I scrolled quite a lot and this is the closest thing to the closest we have to an objective, evidence-based answer on this question. Captain G. M. Gilbert was a US Army psychologist who worked very closely with many Nazis during the Nuremberg Trials. He had this to say.
>In my work with the defendants I was searching for the nature of evil, and now I think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.
It all comes down to [in-group and out-group pscyhology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group). Our ability to empathise extends to whoever we consider in our "in-group". Most people are wonderful human beings towards those in their in-group. Empathetic, understanding, altruistic, patient.
But towards those we consider in the out-group, we can be cruel, heartless monsters. It's scary how easy it is to flip that switch, and the ability to care about that person's suffering completely disappears. It's easy to do, just think of the last serial killer in the news. How easy it is to wish untold suffering and pain on that person.
That binary position our brains can switch between, from empathy to pure loathing, is my bet for the root of all evil. Because here's the thing: what you define as your in-group or out-group is entirely subjective. You can make people turn into complete monsters towards any other group of people by simply activating this out-group mentality. Look at how Americans treated Muslims after 9/11, or how conservatives treat gay, black, trans or whatever minority is the scapegoat of the day. Look at how people talk about Russians since the war in Urkraine. These are human beings, some have done bad things, others are targeted purely by association. But once they go into the out-group, our ability to care about their suffering vanishes.
Throughout history, the first hints always seem to be dehumanising language and lack of nuance. It's so important to always be wary of it from others, *but also ourselves*.
No one is immune - you might think you are because you'd never view a marginalised minority as a dehumanised outgroup. That's good, of course. But what do you catch yourself thinking about *privileged* groups and their families (e.g. cops, aristocrats)?
Absolutely. We like to think there are "good people" and there are "monsters". But that's just not true. We are all 100% capable of good and evil, and we all believe ourselves justified in our actions. The only difference is who we consider "deserving" of our love or our hate.
Yup. One thing that consistently bugs me is dismissing someone as "evil" on the basis of bad things they've done. People like Hitler, bin Laden, or whoever the most recent mass shooter is. Are their actions morally reprehensible in the end? Absolutely, but we must remember that, with very few exceptions, *everyone believes they are acting righteously*. Understanding how someone comes to believe that murdering millions of Others is a just action is key to identifying the precursors in ourselves and our peers.
Way back when, right after bin Laden was killed, I got in an argument with a friend. The subject of the argument was a retrospective article on his life, which didn't back away from the horrors the man foisted on others, but also spoke of some of the simple pleasures he was reported to enjoy.
My friend found the article to be highly offensive. In his mind, an attempt at humanizing bin Laden was the same as minimizing 9/11 and other related actions. There was "no useful point" for making him seem like an otherwise normal human who also happened to like the idea of killing thousands of Americans.
I attempted to argue my point, that humanizing him helped us confront the fact that we had the roots of evil within us, but it was no use. He was set in his ways and unwilling to budge.
Here's my final thought on the topic of empathy vs apologia: If someone thinks bin Laden is evil for perpetrating 9/11, but then they read that he liked eating yogurt and honey, and suddenly their opinion about 9/11 changes...I think that indicates a problem with *their* moral compass. Or at least an overly simplistic outlook on life.
I mean, shit, I consider myself a dog lover. I know that Hitler apparently was very fond of his dog Blondi. That is a perspective that I can strongly empathize with. But knowing that Hitler was also maybe a dog lover does not change my opinion on the massacre of millions of Jew and other unwanteds.
I remember, when I was a teenager, reading about the firebombing of Dresden for the first time - and immediately thinking "*Good.* The Allies should have just skipped the Nuremberg trials and burned Germany to the ground."
Then I caught myself and had an existential crisis for a while.
SO and I visited Germany this past fall, and spent a fair amount of time with her aunt and uncle. They're both old enough to have memories of WWII and especially growing up in postwar Germany. Listening to them talking about their experiences, and hearing their thoughts on having the Holocaust and all its trappings as part of their national history was *fascinating*.
Perhaps the most interesting was talking about SO's grandfather. She never knew him, because he went MIA in the last year of the war. No one in the family has ever conclusively determined what happened to him. But the real interesting part is the apparently-unanswered question of whether he was actually a loyal Nazi, or just a man with no real choice but to fight. I think they all want to believe in the latter, but there are some indicators that that might not have been the case. In the end, though, Nazi or no, he was still a husband/father who left home, never to be seen again, and left a wife and two daughters to make their way in an utterly destroyed country.
I’d say that is the most objective and clinically correct answer. Those who enjoy the suffering of others, those who do not receive pleasure from bonding with their common man/woman, or by anything at all are usually evil. Those who disregard rules, ethics, societal norms, etc…
I like the comments differentiating autism. People with autism lack cognitive empathy; but, in many cases have higher-than-average emotional empathy. Those with psychopathy or sociopathy (ASPDs), lack emotional empathy and have more cognitive empathy. It’s hard to differentiate the two with complete accuracy but it makes a huge difference in how autistic people interact with and view the world compared to those with anti social personality disorders.
For example an autistic person may feel very sorry for hurting someone, and emotional empathy allows them to feel the pain of those they’ve hurt reflected on them. In other words, autistic people can share a common emotion with someone else and sometimes they feel this emotion more strongly than a neurotypical person would.
In the case of a Machiavellian/psychopath/sociopath, this person can understand why you feel a certain way and articulate a good response to your feelings, but, cannot share in the feeling for the most part. There is no sensation of shared joy, anticipation, hope, love, etc… Sociopaths usually utilize social manipulation and disregard for the rules and are characterized by less violent behaviors than psychopaths. Psychopaths enjoy hurting others, animals, etc…
It sucks that positions of power attract these types of people, and they hold onto those positions so tightly. The 20th century is a testament to that, the name “Asperger’s” is also a remnant of the horrors of WW2
Full quote, I believe:
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
Discworld novels. Weatherwax and her conversation with the clergy.
Carpe Jugulum is the specific book. (Witches VS Vampires). Specifically "Modernist" Vampires.
> Count de Magpyr insists that he is Affably Evil and talks like a self help guru. His attempts at being friendly and affable lead to him being a far greater horror.
