Complete Monsters

Yeah, that's why they're only a close match and there isn't a Complete Monster in the real world.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Parasites are not sapient. Most of them have very primitive brains even with respect to related free-living beings.

They are unpleasant, definitely, and must be destroyed (although the boundary between parasitism and symbiosis is pretty fuzzy, in general...); but evil? They have nothing to be evil with.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Yes, again, that's why complete monsters don't really exist.

Nothing in nature is actually evil.

edited 13th Mar '12 10:47:09 AM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Does nature include humans? Because I think that they, at least, can choose to be so.

They are never, or almost never, completely evil: but as a possibility, I think that it exists.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I disagree. There is nothing about Asian giant hornets that is not utterly malevolent.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

They love their larvae. They pre-chew the prey (that adult hornets cannot eat) for them, and look after them, and then consume the larvae's secretions.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

You can't separate humans from nature. All of our negative qualities can be found in other species, so either animals can be truly evil or humans can't.

I don't believe that people are evil, but I do believe that actions can be evil. Of course, "evil" is entirely subjective, but like many other concepts that only exist in our head, it's a very useful concept that shouldn't be done away with.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

A person is shaped by their actions. By committing evil actions, one's own intrinsic nature can acquire a specific character, which is what I would call "evil"; and similarly, by committing good actions, it can acquire an opposite character, which is what I call "good". If you want, you could define an evil person as a person with a deeply ingrained tendency to commit evil actions, and a good person as a person with a deeply ingrained tendency to commit good actions. I think that this mistakes the effect for the cause, but eh, good enough for the purposes of this thread.

I know of the fundamental attribution error, of course; but even though situational circumstances affect one's own actions more than it is commonly expected, they certainly are not the only factor in play.

To put it as Pico della Mirandola did, humankind is a grand miracle. Through our choices, we have the power to rise up to the level of angels, and perhaps even above; or to descend to the level of animals, and below.

This said, humans are not, I believe, initially indifferent between good and evil. Our very nature is predisposed to good, and opposed to evil; it is possible to pervert it, of course, but it would be extremely difficult (although, I think, probably not entirely impossible) to destroy all of its tendencies towards good without destroying the creature altogether.

edited 13th Mar '12 11:26:11 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I agree with this.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

I am not entirely sure I do, given the distressing ease with which evil things happen. Predisposition towards good, perhaps, but not an automatic opposition to evil, as I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Far from it, actually, as people don't usually carry out evil acts without some kind of justification, no matter how warped, that makes them think that they are doing good.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

I don't think it's one or the other. We're predisposed towards behavior that helps our genes propogate; most of these behaviors are selfish, but some are altruistic.

For example: The apes that could work together survived and had the most offspring, and parents who were willing to die for their kids had their genes passed on more than those who didn't.

edited 13th Mar '12 11:50:17 AM by RTaco

I think there are Complete Monsters out there, in the general sense of the word - people who are just irredeemably evil. However, the TVT term has defined itself into a corner, by applying such ridiculously stringent conditions that both in fiction and RL you can't find any examples.

Personally, I'd define a Complete Monster simply as somebody who has crossed the Moral Event Horizon ...

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

There is no Moral Event Horizon.

Or at least, I cannot think of one. People have done all sorts of horrific, "unforgivable" acts, such as raping and murdering an eleven years old girl, and then they repented and made a Heel–Face Turn.

As I said, humankind is a miracle.

edited 13th Mar '12 3:09:38 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Oh, but there is. That's what irredeemable means. Even if you try to redeem yourself, to atone, there are some acts that can never be redeemed. What I mean is they're essentially outside any chance of forgiveness - or more, that they shouldn't ever be forgiven.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Sorry, Carc, but I can't swallow that. I don't really give a shit if that bastard repented, that little girl still died horrifically at his hands. There are some things you just can't come back from.

The rest of that Wiki article just made me feel a little sick, if anything. The way the Catholic Church capitalised on her death I find more than a little disgusting.

edited 13th Mar '12 12:59:43 PM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Still, the "Complete" part of the trope means that he doesn't really qualify as he still had some good traits. Complete Monsters have absolutely none, that's integral to the trope.

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!

She died forgiving him.

Forgiveness does not mean canceling the consequences of the crime.

Serenelli's action made the whole universe a worse place, and its consequences will carry over for the whole history thereof. That girl did not lead the live that she could have led. Her potential children, greatchildren, and great-greatchildren will never be. All people whose life she would have made brighter have been robbed of something essential. He will have to answer for this.

But nonetheless, he is a human being. A human being who committed an horrific act, and afterwards he recognized it as it was, and begged for forgiveness. And the very fact that he was able to ask for forgiveness — not for his act to be forgotten, or for its consequences to be canceled, that's impossible, but for the ghastly stain that his act caused on his own very being to be cleaned — means that he was not beyond it.

I hope that he made it into Heaven. I want him to have made it into Heaven, because that means that everybody else will have a better chance of making it too.

