Is the concept of evil harmful to society?

[Captain Cardio]

In literature pretty much as long as human civilization has been around, from the bible to the matrix, there is frequently an 'evil' character or characters.

Is this common element of the stories we grow up with, and are constantly exposed to, harmful to peaceful human coexistance?

Could it serve as a roadblock between people trying harder to understand each other when there are conflicts of interest, rather than defaulting more easily to assume a lack of virtue with the opposing party?

Should our society try to do story telling in such a way, that does not represent the other side in any conflict as being void of common human values and qualities?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Captain Cardio In literature pretty much as long as human civilization has been around, from the bible to the matrix, there is frequently an 'evil' character or characters. Is this common element of the stories we grow up with, and are constantly exposed to, harmful to peaceful human coexistance? Could it serve as a roadblock between people trying harder to understand each other when there are conflicts of interest, rather than defaulting more easily to assume a lack of virtue with the opposing party? Should our society try to do story telling in such a way, that does not represent the other side in any conflict as being void of common human values and qualities?

First of all, no character in a story is void of common human values or qualities; if one were, it would be so alien that the reader/viewer would have no ability to relate to it. Take the Matrix, for example. Agent Smith has thoroughly human motivations: first he wants to escape a situation he doesn't enjoy -- more specifically, he hates his job and wants to quit, but can't. Then he is thwarted, more than once, in his efforts to accomplish what he wants, and he builds a (quite irrational but utterly human) vendetta against the person who keeps getting in his way. This obsession builds to the point where he defines himself by his enemy: the only way he can earn validation is to have Neo admit that Smith is the better man. He can't even find self-respect in having defeated Neo; he has to convert him, he has to make Neo admit Smith is better, or simply turn him into himself. Smith represents something very human, and very real: the desire to dominate and convert everything, turning the world into a flattering reflection of ourselves. It is what leads the U.S. into war.

But even if we take out the idea of humanity as a consideration here, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the evil of one's foes. I think it best, in fact, to show better examples of what evil is so that more people know how to apply the label correctly, so that it is not misused. I'd like to see more literature and popular culture that explores evil, and shows it up close and personal -- warts and all, as the saying is. I think we should learn to understand it, so we can learn to either avoid it, or use it/turn it to our advantage, to whatever extent that is possible.

[Captain Cardio]

CoffeeSaint said: First of all, no character in a story is void of common human values or qualities; if one were, it would be so alien that the reader/viewer would have no ability to relate to it.

You're quite right about characters not being void of human values or qualities. I suppose I got a bit carried away with my definition in the OP.

What I meant is that only that bad side of a lot of 'evil' characters are shown in our stories. In this sense, our media may reinforce incomplete perspectives of individuals. Really, in our society, it is difficult to find any individual that has no redeeming qualities or good intentions whatsoever.

I spose the idea that brought this to mind, was how willing people were to accept that the terrorists involved with 9/11 were simply evil, rather than trying to consider their perspective or motives. That made me wonder if the stories in our culture condition us to accept such ideas.

The prevalence of one-sided representations I think lessens as we get older. Mature audiences can't accept enemies like Sauron (big baddy in Lord of the Rings) all the time. But from a young age we are exposed to fairy tales, and for some children, the bible, which make little or no effort to show how 'evil' beings, are in essence, lost, angry children.

CoffeeSaint said: But even if we take out the idea of humanity as a consideration here, I don't see anything wrong with pointing out the evil of one's foes.

I agree, theres no problem in pointing out evil motivations or evil actions, but (I know this is debatable) I don't believe evil 'people' actually exist. I think there are merely misled or desperate individuals.

[5010]

Depends on how the 'good' and 'evil' are defined in whatever society.

Heros are portrayed in a desireable way and villians in a repulsive way. If good and evil are defined by behaviors that benefit/harm society, then I see no problem with this. It attracts members towards a unified set of virtues. However, if good and evil are defined by spiritual belief or physical qualities, then members are divided and generations are raised to cull genetic traits and ideologies. The extreme case: genocide. I wouldn't want to be in such a society, but that may be because I've been raised to love/hate behaviors and tolerate diverse physical and ideological aspects.