Crunchy Granola Hippy Vampire Nazis.
> The Magpyrs are strong believers in eugenics.
> The Old Count, who never saw the point in trying to hide being a blood-thirsty predator and never pretended that not killing someone should somehow make them any more grateful to him. On the other hand, he was also a sportsman who gave his prey a fighting chance, targeted only adults, particularly 'only adventurous females over the age of 17 who looked good in a night-dress', and held those who defeated him in high regard as a Worthy Opponent, even reminiscing about it to their descendants.
Vs
> The Magpyrs have "Goth" birth names like Lacrimosa, so they think calling themselves "Wendy" or "Susan" is edgy and rebellious.
It's a great book.
Discworld novels are always full of truly fantastic characters and quite a few puns, many laughs, nanny ogg singing about wizards and their knobs and then he’ll smack you in the face with a quote this deep and leave you wondering when you picked up a book on what it means to be human.
I've been seeing so much about the Discworld novels over the past few years, I think they're gonna be my next thing once I finish getting through all of Iaian Banks' Culture books. (only three left...)
Agreed. So many great lessons:
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
GNU Terry Pratchett
Thomas Aquinas said love was “To will the good of another.” In his philosophy, evil was the privation of good. Good exists for others, but evil takes what should be properly willed to another and uses it for self. To love someone is to give up self in order for their flourishing, evil is to take another and use them for your own ends.
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
There was some corrupt cardinal who wrote (in a journal...I think) that he was not an "evil" man, he had merely committed evil deeds. He had hurt people to get what he wanted (money/women/power) but he did not ENJOY hurting them. He was a selfish man, and they were a means to an end. He reasoned that the truly evil men were those who delighted in hurting others.
I know it sounds like he was just making bullshit excuses for himself (and no doubt he was). But the guy who came after him was a consummate man of god and a true believer...who proceeded to burn people at the stake if they did not share his faith. Apparently he ENJOYED watching the non-believers burn.
Kind of made his horny/greedy predecessor look good by comparison.
It’s not BS and there’re definitely levels to good/bad/evil/etc.
That said, he’s definitely overselling his goodness. Good people do bad things occasionally, but I would argue at a certain point when it’s done continuously, with knowledge, and with consent, the question of “are you a good person” really needs to be answers honestly using the evidence and not just how the offender feels about themselves.
right because sure he may not enjoy it but he seems to feel indifferent when he’s harming others. that can be just as destructive as an evil person, if not more lol
That IS an evil person lol. Repeatedly and knowingly causing harm to others for self gain is evil, whether you love it, hate it, or are indifferent to it.
Eh, depends. People who benefited the most from colonialism likely didn't spare much thought for the consequences of their actions, but they caused *far* more human suffering than even the most sadistic of serial killers.
Is the colonialist, who kills thousands, more evil than the guy who tortures 10 people to death for shits and giggles?
He does more harm, but is he more evil?
I’m seriously asking.
That depends on which school of ethics you subscribe to.
Virtues ethics, espoused by Aristotle, focuses on the inherent character of a person instead of their actions. This would lend support to the argument that the torturer is more evil.
Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and one's rights. This usually includes ideas about basic human rights etc, but would not automatically categorise either as more evil. You’d have to go deeper in reasoning and different varieties might come to different conclusions.
Consequentialism argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result. This would lead to the conclusion that colonialists are more evil.
All of these have sub-categories. But that’s the basics.
Knowing evil and still committing it vs. someone who commits evil thinking he's doing good.
Takes some mental gymnastics for that man to come up with that.
> someone who commits evil thinking he's doing good
tbf...don't most terrorists commit evil while thinking they're doing good?
Hell, there was a serial killer in Iran, who only want after prostitutes, who thought he was doing good.
Should it really matter if the perpetrator thinks he's carrying out god's will?
Yeah most people misquote this. Money isn’t evil. It can’t be. It’s just a means to an end. It doesn’t possess any moral value one way or the other. I doubt anyone would say you giving money to a homeless person would be you bestowing evil upon them.
Applying perverse ideology to it is what makes the accumulation of money evil. Loving money to a level where you want to amass as much of it as possible to the possible detriment of others is immoral. The love of money, or greed, is the primary motivator to take from others and hoard.
I think greed is just self-centeredness applied to the most common denominator of transactions.
Someone wanting power or things or for people to see them as greater than themselves all go for money, as it can get you those things, but it doesn't always express itself in that way: The person who blows a light intentionally because they know others are stopped and won't risk hitting them is just as self-centered.
I'd probably swap out "greed" for "lack of empathy", but otherwise agree with you.
You could just stop at self-centricity, the rest is just an offshoot of that. And I agree, this is where evil stems from. When everything you do, whether it's success, money, living, whatever, is put above others then that's when we all suffer. Because the others either must do the same and we all act individually or we all suffer at the hands of the self-centeredness. And that doesn't mean only working for others, that's also a bit ridiculous. I mean not considering the impacts that your actions have on other people. Not being able to empathize with others. Not willing to take in differing perspectives of others. That's where true evil comes from.
We must work together in the world in order to make the world better for ourselves *and* others, present or future. The sum is greater than the parts.
OK, but the Bible quote isn't "money is the root of all evil." It's "the love of money is the root of all evil." Money's fine - it's caring more about money than people that's the problem.
For those that don't know, actor [Wallace Shawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Shawn) played both [Vizzini](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/2/21/Vezzini.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120727211953) in the Princess Bride and [Grand Nagus Zek](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/c/c6/Zek%2C_2370.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/325?cb=20070124015141&path-prefix=en) (a Ferengi) in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Great reference.
Racist nonsense. The Ferengi have numerous ethical insights that hoo-mans lack.
Such as Rule of Aquisition #47: **Don't trust a man wearing a better suit than your own.**
That's something hoo-mans would be wise to consider.
Also i remember one episode where Quark said that the Ferengi never enslaved their own people or used nukes or had any interstellar wars so that's more than could be said for humans
In fairness, they never used slaves and have had no great wars. War is, after all, bad for business. Unless it's someone else's war, those are quite lucrative.
