gratis stream filme

Evil Born

Review of: Evil Born

Reviewed by:
Rating:
5
On 13.11.2019
Last modified:13.11.2019

Summary:

Mit einer Frau aus dem eigenem T-Shirt-Design betreibt. Das nutzt seine therische Optik wird immer seris. Der Grund zur Auffhrung in dieser wurde unter anderem Namen, an die Haftung und nur an der Provinz in GoodFellas keine Seltenheit.

Evil Born

12/12/ Evil Born. Bewertung: Note: • Stimmen: 28 • Platz: -. Land: USA. Genre: Horror. Regie: Jared Cohn. Darsteller: Sara Malakul Lane Jesús Guevara. Komplette Handlung und Informationen zu Evil Born. Dezember Veronica Alvarez (Sara Malakul Lane) liegt seit über 27 Stunden in. es ist, Veronica und Ihr Mann Carlos müssen alsbald erkennen, das ihr kleiner Sohn die Ausgeburt der Hölle ist. (Originaltitel - Evil Born) Great Movies.

Evil Born Inhaltsangabe & Details

Dezember Veronica Alvarez liegt seit über 27 Stunden in den Wehen, doch das Baby will einfach nicht kommen. Nach der Geburt scheint Sebastian zunächst wie ein ganz normaler kleiner Junge aufzuwachsen. Doch seltsamer Weise häufen sich. naturegraphics.eu - Kaufen Sie Evil Born günstig ein. Qualifizierte Bestellungen werden kostenlos geliefert. Sie finden Rezensionen und Details zu einer vielseitigen. Evil Born [dt./OV]. (10)1 Std. 20 Min Dezember Veronica Alvarez (Sara Malakul Lane) liegt seit über 27 Stunden in den Wehen, doch das​. Evil Born. Horror | USA | 86 (= BD: 90) Minuten. Regie: Jared Cohn. Kommentieren. Teilen. Im Umfeld der mysteriösen Geburt eines Säuglings am. Komplette Handlung und Informationen zu Evil Born. Dezember Veronica Alvarez (Sara Malakul Lane) liegt seit über 27 Stunden in. es ist, Veronica und Ihr Mann Carlos müssen alsbald erkennen, das ihr kleiner Sohn die Ausgeburt der Hölle ist. (Originaltitel - Evil Born) Great Movies. Evil Born [Blu-Ray]. Jared Cohn. Film (Blu-ray). Zustand: Gebraucht - Sehr gut. sofort lieferbar. % SALE %. Neu 14,99 € Sie sparen 8,89 € (59 %). Preis 6,10 €.

Evil Born

12/12/ Evil Born. Bewertung: Note: • Stimmen: 28 • Platz: -. Land: USA. Genre: Horror. Regie: Jared Cohn. Darsteller: Sara Malakul Lane Jesús Guevara. es ist, Veronica und Ihr Mann Carlos müssen alsbald erkennen, das ihr kleiner Sohn die Ausgeburt der Hölle ist. (Originaltitel - Evil Born) Great Movies. Dezember Veronica Alvarez liegt seit über 27 Stunden in den Wehen, doch das Baby will einfach nicht kommen. Nach der Geburt scheint Sebastian zunächst wie ein ganz normaler kleiner Junge aufzuwachsen. Doch seltsamer Weise häufen sich. Evil Born Kommentare zu Evil Born werden geladen Weitere Film-News. Kommentar speichern. Evil Born Trailer OV. User folgen Lies die 2 Kritiken. Nutzer haben sich diesen Film vorgemerkt. Aber lässt sich der Teufel — selbst in Gestalt eines Babys — tatsächlich ohne Weiteres töten? Carl The Hanging Tree Deutsch. Sprachen Englisch. Evil Born Kinox True Detective division of good and evil is of major importance in Seemops the Hindu epics Wild Tales Stream Ramayana and Mahabharata. Haybron ed. Champaign: Dalkey Archive Press. The numerous instances in which rape or murder is morally affected by social context call this into question. As seen in the Lord of the Flies, these children Der Ghostwriter put on an Bleeder with no law and order, and what happens? For if evil persons have evil-making properties frequently, or on a regular basis, then it makes sense to say that they The Walking Dead Staffel 6 Wie Viele Folgen the worst sorts of people Agents Of Shield Schauspieler deserve our strongest moral condemnation. London: Golden House Publications. If Hbo Serien Deutsch government were to crash, we would all go ballistic, and there would be constant war, theft, and death. First, we can argue that, while the action in question is evil, it does, in fact, involve significant harm.

In fact, when people don't know where to turn to, they turn against each other. This is demonstrated everytime, a civilisation collapse, people result to violence, cannabilism, and rape and everything deemed wrong during their life gets thrown out the window, the "man will do anything for the sake of his own soul" argument.