[Captain Cardio]

5010 said: Depends on how the 'good' and 'evil' are defined in whatever society.

I don't think it does actually depend on defined definitions for society. The idea I'm trying to put forth is that unfair representations of characters in our stories cause unproductive social discourse in disagreements, by making some people assume a lack of virtue with their opponent, rather than finding the actual reason for the disagreement which could have a valid point.

5010 said: Heros are portrayed in a desireable way and villians in a repulsive way. If good and evil are defined by behaviors that benefit/harm society, then I see no problem with this. It attracts members towards a unified set of virtues. However, if good and evil are defined by spiritual belief or physical qualities, then members are divided and generations are raised to cull genetic traits and ideologies. The extreme case: genocide. I wouldn't want to be in such a society, but that may be because I've been raised to love/hate behaviors and tolerate diverse physical and ideological aspects.

Well said, and I agree. While that is a very related subject, that isn't actually the topic I'm trying to discuss.

Regardless of what is defined as being good of evil in a society, our society should be less prone to labeling those who take actions society don't approve of, as evil. I think the reason people might be prone to doing that, could be their heavy exposure to our society's media and stories, which often don't make an effort to portray a complete viewpoint of characters. Directors or writers seem to be fine with simply getting the idea across that a character is selfish or immoral, and then using that as why those characters take actions that result in conflict. A valid reason or motive isn't often explored. Because it isn't often explored, people disagreeing in real life may be treated more often like they don't have valid reasons or motives for their actions or beliefs, when they probably do have valid reasons that could be better heard if people weren't prone to that close-mindedness or slapping on the 'evil' or 'lack of virtue' label.

This isn't such a big issue for influencing people who are apt to critical thinking, like we are at this forum. To the masses that might not think about it though, it might make a difference.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Captain Cardio I fully agree with your views on the use of the word evil without any attempt to understand motives of a crime, no matter how henious.

evil is purely a concept it cannot be an act

[Alive]

It's probably just the opposite--stories of evil tend to disenforce evil behavior, helping society to whatever extent such behavior is actually "evil."

However, I would say that in much of literature, ideas of evil are played around with far more than in typical social conversation (in my observation.) The Bible (at least the OT, the NT skirts this somewhat with Jesus) is a great example; all the greatest "heroes", from Moses to David to Solomon are very flawed individuals, while "evil" characters are taken to be acting on God's behalf in punishing the very people who are presumably the audience of the Bible. Or take Homer and the rest of the Greek myths, heroes are always flawed, often by pride, and enemies are often glorified (the Trojans are not evil, just the enemy, they too are heroes).

In other words, literature takes a far more complex stance towards evil than seems to be implies by your post. Indeed, I think (good (in an aesthetic sense)) literature tends to undermine as well as express social convention. That's probably part of what gives it it's staying power.

Even fairy tales are undermining. Kings are evil, stepmothers are evil, people in positions of power are evil; the powerless are good. Evil is not some foreign, far-away people "different" from oneself (well, witches may take on such a role, but they are not the typical fairy tale enemy), nor is it the lowest of the low (the victims of genocide) but rather authority figures in one's own society. Perhaps we should be worried just as much about preventing the undermining legitimate authority as usurping illegitimate authority, but for the latter, I don't think you have to blame anything on literature.

[Athena]

Socrates was very concerned about the stories of the gods that people repeated. He objected to Zeus being an adulter, because he thought this was a bad role model. Personally, I think the old testament God, who is jealous, fearsome, punishing and has favorites is, a bad role model of men. Jesus speaks of a very different God, who is loving and forgiving.

I do not think we speak of Zeus or the old testament God as evil, although they have bad qualities. I think historically evil has been a destructive force. Such a force has existed in many cultures and is associated with making sick and their deaths. This resulted in effective treatments of disease, and blocked the scientific investigation into disease. This understanding of evil which also comes with Christianity, has been very problematic in the past. Christians attempted to beat the devil out of their children. This method of child rearing cause by ignorance and superstition, is what we call abuse tonight. I think the supersititous believe of evil and fear of God, has a negative effect on humans.