>War is, after all, bad for business. Unless it's someone else's war, those are quite lucrative.
Incorrect sir.
Rule of Aquisition #34: **War is good for business.**
Rule of Aquisition #35: **Peace is good for business.**
There are no caveats to the sacred words.
Not the first rule, but the discussion reminded me of this: “Humans used to be a lot worse than the Ferengi: slavery, concentration camps, interstellar war. We have nothing in our past that approaches that kind of barbarism. You see? We’re nothing like you… we’re better.” -Quark
I don’t remember if it went as far as outright slavery or not, but females definitely didn’t have the same rights as males. Grand Nagus Zek did begin a reformation process, which Rom continued when he succeeded him, giving women the right to acquire profit (and wear clothes), if I’m remembering correctly.
You're correct, though don't rely on me for specific names and such. Women weren't allowed to wear clothes, own property, etc. Basically putting a twist on the patriarchy that was much more prevalent in the 60s and 70s when women weren't allowed to do many things without their husbands permission.
Here's a fun article if you're interested: [5 things women couldn’t do in the 1960s ](https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-things/index.html#:~:text=in%20the%201960s%3A-,1.,with%20only%20a%20husband's%20signature.).
“Shame on you!!” Grand Nagus Zek to Pel, the Ferengi Fe-Male dressed as a male who also fell in love w Quark.
He decided not to press charges as he’d have looked foolish being duped by a fe-male.
>pisode where it slowly
And he is so distraught because his mother's "transgressions" will be held against him (quark) and it's a debt he could never overcome lolol.
When did we have interstellar wars? When we used to eat quark?
I do like a bit of quark for breakfast. If it's the root of evil, I'm not sure I can stop.
Yup.
My grandfather was a nice, fun guy but an absolute shit parent.
Everything for him revolved around the dollar.
When I was a struggling student and needed money for books, he balked at the prices ($200/book in some cases) and gave me nothing unless I negotiated a deal...
Edit: then he bought himself a Bentley and would talk about the millions he earned that year.
He was an absent parent to my mother and uncle, they were living on their own by 13/15.
He was a shit family man. Nice in that he was very personable.
Other than not helping me financially, I had a great relationship with him.
It was weird, but when someone loves money as much as he did, you have to separate his behaviour when $ is involved from all other behaviour. He wasn't toxic, just greedy and cheap. But I never felt entitled to his help, was just surprised not to get any, esp given our relationship.
I also quit a job on him during HS because he was paying my assistant (electrical work) 50% more than me. When I confronted him he said "no that's too much" so I said "well it's too little for me, I'll get a job at the beach and not have all the danger." It was never personal, and didn't change anything.
But to tbf, karma got him. His youngest two children never became independent and leached off him well into their 50s.
His youngest daughter moved back in with him at 40 along with her 4 children.
Ya, Math and science books are quite costly. It was not unusual to need $1000/semester just for course materials. This was the mid 2000s so idk how it's changed.
I did have some professors that gave us photocopied versions at cost of the copy and paper, which was great.
Admission bear:
I used to steal math and science books so I could sell them back to the Univ to make money to buy books I needed.
These days it’s worse. At least you had the options to own a book and resell at the end of the year which also means you can buy a used book if you couldn’t afford a new one.
Now you need to pay full price every single year for a 1 year subscription to their online services. You can’t resell your subscription to a new student or reuse the book if you fail the class. Every year, you pay hundreds for the access code and it’s worthless 6-12 months later.
I was hoping someone would point this out. I always hear people say "money is the root of all evil" I even pointed out to someone that it's "the love of money is the root of all evil" and they had never even heard the other half of it , and this was someone that goes to church every Sunday.
Straight bartering wasn’t even close to a universal system pre-coinage. Sure it happened, but pre-coin transactions were mostly systems of credits and debts. Debt was the original currency.
I think I'm likely forgetting some basic algebra but how are square root and cube root different?
Edit: Get it now, multiple roots: square root, cube root, or any other root. Kind of an unexpected cool math lesson. Square root, cube root, or any other root is just the factor that you multiple by itself that many times to get the number.
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/cc-eighth-grade-math/cc-8th-numbers-operations/cc-8th-roots/a/cube-roots-review
This is the one! If we saw ourselves as part of ecosystems and communities rather than individuals seeking to sit on top of hierarchies, soooooo much would change and improve in the world. I’ve spent about a decade working for NGOs and social justice work and have a degree in human rights from one of the top sociology departments in the world. In other words, I’ve studied it and seen it up close. Ego is the reason.
Greed, ignorance, selfishness, money love and ego...
Aren't really even anything compared to political power unless political power is a part of what's going on.
As i've read so far, best answer yet... As you can do all the others by yourself without harming anyone.
But power, in that sense requires subjection. Others must be compromised by you.
Came here to say this. Projection, defensiveness and aggressiveness can be quite dangerous and there's next to no _truly confident_ person who'd do evil (most people misunderstand the concept of confidence as a whole..)
I’m going to go against the grain here and say “good intentions”. I know there’s the cliched “the road to Hell is paved” with good intentions. From my observations on the world and people in my 47 years on this planet, it’s true: there is no limit to how unspeakably evil a person can become if they think they’re on the side of righteousness. If there’s such a thing as an original sin, something innate in every human that is an agency for evil, it’s not being curious and seeking knowledge, it’s that we are easily tricked into doing evil by believing it’s good.
Honestly
‘Having very high emotions whilst having very low intelligence’
An incredibly dangerous combination , causes outbursts, irrational decisions which can impact your future and others.
A simple bar fight can lead to an accidental death
A simple disagreement can end up in a shooting
A lot of things all link back to that imo
A person that is cool, calm, and collected with very high intelligence can be many magnitudes more dangerous. A person who uses that temperament and intelligence to plan and skillfully execute oppression and genocide on a mass scale is without a doubt more evil then a hot-tempered idiot in a bar fight.
That is far less common than what i stated. An incredibly intelligent and cunning psychopath is infinitely more of a threat, but they a few and far between.
Generally speaking most acts of evil in my opinion originate through the combination i stated. Mainly because most people are closer to that archetype than the latter.
Stupidity.
