Is "evil" honorable?

Okay. Everyone knows about good, evil and the shades of gray in-between. And almost every storyline today has the "good guys" always going up against the "ultimate evil." However, the "evil ones" aren't always acting immoral even if they're deemed "100% evil." They sometimes don't kick the protagonist when they're down or they allow the "hero" time to recover so they can kick the crap out of them again. An honorable act and in a sense, "good." And if they have any minions, they may not necessarily care about them, but by letting them live and sparing their lives for the time being, they're unwittingly performing a "good" act.

So, I guess my question is, is there any sentient being fictional or otherwise that is 100% evil? Someone that's not just running on instinct and is completely immoral, unethical and has no value of life?

 

hmmm I search 'shades' and I get a thread about evil.

I'm going to have to say that to my knowledge, this isn't possible.

 

I think the concept of a villain 'letting the hero' live without finishing them off at the first opportunity is a bit shallow in classifying what '100% evil' is. It's a massive flaw in storytelling as stupidity is in horror film protagonists because the reality is you can't write a full-length tale if the villain just destroys the hero within the first few seconds of their encounter. It's not good cinematics and certainly not a good story.

100% evil pertains more to their moral judgment, what they value, how they perceive the world, etc. It's more of a judgment of character rather than anything else. And leaving a protagonist alive for another day doesn't necessarily make them 'compassionate' or 'honourable'--a torturer doesn't kill their victims right away because they want them to have a slow, painful and agonizing experience before finally letting them go. I'm sure we can all agree that prolonging one's death in this scenario is anything but compassion and honour.

So, someone who hardly has any justifiable reason for killing, but simply does so for an incomprehensible reason and just seems to spit on the aspect of good living?

Kefka? Anyone gonna back me on that?

 

First you need to define evil.

Is killing evil? If so, would killing your followers be considered evil? After all, you want a sheer sadistic, destructive being.

A problem with that is you then have a being that kills all its followers. And if it does that, why should it not destroy all its tools as well? And while we are on that route, why would it not destroy itself simply for the same of destruction?

So now we need something that keeps itself alive and its followers alive, but destroys all else. Sounds a bit like a tyrant. Anyone here thinking Hitler, or even a ruler long past?

 

Absolutely. I'm going to take what you said and put it into historical terms. And it's pretty obvious who it's going to be about: Hitler. He showed no mercy or kindness to those he wished to eliminate. He didn't give a soul a chance for survival. People had to fend for themselves and showed no compassion or mercy.

 

There is no evil. There is no good. There is a right. There is a wrong.

 

but in turn the rights and wrongs we commit makes people perceive us as good or evil.


anyways, i can't think of any sort of situation where "evil" would be honorable.

most evil villains just spare the protagonist out of feeling they are no threat to them, while others may be honorable people(fictional villians ect.) doesn't change the fact that they are doing things wrong.

 

I really have not liked the word 'evil' for years because I think it's just a labeling word that people can't even agree on. What is an evil act? Killing, maiming, rape, kicking a puppy, lying, stealing bread so your kid doesn't die, rick rolling someone who says they'll commit suicide if they hear it again, cutting down a tree, saying some crass words, etc??? People label all sorts of things as evil and others will just say that some of those things are nonsense.

Moving on though, it's hard to think of in real life people that had no 'redeeming' qualities at all. As awful as some people were historically, were they bad people all the time or did they just perform a ton of rotten bad acts? I tend to think along the lines of this when studying anyone to include serial killers and some of our most notorious leaders of the past.

All people do bad acts. What is a bad act? Something that harms someone else (which I do count animals in that too) and the point of doing so is not for a better cause for the person. I.e. a shot to protect against influenza is not a bad thing even if the shot hurts. A shot of some neurotoxin? Yeah, that's bad. Intention matters, though some people have proven that their intentions are not followed through with actual study as to what something would do to someone. So sometimes we can hit ourselves as our intentions don't go accordingly too and the act turns out to be bad. Basically, if it is destructive, the act was bad, or as some say..evil.