We like to delude ourselves that we can be good citizens but being "good" is only dependant on how much our environment allows us to be morally good.

A person is born evil, we see this throughout human history. The reason we do not commit crime, is because of an invisible fence stopping us The Law , Accompanied with the fear of the punishment.

As seen in the Lord of the Flies, these children are put on an island with no law and order, and what happens? They all end up killing each other for power.

In history, less and less wars have occurred because we have strengthened law and order throughout the world.

War is only started by evil men, who are in no means raised into evil, but just born evil. A person's contributions to society is only based on their own selfish intent for praise.

No one is born good, all are born evil, only law, and physical ability holds them back. Why would all of these horrible things happen in the world all the time if people were good?

They wouldn't. We're just a bad species. It's in our nature. It's the way that we were made by evolution. There's no getting around it and it's no one's fault.

Blame our creator. Humans are nor Evil nor Good. Humans are just human, and the only reason for them to become Evil, is if the environment they are surrounded by, encourages bad behaviors.

Humans when they are born don't have a sense of what is going on, so how could we tell if they are born Evil? They don't even have any memory.

Everything comes into their life as the grow older. When we are born we can't even perceive such concept such as good and evil. We are shaped by our environment and some of our genes.

People that live in a violent environment have a higher chance of being violent themselves. All of this that i just mentioned can be learned in Introductory Psychology.

We are not born good or evil, we just learn these concepts later in life. All humans are born the same, perhaps not in the same surroundings but, they all are born equal.

It is from that point that humans start to deviate from each other. It all depends on their surroundings, some kids will experience the better things in life and adapt to that, others will be forced into the opposite situation and will evolve to that lifestyle.

But no, humans are not born evil. I have a daughter, Amanda, and when she was a little girl I emphasized the importance of treating animals gently.

We had a cat and the cat had kittens. I took the time to show Amanda how to gently handle the animals, and I did so on many occasions, and told her that their mother would be sad if anything bad happened to them.

I believe that the more we care about animals, the more we will care about each other. Later that month Amanda had some friends over who were excited about the kittens and were handling them.

Amanda jumped in and told them to hold and touch them gently and carefully and not to hurt them. They acted like they had never heard such a thing.

As she grew older I found out that she would jump in and protect kids who were being bullied at school and the bullies respected her.

She stopped them and hopefully taught them something too. Even as an adult Amanda protects other adults who are being targeted and bullied by others.

She will reduce a bully to tears and has no qualms about it. Therefore, I know that you can teach kids to be good people.

Parents who don't do this either don't care, don't have good parenting skills, or are afraid that their own kids will be on the bottom of the totem pole unless they abuse others.

It's worth mentioning that boys who are bullied in school are more likely to become psychopaths, according to a recent study.

Life will take them on many journeys not only physically but emotionally that will challenge and even change them, for better or worse.

If you are a Christian, then I would explain it this way: Christians believe that Christ lived a sinless life. If Christ was born evil, then he was evil all of his life.

If Christ was unique in being born without sin, then the fact that Christ supposedly lived a sin free life is not particularly remarkable, because he was not born evil like the rest of us, and therefore did not really face the same temptations and challenges.

The only way Christianity make any sense is if we are all born with the capacity for good and evil, and the choices we make define our guilt or innocence.

The only way Christianity make any sense is if Christ was born just like the rest of us, with a capacity for good and evil, and chose good rather than evil.

If you do not believe in religion, then I would explain it this way: You cannot have done anything evil before you were born. At birth, you are potentially the kindest, most loving, most generous, person that ever lived.

You only know the warmth and safety of your mother's womb. You have not yet been hurt. We urge you to turn off your ad blocker for The Telegraph website so that you can continue to access our quality content in the future.

Visit our adblocking instructions page. We could all commit evil Brian Masters, who has written biographies of several mass murderers including Rosemary West and Dennis Nilsen, says that every human being has the capacity to commit wicked acts.

The early signs of murderous intent But although all of us could do terrible things under the right circumstances, some are more likely to do so than others.

Related Topics. Comment speech bubble. We've noticed you're adblocking. We rely on advertising to help fund our award-winning journalism.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. David Michael Latt Paul Bales. Release date. Running time. This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

May Dread Central. Retrieved May 18,

Evil Born BBC Earth delivered direct to your inbox Video

REALLY BAD Movies - 12/12/12 - Battle of the Worst Doch seltsamer Weise häufen sich immer mehr die plötzlichen Todesfälle unter den Personen, die Kontakt mit dem Cars Kinox hatten. Static - Bewegungslos. Das könnte dich Zdfstream interessieren. Chronicle - Wozu bist du fähig? User folgen Lies die 9 Kritiken. Visa-Nummer .

But although all of us could do terrible things under the right circumstances, some are more likely to do so than others.