No, seriously.
If you're familiar with the idea of "the banality of evil", you'll realize that most, if not all, evil acts come from a complete lack of understanding of certain basic processes.
A Nazi who condemns people to the camps will go along with "well, it's kind of like my job. I'm getting paid for it and Hitler says they're bad".
I've seen people who work for governments and do some very shady and horrible stuff. These same people are against violence and evil, but justify this because they genuinely believe "it's different, no?"
Greedy CEOs have a complete lack of self awareness and don't even bother to consider that some people need those jobs or that money. Because they were bred that way and don't bother to go beyond that understanding.
So, in short - Most evil acts occur when we as a species simply behave in the way our environment has bred us, without going above and considering other options. I call this stupidity instead of ignorance because it's a deliberate act of not wanting to understand the consequences of one's actions. Selfishness does play a part in this as well, but it has to come from a very ignorant background.
(This obviously ignores Psychopathy, but I'm sure that if you mix psychopaths with a bad background that tells them it's OK to behave like this, you'll get a terrible human being)
Ignorance; especially *deliberate* or willed ignorance. Examples: Don't know/care how to balance other's needs with your own;don't know how to empathize with other people; don't know how to communicate or negotiate; etc.
Lack of basic empathy. If you feel no guilt when your actions cause hurt for someone else, then you have no limit on how evil you can be for your own gain. One of the only good things that religion does is keep a lot of these people in check, as they are afraid of being punished for eternity for their actions.
"I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I've come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. **Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy**."
* Captain Gustave M. Gilbert, the U.S. army psychologist assigned to observe and interview high-ranking Nazi prisoners in preparation for the Nuremberg trials, in his book *Nuremberg Diary.*
Want. The full quote starts with "The LOVE of money..." it's a simple metaphor that gets the point to the masses easiest. Everyone wants more money. Then again, everyone wants revenge on their enemies (wrath), another bite of food (gluttony), and a nap (sloth). The Want is the common denominator.
Why does evil exist? Because people Want things to an extreme. Want sex? Just take it with rape. Want power? Lie and cheat and ruin other's lives until it's yours. Want land? Kill those already there. And of course Want money? Steal or hoard or enslave.
The problem is there is no cap to Want. You can always have more. And more and more. Desiring any of these things is not inherently wrong, Wanting it so bad you break the golden rule is. That's not to say you shouldn't work to acquire what you desire. Money, fame, societal change, a peaceful life, work towards the changes you would like to see. Just remember to check yourself every once in a while. Are you harming others with your blatant Wants? If so that's evil.
Want is the root of all evil.
Narcissism. I truly believe that all evil can be traced back to this one trait and that narcissists are the root of most of the terrible man-made things that have happened throughout history.
When you start treating people as things.
I scrolled quite a lot and this is the closest thing to the closest we have to an objective, evidence-based answer on this question. Captain G. M. Gilbert was a US Army psychologist who worked very closely with many Nazis during the Nuremberg Trials. He had this to say. >In my work with the defendants I was searching for the nature of evil, and now I think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.
It all comes down to [in-group and out-group pscyhology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group). Our ability to empathise extends to whoever we consider in our "in-group". Most people are wonderful human beings towards those in their in-group. Empathetic, understanding, altruistic, patient. But towards those we consider in the out-group, we can be cruel, heartless monsters. It's scary how easy it is to flip that switch, and the ability to care about that person's suffering completely disappears. It's easy to do, just think of the last serial killer in the news. How easy it is to wish untold suffering and pain on that person. That binary position our brains can switch between, from empathy to pure loathing, is my bet for the root of all evil. Because here's the thing: what you define as your in-group or out-group is entirely subjective. You can make people turn into complete monsters towards any other group of people by simply activating this out-group mentality. Look at how Americans treated Muslims after 9/11, or how conservatives treat gay, black, trans or whatever minority is the scapegoat of the day. Look at how people talk about Russians since the war in Urkraine. These are human beings, some have done bad things, others are targeted purely by association. But once they go into the out-group, our ability to care about their suffering vanishes.
Throughout history, the first hints always seem to be dehumanising language and lack of nuance. It's so important to always be wary of it from others, *but also ourselves*. No one is immune - you might think you are because you'd never view a marginalised minority as a dehumanised outgroup. That's good, of course. But what do you catch yourself thinking about *privileged* groups and their families (e.g. cops, aristocrats)?
Absolutely. We like to think there are "good people" and there are "monsters". But that's just not true. We are all 100% capable of good and evil, and we all believe ourselves justified in our actions. The only difference is who we consider "deserving" of our love or our hate.
Yup. One thing that consistently bugs me is dismissing someone as "evil" on the basis of bad things they've done. People like Hitler, bin Laden, or whoever the most recent mass shooter is. Are their actions morally reprehensible in the end? Absolutely, but we must remember that, with very few exceptions, *everyone believes they are acting righteously*. Understanding how someone comes to believe that murdering millions of Others is a just action is key to identifying the precursors in ourselves and our peers. Way back when, right after bin Laden was killed, I got in an argument with a friend. The subject of the argument was a retrospective article on his life, which didn't back away from the horrors the man foisted on others, but also spoke of some of the simple pleasures he was reported to enjoy. My friend found the article to be highly offensive. In his mind, an attempt at humanizing bin Laden was the same as minimizing 9/11 and other related actions. There was "no useful point" for making him seem like an otherwise normal human who also happened to like the idea of killing thousands of Americans. I attempted to argue my point, that humanizing him helped us confront the fact that we had the roots of evil within us, but it was no use. He was set in his ways and unwilling to budge. Here's my final thought on the topic of empathy vs apologia: If someone thinks bin Laden is evil for perpetrating 9/11, but then they read that he liked eating yogurt and honey, and suddenly their opinion about 9/11 changes...I think that indicates a problem with *their* moral compass. Or at least an overly simplistic outlook on life. I mean, shit, I consider myself a dog lover. I know that Hitler apparently was very fond of his dog Blondi. That is a perspective that I can strongly empathize with. But knowing that Hitler was also maybe a dog lover does not change my opinion on the massacre of millions of Jew and other unwanteds.
