifical fertilizer, ie. profit. It was not less industrialized than the infamous nazi effort that turned exterminated jews and gipsy into soap and lamp shades foil. 91.82.242.155 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious ideas of evil

Are you sure that you have translated concepts of good and evil from religions that were founded and grown in non-English-speaking cultures (such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) properly? Some ideas may have been lost in the translation from Arabic, Sanskrit, Greek, Hebrew, etc. — Rickyrab. | ^{Yada yada yada} 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a key element missing here

As someone pointed out in the discussion above, editing Wikipedia articles must be some form of hell: I do appreciate that everyone is doing their best here.

But there's an important slant that is missing here. We in the Christian west have inherited a distinct idea of evil; we attach a particular idea to the notion. Elaine Pagels, in "The Origin of Satan" explains this change of meaning (of both the idea of evil and of Satan)that took place over several centuries between about 300 BCE to 100 CE. The extremes of meaning are roughly: a kindly view of as simply being unaware (one might see that a child who makes a mistake is 'evil' in the sense that s/he is simply unaware of the right thing to do); at the other end, the notion of an alien malevolent force in the form of a Satan or other diabolical figure. According to Pagels this more or less describes the change in meaning that this word underwent from its initial meaning to Jews to what (admittedly more extreme) Christians came to understand by the word. A child who makes a mistake is not evil in this latter sense!

I can't help feeling that this article starts from a Christian orientation, paying some lip-service to alternative viewpoints, but doesn't do enough to convey that other cultures--and I'm sure that Hindu and Buddhist cultures in particular--see evil in a rather different way from the way that we do.

NB I'm using Pagels here to narrow the focus but this difference in orientation has been expressed in quite a few other references that I have seen.

--174.7.25.37 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Assertion in Jewish theology Section

Concerning this statement:

Christianity in general does not adhere to this belief, but the prophet Isaiah implied that God is ultimately responsible for everything. (Isa.45:7).

I'm not even sure a statement about Christianity is relevant to this section; if it is, the relevance needs to be explained.

However, the phrase, "Isaiah implied" is inherently POV, and I cannot find even one biblical commentary, whether ancient, medieval, or modern, that supports inferring from this verse that God is responsible for sin or wickedness, but numerous commentaries contradict it. Downstrike (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

i like trains do you? this is rudolf and im all your friends :3

pie is evil

i like trains do you? this is rudolf and im all your friends :3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.193.245 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Western philosophy

Right under Western Philosophy it says: "Evil is that which is not amazing good." What the heck? I fixed the grammar mistake, but this sentence does not sum up Western philosophy regarding evil. Robert 03:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert the Devil (talk • contribs)

Adolf Hitler

Why is Adolf Hitler "evil"? The definition of evilness given in the text is:
"conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence that are not legitimate acts of self-defense but aggressive and designed to cause ill-being to others."
I don't think Hitler was a conscious and deliberate wrongdoer. I am not talking about personal opinions right now (although there still is a significant number of people who follow his ideals), but I think that Hitler really believed in most of his ideas. That doesn't make him a conscious wrongdoer, that just makes him a mass killer (in fact, he most likely didn't kill a single person with his own hand, but that's a different discussion). I think the picture should be removed from this page. He might be widely believed to be an evil person, but if the claims aren't relevant with the definition of evilness, those claims shouldn't be promoted in this page. FeyBart (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

He may or may not fit the first phrase in the definition, he certainly fits all the others. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

But according to the National-Socialist ideology, discrimination is not evil. So why claim Hitler to be evil? FeyBart (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the caption to just say many people use Hitler as an example of evil. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this should be better. Thanks. FeyBart (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Which version of Hitler are we talking about? The mainstream, Hollywood version of Adolf Hitler is certainly evil. The actual Hitler though was far from it. 184.96.242.187 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)