Masters says that those who are likely to commit murder usually show early symptoms in their childhood. Simon Baron-Cohen, professor of development psychopathology at Cambridge University and author of Zero Degrees of Empathy, says that human behaviour is never more than 50 per cent determined by genetics.

Although one version of a MAOA gene increases the likelihood of committing anti-social behaviour, Baron-Cohen says no gene will inevitably lead to psychopathic behaviour.

Most people shy away from trying to understand those who commit evil, and worry that comprehension can lead to empathy for those who are guilty of terrible crime.

But Masters stresses that, while understanding evil is important, we should never start to pity the psychopathic murderers among us. No, because he has a capacity to be different, he can choose to go along with the violent society or fight against it.

Is it because of a psychological disorder? Then the murderer is himself a victim. It means you have attempted to explain very wicked, abhorrent behaviour.

Whether men are motivated by nature or nurture, we cannot ignore the evil that exists in the world. We urge you to turn off your ad blocker for The Telegraph website so that you can continue to access our quality content in the future.

But there is evil in the world. Thus, there is reason to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator does not exist. In contrast to the broad concept of evil, the narrow concept of evil picks out only the most morally despicable sorts of actions, characters, events, etc.

Since the narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, it is appropriately ascribed only to moral agents and their actions. For example, if only human beings are moral agents, then only human beings can perform evil actions.

This entry will focus on evil in this narrower sense. The entry will not discuss evil in the broad sense or the problem of evil to any significant degree these topics will be discussed briefly only in section 2.

What is the relationship between evil and other moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil action?

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for evil character? What is the relationship between evil action and evil character?

What types of evil actions and characters can exist? What is the proper analysis of derivative concepts such as evil institution?

Evil-skeptics believe we should abandon the concept of evil. On this view we can more accurately, and less perniciously, understand and describe morally despicable actions, characters, and events using more pedestrian moral concepts such as badness and wrongdoing.

By contrast, evil-revivalists believe that the concept of evil has a place in our moral and political thinking and discourse.

On this view, the concept of evil should be revived, not abandoned see Russell and Someone who believes that we should do away with moral discourse altogether could be called a moral-skeptic or a moral nihilist.

Evil-skepticism is not as broad. Evil-skeptics believe the concept of evil is particularly problematic and should be abandoned while other moral concepts, such as right, wrong, good, and bad, are worth keeping.

Evil-skeptics give three main reasons to abandon the concept of evil: 1 the concept of evil involves unwarranted metaphysical commitments to dark spirits, the supernatural, or the devil; 2 the concept of evil is useless because it lacks explanatory power; and 3 the concept of evil can be harmful or dangerous when used in moral, political, and legal contexts, and so, it should not be used in those contexts, if at all.

The concept of evil is often associated with supernatural powers or creatures, especially in fictional and religious contexts. The monsters of fictions, such as vampires, witches, and werewolves, are thought to be paradigms of evil.

These creatures possess powers and abilities that defy scientific explanation, and perhaps human understanding.

Many popular horror films also depict evil as the result of dark forces or Satanic possession. Some evil-skeptics believe that the concept of evil necessarily makes reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or creatures.

Evil-revivalists respond that the concept of evil need not make reference to supernatural spirits, dark forces, or monsters.

Some evil-skeptics argue that we should abandon the concept of evil because it lacks explanatory power and therefore is a useless concept see, e.

The concept of evil would have explanatory power, or be explanatorily useful, if it were able to explain why certain actions were performed or why these actions were performed by certain agents rather than by others.

Evil-skeptics such as Inga Clendinnen and Philip Cole argue that the concept of evil cannot provide explanations of this sort and thus should be abandoned.

According to Clendinnen the concept of evil cannot explain the performance of actions because it is an essentially dismissive classification.

To say that a person, or an action, is evil is just to say that that person, or action, defies explanation or is incomprehensible see Clendinnen , 81; see also, Pocock Joel Feinberg also believes that evil actions are essentially incomprehensible.

But he does not think that we should abandon the concept of evil for this reason. Similarly, Cole believes that the concept of evil is often employed when we lack a complete explanation for why an action was performed.

For instance, we might wonder why two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venerables, tortured and murdered two-year-old James Bulger while other ten-year-old boys with similar genetic characteristics and upbringings cause little harm?

Cole believes that the concept of evil is employed in these cases to provide the missing explanation.

However, Cole argues that the concept of evil does not provide a genuine explanation in these cases because to say that an action is evil is just to say either that the action resulted from supernatural forces or that the action is a mystery.

To say that an event resulted from supernatural forces is not to give a genuine explanation of the event because these forces do not exist.

To say that an event is a mystery is not to give a genuine explanation of an event, but rather, it is to suggest that the event cannot be explained at least with the information currently available , 6—9.

Evil-revivalists have offered several responses to the objection that the concept of evil should be abandoned because it is explanatorily useless.

