there is evil in Real Life, pure evil, don't fool yourself. my world views are more towards the liberal but I know that much.
and I think the notion that no one is pure evil comes from the perception that evil is a concept created by religion. mankind has tried to distance itself from strict religious beliefs, so we assume that pure evil is only something a bonehead fanatic would believe in.
Evil violates the Harm principle; that which does harm to others or enables harm to others is evil.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.Yes there probably are Complete Monsters.
But then, killing someone to show people that killing is wrong, or torturing someone to show people that inflicting pain in others is wrong.... are not what I would call logical punishments.
edited 12th Sep '11 5:38:14 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Also, even if someone has no redeeming qualities, this only justifies you keeping them from doing harm. It doesn't justify doing them harm while they are helpless.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.I say that a complete monster is someone who has a true and profound sense of morality, of right and wrong; and then commits atrocities. You have to understand that what you're doing is unforgiveable before anything becomes unforgiveable. You have to knowingly chose evil and destruction over good and benevolence.
Never be without a Hat! Hot means heat. I don't care if your usage dates to 1300, it's my word, not yours. My Pm box is open.Complete monsters existing in real life the same way they do in fiction? I doubt it. Yes, there are monstrous people out there, but there's always a reason for it (albeit a poorly justified reason), such as a Freudian Excuse or a mental disorder. Said reasons don't always make a person evil though; after all, a sociopath is sometimes more like Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil, and can avoid killing. I've heard of some psychopaths/sociopaths getting help to lessen their disorder, even if it's still debatable whether or not sociopathy can be cured.
@Game Chainsaw: I agree. I don't usually have strong opinions, but there are definitely lines you don't cross. Keeping a monster from doing further harm is necessary, whereas personally harming them yourself while they're no longer a threat pushes you into He Who Fights Monsters.
edited 13th Sep '11 8:17:03 AM by Xandriel
What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?@OP: "...And when I say monster I mean the kind of people who don't have an excuse for their actions..."
Does this mean they have no reasons for taking the action? Only machines do that, there are no real life humans who act without some reason.
If you meant an excuse that would not be recognized by other people, there may be, but that is obviously highly relative, something that would change according to time and place.
Absolute evil may exist, but human beings are not capable of defining or identifying it, except perhaps well after the fact. It's not a concept with much, if any, practical utility. It serves more as a way of labeling people from the past in order to highlight an Aesop.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.edited 13th Sep '11 9:09:27 AM by Tongpu
I wonder why people say that complete monsters can exist in fiction, but not in real life. Whatever reasons you have for saying real humans can't be complete monsters, they can also be applied to fictional humans, or not?
Generally the causes for evil can be devided into two categories: Thinking what you're doing is good, and sadism of some degree or variation. The most shocking/repulsive thing about really heinous crimes is basically the complete lack of empathy. Like, torturing a little kitten to death or something. It creates sympathy and willingness to protect in normal humans, but it doesn't in the case of said criminals (and may even trigger the opposite). This dissonance is what makes said crimes so shocking, because it's a complete opposite to what your average guy feels.
I don't think For the Evulz is really prevalent in real life. You commit evil either because you're misguided or because you have mental disorders. (These may overlap).
In the end, you can always pull the "morality is subjective" card or claim that they couldn't act any other way (disorders etc.)
Branding someone "ireedemable/unforgivable" is a subjective statement because it can vary from person to person. Personally, I don't see "not forgiving someone" as such a bad thing either way. So, the question isn't really relevant, because everyone is going to have different views on the "monster" in question.
I might add that I don't believe in free will, so evildoers (or everyone) aren't really responsible for what they do out of their own drive so much as they were "made to do". This doesn't really have any impact on justice because protecting society from criminals is still a good thing and trying to rehabilitate them is as well. The only issue lies with "punishment", but to me there's no point in that unless it is so they learn (rehabilitation). Regardless of whether you can be held accountable for your actions, punishment without explicit reason is nothing more than revenge and only serves to satisfy societies wish to see an evildoer harmed. Which isn't far off from sadism, mmh? All you can really do with a so-called Complete Monster is lock him up forever, or erase his existence if you like the death penalty. He can't be rehabilitated so the only thing left to do is protect society from him forever. Plenty of real life criminals fall into this category, so whether they are complete monsters or not doesn't make a bit of difference. End result is (or should I say "should be") the same. And that pretty much sums up why I think the question isn't really of importance. But maybe I'm just dodging the question, I haven't slept for a day, so bear with me.
edited 13th Sep '11 9:31:08 AM by Excelion
Murrl LustFatMBut "evil" can't merely mean "harmful", because "harmful" is a descriptive term, whereas "evil" is prescriptive. The most salient feature of the word "evil" is its strong negative connotation. In common usage, "evil" connotes an attitude of strong opposition on the part of the speaker towards that which is labeled as such.
edited 13th Sep '11 11:49:23 AM by Tongpu
Good point. Never thought of it like that.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.excuses aren't always a way to avoid being a Complete Monster in fiction, so why not Real Life? and I will give you the names of four Real Life Complete Monsters who did horrible things just For the Evulz. Charles Manson, Lenard Lake, Charles Ingg, Jack The Ripper(it does not matter who it really was). and Charles Manson's own words imply he wanted to murder the entire human race.
edited 13th Sep '11 12:49:11 PM by brony99
You act like Hitler didn't have motivations that he believed were right.
Charles Manson? Sure, he could qualify as a complete monster. But I'm pretty positive Hitler actually believed in many of his lunatic arguments.
"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.I was confusing you for a relativist, apparently. Interesting. Ah well, to each his own.
Indeed, there are a slight few in life that actually subscribe to a morality system that would make them wrong. Most simply do what most of society qualifies as "wrong" while believing it is "right," at least insofar as it concerns them.
I am now known as Flyboy.

You called the quoted person out for Appeal to Popularity. And yet that's the only thing that actually cements any moral position into reality in the first place. Personal morality is meaningless; it is only when a substantial majority agrees on something that it becomes "real."
I am now known as Flyboy.