To up date this, todays TV is extremely harmful. In the past we had villians and heros, and these movies had there faults, however, I think todays steady diet of either extremely superfacial comedies, or shows about hunting down the murderer are so mindless! Espcially in the slums where this hostile behavior is accepted as a definition of reality, I think the effect is harmful. Kids carrying guns, think this is the way the world is, and do not have a good concept of a different reality. Not good.

[Captain Cardio]

Alive said: It's probably just the opposite--stories of evil tend to disenforce evil behavior, helping society to whatever extent such behavior is actually "evil."

I completely agree, they do seem to disenforce behaviour society doesn't approve of, for the most part. I don't agree that is the opposite of what I was saying though.

Alive said: In other words, literature takes a far more complex stance towards evil than seems to be implies by your post..

I agree, my post does not deal with all the complexities of the concept of evil in media. I am focussing on one specific aspect of evil's representation in our media for this thread.

Alive said: Even fairy tales are undermining.

I agree, fairy tales aswell as many other stories in our culture, undermine or attempt to undermine authority figures or traditionally held ideas.

What I was saying, is the stories we are exposed to, usually only portray two sides, the right side and the wrong side. Often, the side portrayed to be wrong, is shown to have selfish or immoral motives for their actions. It is a rare for a story to show both sides of a conflict, where the audience is led to understand each sides' legitimate, understandable reasons for their actions. I think this common place element of story telling, could potentially be harmful to the public mentality. Since it is such a common and accepted idea that there are the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' in any conflict, it is easier for people to label those they don't agree with, as 'bad guys', and leave it at that, rather than exploring the issue further, by trying harder to understand a different perspective.

I know there are people in our world who genuinely do have immoral of selfish motives. The tendancy, however, for us to resort to that label as people's reasons for having different beliefs, or for taking actions we don't approve of, I believe, is harmful. I believe it perpetuates close-mindedness and gets in the way of peaceful communication and understanding.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Captain Cardio Could it serve as a roadblock between people trying harder to understand each other when there are conflicts of interest, rather than defaulting more easily to assume a lack of virtue with the opposing party?

Oddly enough I've been talking a lot about a similar concept. It isn't the idea of good and evil and critiquing though as much as good and bad. I've been reading a book called The Body in Pain about torture, pain, and language. The author, Elaine Scary, describes pain in a very unique way. She explains that pain is a moment of languagelessness. When you experience pain you're losing your sense of world, your language, etc.
So in my pondering I've come to realize that the polarization of good and bad have made pain and pleasure dichotomous. However, it may not be ideal for us not to see them as opposites. Feeling good and feeling bad sound so concretely opposite, but when you dissect what pain really is, it has little to do with pleasure. Pain, the loss of language and the loss of "world", is not the opposite of feeling good. The opposite of pain is responsibility. Responsibility to the world-- your self concept, your morals, etc.
Now, brigning it back to the point you made about how using the terms good and evil could confuse people and polarize their opinions of something. In this case, it has resulted in an inability to accurately express pain-- a fundamental aspect of humanity which still has an incomplete vocabulary to describe it.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: 5010 Depends on how the 'good' and 'evil' are defined in whatever society.

those aren't terms that are necessarily in every culture

[Alive]

Quote by: Captain Cardio What I was saying, is the stories we are exposed to, usually only portray two sides, the right side and the wrong side.

IWhat I'm saying is that literature usually actually has a more nuanced view of "right side" and "wrong side" than society in general, and therefore actually contributes to the opposite effect of what you are saying. It is in the interests of the "status quo" that evil be completely evil and good be completely good, and literature works against that status quo. Sometimes I think literature goes to far and society would benefit much more from viewing evil as evil and good as good, but whatever the case, I stand by my assertion that literature is on your side. There is usually nuance and complexity in literature; try to find nuance and complexity in the average politician's speech!

[Captain Cardio]

What I'm saying is that literature usually actually has a more nuanced view of "right side" and "wrong side" than society in general, and therefore actually contributes to the opposite effect of what you are saying. It is in the interests of the "status quo" that evil be completely evil and good be completely good, and literature works against that status quo. Sometimes I think literature goes to far and society would benefit much more from viewing evil as evil and good as good, but whatever the case, I stand by my assertion that literature is on your side. There is usually nuance and complexity in literature; try to find nuance and complexity in the average politician's speech!