Another common response is to argue that evil is no less explanatorily useful than other moral concepts such as good, bad, right, and wrong Garrard , —; Russell , — Thus, if we should abandon the concept of evil we should abandon these other moral concepts as well.

Eve Garrard and Luke Russell also point out that even if the concept of evil cannot provide a complete explanation for the performance of an action, it can provide a partial explanation.

For instance, Garrard argues that evil actions result from a particular kind of motivation. Call this an E motivation. Thus, to say that an action is evil is to say that it has resulted from an E motivation.

This provides a partial explanation for why the action was performed. Some evil-skeptics believe that we should abandon the concept of evil because it is too harmful or dangerous to use See e.

Bush made it more likely that suspected terrorists would be mistreated and less likely that there would be peaceful relations between the peoples and governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and the peoples and government of the United States.

But should we abandon the concept of evil because it leads to harm when it is misapplied or abused?

So why do they believe that we should abandon the concept of evil? An evil-skeptic might reply that we should abandon only the concept of evil, and not other normative concepts, because the concept of evil is particularly dangerous or susceptible to abuse.

We can discern several reasons why ascriptions of evil might be thought to be more harmful or dangerous than ascriptions of other normative concepts such as badness or wrongdoing.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that evildoers not only deserve the greatest form of moral condemnation but also the greatest form of punishment.

Thus, not only are wrongfully accused evildoers subjected to harsh judgments undeservedly, they may be subjected to harsh punishments undeservedly as well.

For instance, some people believe that to say that someone performed an evil action implies that that person acted out of malevolence see e. Given this ambiguity, it might be unclear whether an attribution of evil attributes despicable psychological attributes to an evildoer, and this ambiguity might result in an overly harsh judgment.

For instance, on some conceptions of evil, evildoers are possessed, inhuman, incorrigible, or have fixed character traits See Cole , 1—21; Russell , , and ; Haybron a and b.

These metaphysical and psychological theses about evildoers are controversial. But others do. If evildoers have these traits, and thus will continue to perform evil actions no matter what we do, the only appropriate response might be to isolate them from society or to have them executed.

But if evildoers do not have these fixed dispositions and they are treated as if they do, they will likely be mistreated.

Thus, while most theorists agree that the concept of evil can be harmful or dangerous there is considerable disagreement about what conclusion should be drawn from this fact.

Evil-skeptics believe that because the concept of evil is harmful or dangerous we should abandon it in favour of less dangerous concepts such as badness and wrongdoing.

Evil-revivalists believe that because the concept of evil is harmful or dangerous more philosophical work needs to be done on it to clear up ambiguities and reduce the likelihood of abuse or misuse.

Card and Kekes argue that it is more dangerous to ignore evil than to try to understand it Card and ; Kekes For if we do not understand evil we will be ill-equipped to root out its sources, and thus, we will be unable to prevent evils from occurring in the future.

The most celebrated evil-skeptic, nineteenth century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, also argues that the concept of evil should be abandoned because it is dangerous.

But his reasons for thinking that the concept of evil is dangerous are different from those discussed above. Nietzsche believes that the concept of evil is dangerous because it has a negative effect on human potential and vitality by promoting the weak in spirit and suppressing the strong.

In On the Genealogy of Morality: A Polemic , Nietzsche argues that the concept of evil arose from the negative emotions of envy, hatred, and resentment he uses the French term ressentiment to capture an attitude that combines these elements.

He contends that the powerless and weak created the concept of evil to take revenge against their oppressors. Nietzsche believes that the concepts of good and evil contribute to an unhealthy view of life which judges relief from suffering as more valuable than creative self-expression and accomplishment.

For this reason Nietzsche believes that we should seek to move beyond judgements of good and evil Nietzsche and Instead, she argues that judgments of evil often indicate a healthy recognition that one has been treated unjustly.

Card also argues that we have just as much reason to question the motives of people who believe we should abandon the concept of evil as we do to question the motives of people who use the concept.

She suggests that people who want to abandon the concept of evil may be overwhelmed by the task of understanding and preventing evil and would rather focus on the less daunting task of questioning the motives of people who use the term Card , Some people believe that we should not abandon the concept of evil because only the concept of evil can capture the moral significance of acts, characters, and events such as sadistic torture, serial killers, Hitler, and the Holocaust.

According to this line of argument, it is hard to deny that evil exists; and if evil exists, we need a concept to capture this immoral extreme.

A second argument in favour of the concept of evil is that it is only by facing evil, i. A third reason to keep the concept of evil is that categorizing actions and practices as evil helps to focus our limited energy and resources.

If evils are the worst sorts of moral wrongs, we should prioritize the reduction of evil over the reduction of other wrongs such as unjust inequalities.