We also do good acts. As much as we may hate some historic figures, whether serial killers or notorious men like Hitler, Genghis Kan, Stalin, Ramses III, Herod, etc, for all of the horrible acts they had done, is it bad to also realize that they did some good acts too? Some people think so, and though I'd never support those mentioned and would definitely stop them if I had the power, some acts they had done did help some others. Most people will call these guys as total evil. I consider that they were men who did tremendously rotten acts to push their own agendas forward and had to be stopped. They were people that would not change some things and thus were destructive in way too high of a scale to allow their reigns to continue. There are some serial killers that have some very violent and tragic pasts themselves, and though they did awful deeds, I think it is fair to say that they should be examined and understood as not just deplorable sorts. Instead, trying to understand what made them so bad seems more important to me. I definitely believe they should be stopped but can't really call them 'evil' as much as 'twisted'.

In movies, even, it seems to me that it is difficult to find true villains that at one time did not have some history that led them to be the awful people they became. At one time they seemed like you or me, just with some bent up past that turns them into what they become. Some even get convinced to turn back to having humanity again. They have stories, even in horror films such as is the case with Pumpkinhead, Pinhead, Jason Vorhees, Michael, Damien etc.

Kefka even has a story. Of course, what makes Kefka so bad is that he's 'nonredeemable', implying that his humanity is pretty well gone. Kefka, Jason Vorhees, Cthuluu, aliens that want to destroy our world, etc. There's no communicating with them and it's apparent they will just continue to go on killing and destroying for whatever reasons they have. Some have appointed duties they feel they want to accomplish. Others just like to go on a kill spree and destroy out of joy or revenge. So, in the end, while I am reluctant to use the word 'evil' as it is a religious word for that which is an act against deities, I do see some people as having lost their humanity or they never had it in some situations such as is the case with Cthuluu.

They can have missions they feel are honorable, same as in real life, but no, I don't usually consider someone who is super destructive as having 'honor' except for the occasional desire to challenge foes to see what they have and they'd accept a loss should it come. Usually though, most destructive beings aren't like this unless 'honor' is instilled in them and they believe in some sort of code still, despite their actions in other ways. This is usually a thing in stories though so that the hero takes on the villain in some two person style mortal kombat so that the hero wins and they met the super challenge. In real life, this usually doesn't happen. We can say Hitler had a code he believed in, but was he willing to confront people 'honorably' over it and die by the hands of someone else? Nope. He committed suicide so that no lesser being would have the 'honor' of taking him out. Honor also is in the eye of the beholder, and as we can see here by using Hitler as an example, as well as serial killers who play games with cops waiting to be caught, they can believe what they want and call it 'honor' but is it really? Honor is a thing about personal ego, and they have plenty of ego to do what they are doing. Honor just isn't a safe thing to apply to someone who is doing vicious acts because honor is another one of those things that people can decide on and have different views.

 

You can't really have a 100% evil idea or sentiment, because everyone has a different interpretation of what "evil" is. You might find something evil that I find good. So in truth, the only evil is the evil that goes against an already "established" system that is thought to be correct. Take, for instance, society. Anyone who goes against it, steals, commits crimes and the like, is deemed "evil" or "corrupt" because they are not abiding by it. In a form of order that doesn't utilize established rules or guidelines, good and evil would be irrelevant, because everyone operates on their own accord.

 

But sometimes rights and wrongs can be more trouble than good and evil...
Hmm.. Df, I think you have a point... Unless yur fighting pirates, then most fights are pretty fair

 

The devil is pure evil.
God, a symbol of good, is fighting against the devil, a sign of evil.
In the Bible, that's what it kinda says.

 

I believe that because of the reason of honour people cannot be classed in good or evil but can do acts of good and evil. an example of good would be saving someone from getting hit by a bus and an example of evil is doomsday plots but since honourable and sinful acts can be done by the good and bad I myself believe that good and evil are opinions of ones self. One man can see someone as good but the same man seen seen in another persons eyes can be evil.

Also sometimes in games and tv evil characters end up joining or fighting on the side of the antagonist yet they don't always change to a good person. So this also makes sence of what I beleive is true.

 

You have to respect the evil ones to some degree... They are very smart in some, very few, cases. But, the good side seems to always significantly hurt the evil side, but who is right? Is it just to kill anybody? Does it really make sense to kill people to prove that killing is wrong? Even not by killing, but by doing something wrong with the intention to prove that it is wrong. The good guys would say. Wow... I'm confusing myself... Anyways, niether side can be justified by the fact of hurting, killing, stealing, etc. But, who has better intentions for the others not involved in the struggles of 'good and evil'?

 

There is very few cases where someone is fully evil.

Some act like they don't have a conscience, some act like they only care about themselves, and some do true evil things when you wonder why.

It's not religion, it's not race, it's not a disability, it could be anything that triggers someone to be evil. There is only a very few cases where the trigger happens and there's no reason why.

There is no pure evil, as there is no pure good. It might be hard to find, but it will be there.

I remember in a show called Joan of Arcadia where the main character asked God if one of the bullies was pure evil. He said that it's very hard to reach that end of the spectrum, and when you do, you're turned into a monster, cruel, uncaring demon-like things. All along the ways, these people can be helped but are mostly ignored.

I believe in that. Evil is seen every day, but the question is, who is there to stop it or help that person who does the evil?

 

Right and wrong follow the exact same associations as good and evil.

What is right to you is probably wrong to someone else.

What is good to someone is probably evil to someone else.

Philosophically, perspectively and interpretively, both of these dualities are the same.

In fact, I'd like to argue that right/wrong, good/evil, etc., only applies to the philosophy of religion, because it is God's ideal. If it is not of God's will or desire, it is evil (or wrong). From a non-bias, this isn't applicable.

They don't do evil things, and likewise, you can't 'see' evil, for it is in perspective, and the people aren't evil themselves, either. They simply act. It's you and me that make this empty distinction that says "they are/aren't evil."

Evil can only 1) be applied to society and defiance, and 2) religion and philosophy, because it is an absolute judgment by God, a figure thought to have perfect ideals.

I mean, think about it. 90% of the justification in this thread for something as ridiculous as good and evil has been TV shows, cartoons, religion, society, stories, books, movies, and anything else that expresses real or assumed "evil" in a seemingly real cases. Any story is thus immediately fictional, in that it places a definite place-holder for evil. Which simply can't be possible in a universe where knowledge emerges unconditionally.

 

I can personally never take a side in terms of 'good' and 'evil.' It all seems to be in a way of perspective. For example, if you've ever seen the movie Hannibal Rising. Obviously, killing and eating (ew) the men that killed Hannibal's sister was wrong from a moral standing. But the horrors that those men committed were unforgivable in Hannibal's viewpoint, and he felt that their actions made them worthy of death. So that honestly made you think -- was Hannibal right, for wanting revenge, or was he 'evil' for giving into the temptation and going after them?

It all seems to boil down to who you feel has a better motive for their acts of evil. If someone murdered someone that was incredibly close to you, could you really blame yourself if you wished something to happen to them [or made something happen to them?]
​

 

sometimes there is honor in the dark arts.
mostly just fun to call the dark stuff in games.

 

Way to completely miss the point.
Good and evil refer to people.
Right and wrong refer to the actions by those people.
Of course this is all a manner of perception, but see if I care.

 

I don't think honour has anything to do with being good or evil. Honour is something you gain, where by good or evil deeds it doesn't matter. An honorable deed such as setting someone free from captivity would be honourable whether you were good OR evil.

Also how much honour you credit people to depends on what type of person you are. So it depends how you see it. To another evil person an evil person would be a cornucopia of honour 8D

Man I'm not sure if I ever make sense xD

 

If you wanna look at small possibly unintentional mercies as good then we can also assume that everyone is selfish and evil. It's the same line of thinking just flowing in the opposite direction. Everything every person does is for personal gain. It may not be material informational or even perceived at all but they get something out of each action no matter how quote unquote unselfish it may be. People who save others do it to make themselves feel better, people who try to make change do it to make their ideal world. It's all from the one to the many, there is no such thing as true human understanding so aren't we all just being self centered and simple, and by that merit evil?

The point is we don't see it like that and as such we can't see letting someone live out of confidence, theatrics or any other reason as good, it's just too contrived and shallow. So is there a good in evil? Not really. Is there a pure evil being fictional or not? Haven't seen one.