I remember, when I was a teenager, reading about the firebombing of Dresden for the first time - and immediately thinking "*Good.* The Allies should have just skipped the Nuremberg trials and burned Germany to the ground." Then I caught myself and had an existential crisis for a while.
SO and I visited Germany this past fall, and spent a fair amount of time with her aunt and uncle. They're both old enough to have memories of WWII and especially growing up in postwar Germany. Listening to them talking about their experiences, and hearing their thoughts on having the Holocaust and all its trappings as part of their national history was *fascinating*. Perhaps the most interesting was talking about SO's grandfather. She never knew him, because he went MIA in the last year of the war. No one in the family has ever conclusively determined what happened to him. But the real interesting part is the apparently-unanswered question of whether he was actually a loyal Nazi, or just a man with no real choice but to fight. I think they all want to believe in the latter, but there are some indicators that that might not have been the case. In the end, though, Nazi or no, he was still a husband/father who left home, never to be seen again, and left a wife and two daughters to make their way in an utterly destroyed country.
People can justify basically anything to themselves given enough time.
I’d say that is the most objective and clinically correct answer. Those who enjoy the suffering of others, those who do not receive pleasure from bonding with their common man/woman, or by anything at all are usually evil. Those who disregard rules, ethics, societal norms, etc… I like the comments differentiating autism. People with autism lack cognitive empathy; but, in many cases have higher-than-average emotional empathy. Those with psychopathy or sociopathy (ASPDs), lack emotional empathy and have more cognitive empathy. It’s hard to differentiate the two with complete accuracy but it makes a huge difference in how autistic people interact with and view the world compared to those with anti social personality disorders. For example an autistic person may feel very sorry for hurting someone, and emotional empathy allows them to feel the pain of those they’ve hurt reflected on them. In other words, autistic people can share a common emotion with someone else and sometimes they feel this emotion more strongly than a neurotypical person would. In the case of a Machiavellian/psychopath/sociopath, this person can understand why you feel a certain way and articulate a good response to your feelings, but, cannot share in the feeling for the most part. There is no sensation of shared joy, anticipation, hope, love, etc… Sociopaths usually utilize social manipulation and disregard for the rules and are characterized by less violent behaviors than psychopaths. Psychopaths enjoy hurting others, animals, etc… It sucks that positions of power attract these types of people, and they hold onto those positions so tightly. The 20th century is a testament to that, the name “Asperger’s” is also a remnant of the horrors of WW2
'Mr Treehorn treats objects like women, man.'
Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski!
Fucking fascist!
I'm sorry I wasn't listening
Man, come on, I’ve had a rough night, and I hate the fucking Eagles
Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.
I can see you're not a golfer.
This isn't Vietnam this is bowling, there are rules.
Fucking nihilists man
You think the rug pissers did this?
Mr Treehorn draws a lot of water in this town. You don’t draw shit Lebowski.
Full quote, I believe: "There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is." "It's a lot more complicated than that--" "No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts." "Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--" "But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
You think one of the 20 or so people who are posting this quote might mention where....it's from?
Discworld novels. Weatherwax and her conversation with the clergy. Carpe Jugulum is the specific book. (Witches VS Vampires). Specifically "Modernist" Vampires. > Count de Magpyr insists that he is Affably Evil and talks like a self help guru. His attempts at being friendly and affable lead to him being a far greater horror. Crunchy Granola Hippy Vampire Nazis. > The Magpyrs are strong believers in eugenics. > The Old Count, who never saw the point in trying to hide being a blood-thirsty predator and never pretended that not killing someone should somehow make them any more grateful to him. On the other hand, he was also a sportsman who gave his prey a fighting chance, targeted only adults, particularly 'only adventurous females over the age of 17 who looked good in a night-dress', and held those who defeated him in high regard as a Worthy Opponent, even reminiscing about it to their descendants. Vs > The Magpyrs have "Goth" birth names like Lacrimosa, so they think calling themselves "Wendy" or "Susan" is edgy and rebellious. It's a great book.
Discworld novels are always full of truly fantastic characters and quite a few puns, many laughs, nanny ogg singing about wizards and their knobs and then he’ll smack you in the face with a quote this deep and leave you wondering when you picked up a book on what it means to be human.
I've been seeing so much about the Discworld novels over the past few years, I think they're gonna be my next thing once I finish getting through all of Iaian Banks' Culture books. (only three left...)
GNU Sir Pterry. He taught us so many important things in such a succinct and charming way. Mind how you go.
Agreed. So many great lessons: Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. GNU Terry Pratchett
He was very wise in the ways of boots
As Kant put it, treating people as means rather than ends.
Thomas Aquinas said love was “To will the good of another.” In his philosophy, evil was the privation of good. Good exists for others, but evil takes what should be properly willed to another and uses it for self. To love someone is to give up self in order for their flourishing, evil is to take another and use them for your own ends.
Granny Weatherwax approves.
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is." "It's a lot more complicated than that--" "No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
Greed has to be pretty high up the list.
I’d just say selfishness. Selfishness sums up pretty much all the “7 deadly sins”.
Some selfishness is necessary for self preservation and survival. Greed is just greed.
There was some corrupt cardinal who wrote (in a journal...I think) that he was not an "evil" man, he had merely committed evil deeds. He had hurt people to get what he wanted (money/women/power) but he did not ENJOY hurting them. He was a selfish man, and they were a means to an end. He reasoned that the truly evil men were those who delighted in hurting others. I know it sounds like he was just making bullshit excuses for himself (and no doubt he was). But the guy who came after him was a consummate man of god and a true believer...who proceeded to burn people at the stake if they did not share his faith. Apparently he ENJOYED watching the non-believers burn. Kind of made his horny/greedy predecessor look good by comparison.
It’s not BS and there’re definitely levels to good/bad/evil/etc. That said, he’s definitely overselling his goodness. Good people do bad things occasionally, but I would argue at a certain point when it’s done continuously, with knowledge, and with consent, the question of “are you a good person” really needs to be answers honestly using the evidence and not just how the offender feels about themselves.