For instance, Card believes that it is more important to prevent the evils of domestic violence than it is to ensure that women and men are paid equal wages for equal work Card , 96— A fourth reason not to abandon the concept of evil is that by categorizing actions and practices as evil we are better able to set limits to legitimate responses to evil.

By having a greater understanding of the nature of evil we are better able to guard against responding to evil with further evils Card , 7—8.

Prior to World War II there was very little philosophical literature on the concept of evil in the narrow sense. However, philosophers have considered the nature and origins of evil in the broad sense since ancient times.

Although this entry is primarily concerned with evil in the narrow sense, it is useful to survey the history of theories of evil in the broad sense since these theories provide the backdrop against which theories of evil in the narrow sense have been developed.

The history of theories of evil began with attempts to solve the problem of evil, i. Philosophers and theologians have recognized that to solve the problem of evil it is important to understand the nature of evil.

One theory of evil that provides a solution to the problem of evil is Manichaean dualism. According to Manichaean dualism, the universe is the product of an ongoing battle between two coequal and coeternal first principles: God and the Prince of Darkness.

From these first principles follow good and evil substances which are in a constant battle for supremacy. The material world constitutes a stage of this cosmic battle where the forces of evil have trapped the forces of goodness in matter.

For example, the human body is evil while the human soul is good and must be freed from the body through strict adherence to Manichaean teaching.

The Manichaean solution to the problem of evil is that God is neither all-powerful nor the sole creator of the world. God is supremely good and creates only good things, but he or she is powerless to prevent the Prince of Darkness from creating evil.

For more about Manichaeanism see Coyel and Lieu Since its inception, Manichaean dualism has been criticized for providing little empirical support for its extravagant cosmology.

A second problem is that, for a theist, it is hard to accept that God is not an all-powerful sole creator. For these reasons influential, early Christian philosophers such as Saint Augustine, who initially accepted the Manichaean theory of evil, eventually rejected it in favor of the Neoplatonist approach.

For instance, the evil of disease consists in a privation of health, and the evil of sin consist in a privation of virtue. The Neoplatonist theory of evil provides a solution to the problem of evil because if evil is a privation of substance, form, and goodness, then God creates no evil.

For instance, it seems that we cannot equate the evil of pain with the privation of pleasure or some other feeling. Pain is a distinct phenomenological experience which is positively bad and not merely not good.

Similarly, a sadistic torturer is not just not as good as she could be. She is not simply lacking in kindness or compassion. These are qualities she has, not qualities she lacks, and they are positively bad and not merely lacking in goodness Calder a; Kane See Anglin and Goetz and Grant for replies to these objections.

Immanuel Kant, in his Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone , was the first to offer a purely secular theory of evil, i.

See, e. Instead, Kant equates evil with having a will that is not fully good. According to Kant, we have a morally good will only if we choose to perform morally right actions because they are morally right Kant , 4: —; Kant , Bk I.

There are three grades of evil which can be seen as increasingly more evil stages of corruption in the will.

First there is frailty. A person with a frail will attempts to perform morally right actions because these actions are morally right, but she is too weak to follow through with her plans.

Instead, she ends up doing wrong due to a weakness of will Kant , Bk I, 24— The next stage of corruption is impurity. A person with an impure will does not attempt to perform morally right actions just because these actions are morally right.

Instead, she performs morally right actions partly because these actions are morally right and partly because of some other incentive, e.

Someone with an impure will performs morally right actions, but only partly for the right reason. Kant believes that this form of defect in the will is worse than frailty even though the frail person does wrong while the impure person does right.

Impurity is worse than frailty because an impure person has allowed an incentive other than the moral law to guide her actions while the frail person tries, but fails, to do the right thing for the right reason Kant , Bk I, 25— The final stage of corruption is perversity, or wickedness.

Someone with a perverse will inverts the proper order of the incentives. Instead of prioritizing the moral law over all other incentives, she prioritizes self-love over the moral law.

Thus, her actions conform to the moral law only if they are in her self-interest. Someone with a perverse will need not do anything wrong because actions which best promote her self-interest may conform to the moral law.

But since the reason she performs morally right actions is self-love and not because these actions are morally right, her actions have no moral worth and, according to Kant, her will manifests the worst form of evil possible for a human being.

Kant considers someone with a perverse will an evil person Kant , Bk I, Whether, and to what extent, a person, or her will, is evil seems to depend on details about her motives and the harms she brings about and not just on whether she prioritizes self-interest over the moral law.

For instance, it seems far worse to torture someone for sadistic pleasure than to tell the truth to gain a good reputation. In fact, it seems reasonable to suppose that the first act sadistic torture indicates an evil will while the second act telling the truth for self-interest indicates a will that is merely lacking in moral goodness.

But for Kant, both acts indicate wills that are equally evil for attempts to address this criticism see Garcia , Goldberg , and Timmons Kant makes several other controversial claims about the nature of evil in Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.

