Does "evil" recognize itself?

[Father Heathen]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

 

[ChristineM]

I've been seriously hurt 4 times in my life, each time by people who were unaware that what they were doing was immoral and really could not give a **** about the damage they caused.

 

[Heyo]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

 

[Erebus]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

One common trait among people I personally think fall into that category is that they rarely apologise for anything. Nothing is ever their fault and anybody they mistreat must have deserved it. If they do apologise, it's usually because their back is to the wall and they have no other way to save face.

That suggests to me that they generally think of themselves as being in the right. Either that or they genuinely just don't care about morality at all.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

Not very often.

There may be people out there with "darker" personalities though and that choose to embrace it (Left Hand Path, etc), but when a different style is a choice, usually you can't necessarily say they're "immoral" - such people often have both morals of some kind, and their own set of morals that may be different than others.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

One common trait among people I personally think fall into that category is that they rarely apologise for anything. Nothing is ever their fault and anybody they mistreat must have deserved it. If they do apologise, it's usually because their back is to the wall and they have no other way to save face.

That suggests to me that they generally think of themselves as being in the right. Either that or they genuinely just don't care about morality at all.

I think "evil" people just don't care about morality at all. If someone simply doesn't understand morality, they'd probably do the right thing if they knew it was right.

 

[Nakosis]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

I suspect a majority have a different set of morals. So they see themselves morally justified regardless of how immoral you might judge them. Still I believe a few relish the idea of being evil, at least a few more than those you see in Hollywood movies.

Still I always prefer the movies were the villain character felt themselves morally justified. Seems more realistic than the purely evil character.

 

[Ella S.]

I make a distinction between "evil" and "unethical."

To me, "evil" only applies to a very narrow range of human attitudes and behavior. Evil, for me, is the intentional infliction of severe unnecessary harm. Evil people are the callous sadists who torture others for fun. They are not common. Even among serial killers, it separates figures like Ed Gein and Jeffrey Dahmer who had more complex reasons for their atrocities from ones like Richard Ramirez and Dennis Rader who were simply predators through-and-through.

The reason that I make this distinction is because there are many people who want to look at crime exclusively as a product of the failing of socio-cultural structures. That kind of argument sort of works when you're looking at petty thieves, career criminals, and terrorists. It's harder to make, but plausible to argue, for murderers, including some serial killers.

When it comes to serial rapists and torturers, though, that explanation doesn't always work. Some torturers don't do it as a monstrous expression of their own underlying suffering. Some torturers do it simply for the sake of it, because they enjoy it.

It also creates an important distinction between genuine evil and sociopaths. By "sociopath" here, I'm using it very generally to refer to people who score high in non-pathological Machiavellian traits, meet the PCL-R criteria for at least sub-clinical psychopathy, or have been diagnosed with Dissocial/Antisocial Personality Disorder. This makes it a catch-all for a variety of distinct constructs that often get lumped together under this term in pop culture.

Most sociopaths are abusive and manipulative, but that's more often due to a desire for selfish benefit. Contrary to popular belief, sociopaths can be reformed and live fairly normal, productive lives. Early intervention with kids who display sociopathic tendencies can be effective in reducing their antisocial behavior in adulthood.

High-functioning sociopaths tend to be less abusive because they recognize the higher value of healthier relationships. Sociopaths are common in sales, marketing, business finance, management, and even as doctors and lawyers. There's a good chance you've had positive interactions with a high-functioning sociopath and just didn't know it, because they make up over 4% of the population.

"Evil" is something else. I think truly evil people are aware of what they're doing and either don't care or take pride in it, in contrast to the typical sociopath who might not even fully understand morality. I think you could probably call evil people sociopaths, but I don't think all sociopaths are evil people.

Outside of that, in a more broad sense when "evil" just means "unethical," I think there is no consensus ethical framework. Which means that, if we're being honest and we really think about it for a moment, everyone is unethical according to the majority of other people. Consequentialists regard deontologists as unethical, deontologists regard consequentialists as unethical, anarchists regard fascists as unethical, conservatives regard social democrats as unethical, etc.

I think most people want to believe they're moral. I also think that most people create idiosyncratic moral ideologies in order to rationalize their behavior. I think the truly "evil" people are the ones who have given up on trying to rationalize their actions, even to themselves. But I think the vast majority of people are unethical, because they don't follow the same ethical system as me, and I think that's more or less unavoidable no matter what ethical system I ascribed to.

 

[Quagmire]

I think the simplest answer to that question is that a lot of the time evil goes out of its way not to recognize itself.

The human mind can rationalize just about anything, especially so for one that isn't particularly concerned with the legitimacy of the excuses it gives itself.

 

[Brickjectivity]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

I don't know how familiar you are with the DSM manuals, however humanity is a system. Humanity is in a sense an organism and not merely a species. Evolution changes our genes; but it also entangles us with a way of surviving. As our species complexity increases, our survival also hardens our species, making us less changeable. We become brittle. When an individual differs from the population they risk death. This is a result of entanglement, and entanglement is the overwhelming force prevailing over all that exists in time. Any change in humanity is slowing down and evolving less over time, and this makes us an organism more than a species -- less able to change. Rather than some dynamic thing we become likely to stay the same for a very long age. Like sponges stayed the same for a billion years, we are likely to stay what we are now. Variation increasingly will be considered evil.

Therefore it is those who do not fit in that are likely to think of self as evil.

 

[Shaul]

To the extent that they become self-aware and repent of their evil then they know they are evil. Until that point they are most often in denial. Some few extremely evil people know they are and choose to remain so.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree with @Nakosis.
People we see as 'evil' are often operating from a different set of moral standards. ISIL (at least in some cases) was an example of this.
I'm not forgiving their actions, but merely pointing out that when it comes to self-awareness, it does depend on definition.

An alternative example, do all the homosexuals posting here see themselves as evil, or degenerate?
I don't. I hope they don't. But there are people that do.
Same example, but directed towards the atheists.
And don't even let me get started on gay atheists...

 

[RestlessSoul]

Isn't this a question we should all be asking of ourselves?

 

[Patrick66]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

How is evil defined? I define evil as anything that goes against God.

I think most people know the difference between good and evil and that's why they do their evil in the dark. In the end, EVERYTHING will be revealed and the wicked will pay a great price.

Luke 8:17 ESV​

For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

That is a very difficult question. Those like Hitler, never and they tend to think they are on the side of good. Some serial killers have acknoweldged they have a problem. But that is going with the word evil in the title.
But immoral, unethical, dishonorable, those words are anything but objectively applied. Some would say that all applies to LGBT, and I've not met many who embrace that as an affront to those who sling it. I consider certain Christian denominations to be those things, but many disagree. Where I worked in mental health, I rarely showed up to the office and kept quiet when I was there because there was much about me my coworkers would find unethical, immoral and wrong because I don't fit their mold of rigid conservative morality and worldviews. But in turn I view them as some of the ****tiest, worst people I have ever known (I've known many criminals who are better people) for making fun of clients and their symptoms. Will either of us acknowledge the complaints of the other as valid? Not a chance.

 

[syo]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

Ask modern abrahamics. All of them.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

One common trait among people I personally think fall into that category is that they rarely apologise for anything. Nothing is ever their fault and anybody they mistreat must have deserved it. If they do apologise, it's usually because their back is to the wall and they have no other way to save face.

That suggests to me that they generally think of themselves as being in the right. Either that or they genuinely just don't care about morality at all.

In my experience, those are often the same people who, when hurt by others, never see their own part in such interactions either.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[SalixIncendium]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

I've thought about this on occasion and concluded that there are basically three camps here. Those that are think what they're doing is acceptable because that's what their experience as taught them, those who know what they're doing isn't acceptable and are hoping no one notices, and sociopaths. I think those in denial are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Ask modern abrahamics. All of them.

Did I miss something in the OP that somehow excluded them from the answering the question and participating?

Or are you just singling them out because you don't like them and felt this would be an appropriate occasion to fire a shot?

 

[PureX]

How often do you think that those who many might consider to be immoral, unethical, dishonorable etc. are aware of and acknowledge that about themselves vs. think themselves otherwise or be in denial about it?

I would guess that most of the time we are in denial of the evil we do. However, when made aware, we then may well choose to revel in it rather than to recognize it for what it is, and feel remorse.

The thing I have learned over the years about this subject is to keep in mind that it's cumulative. The first time we blatantly and deliberately lie to someone for our own advantage, we will be keenly aware of it, and feel very uneasy about it. But when it "works" for us, we'll let that trepidation pass. And the next time we do it, it becomes just a little bit easier. And the next and the next, ... until it becomes second nature to lie for our own advantage. Automatic, and unnoticed. While we tell ourselves that everyone does it. Or everyone that's smart does it. Because that's just how life works. And so now we have justified doing it, as well. And will defend the behavior rather than question it if we are called out.

The point being that each time we choose to do something evil, we become a little bit more evil, ourselves. Until eventually we have become a truly evil person. One that not only does evil, but 'believes in' doing it. As if it were a virtue. And is even proud of it.