Who is More Evil? One who does not know Evil from Good, or One who chooses Evil?
Side Score: 12
Side Score: 25
I'll go with the more difficult side.
1.He who doesn't know the difference, acts with apathy towards good or evil.
2.It is apathy about good or evil which allows evil to triumph over good.
3.That which allows evil to triumph is evil.
/\ Thus He who is ignorant of good or evil is evil.
He who chooses evil does so out of necessity, for evil and good are defined relative to the needs of the person questioning what is good or evil such that the person is always good, even if his actions are not. So well accepting his fate may be his choice, his fate itself isn't. Thus he isn't evil, even though his actions may be. in short, he is a pawn but not the chess master's hand and so his moments are not his own; for him to choose evil is to choose to accept his life as a pawn. This acceptance is good, for it allows his tormented existence some peace.
People will throw words around like they're baseballs. And that INCLUDES "you're evil". They really have no idea how many feelings they're hurting just by saying things and not even knowing or caring if it's true not. Not to mention that they never consider the possibility that they're calling someone evil for something they may or may not be doing themselves.
Lets take a bully scenario into hand. This kid bullies children smaller than him through the use of words, repeatedly referring them as horrible people, despite the fact that he's bullying them in the first place. Once the children finally take revenge on the bully, he becomes injured.
But my point is that the bully did not care what he said to the children, he just wanted them to suffer. The children only took the path of revenge once they were tired of taking abuse. I think it's obvious who the "evil" one is here...
I may have interpreted your initial post wrong: I was thinking the ignorant, not the mentally unstable.
That being said, I suppose it depends on the disorder, but: I generally consider the mentally unstable to be abstracted from concepts of good and evil. That is, if you cannot judge us realistically, can we judge you? (Of course we can and will if it is in the benefit of society, but my rhetorical is more philosophical than realistic).
But if an imbalanced person was allowed to push that button, I'd argue it was more a failure of security than morality...
Say I'm holding rope that's attached to a baby that's hanging over a pool of sharks, but I can't see over the edge.
1. They tell me it's Bin Laden at the end of the rope, I don't know it's a baby, I let go and party.
2. They tell me it's a baby at the end of the rope, I know it's a baby, I let go and party.
It's really not even a hard question.
ah, like a sociopath?
A mother is with her two surviving daughters at a funeral. The girl in the coffin is the 3rd sister.
Sister 1 notices a man she's never seen before at the funeral and has no idea who he is. She doesn't see a wedding ring. She's in love.
She tries to discover who the mystery man is.
Later there's another funeral. Sister 2 is dead.
Who killed her?
A sociopath will answer this question immediately and without much thought at all because to a sociopath it's a logical choice.
The rest of us have to think because empathy gets in the way. With empathy the obvious answer is muddled. We make assumptions, we disgard assumptions, because we have feeling. Even if we come to the correct conclusion, we have to think about it because there are mental blocks to overcome. Once we hear the explanation though, then we feel dumb for not seeing it. It's not "dumbness" though, it's empathy working.
I'm not telling you the answer, but with thought you will know and it will be obvious... or without thought if you're a sociopath.
Anyway, a sociopath still knows right and wrong, they just don't feel right and wrong. It's still more evil. The sociopath in this example knew what they were doing was "wrong" on a subjective scale. That the choice did not bother them does not make a difference.
Not to a "lesser" degree is anything ever wrong becuase then you turn it into a subjective question.
If you don't know it's a baby and drop the rope you are guilty of not following directions. If you know it's a baby and don't know why it is wrong, you're still guilty of killing a baby.
ie, not knowing why, or not having empathy is not an excuse for an action. It's tragic, it's sad, it's a horrible human condition. It is though no more or less evil than one who understands.
I guess this would be a common choice. There are a lot of people who choose evil over the good. They understand quite well the effects of choosing the bad. But, despite that they choose it. Though both of it is evil... And as human one has a guilt gate and the thoughtfulness, one should realize that something is Evil since it yields the bad. But, if you do it with previous knowledge your just not there.
I did have a lot of moral issues on this site about rape and murder. There are time when i conflict with myself whether murder and rape may be a good thing. Maybe im just thinking hard because immediately i will put rape and evil in the same category. (alse murder).
But who is more evil? That is a judgement as in "you are a evil person." And people should be judge by their actions. Thus, one who chooses/performs evil is one who is evil.
However, one who doesn't know the difference is not evil but clueless.
If not knowing evil from good makes you evil, then babies, animals, and mentally disabled people would be the most evil beings in the world. But that is entirely out of line with our intuitive understanding of what an evil person is.
I'd say acting out of ignorance is a far lesser crime than acting out of malice, although the consequences of both could be equally bad.
This is a hard question. One who does not know evil from good and is mentally incapable of distinguishing what is good and what is not is more likely to have some sort of psychotic issues rather than being evil as such, whereas the one who chooses evil and knows full well of what he/she is doing is more likely genuinely evil.
I believe that the one who still chooses evil is more evil because well, they know that they are doing something wrong. In the Bible (I cant quiet remember the actual script) it implies that people who know what their sin is will be weighed heavier on judgement day.
Only the one that chooses evil can legitimately be regarded as evil. If by not knowing evil from good, you also mean the individual has no or very weak concepts of logic (necessary to be ignorant of "good and evil", then that person would be indifferent. I don't see anyone calling nature evil for unleashing catastrophic storms. It simply had no evil motive to begin with.