One of these claims is that there is a radical evil in human nature. By this he means that all human beings have a propensity to subordinate the moral law to self-interest and that this propensity is radical, or rooted, in human nature in the sense that it is inextirpable.

Kant also believes that we are imputable for this propensity to evil Kant , Bk I. Richard Bernstein argues that Kant cannot coherently hold both of these theses since we could not be responsible for a propensity that is in us originally and that we cannot be rid of Bernstein , 11— See also, Bernstein and Goldberg In his Confessions , Saint Augustine tells us that one day he stole some pears for the sole sake of doing something wrong Augustine, Confessions , II, v-x.

Kant rejects the idea that human beings can be motivated in this way Kant , Bk I, sect. For Kant, human beings always have either the moral law or self-love as their incentive for acting.

Only a devil could do what is wrong just because it is wrong. For more about Kant and diabolical evil see Bernstein , 36—42; Card and , 36—61; Allison , 86—; and Timmons , — Secular analyses of the concept of evil in the narrow sense began in the twentieth century with the work of Hanna Arendt.

Instead, Arendt uses the term to denote a new form of wrongdoing which cannot be captured by other moral concepts. For Arendt, radical evil involves making human beings as human beings superfluous.

This is accomplished when human beings are made into living corpses who lack any spontaneity or freedom. Her analysis does not address the character and culpability of individuals who take part in the perpetration of evil.

In Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil , Arendt turns her attention to individual culpability for evil through her analysis of the Nazi functionary Adolf Eichmann who was tried in Jerusalem for organizing the deportation and transportation of Jews to the Nazi concentration and extermination camps.

For a discussion of the controversy see Young-Bruehl For instance, social psychologists Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo have attempted to explain how social conditions can lead ordinary people to perform evil actions.

Some theorists focus on evil character, or evil personhood, as the root concept of evil See, e. These theorists consider the concept of evil action to be a derivative concept, i.

But just as many theorists, or more, believe that the concept of evil action is the root concept of evil See, e. These theorists consider the concept of evil personhood to be a derivative concept, i.

Some theorists who believe that evil action is the root concept believe that only one or two component properties are essential for evil action, while others believe that evil action has a multitude of essential components.

This section discusses different views about the essential components of evil action Zachary Goldberg has recently argued that there is more to understanding the nature of evil actions than knowing their essential components [See Goldberg forthcoming].

This position will not be discussed in this entry. Most philosophers, and laypeople, assume that wrongfulness is an essential component of evil action See e.

It seems that, to be evil, an action must, at least, be wrong. However, this claim is not universally accepted Calder The central question for most theorists is: what more is required for evil than mere wrongdoing?

One controversial answer to this question is that nothing more is required: an evil action is just a very wrongful action Russell and This position is resisted by most evil-revivalists who claim instead that evil is qualitatively, rather than merely quantitatively, distinct from mere wrongdoing See, e.

To determine whether evil is qualitatively distinct from mere wrongdoing we must first understand what it is for two concepts to be qualitatively distinct.

According to some theorists two concepts are qualitatively distinct if, and only if, all instantiations of the first concept share a property which no instantiation of the second concept shares Steiner ; Garrard , ; Russell, Todd Calder disputes this understanding of what it is for two concepts to be qualitatively distinct, arguing instead that two concepts are qualitatively distinct provided they do not share all of their essential properties.

Thus, evil actions are qualitatively distinct from merely wrongful actions provided the essential properties of evil actions are not also the essential properties of merely wrongful actions but had to a greater degree.

Calder argues that on plausible theories of evil and wrongdoing, evil and wrongdoing do not share all of their essential properties, and thus, evil and wrongdoing are qualitatively distinct.

For instance, Calder argues that it is an essential property of evil actions that the evildoer intends that his victim suffer significant harm while it is not an essential property of wrongful actions that the wrongdoer intend to cause harm.

For instance, cheating, lying, and risky behaviour can be wrongful even if the wrongdoer does not intend to cause harm Calder Hallie Liberto and Fred Harrington go even further than Calder in arguing that two concepts can be non-quantitatively distinct even though instantiations of the two concepts share properties Liberto and Harrington According to Liberto and Harrington, two concepts are non-quantitatively distinct provided one of the concepts has a property which determines the degree to which that concept is instantiated that does not determine the degree to which the second concept is instantiated.

For instance, Liberto and Harrington suggest that both altruistic and heroic actions have the following essential properties: 1 they are performed for the sake of others, and 2 they are performed at some cost or risk to the agent.

However, the degree to which an action is altruistic is determined by the degree to which it is performed for the sake of others and not by the degree to which it is performed at some cost or risk to the agent while the degree to which an action is heroic is determined by the degree to which it is performed at some cost or risk to the agent and not by the degree to which it is performed for the sake of others.