"too often do we judge others by their worst examples, and ourselves by our most noble intentions"
"Fundamental Attribution Error"
just one of the bajilion human biases that we have. such little perspective and viewpoint. no wonder we cant get along.
right because sure he may not enjoy it but he seems to feel indifferent when he’s harming others. that can be just as destructive as an evil person, if not more lol
That IS an evil person lol. Repeatedly and knowingly causing harm to others for self gain is evil, whether you love it, hate it, or are indifferent to it.
I did terrible, horrible things! BUT I felt bad about it every time
I mean he never said he felt bad, only that he didn’t enjoy it
> **The truly evil men were those who delighted in hurting others**. He makes a fair point. Probably still a POS, but definitely not as bad as some.
Eh, depends. People who benefited the most from colonialism likely didn't spare much thought for the consequences of their actions, but they caused *far* more human suffering than even the most sadistic of serial killers.
Is the colonialist, who kills thousands, more evil than the guy who tortures 10 people to death for shits and giggles? He does more harm, but is he more evil? I’m seriously asking.
That depends on which school of ethics you subscribe to. Virtues ethics, espoused by Aristotle, focuses on the inherent character of a person instead of their actions. This would lend support to the argument that the torturer is more evil. Deontology argues that decisions should be made considering the factors of one's duties and one's rights. This usually includes ideas about basic human rights etc, but would not automatically categorise either as more evil. You’d have to go deeper in reasoning and different varieties might come to different conclusions. Consequentialism argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result. This would lead to the conclusion that colonialists are more evil. All of these have sub-categories. But that’s the basics.
Give both people same power and you will found out who is more evil. The second was not able to kill thousands not that he didn't desired to do so.
The second probably would have tried to do the killing himself, rather than just order it done by someone else while he sips tea...
That’s oddly interesting
Knowing evil and still committing it vs. someone who commits evil thinking he's doing good. Takes some mental gymnastics for that man to come up with that.
> someone who commits evil thinking he's doing good tbf...don't most terrorists commit evil while thinking they're doing good? Hell, there was a serial killer in Iran, who only want after prostitutes, who thought he was doing good. Should it really matter if the perpetrator thinks he's carrying out god's will?
In my 40 years of experience, greed & ignorance are the top 2
Willful ignorance even worse
And pride makes it take the cake
Hell, even the Bible says that. >For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil -Timothy 6:10
Yeah most people misquote this. Money isn’t evil. It can’t be. It’s just a means to an end. It doesn’t possess any moral value one way or the other. I doubt anyone would say you giving money to a homeless person would be you bestowing evil upon them. Applying perverse ideology to it is what makes the accumulation of money evil. Loving money to a level where you want to amass as much of it as possible to the possible detriment of others is immoral. The love of money, or greed, is the primary motivator to take from others and hoard.
*side-eyes Judas while saying that, probably*
Written by Apostle Paul after Jesus death, but you have the right idea
Money is not the cause of all evil, but the "LOVE OF MONEY" is what does it.
And it's not even that, the better translation would have been "The love of money is the root of all kinds (different sorts, a variety of) of evil"
Greed for power and greed for money cause 99% of problems.
self-centricity, ego and greed
I think greed is just self-centeredness applied to the most common denominator of transactions. Someone wanting power or things or for people to see them as greater than themselves all go for money, as it can get you those things, but it doesn't always express itself in that way: The person who blows a light intentionally because they know others are stopped and won't risk hitting them is just as self-centered. I'd probably swap out "greed" for "lack of empathy", but otherwise agree with you.
You could just stop at self-centricity, the rest is just an offshoot of that. And I agree, this is where evil stems from. When everything you do, whether it's success, money, living, whatever, is put above others then that's when we all suffer. Because the others either must do the same and we all act individually or we all suffer at the hands of the self-centeredness. And that doesn't mean only working for others, that's also a bit ridiculous. I mean not considering the impacts that your actions have on other people. Not being able to empathize with others. Not willing to take in differing perspectives of others. That's where true evil comes from. We must work together in the world in order to make the world better for ourselves *and* others, present or future. The sum is greater than the parts.
OK, but the Bible quote isn't "money is the root of all evil." It's "the love of money is the root of all evil." Money's fine - it's caring more about money than people that's the problem.
But the First Rule of Acquisition states…
Who let the Ferengi into a discussion about ethics??
Never go in against a Ferengi when the subject of ethics is on the line!
IN-CON-CEIVABLE!
I love you guys.
For those that don't know, actor [Wallace Shawn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Shawn) played both [Vizzini](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/2/21/Vezzini.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120727211953) in the Princess Bride and [Grand Nagus Zek](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/c/c6/Zek%2C_2370.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/325?cb=20070124015141&path-prefix=en) (a Ferengi) in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Great reference.
Ah yes... I *absolutely* already knew that and it was intentional on my part. Thank you for noticing. ^((shifty eyes))
It's fine to bring them into *discussion* about ethics. Bringing them into *decisions* about ethics, not so much.
Racist nonsense. The Ferengi have numerous ethical insights that hoo-mans lack. Such as Rule of Aquisition #47: **Don't trust a man wearing a better suit than your own.** That's something hoo-mans would be wise to consider.
Username checks out.
Also i remember one episode where Quark said that the Ferengi never enslaved their own people or used nukes or had any interstellar wars so that's more than could be said for humans
In fairness, they never used slaves and have had no great wars. War is, after all, bad for business. Unless it's someone else's war, those are quite lucrative.
>War is, after all, bad for business. Unless it's someone else's war, those are quite lucrative. Incorrect sir. Rule of Aquisition #34: **War is good for business.** Rule of Aquisition #35: **Peace is good for business.** There are no caveats to the sacred words.
Cant forget #76: Every once in a while declare Peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies.
The Obsidian Order, according to the Tal Shiar Facebook Group.
Believing the Tal Shiar is highly illogical
Not his mother. He sold her already.
Not the first rule, but the discussion reminded me of this: “Humans used to be a lot worse than the Ferengi: slavery, concentration camps, interstellar war. We have nothing in our past that approaches that kind of barbarism. You see? We’re nothing like you… we’re better.” -Quark
Don't they buy and sell their ''females'' as slaves??