Yeah I think you're right. I suppose I was thinking more of the kind of media the average joe or kids are exposed to. I think the more educated or intelligent people didn't buy the "Terrorists hate us because we are free. They are evil" tripe. Honestly I don't read much non-fiction, but I can easily understand that more sophisticated media or literature, would not perpetuate the close-mindedness I was talking about.

In terms of fairy tales and what movies make it to the mainstream theatres though, I think there is a certain level of conditioning, even if its unintentional, for acceptance that most issues come down to a lack of morality or integrity in a disagreeing party.

I understand that we don't agree that fairy tales or the bible are necessarily guilty of this, so I'll cite some examples I can think of.

In the three pigs, theres the 'big bad wolf'. I don't think most children's versions of the story include the fact that the wolf needs to eat the pigs to live.

In Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, theres the evil lady who says "mirror mirror on the wall who's the fairest of them all" who can't stand the idea that there's somebody prettier than her. She takes terrible actions against snow white, and doesn't have any respectible motive.

In the wizard of Oz, theres the wicked witch of the west.

In Cinderella, Cinderella has her evil step sisters and step mother, that aren't given any reasonable excuse for their actions, other than being selflish.

In genesis, theres the snake that tempts eve to take a bite of the apple, albeit its been awhile since I've read the story, but I don't recall the snake having any respectable reason for wanting to tempt eve.

Is satin part of the bible? I always got the impression he was evil for the sake of evil.

Still, children aren't brought up on fairy tales and/or the bible alone, so I'm not sure I have a great point to make about children's attitude being influenced in this way. I'm not really too familiar with the children's literature nowadays.

The TV and movies seen nowadays though, which are most of what the masses I'm refering to, see, I think are guilty of perpetuating this one-sided close-mindedness.

[Alive]

I don't really distinguish "high" vs. "low" literature; what is considered low in one era may be considered high in the next. I think that virtually all literary (i.e, fictional) media is more nuanced than mainstream opinion.

In the three pigs, theres the 'big bad wolf'. I don't think most children's versions of the story include the fact that the wolf needs to eat the pigs to live.

"Big bad wolf" is an interesting term, but let's look at the story itself. The wolf succeeds at eating two of the pigs. The moral of the story is not that wolves are evil and pigs are good, so much as that stupidity is gonna get you killed in the world. The whole story is one of actors taking advantage of other actors; in the end the smartest one eats the not-so-smart one (as opposed to, say, the most good eating the least good--what defineds pig 3 is not moral goodness but cleverness). Literature usually rewards the clever; poets (or folklore itself) seem to like smart people.

Motive is irrelevent to the story, method is what matters. Motive is predetermined.

In Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, theres the evil lady who says "mirror mirror on the wall who's the fairest of them all" who can't stand the idea that there's somebody prettier than her. She takes terrible actions against snow white, and doesn't have any respectible motive.

Do you disagree that vanity is a real motive for people acting evilly? Is it really such an unrealistic motive? This story too has nuance, but I'd like to have your answers to those two questions.

Many of your examples fall under this category. The evil actors are not evil because they are simply evil, but because of some particular vice, a vice that I think you would agree is a real vice and a real social problem to which the story perhaps contributes something of an attempted solution.

In genesis, theres the snake that tempts eve to take a bite of the apple, albeit its been awhile since I've read the story, but I don't recall the snake having any respectable reason for wanting to tempt eve.

And the snake is cursed, but so is all of mankind--which suggests that all people are evil, not some evil and some good, and thus goes directly against your thesis.

The TV and movies seen nowadays though, which are most of what the masses I'm refering to, see, I think are guilty of perpetuating this one-sided close-mindedness.

I disagree strongly. Maybe we just watch different movies, but I think even the most straightforward action movies have relatively nuanced views of human motivation which far surpass that of common society. Have any movies in mind?

In superhero movies the villian is often evil for the pursuit of science, for example, which is otherwise viewed as a worthy goal. Or they are evil out of too-strong love or attachment to someone. In fact, it's more the "high brow" movies themselves which make evil people evil for evil reasons, but often they make those people the protaganists, which ambiguates the evil in itself (see all gangster movies!) This is what I mean by going too far; the message sometimes veers to evil is good, not that evil is more ambiguous than might seem at first glance. Either way, though, it is far from firming up status quo conceptions of good and evil.