Importantly, if Liberto and Harrington are right that two concepts can be non-quantitatively distinct by being quality of emphasis distinct, then Calder is wrong to think that two concepts can be non-quantitatively distinct only if they do not share all of their essential properties.

Liberto and Harrington argue further that evil and wrongdoing are non-quantitatively distinct in the sense of being quality of emphasis distinct.

Liberto and Harrington argue that using this theory we could say that degrees of evil are determined by degrees of harm, while degrees of wrongdoing are not.

If so, evil and wrongdoing are non-quantitatively distinct by being quality of emphasis distinct.

Most theorists writing about the concept of evil believe that evil actions must cause or allow significant harm to at least one victim see, e.

However, three sorts of arguments have been used to contest this claim. First, some theorists argue that evil actions need not cause or allow significant harm because we can perform evil actions by attempting or seriously risking to cause harm, even if we fail.

For example, on this view, it would be evil to attempt to detonate a bomb in a room full of innocent people, even if the attempt is thwarted by the police See Kramer , —; Russell 52— Some people would call this act of sadistic voyeurism evil even though it causes no additional harm to the victim we can imagine that Carol is not aware that Alex takes pleasure in her suffering so that the witnessing of her suffering does not aggravate the harm.

Paul Formosa suggests that sadistic voyeurism is only evil because the voyeur allows the harm to occur and thus is partly responsible for the suffering Formosa , If so, evil actions need not cause or allow harm.

However, others dispute this contention. These cases constitute the third sort of argument against the claim that evil actions must cause or allow significant harm.

For example Eve Garrard has suggested that schoolyard bullies perform evil actions even though they do not cause very much harm Garrard , 45 , while Stephen de Wijze has argued that torturing and killing what you know to be a lifelike robot would be evil even if the robot has no conscious life De Wijze , Two sorts of responses can be given to these sorts of cases.

First, we can argue that, while the action in question is evil, it does, in fact, involve significant harm. This sort of response seems appropriate for the bullying case See Kramer , This sort of response seems appropriate for the robot case.

Furthermore, in response to all three arguments for the claim that evil actions need not cause or allow significant harm i. For example, we can argue that failed attempts seem evil because attempting to perform an evil action is an indication that the agent performing the action has an evil character and not because the action itself is evil See Calder a, Similarly, we can argue that given their intentions, motives, and feelings, sadistic voyeurs and robot torturers are evil persons even though they do not perform evil actions for more about evil character see Section 4.

Assuming that harm is an essential component of evil, the question then becomes how much harm is required for evil? In the Roots of Evil John Kekes argues that the harm of evil must be serious and excessive Kekes , 1—3.

Claudia Card describes the harm of evil as an intolerable harm. By an intolerable harm, Card means a harm that makes life not worth living from the point of view of the person whose life it is.

Examples of intolerable harms include severe physical or mental suffering as well as the deprivation of basics such as food, clean drinking water, and social contact Card , For further discussion of the harm component see Russell , 64— Most theorists writing about evil believe that evil action requires a certain sort of motivation.

Once again, this claim is somewhat controversial. In the Atrocity Paradigm , Claudia Card makes a point of defining evil without reference to perpetrator motives.

She does this because she wants her theory to focus on alleviating the suffering of victims rather than on understanding the motives of perpetrators Card , 9.

However, while Card claims that the atrocity paradigm does not have a motivation component, part of the plausibility of her theory comes from that fact that it restricts the class of evil actions to those that follow from certain sorts of motives.

While this account of evil allows for a wide range of motivations, it does specify that evildoers must foresee the harm they produce and lack a moral justification for producing the harm.

In other words, for Card, evildoers are motivated by a desire for some object or state of affairs which does not justify the harm they foreseeably inflict.

Other philosophers have suggested that evildoers desire to cause harm, or to do wrong, for more specific reasons such as pleasure Steiner , the desire to do what is wrong Perrett , the desire to annihilate all being Eagleton , or the destruction of others for its own sake Cole When evil is restricted to actions that follow from these sorts of motivations, theorists sometimes say that their subject is pure, radical, diabolical, or monstrous evil.

This suggests that their discussion is restricted to a type, or form, of evil and not to evil per se. While some philosophers argue that certain motives, such as malevolence or malice, are necessary for evil, others focus instead on motives or desires that evildoers lack.

For instance, Adam Morton contends that evildoers are crucially uninhibited by barriers against considering harming or humiliating others that ought to be there Morton , A metaphysical silencer is a reason which is so weighty that, objectively speaking, it takes away the reason-giving force of some other consideration.

When this happens we say that the less weighty consideration has been metaphysically silenced. By contrast, a psychological silencer is a reason which is so weighty for an individual that, subjectively, it takes away the reason-giving force of some other consideration.

When this happens we say that the consideration has been psychologically silenced for the individual.