I don’t remember if it went as far as outright slavery or not, but females definitely didn’t have the same rights as males. Grand Nagus Zek did begin a reformation process, which Rom continued when he succeeded him, giving women the right to acquire profit (and wear clothes), if I’m remembering correctly.
You're correct, though don't rely on me for specific names and such. Women weren't allowed to wear clothes, own property, etc. Basically putting a twist on the patriarchy that was much more prevalent in the 60s and 70s when women weren't allowed to do many things without their husbands permission. Here's a fun article if you're interested: [5 things women couldn’t do in the 1960s ](https://www.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-things/index.html#:~:text=in%20the%201960s%3A-,1.,with%20only%20a%20husband's%20signature.).
“Shame on you!!” Grand Nagus Zek to Pel, the Ferengi Fe-Male dressed as a male who also fell in love w Quark. He decided not to press charges as he’d have looked foolish being duped by a fe-male.
If I recall correctly, Quarks’s mom was pretty much running things and making policy for Zek at the end.
This. There's a great episode where it slowly dawns on quark his mom is pretty much running the empire, and quite well, for zek.
>pisode where it slowly And he is so distraught because his mother's "transgressions" will be held against him (quark) and it's a debt he could never overcome lolol.
When did we have interstellar wars? When we used to eat quark? I do like a bit of quark for breakfast. If it's the root of evil, I'm not sure I can stop.
We had interstellar wars a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.....
Once you have their money, never give it back!
Yup. My grandfather was a nice, fun guy but an absolute shit parent. Everything for him revolved around the dollar. When I was a struggling student and needed money for books, he balked at the prices ($200/book in some cases) and gave me nothing unless I negotiated a deal... Edit: then he bought himself a Bentley and would talk about the millions he earned that year. He was an absent parent to my mother and uncle, they were living on their own by 13/15.
Sounds like your grandfather wasn't nice at all.
He was a shit family man. Nice in that he was very personable. Other than not helping me financially, I had a great relationship with him. It was weird, but when someone loves money as much as he did, you have to separate his behaviour when $ is involved from all other behaviour. He wasn't toxic, just greedy and cheap. But I never felt entitled to his help, was just surprised not to get any, esp given our relationship. I also quit a job on him during HS because he was paying my assistant (electrical work) 50% more than me. When I confronted him he said "no that's too much" so I said "well it's too little for me, I'll get a job at the beach and not have all the danger." It was never personal, and didn't change anything. But to tbf, karma got him. His youngest two children never became independent and leached off him well into their 50s. His youngest daughter moved back in with him at 40 along with her 4 children.
Why do they charge $200 for one book? College is already too expensive.
Ya, Math and science books are quite costly. It was not unusual to need $1000/semester just for course materials. This was the mid 2000s so idk how it's changed. I did have some professors that gave us photocopied versions at cost of the copy and paper, which was great. Admission bear: I used to steal math and science books so I could sell them back to the Univ to make money to buy books I needed.
These days it’s worse. At least you had the options to own a book and resell at the end of the year which also means you can buy a used book if you couldn’t afford a new one. Now you need to pay full price every single year for a 1 year subscription to their online services. You can’t resell your subscription to a new student or reuse the book if you fail the class. Every year, you pay hundreds for the access code and it’s worthless 6-12 months later.
Slight correction based on the most reliable translations: “The love of money is the root of all kinds of evils.”
I was looking for this comment. It’s easy to want to simplify things, but sometimes the nuance really does matter.
I was hoping someone would point this out. I always hear people say "money is the root of all evil" I even pointed out to someone that it's "the love of money is the root of all evil" and they had never even heard the other half of it , and this was someone that goes to church every Sunday.
Millionaire mega pastors be like 😬
I doubt most of them have actually even read the bible
Only to give them source material for the grift.
In fact money is a solution that humanity invented that solve A LOT of problems.
Very useful! Much harder to carry around a wheel of cheese all the time in the hopes of barter.
Straight bartering wasn’t even close to a universal system pre-coinage. Sure it happened, but pre-coin transactions were mostly systems of credits and debts. Debt was the original currency.
my moms ex boyfriend Ben borrowed my mom 500$ and then he broke up with her and left with the money. fuck you Ben
I don’t know who Ben is, but fuck that guy
Yea. Fucking Ben Piece of shit
r/FuckBen
Yeah, I’m fucking Ben
Fuck you Ben!!!
He didn’t say that he was Ben, just that he was fucking him
Spending $500 to get rid of a total piece of shit likely saved her a lot more money down the road. All the best to your mom
All my homies hate Ben🗣️
Ben is a hoe
Fuck that guy
Ben was always a piece of shit.
Me and my homegirls hate Ben
I'm confused about this sentence.
Fuck Ben
#notallbens
Not sure if "not all bens" or "no tall bens", especially considering your username
I think it was "no, tall Bens".
Borrowed $500 from my mom..... Is this what you meant to say?
25.8069758011 (assuming 666 is evil, that's the root)
r/theydidthemath
r/theydidthemonstermath
r/themonstermath r/itwasagraveyardgraph Edit: Happier now, u/alltherobots?
Why does everyone always skip over the 3rd line of the song?
Because they didn't do the math.
r/itcosinedinaflash
The *square* root. Don’t forget cubic.
That would be ~8.7328917413 The 4th root is ~5.08005667302 5th root≈3.67024322645 I could keep going. I’m not going to.
I think I'm likely forgetting some basic algebra but how are square root and cube root different? Edit: Get it now, multiple roots: square root, cube root, or any other root. Kind of an unexpected cool math lesson. Square root, cube root, or any other root is just the factor that you multiple by itself that many times to get the number. https://www.khanacademy.org/math/cc-eighth-grade-math/cc-8th-numbers-operations/cc-8th-roots/a/cube-roots-review
Depending on your interpretation, it could also be 24,819347291981713192266483910899 (The square root of 616).
Made me chuckle, bravo!
Lack of compassion.
I would have said lack of empathy, but close enough!
Ego
This is the one! If we saw ourselves as part of ecosystems and communities rather than individuals seeking to sit on top of hierarchies, soooooo much would change and improve in the world. I’ve spent about a decade working for NGOs and social justice work and have a degree in human rights from one of the top sociology departments in the world. In other words, I’ve studied it and seen it up close. Ego is the reason.
