Is "Evil" defined by action, intent, both or neither?

Adaptation to Forrest Gump:

"Evil is as Evil does"

It's all about what you do.

Evil is defined by intent.

If you take an absolutely moral person and convince that person that they absolutely must commit murder to save the innocent, they are likely to do so, compelled by the very morals that make murder abhorrent to them.

The deed is evil. The person is not evil.

By the same token, you can have a person who sadistically delights in serial killing, torture of the helpless, and griefing in PvP, and they may still be capable of donating to charity out of a sincere and selfless desire to help the homeless.

The deed is good. The person is not.

All people encounter situations every day that tempt them to perform evil acts, or to risk themselves to do good. Most people perform acts of both kinds, for various reasons.

But some people honestly try to help others and make a world a better place. Those are good people. Unfortunately, there were probably good people wearing the uniform of a Nazi or a Crusader; good people performing vile and reprehensible acts out of delusion or having been mislead.

There is also a difference between 'good' and 'heroically good'. A 'good' person avoids and tries to mitigate evil, but has their limits; they may perform an evil act to save their own lives or the lives of loved ones, for example. Only the truly heroically good would rather die than allow thier evil nemesis to fall to his doom in the volcano trap he laid for the hero.

Here's a little litmus test:

- Two people are locked in a room, probably by someone like the Jigsaw Killer. They are given a single dose of poison. If one of them does not consume the entire dose in a certain amount of time, one of them will be chosen at random.

Typically, an evil person will force or manipulate the other person into taking the poison.

A good person would take the poison themselves.

Most people would probably 'decide by not deciding' and force the killer to choose one of them to die.

A hero would find a way out of the cell.

A final thought:

- Every act that you perform should be performed with the intent of doing the most good. Simply, the more good you create into the world, the more good therefore IS in the world, which is good for you. Be responsible in your power. Evil can and will result from the most innocuous of acts; but evil arises from inaction as well. Do good, and let God or Oblivion (or the post-deathy fate of your choice) sort it out.

You cannot control whether or not you suffer. However, you can control whether or not you deserve to suffer.

Evil is defined by the viewer!

Doom/Batman in 2012

The Resistance has boobs too, and better hair!

Not sure, but I haven't seen any references to the ending of Watchmen yet.

SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT YET...

Ozymandias' plan wipes out millions of innocents (in the book, it's a psychic shockwave from a genetically created "alien race": in the movie, it's caused by Doc Manhattan's reactor which Ozy turns into a bomb).

However, the slap in the face draws the world back from the edge of nuclear meltdown, and unites the nations in hatred and fear of the "other" (whether the mysterious aliens or the Doc).

Question - do these twin evils, the killing of millions and the brainwashing and fear induced in billions more... are they justified by the results?

The term to use here is 'Anti-Hero' Shadow is a hero, but is capable of being evil (at least until the final ending of his own game, mabe sonic next gen). This is acually fully explored in his own game. Good, Evil, AND Netural.


I agree with what people said, Good, Neutral, and Evil are abstract concepts. In the end it can be easier for humans to be evil. Humans are naturally imperfect. That doesn't mean we aren't capabable of good, we just don't always "do a good job of being good."


One can define "Evil" easier that "Good" as well. Evil is like psyco, sociopath and rudness (and many [deadly] sins and negitive adjectives other than these) rolled all into one.


For example Rouge reperents lust and greed. Shadow has wrath and one other sin maybe... Omega is Wrath for sure. Even eggman isn't truly evil. It's the beings he unleashes (execpt chaos, he was a good guy also metal sonic is a bit too much like sonic).


In the comics, Scoruge (aka anti-sonic) is indeed pure evil, so much so that his supression squad (anti-freedom fighters) atually rebeled at one point)...

I will offer my humble politically incorrect opinion after having read many responses here.

I agree with the words of Philip Atkinson in defining good and evil and his opinions that there is no universal morality amongst world cultures.

"Good is what strengthens the community"

"Evil is what weakens the community"


This means there is an absolute , total idea of good and evil. If a man steals from or kills his neighbor out of envy this can only be seen as an act of evil by sane individuals because if everyone stole and killed for envy then ordered society could not function. To claim otherwise is to accept anarchy, disorder and demonstrates insanity for it is placing private feelings ahead of the needs of the community, the traits of an animal.

It is also important to understand that no act is good or evil in and of itself, it must be judged on the circumstances. Killing a man because you dislike his eye color is evil while killing for ones country or executing a murderer to uphold justice is not evil but an act of good. Forcing a woman to sex almost always is an act of evil but in a hypothetical situation where you are the last man on earth and she is the last woman on earth then it can be justified if she refuses to procreate.

There are different communities in the world so morality differs and what is good for one may not necessarily be good for the other which is why war exists. Rome propsered from expansion and from commiting acts of slaughter against thousands of barbarians. To the Romans, this act was good for it strengthened their community, to the barbarians it was an act of evil because it weakened their community. America expanded at the expense of the Native Americans which brought enormous territory and wealth to our nation so it can only be seen as an act of good to rational Americans while to the Natives it was evil. And it is proven in history that when a civilization abandons its military spirit and morality and stops being ruthless it eventually dissolves from being attacked by other cultures. Emperor Valens admitted Gothic horders into the Empire in the 4th centurty and they eventually defeated the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople and sacked Rome. In this case, this act of mercy by Emperor Valens was an act of evil as would be Americans granting amnesty to illegal invaders.

Intent also matters. As another poster said " It is what drives choices." Usually nothing good is born from selfish intent because it is placing a persons feelings ahead of others. And to claim that one sees no right and wrong , only consequences shows an inadequacy in character. Conscience should be the underlying reason people do not commit acts of evil , not fear of getting caught. Many times in my life I could have stolen without consequence but conscience prevented me from doing this.

A man either serves something greater than himself or he does not. If he does not then he is selfish and thus evil. Though I am devoid of religion , I see the Ten Commandments as logical moral guidelines for maintaining order in society. I was also raised to serve my country, aka community. So what strengthens the USA is defined as an act of good to me , even if it is waging war and mass slaughter.

Bottom line is, there has to be the concept of good and evil if there is to be order in society and those devoid of such concepts need to wise up.

Hmm, after giving it some thought i'd have to say they are evil.
Sure, in their respective setting they won't cause any real harm (after all even Dr. Robotnik doesn't kill), but in a more realistic one?
All three are basically willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want, the kind of selfishness that sets heroes and villains apart.

A couple of questions for those who have seen/read Watchmen...

1) If you beleive Ozymandias was a villain, do you beleive that he was evil? If you beleive he was evil, when did he cross the line?

Evil is in the eye of the VICTIM

(I have no idea what that means...sounds cool though) :P