Opinions on "Heroes"?

[Guynemer]

Intent must be involved.

Bauer and Bennett intend to do evil things (torture, kidnapping, brainwashing, what have you); and even though their ultimate goals are obviously good, that does not negate their actions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't consider either Bauer and Bennett to be 'evil', even though their means are, well, questionable. I consider the intent of the end goals to be key.

[-Jrabbit]

Many suicide bombers and white supremacists are fully convinced of the justice and ultimate good of their goals. The truly believe their intentions are pure and good.

Who gets to make the call on which are truly teh evil?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Many suicide bombers and white supremacists are fully convinced of the justice and ultimate good of their goals. The truly believe their intentions are pure and good.

Who gets to make the call on which are truly teh evil?

Society.

Or yourself .

[Jaguar]

I decided to give this show another chance, so I'm getting the episodes (I'll be a good boy and not discuss the means here). It's probably too ambitious to try to get all the way caught up by the next new episode on Monday, but I'll join y'all soon.

[padillah]

I agree that, on the surface, to label a person 'evil' is dificult. There are several questions that feel like they need to be answered: the intent of the person, the end goal of the person, inconsistencies in human nature, seperating 'word from deed'... all these things cry out to be answered.

But the truth is we all know evil when we see it. There is an innate ability to reconcile acts and intention into an overall outlook. There's more to this than "Sylar's evil and Mohinder is not". What about Matt? Is he evil for having stolen? Or any of the others? I listed them the other day.

Is D.G.B. evil for trying to kill Sylar? Or Mohinder evil for helping him (misguided as he is)?

It's not a black-and-white answer. 'Cause it's not a black-and-white question. I think it would be more cut-and-dried to say DGB is against evil. He's tried to deal with Sylar, even wanted to execute him (something at least two state governments still believe is a measured response ) but was overrulled by some unseen "boss".

This right here - the interplay between people and intentions. This is what I like most about "Heros". It's not just "root for the good guy. Don't worry it'll turn out." For example, even though they have not killed a main character I still feel that any of them could be in danger. I don't rest assured that Hiro or Matt or Claire will get out alive simply by virtue of them "being the good guy so they must win".

Thanks for tossing this back and forth with me, guys.

Tom P.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Society.

Or yourself .

I don't think "evil" is relative. "Bad" or "wrong" may be relative, but evil is a universal concept. Thus I maintain that the suicide bombers are bad or wrong (according to our perspective) but not evil.

Since evil is a universal concept I think that there would be less debate over the rightness or wrongness of their actions. If reasonable people can take two sides on the goodness or badness of Bush or Bin Laden, then I'd describe neither as evil. Not that it depends on the debate, or even reasonable people.

As Imran said, the intent of the end goals is key. I think one must do bad things for their own sake.

Even Hitler I wouldn't describe as evil. He didn't kill people for the delight of death and chaos and war, he did it to build a glorious German empire that would last a thousand years and create a golden age for his people, yadda yadda. His means were utterly despicable, without question, but I still wouldn't call him evil.

And before someone dismisses me, the European colonization of the Americas led to the deaths of millions of Native Americans, were they "evil" by a similar argument as the argument that Hitler was evil?

In both cases the primary actors were motivated by some good goal that they felt justified the horrible actions they took. So bad, horrible, disgusting, etc.... but not "evil".

[Nubclear]

Even Hitler I wouldn't describe as evil.

This is why teenagers should not be given the vote.

[padillah]

In support of OzzyKP (wow, who thought THAT would ever be typed? ) you have people like:
Erzebet Bathory
Robert Mawdsley aka Hannibal the Cannibal
Tommy Lynn Sells
... and maybe even
Jack the Ripper

Not to mention the littany of names I could list from the U.S.A. Names like:
David Berkowitz, Bianchi & Buono, Ted Bundy, Albert DeSalvo, Richard Ramirez...
and, of course, Jeffrey Dahmer.
(for those who need more)

These guys all had death as their final goal. Nothing more. They felt a need to kill people or a lack of circumstance or something special that placed the act of killing paramount in their sights.

Not to put words in his mouth but I believe this is the type of "evil" Ozzy is singling out. The want, the desire, the NEED to do something evil... and that's it. Just the need to do something evil.

Most of these people were not misunderstood. They did not have a secret agenda that was going to change the world. Most of them just had to kill.

Of course, now Ozzy is going to face the argument - Was Charles Manson "evil"? He put forth the belief that the acts he commited (and commisioned) were done to bring about Armogeddon so the earth could be cleansed.

Now, of course there are others, like John Allen Muhammed who sniped people just for target practice. But there will always be some that blur the line.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Tacc

Even Hitler I wouldn't describe as evil.

This is why teenagers should not be given the vote.

Then you are missing the distinction Ozzy is making between bad and evil.

He even makes sure to comment that the acts he commited were "utterly despicable". He is not condoning or misinterpretting Hitler in any way.

In fact, in my view, bad is worse than evil (given OzzyKP's deffinition). The "evil" he describes almost always can't be helpped. It's almost always the result of psychosis of some sort and the person and their personality are mostly secondary. I believe it was Jeffery Dahmer who actually was a nice enough guy that he talked his way out of a ticket... with a bag of body parts in the back seat.

I regard myself as a pretty nice guy but I have yet to be able to talk my way out of a ticket. But something in him made him kill for no reason what-so-ever.

Where-as people like Hitler and Pol Pot and Pinochet knew what they were doing. They were all lucid and understood enough to run when they were confronted with capture. They understood what they were doing and did it anyway. They went to great lengths to justify it. Yes, they were singularly horrific people - but they didn't "enjoy" killing. They didn't enjoy what they were doing or they would have done it hands-on like the others I've mentioned.

That Hitler hated Jewish people so much he wanted them eliminated from the face of the earth speaks volumes. That he understood it was bad and tried to do it anyway speaks more.

I may even suggest that Ozzy's deffinitions be reversed - The COMPULSION to kill or do evil is undeniable. It's the understanding that you are doing evil and undertaking it anyway that shows a true "evil" character.

Tom P.

[OzzyKP]

Thank you padillah. I was definitely thinking of folks like, Erzebet Bathory and other serial killers.

As for Manson, bringing about Armageddon and "cleansing" the earth aren't what jump in my mind as good goals, heh.

But yea, the examples you suggested are precisely what I was talking about on the relative vs. universal idea. You can go to anyone in the world, in any culture, and no matter their religion or politics they will no doubt recognize that Erzebet Bathory, Berkowitz and others were clearly in the wrong and evil.

Ask that same question about other tyrants and leaders in history and you'll find some apologists. You'll find some group naming them a glorious hero and defender of the people. Or a misunderstood leader. As with most things, history is written by the victor, so how much credit we give these people for their good motives depends on our bias.

Was the bombing of Dresden an act of evil, or a necessary act for a greater good? Reasonable people can disagree.

But there is no argument about Ted Bundy.

[Nubclear]

Ask that same question about other tyrants and leaders in history and you'll find some apologists.

You will find apologists for everyone.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Tacc

Ask that same question about other tyrants and leaders in history and you'll find some apologists.

You will find apologists for everyone.

Not true. You missed the last sentence.

No one is trying to defend people like Ted Bundy. Or Richard Ramirez. (well, in the legal sense yeah but not the moral sense we are undertaking here).

That is the litmus Ozzy is using to diferentiate between bad and evil: if a reasonable person could be made to understand (not sympathise, understand - they're different) the persons intentions then that person would be labeled "bad" as opposed to "evil" where no right-thinking individual could be expected to understand what the defendants motives were.

Oddly I believe this is very much inline with the M'Naghten Rules for legal insanity:
1) The accused must not know what they are doing is wrong.
... or ..
2) They must not be able to stop themselves (not know the nature and quality of the act).

You a lawyer Oz?

Tom P.

[Nubclear]

No one is trying to defend people like Ted Bundy. Or Richard Ramirez

You have an impressive insight into the minds of the world's 6.5+ billion people

I'm sure there are those out there who find no problem with the actions of such people. I'm sure there are a lot of people who do not value life or whatnot.

You've essentially defined "right thinking" in such a way that it will always support your conclusion: If someone were to defend an "evil" person like Ted Bundy, then they wouldn't be right thinking, and thus "evil" magically remains an absolute concept.

This is exceedingly silly.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by padillah
You a lawyer Oz?

Tom P.

I am not. I run a non-profit though so I have a bit of experience with the law. And I somewhat majored in law in college (in addition to politics, communications and economics).