[Kuldeep]

OP idea, I would relate with how my father taught me correct/incorrect sentences while; I was a primary student.

My father directed me that never look at the incorrect sentences.That I should just go on reading only correct sentences!!! Probably he was quite right !! Whenever, I would come across a wrong sentence later, I could easily distinguish it from correct one. But, had I read both, chances of confusion was there !!

Similarly, CC in the OP feels, if our new generation is deprived of knowledge of evil acts and provide knowlege of only good acts, they might develop good morale. This might help to develop a society of high morality. As far as definition or application of adjective evil or good depending on the situation is concerned; presentation is to be modified in such a way that even evil act reflects good purpose.

[Captain Cardio]

Alive said: "Big bad wolf" is an interesting term, but let's look at the story itself. The wolf succeeds at eating two of the pigs. The moral of the story is not that wolves are evil and pigs are good, so much as that stupidity is gonna get you killed in the world. The whole story is one of actors taking advantage of other actors; in the end the smartest one eats the not-so-smart one (as opposed to, say, the most good eating the least good--what defineds pig 3 is not moral goodness but cleverness). Literature usually rewards the clever; poets (or folklore itself) seem to like smart people. Motive is irrelevent to the story, method is what matters. Motive is predetermined.

Motives seem to take a back seat role in a lot of media, save CSI style shows. I think they still are part of the overall interpretation a viewer gets from a movie, especially to children, even if the motives are not the intended showcase.

You're right that the motive isn't the stories(the 3 pigs) point, and isn't hovering around the wolf's motives or specifically trying to indoctrine readers with a sense that some people are simply wrong, but the lack of exploring the wolf's side is still there. It's a very minor detail in the story, but that one small detail about the story, combined with that one small detail in a hefty amount of other stories, and you may end up with an effect that makes people prone to assume that small detail in conflicts in their own life.

Alive said: Do you disagree that vanity is a real motive for people acting evilly? Is it really such an unrealistic motive? This story too has nuance, but I'd like to have your answers to those two questions. Many of your examples fall under this category. The evil actors are not evil because they are simply evil, but because of some particular vice, a vice that I think you would agree is a real vice and a real social problem to which the story perhaps contributes something of an attempted solution.

I agree, it is frequently a real life motive. But that real life motive is such a widely used motive in stories, that I believe it may become overused to the point of being unrealistic or harmful.

Captain Cardio said: I know there are people in our world who genuinely do have immoral of selfish motives. The tendancy, however, for us to resort to that label as people's reasons for having different beliefs, or for taking actions we don't approve of, I believe, is harmful. I believe it perpetuates close-mindedness and gets in the way of peaceful communication and understanding.

You've got a good point there, about stories that use human shortcomings as motives, can provide productive solutions. I guess being aware of that, I would just want more stories to convey multiple respectable viewpoints or motives than they currently do. I wouldn't want to completely rewire the media, just increase that proportion of stories that show how people who are disagreeing, could both have respectible, non-selfish or legitimate reasons for their actions.

Alive said: I disagree strongly. Maybe we just watch different movies, but I think even the most straightforward action movies have relatively nuanced views of human motivation which far surpass that of common society. Have any movies in mind?

I agree that most movies convey human motivations. I'd like to distinguish between movies that provide human motivations, and movies that provide legitimate, non-selfish motivations. In both cases realistic human motivations are provided. However, the proportion of those movies that provide those motives, usually give motives that eminate from pride, greed, or some other human shortcoming. Even though selfish motives are a part of our everyday lives, their being widespread in the media, I think, might inadequately prepare people for when somebody they don't agree with, doesn't have a human shortcoming as a motive.