And "capitalized"? She was Catholic. Yeah, she was a little kid, but still. The Church paid her the highest honor that can possibly be given to a human being. As long as the Church lives, her memory shall be remembered. As long as the Church lives, women and men will pray for her to intercede on their behalf. As long as the Church lives, she will be tributed honors so great that many would consider this a form of idolatry. It is not payment enough for a human life; but it is all that the Church can do.

edited 13th Mar '12 3:39:15 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Mmm, but in making her a holy martyr I feel that her name has become a symbol that overshadows the person, if that makes sense. Like the murdered little girl doesn't matter, and all that is important about her life is that she died while defending her chastity.

I don't think I'm being as clear as I want to be, and I'm not sure my meaning is coming across very well, but there's definitely something I find deeply disturbing about the whole case.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Well, would forgetting about her altogether — as many other victims, many even younger than she was, have been — have been any better?

As a person, she is dead. She was remembered by her mother and her brothers, and they probably told something about her to their children, but that's about it. The world at large will not remember her "as a person", it does not do that for anybody — not for her, not for you, and not for me.

As a symbol (not that I believe that a Saint is only a symbol, but that is part of it) she is the protector of crime victims and little girls. If I ever have a daughter, I will pray for her to protect her. As I said, this is not "in payment" for her death, that'd be ridiculous; but still, I do not see how this is disrespectful.

To make an entirely different example, Alan Turing is often remembered as a symbol of gay abuse. Is this disrespectful, because he is not being remembered "as a person?"

But returning to the alleged Complete Monster of the issue, who was the only reason why I even mentioned that: yeah, the action he committed was pretty much the worst one that a human being could possibly commit. But still, I would not say that he was a Complete Monster — by all accounts, he was capable of regretting his actions, and this alone proves that he was not one.

And if raping and killing a little girl is not enough for Complete Monster status, just what could possibly be?

edited 13th Mar '12 4:18:25 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Raping and killing two girls.

What I meant to say was: discussion about this particular case has veered a bit off-topic, though fortunately it doesn't seem to have done so for entire posts yet. Since I don't want it to come to that, I'm telling you now to drop it, especially as this crime is one that incites flame unnecessarily.

I'd rather that we have a very general type of discussion here.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Point taken.

Returning to the general case, then: I simply do not know of any action which could possibly qualify as a Moral Event Horizon in Real Life. As long as one can sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness, he or she is not truly a Complete Monster; and as long as one is alive, it seems to me, they can sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Sure, they can ask for forgiveness and attempt to repent, but how can we be sure they are truly repentant? Again, we're talking about Real Life people who cause great pain and distress to others. These people certainly exist; Serial Murderers, Rapists, Ruthless Dictators who are willing and have no qualms with kidnapping children and women to fight/use for their own enjoyment and sick and perverted means. The list goes on, and I doubt we're gonna find a lot of people who are willing to forgive them. Its a shame that we cannot and have to show hostility, but it is also justified from where I stand because these people cause so much harm, directly and indirectly.

People are more forgiving than you think, I believe.

But in any case, whether the victims or those who loved them forgive the culprit does not matter much here. What matters is whether the culprit can be truly repentant; and while I would not presume to be able to read minds, I think that in many cases this may be true.

A Moral Event Horizon should be an act which, by its own nature, makes redemption impossible. Perhaps surgically altering one's own brain in order to remove permanently all feelings of empathy could count as such an act; but nothing short of that could, I think.

Or if we have to get technical, a homicide-suicide done by someone who is in full control of himself might perhaps count as a Moral Event Horizon — not because that act is more heinous than other comparable ones, but because it makes it impossible for one to attempt to redeem him/herself. But even then, depression or other states of mental alteration would reduce culpability, and of course if the person somehow survived then they wouldn't be beyond redemption.

edited 14th Mar '12 7:01:18 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

That's why the trope as it stands is useless, it has defined itself into a corner where you can't apply it to any RL or fictional characters.

This only makes it worse.

Okay, so his victim forgave him. That's his right and prerogative as the victim. It was in her power. But we can never forgive people on behalf of others. That would just be plain arrogance, that would trampling all over those victims. The dead, once dead, cannot forgive, and that girl, too, would have been well within her rights and well within her senses to not forgive.

"Pius asked them: "Young people, pleasure of the eyes of Jesus, are you determined to resist any attack on your chastity with the help of grace of God?" A resounding "yes" was the answer."

That's just sickening. That is exploiting her for the Church's own moralism. And reducing the horrible crime of rape to an assault on chastity, and expecting everybody should rather die than live with that. It's absolutely disgusting.

But yes, that's not the topic at hand.

The Holocaust. The Holdomor. The 'Great Leap Forward' and the Cultural Revolution. The Cambodian Killing Fields. I know, I know, Godwin - but Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were actually people. They were humans. That's the reality we have to face. And how can one not say of them that they were irredeemably evil?

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic