Just wondering

[GRAEME]

Except that the use of the term evil begs many questions! The term is not agreed. Many would doubt that it actually exists! An assumptions are built into the "research" - either that the public thinks that these people are "evil" and that evil can be quantified in a relative scale, or that there actually is such a thing as evil and these people are that (or suffer from it or are subject to it in some way???).

Either way it is skewed.

[jaycad]

Except that the use of the term evil begs many questions! The term is not agreed. Many would doubt that it actually exists! An assumptions are built into the "research" - either that the public thinks that these people are "evil" and that evil can be quantified in a relative scale, or that there actually is such a thing as evil and these people are that (or suffer from it or are subject to it in some way???).

Either way it is skewed.

knievel is evil

[batman]

Except that the use of the term evil begs many questions! The term is not agreed. Many would doubt that it actually exists!

You could ask the same question about 'love'. Does 'love' exist? If so, what is it? We use the term 'love' in all aspects of our lives and rarely does anyone question our use of it, yet it is just as abstract a term as 'evil'. IMHO both are simply terms we use to make concrete thoughts/feelings that we experience. I experience thoughts/feelings every day that most people would refer to as 'love'. I see no difference in using the term 'evil' to describe thoughts/feelings which are the opposite of what is referred to as 'love'. If someone is extremely warm and friendly etc we may call them 'loving' and rarely does anyone question it. If someone is extremely cold and unfriendly they may be called 'evil', which sometimes provokes debates like this one. I have met people who have done some despicable things and have shown no remorse about doing them, they have also said they would do them again. The clinical term for them is usually 'sociopath/psychopath' ..... most people would call them 'evil' and with my non-clinical hat on I would agree with them.

[batman]

knievel is evil

No, he was Evel.

[Steve Crook]

You could ask the same question about 'love'. Does 'love' exist? If so, what is it? We use the term 'love' in all aspects of our lives and rarely does anyone question our use of it, yet it is just as abstract a term as 'evil'. IMHO both are simply terms we use to make concrete thoughts/feelings that we experience. I experience thoughts/feelings every day that most people would refer to as 'love'. I see no difference in using the term 'evil' to describe thoughts/feelings which are the opposite of what is referred to as 'love'. If someone is extremely warm and friendly etc we may call them 'loving' and rarely does anyone question it. If someone is extremely cold and unfriendly they may be called 'evil', which sometimes provokes debates like this one. I have met people who have done some despicable things and have shown no remorse about doing them, they have also said they would do them again. The clinical term for them is usually 'sociopath/psychopath' ..... most people would call them 'evil' and with my non-clinical hat on I would agree with them.

'Evil' isn't the opposite of 'love' or even of 'good'. 'Evil' implies a moral judgement, usually dictated by religious beliefs.

The word 'evil' is often misused - as it was in this survey

Steve

[batman]

Whether they are opposites or not is irrelevant and I didn't actually say they were opposites. I simply used 'love' as another example of an abstract term.

Also, I would argue the case that 'love' can also imply a moral/religious judgement. Just think back a few years ..... married couples had sex within a 'loving relationship'. Those who had sex and lived together outside of wedlock were 'living in sin'. That's a moral/religious judgement if ever I heard one.

The word 'love' is also misused .... eg people are said to be 'making love' when they are simply having a quick shag, love often has nothing to do with it.

[GRAEME]

You could ask the same question about 'love'.

We do not say that people "are love". We feel love. Or people are loved. Some say God is love - this is a very abstract idea. I suppose Satan may be evil in this sence. What I worry about is that dismissing a criminal as evil, does tend to distance them from the rest of us. The Nazis were "evil", so that's all right then - we'd never do the same if the wrong socio-political-historical circumstances arose... We're not evil, that's the predator down the lane... It is too easy.

I would not really argue with the question "how much do you hate" a certain criminal or other - although I would still question the value of it.

To say that someone is evil, rather than has done evil things, is what I would question. As to "how evil" a person may or not be on a scale, is just silly in my opinion.

[batman]

We do not say that people "are love". We feel love. Or people are loved. Some say God is love - this is a very abstract idea. I suppose Satan may be evil in this sence. What I worry about is that dismissing a criminal as evil, does tend to distance them from the rest of us. The Nazis were "evil", so that's all right then - we'd never do the same if the wrong socio-political-historical circumstances arose... We're not evil, that's the predator down the lane... It is too easy.

I would not really argue with the question "how much do you hate" a certain criminal or other - although I would still question the value of it.

To say that someone is evil, rather than has done evil things, is what I would question. As to "how evil" a person may or not be on a scale, is just silly in my opinion.

That's just word play and is rather missing the point IMHO. People can having thoughts of 'love' and have 'evil' thoughts .... I don't think anyone can deny that .... but those terms are both abstract are no one can define exactly how someone else interprets them. That is why the use of the word 'evil' is the survey is OK IMHO. It's a survey to determine how people feel about such things and as most understand the word 'evil' in it's broadest sense I think it makes perfect sense to use it and is far from silly.

The Nazis were 'evil', but only if you're not a follower of their beliefs .... it's about perceptions.

Some criminals commit atrocious acts (often because they are mentally unwell) and this does not IMHO make them 'evil'. It's my job to make assessments about such things so I do understand that.