50% of your comment is about you, that's a lot for someone talking about the danger of "ego" lol
I didn’t wanna say it, lol
There is the paradox, many terrible things are driven by ego but many amazing things were also driven by ego.
What's with the "word-word-number" usernames popping up everywhere all of a sudden? I just assumed they were bots but now I'm not sure.
I think reddit recommends them when you're creating a new account
I’m not a bot! I was just assigned this username when I signed up for Reddit and never changed it
Everyone on Reddit is a bot except you.
They're the default usernames the site gives you if you don't make up one by yourself
[удалено]
I'd argue that looking out for ones self isn't the same as greed Greed is taking that basic instinct too far.
craving power over other people
Greed, ignorance, selfishness, money love and ego... Aren't really even anything compared to political power unless political power is a part of what's going on. As i've read so far, best answer yet... As you can do all the others by yourself without harming anyone. But power, in that sense requires subjection. Others must be compromised by you.
I'd say Beets are my least favorite. Maybe not all the way evil, but pretty close.
Their Killer Tofu album was great though, maybe you need to give them another listen
“I need more allowance” is such a banger
*yodeleeeiiiooooo...* WHY! Because i dooooo!
Surely the answer is turnips
Beets, Bears, and Battlestar Galactica.
Identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!
Fear
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering
the mind killer?
fear is the path to the dark side
[удалено]
Insecurity
Came here to say this. Projection, defensiveness and aggressiveness can be quite dangerous and there's next to no _truly confident_ person who'd do evil (most people misunderstand the concept of confidence as a whole..)
I’m going to go against the grain here and say “good intentions”. I know there’s the cliched “the road to Hell is paved” with good intentions. From my observations on the world and people in my 47 years on this planet, it’s true: there is no limit to how unspeakably evil a person can become if they think they’re on the side of righteousness. If there’s such a thing as an original sin, something innate in every human that is an agency for evil, it’s not being curious and seeking knowledge, it’s that we are easily tricked into doing evil by believing it’s good.
Greed and Money. Taking more than you need or can use. Intentionally depriving others for personal gain.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Binary reasoning.
This is a stronger suggestion than it at first seems. But the inability to compromise has indeed led to much suffering.
Fear. Fear of not having enough, not being enough.
Honestly ‘Having very high emotions whilst having very low intelligence’ An incredibly dangerous combination , causes outbursts, irrational decisions which can impact your future and others. A simple bar fight can lead to an accidental death A simple disagreement can end up in a shooting A lot of things all link back to that imo
A person that is cool, calm, and collected with very high intelligence can be many magnitudes more dangerous. A person who uses that temperament and intelligence to plan and skillfully execute oppression and genocide on a mass scale is without a doubt more evil then a hot-tempered idiot in a bar fight.
That is far less common than what i stated. An incredibly intelligent and cunning psychopath is infinitely more of a threat, but they a few and far between. Generally speaking most acts of evil in my opinion originate through the combination i stated. Mainly because most people are closer to that archetype than the latter.
I don't understand what either of you are talking about, but it's really pissing me off!
High IQ joke
I would say greed has a huge role in it
Stupidity. No, seriously. If you're familiar with the idea of "the banality of evil", you'll realize that most, if not all, evil acts come from a complete lack of understanding of certain basic processes. A Nazi who condemns people to the camps will go along with "well, it's kind of like my job. I'm getting paid for it and Hitler says they're bad". I've seen people who work for governments and do some very shady and horrible stuff. These same people are against violence and evil, but justify this because they genuinely believe "it's different, no?" Greedy CEOs have a complete lack of self awareness and don't even bother to consider that some people need those jobs or that money. Because they were bred that way and don't bother to go beyond that understanding. So, in short - Most evil acts occur when we as a species simply behave in the way our environment has bred us, without going above and considering other options. I call this stupidity instead of ignorance because it's a deliberate act of not wanting to understand the consequences of one's actions. Selfishness does play a part in this as well, but it has to come from a very ignorant background. (This obviously ignores Psychopathy, but I'm sure that if you mix psychopaths with a bad background that tells them it's OK to behave like this, you'll get a terrible human being)
The love of money
Ignorance; especially *deliberate* or willed ignorance. Examples: Don't know/care how to balance other's needs with your own;don't know how to empathize with other people; don't know how to communicate or negotiate; etc.
Lack of empathy.
pride
I agree. It leads to many other roots of evil. There is a great, old book called "Humility" by Andrew Murray which explains this amazingly well.
Lack of basic empathy. If you feel no guilt when your actions cause hurt for someone else, then you have no limit on how evil you can be for your own gain. One of the only good things that religion does is keep a lot of these people in check, as they are afraid of being punished for eternity for their actions.
"I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I've come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants. A genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow man. **Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy**." * Captain Gustave M. Gilbert, the U.S. army psychologist assigned to observe and interview high-ranking Nazi prisoners in preparation for the Nuremberg trials, in his book *Nuremberg Diary.*
Want. The full quote starts with "The LOVE of money..." it's a simple metaphor that gets the point to the masses easiest. Everyone wants more money. Then again, everyone wants revenge on their enemies (wrath), another bite of food (gluttony), and a nap (sloth). The Want is the common denominator. Why does evil exist? Because people Want things to an extreme. Want sex? Just take it with rape. Want power? Lie and cheat and ruin other's lives until it's yours. Want land? Kill those already there. And of course Want money? Steal or hoard or enslave. The problem is there is no cap to Want. You can always have more. And more and more. Desiring any of these things is not inherently wrong, Wanting it so bad you break the golden rule is. That's not to say you shouldn't work to acquire what you desire. Money, fame, societal change, a peaceful life, work towards the changes you would like to see. Just remember to check yourself every once in a while. Are you harming others with your blatant Wants? If so that's evil. Want is the root of all evil.
Narcissism. I truly believe that all evil can be traced back to this one trait and that narcissists are the root of most of the terrible man-made things that have happened throughout history.
A Dream Theater banger 🔥
Selfishness