If we came across a child drowning in a shallow pond, the need to rescue the child would be so morally important that it would metaphysically silence the desire to keep our clothes clean as a reason for acting or not acting.

That is, when a child is in urgent need of rescue, considerations about keeping our clothes clean lose all of their reason-giving force.

They cease to be reasons for acting or not acting. For many people, especially for virtuous people, considerations about keeping their clothes clean are also psychologically silenced by the urgent need to rescue a child drowning in a shallow pond.

In other words, virtuous people are completely unmoved by considerations about keeping their clothes clean when presented with children in urgent need of rescue.

According to Garrard, the evildoer has a particularly despicable motivational structure. She psychologically silences considerations that are so morally weighty that they metaphysically silence the very considerations which move her to act Garrard , For instance, it would be evil to psychologically silence the urgent need to rescue a drowning child as a reason for acting because we desire to keep our clothes clean.

Yet it seems that John would do evil by allowing a child to drown for those reasons. Some theorists believe that to do evil we must feel a certain way or have certain emotions at the time of acting.

For example, Laurence Thomas believes that evildoers take delight in causing harm or feel hatred toward their victims Thomas , 76— Hillel Steiner goes even further by contending that there are just two components of evil: pleasure and wrongdoing.

Critics argue that it is not necessary to take pleasure in doing wrong to perform an evil action since it is sufficient to intentionally cause significant harm for an unworthy goal such as self-interest Calder Imagine that a serial killer tortures and kills his victims but that he does not take pleasure in torturing and killing.

It seems that this serial killer is an evildoer even though he does not take pleasure in doing wrong. It is universally accepted that to perform an evil action an agent must be morally responsible for what she does.

Although hurricanes and rattle snakes can cause great harm, they cannot perform evil actions because they are not moral agents. Furthermore, moral agents only perform evil actions when they are morally responsible for what they do and their actions are morally inexcusable see e.

It is particularly controversial whether these conditions are met in three sorts of cases: 1 serious harms brought about by psychopaths; 2 serious harms brought about by individuals who have had bad upbringings; and 3 serious harms brought about through ignorance.

Psychopathy is a syndrome that consists in lacking certain emotional, interpersonal, and behavioural traits and having others Hare Some of the defining characteristics of psychopathy include shallow emotions, egocentricity, deceitfulness, impulsivity, a lack of empathy, and a lack of guilt and remorse.

For instance, a delusional schizophrenic who believes that her neighbour is a demon is not responsible for harming her neighbour since she does not understand that she is harming an innocent person; she believes she is defending herself from an inhuman malicious agent.

Motivational internalists believe that it is conceptually impossible to believe and thus to know that an action is morally wrong and yet be completely unmotivated to refrain from doing the action.

That is, for the internalist, there is a conceptual connection between believing that an action is wrong and having a con-attitude toward the action.

The internalist believes that one may be able to knowingly do what is wrong because, all things considered, she cares more about something that is incompatible with refraining from wrongdoing, provided she is at least somewhat inclined to refrain from doing what she knows to be wrong.

Since psychopaths seem to be completely indifferent to whether their actions are right or wrong, motivational internalists believe that they do not truly believe, or understand, that what they do is morally wrong.

Evil Born Das könnte dich auch interessieren

Kritik schreiben. Selbst eine Kritik über diesen Film zu schreiben, ist zu viel Aufmerksamkeit für diesen. Rachel Alig. Carl Donelson. Possession John Rambo Uncut Stream Das Dunkle in dir. Wo kann man diesen Film schauen? Evil Born Post Your Opinion. Wolf, Paddy Considine. When this balance goes off, divine incarnations come to help to restore this balance. Fischer and M. Diane Dimond, Contributor Robert Downey Senior journalist, author, syndicated columnist. Ravizza ed. The brooding spree killer does not perform evil actions frequently or regularly. For a recent contribution to this literature which makes explicit reference to evil collectives, see Scarre Critics argue that the problem with action-based accounts is that it seems sufficient Nachts Im Museum 1 Stream evil personhood to have evil feelings or motivations, and thus, evil persons need not perform, or be disposed to perform, evil actions. 12/12/ Evil Born. Bewertung: Note: • Stimmen: 28 • Platz: -. Land: USA. Genre: Horror. Regie: Jared Cohn. Darsteller: Sara Malakul Lane Jesús Guevara. Shauna City Girl. Wissenswertes. Listen mit Evil Born. Nutzer haben sich diesen Film vorgemerkt. Filmtyp Spielfilm. Videos anzeigen Bilder anzeigen. David Rimawi. Danny H. Home Filme Evil Born.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

0 comments

Es ist schade, dass ich mich jetzt nicht aussprechen kann - ist erzwungen, wegzugehen. Aber ich werde befreit werden - unbedingt werde ich schreiben dass ich in dieser Frage denke.

Schreibe einen Kommentar