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.

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]

quote:

---

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.

---

This is what I was getting when I asked if they are evil or are their actions evil.I'd say I mostly agree with you about this. It's hard for me to imagine someone knowingly doing something as extreme as causing harm to so many innocent people that, within their worldview, is wrong. The perpetuators of these acts are who we would traditionally call evil; it is the extremeness of their act of wrongful doing.Where I disagree with you is in the fact that it seems you are equating any act of willful wrong doing (wrong within your worldview) with evil. Being selfish is wrong in a lot of situations, e.g., greed, infidelity, etc., but to call these acts evil seems too deviate a little too far from its original connotation.I'm not sure if that was clear, so to reiterate my point: 1.) I think to call someone evil to to believe that they lucidly chose to do an extreme act of violence that they believe is wrong within their worldview. It seems like a stretch to believe this happens often,; these people believe they are doing the right thing. 2.) On the other hand, calling mild acts of willful wrong doing evil seems off the mark.Of course, we'll probably disagree on what "mild" means.

quote:

---

I would argue that the two you described are inherently the same.

---

I was trying to make the distinction between intentions and consequences.If you're intentions are good within your framework but are considered evil within the rest of societies or by an objective standard (don't want this to get dragged into a relativism debate, though may be inevitable) then I'd say you committed an evil act but you are not an evil person.I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but I do think that if according to you're conscience you are doing the right thing it is hard to call you evil; insane maybe, but I don't think evil captures the situation.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but this is a rediculous statement. The nazis thought they were doing right in the great scheme of things by getting rid of all those they thought were inferior. I would argue that the nazis did evil things as well as being evil themselves.

---

Well I think this is just too simplistic of an interpretation. People can only be expected to live their lives according to their own conscience and their own conceptions of right and wrong. A person is more than their actions. If one does something that is evil it doesn't make them so.Of course, I'm going to have some trouble with the Nazi's since they are often touted as the prime exemplar of evil. In my mind I believe most Nazi's had to know that mass exterminations, e.g., exterminating babies, is wrong and yet they did it anyway for selfish reasons. They would therefore be considered evil in my opinion. But if one is brought up in the fervor of that era then they don't know any better; they are doing evil deeds but don't know that they are. How can we honestly demonize them?

quote:

---

According to the way you define evil people (people who sit around consciously making plans and doing things they know to be evil), it is impossible to pin down anyone who's actually evil.

---

Which is why I think that it may not be a useful concept except in the context of Christian mythology. Evil is most often attributed to the Satan or the Devil. This character does things he knows are wrong just to wreak havoc with God's creation, or something to that effect. It's very hard to imagine this adjective (evil) to apply in mass to people who do things we deem wrong. It's not just hard for me; it's hard even for Christians. This is why Reverend Graham attributed this act to Satan, and not Cho. It just doesn't seem intuitively accurate to think there are "evil" people - their viewpoints are just wrong and need to be corrected if possible or they have lost touch with reality.Branding people as Good or Evil just seems to white and black. It leads inevitably to the isolation of certain groups outside of one's moral sphere. The concept is itself a problem since it leads to more us and them thinking, i.e., George Bush's good vs evil thinking.

quote:

---

You guys really piss me off sometimes. What are you doing? Have you the downpat on every issue, because you thought about it over a chip-balm once. Do me a favour.

---

Take a deep breath. Relax.The reason people even bother to express their opinions to other people on a site like this is because they know they don't have the downpat and want their views validated or criticized. They can then gain better understanding of the issues and develop a more refined opinion.

quote:

---

This can be proved by people who have the same mental problem, who never do evil.

---

Just because two people have been diagnosed under an umbrella term like "depression" or "paranoia" or "psychosis" does not mean they are suffering from the same abnormal neurochemistry or thought patterns. So in this respect, I don't think your argument is very effective. People have unique psyches that resist categorization.

quote:

---

So a mentally ill person can still be evil.

---

That said, I think you may have a good point here depending if we can get a grip on what evil means. For instance, I'm not too sure I like the idea of labeling everybody who commits a violent or sadistic act as mentally ill since it seems to shift the blame to an illness and not to their own free will.This is why I mentioned in the OP that the crux of the issue is free will, i.e., is the will free? Until we can answer questions such as that I don't think we are going to get a handle on the issue of evil.
Edited by JustinC, : Typos