I got slaughtered on this forum for making that very point about Peter Sutcliffe. I stated that he wasn't 'evil', but that he was unwell and did 'evil' things. The majority of forum members who contributed to that thread disagreed and the old pitchfork mentality was well to the fore. They called him 'evil', a 'monster' and all the rest of it. But he isn't. He's just a bloke with a serious chronic and enduring case of schizophrenia with dominant positive symptoms including command hallucinations. That wasn't 'right' though, he had to be labelled 'evil' .... they understood the word 'evil', but couldn't really understand how the the other stuff caused him to commit his crimes.

A survey question that reads "Rate the culpability of a criminal based on his perceived mental state coupled with the nature and degree of his crimes' isn't really going to register with the average punter is it? Most people would exit the survey at the first question, then you have no survey.

Any survey is only of real value to those who compile it and if the results are used positively. It's Dai Bando's survey and is for his course, so presumably it's of great value to him, but not really to you or anyone else.

We're back to those pesky perceptions again.

[GRAEME]

That's just word play and is rather missing the point IMHO. People can having thoughts of 'love' and have 'evil' thoughts .... I don't think anyone can deny that .... but those terms are both abstract are no one can define exactly how someone else interprets them. That is why the use of the word 'evil' is the survey is OK IMHO. It's a survey to determine how people feel about such things and as most understand the word 'evil' in it's broadest sense I think it makes perfect sense to use it and is far from silly.

The Nazis were 'evil', but only if you're not a follower of their beliefs .... it's about perceptions.

Some criminals commit atrocious acts (often because they are mentally unwell) and this does not IMHO make them 'evil'. It's my job to make assessments about such things so I do understand that.

I got slaughtered on this forum for making that very point about Peter Sutcliffe. I stated that he wasn't 'evil', but that he was unwell and did 'evil' things. The majority of forum members who contributed to that thread disagreed and the old pitchfork mentality was well to the fore. They called him 'evil', a 'monster' and all the rest of it. But he isn't. He's just a bloke with a serious chronic and enduring case of schizophrenia with dominant positive symptoms including command hallucinations. That wasn't 'right' though, he had to be labelled 'evil' .... they understood the word 'evil', but couldn't really understand how the the other stuff caused him to commit his crimes.

A survey question that reads "Rate the culpability of a criminal based on his perceived mental state coupled with the nature and degree of his crimes' isn't really going to register with the average punter is it? Most people would exit the survey at the first question, then you have no survey.

Any survey is only of real value to those who compile it and if the results are used positively. It's Dai Bando's survey and is for his course, so presumably it's of great value to him, but not really to you or anyone else.

We're back to those pesky perceptions again.

It isn't just word play - as the rest of your post goes on to prove and I agree with most of it. Having evil thoughts, doing evil things is indeed completely different to this idea of "being evil".

Where we part company is in your acceptance of the term as shorthand for the layman. I think the idea of "evil" in this sense is misleading and actually dangerous as it leads to people believing that "evil-doers" are some sort of separate species or something and that they should be treated as such.

Instead of evil - we could rank the criminals listed in terms of perceived severity of crime. I still don't see much point.

[batman]

Where we part company is in your acceptance of the term as shorthand for the layman.

Fair enough.

[Dai Bando]

Or whether they let their opinion steer their survey in such a blatant manner

Steve

I notice you failed to respond to my last comment (not like you lol)
Could you then tell me what my opinion is, and how it has blatantly steered my survey. (I'm always interested in the views of a fan of 'murder she wrote')

[Steve Crook]

I notice you failed to respond to my last comment (not like you lol)
Could you then tell me what my opinion is, and how it has blatantly steered my survey. (I'm always interested in the views of a fan of 'murder she wrote')

What's Murder She Wrote got to do with anything? I'm not a fan of it.

Steve

[GRAEME]

What's Murder She Wrote got to do with anything? I'm not a fan of it.

Steve

Oh you are, Steve, you are - but, obviously, just too morally bankrupt to admit it!!

[batman]

Murder She Wrote isn't as good as Diagnosis Murder.

[GRAEME]

Murder She Wrote isn't as good as Diagnosis Murder.

Now you are being evil!

[Mr Sloane]

Murder She Wrote isn't as good as Diagnosis Murder.

I thought Diagnosis Murder was a job creation programme for the Van Dykes I saw one with 6 of them in it

[batman]

I thought Diagnosis Murder was a job creation programme for the Van Dykes I saw one with 6 of them in it

Damn ... missed that one!

The family Van Dyke has now moved on to the giddly heights of Murder 101 .... that has four of them in it!

link: Murder 101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mr Sloane]

Damn ... missed that one!

The family Van Dyke has now moved on to the giddly heights of Murder 101 .... that has four of them in it!

link: Murder 101 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over the run of the show, various episodes guest starred at least eight different members of the Van Dyke family:

* Dick Van Dyke and son Barry Van Dyke in the lead roles.
* Dick's brother, Jerry Van Dyke.
* One of Dick's daughters, Stacy Van Dyke.
* Barry's children: Carey Van Dyke, Shane Van Dyke, Wes Van Dyke, and Taryn Van Dyke.

Plus there was an episode while Dick played his Rob Petrie Character from the Dick Van Dyke Show (as well as Dr Sloane)!

[batman]

Plus there was an episode while Dick played his Rob Petrie Character from the Dick Van Dyke Show (as well as Dr Sloane)!

[will.15]

I don't think I ever watched more than a few minutes of Murder She Wrote. I didn't watch enough of it to say it was bad, it just didn't interest me. But Diagnosis Murder I've seen plenty of. Not great, but a time killer show. There is a mystery going on, try to figure out, once in a while I might, and I find Dick Van Dyke easier to watch than Angela Lansbury (who I like better when she is playing villains).