If we come back to the matrix, you're quite right that agent smith has human motivations, but that doesn't make them respectable or legitimate motivations. If in 90% of movies, the enemy is portrayed as taking their 'evil' actions, because they are greedy, vain or some other human flaw, then this might effect people's mentality towards disagreements. Even if the motivations are realistic, the fact that the majority of our media portray human shortcomings as motives, I think, could influence people to take that same mentality into disagreements in their own life. People might not be aware of it, but they could think most times when they disagree with somebody, that the person they disagree with simply has a lesser amount of morality or willpower. Maybe that is actually the case at times or even most times, but if people jump to that conclusion before making an honest effort to figure out why there could be a legitimate disagreement, it starts to have a negative effect.

[Athena]

In the "Is the Universe Creating God?" thread, I thought that we do manifest our own reality. If mass consciousness is thinking about in terms of huge holy war, that is exactly what they will manifest. As we think it so we manifest it.

So if create characters of evilness, and thought only of the evilness and not of the defeat of evilness, what would we get? If a young and impressionable person identifies with this evilness, what will happen?
It generally isn't pure evilness, but Bonnie and Clide, the Mafia, Hells Angels, are these good role models? Might some think so?

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Athena In the "Is the Universe Creating God?" thread, I thought that we do manifest our own reality. If mass consciousness is thinking about in terms of huge holy war, that is exactly what they will manifest. As we think it so we manifest it. So if create characters of evilness, and thought only of the evilness and not of the defeat of evilness, what would we get? If a young and impressionable person identifies with this evilness, what will happen? It generally isn't pure evilness, but Bonnie and Clide, the Mafia, Hells Angels, are these good role models? Might some think so?

Athena is this akin to xenophobic?

Let us suppose pure evil as evoked in a human would mean a complete uncaring person. They would not only indulge in causing others harm but be actively amused if those close to them were harmed. It would be beyond selfish amusment rather in some way a detachement of any care or empathy.

The role models you come up with also have some sense of caring Clyde for Bonnie and vice versa
mafia for the family and there own code
hells angels for the gang and their bikes

so even a "bad people" there is a human element

The bad ones on tv or in film just have enough empathy for something or someone to show their caring side, their human touch.

There are few outright horrorable ones other than in the horror themed films and these we enjoy the more because there is that lack of humanity in the "evil" one.

The few "badies" in thrillers or other dramas we cannot on some level empathise with are the ones that scare us the most.

Somewhere deep inside we look to the most heinious to show they are still as us human, and generaly we find it. (Perhaps that's why some say hate the sin not the sinner.)

It will be sad when one comes to the fore who has no passion for others at all, has no sense of love and caring whatsoever and cannot feel for any living thing. Then I may agree we've found something (someone) we can call evil

[Captain Cardio]

Athena said: So if create characters of evilness, and thought only of the evilness and not of the defeat of evilness, what would we get?

I think there are already stories where evil triumphs, and it doesn't seem to be detrimental to society. I'm not sure instructions for 'how to overcome evil' are necessary for all stories.

Athena said: If a young and impressionable person identifies with this evilness, what will happen?

I think there is still a great deal of risk associated with taking on a role that society disapproves of, particularly if the law disapproves. I also think it is possible to portray a legitimate perspective, without necessarily glorifying it. So even if a new appealing viewpoint was presented for a life path that society doesn't approve of, the amount of change or risk associated with that path might dissuade most people who are comfortable enough with their current, relatively easy and conforming lives

For fair stories to be told, I think you can still have a good side and a bad side. The only thing I would change is to have the bad side take on more legitimate motives than at present.

Athena said: It generally isn't pure evilness, but Bonnie and Clide, the Mafia, Hells Angels, are these good role models? Might some think so?

I think you've got a point, that we can't go around portraying anything that anybody does, as being completely legitimate. For cases like you listed (and I think alot of movies do this anyway) I would just want a bit of background or explanation for why the societal outcasts or rebels, decided to take on a different lifestyle. It could very much be that people who end up in situations like that have bad upbringings or are very emotionally unhealthy.

I guess I wouldn't change the movies that are currently out there much, I would just want to introduce more two-sided stories. Maybe a necessity of a two-sided story, is that it deals with a situation different than alot movies.

I have yet to really see a film try and do a bird's eye view, so to speak, an honest effort to be unbiased, representing 9/11, including the terrorists perspectives and motivations. Or a perspective of George Bush that might make his choice of actions seem a little bit less than simply contrary to common sense.