If somebody commits evil, thinking it's good, is the person evil?

[AFerri48]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Hitler thought exterminating the jews was good. OP, would you say Hitler was a good person ? My answer to your question would be no, because such a person have would have committed evil regardless of their intention.

 

[Kanade]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

I’d say, answering the question in the title, that it depends on the circumstances. There’s a difference between a well meaning person doing an act that is morally uncertain and later turns out to be wrong, and somebody doing something (no matter their intention) that they should be able to see is manifestly wrong.

I guess the question you’re asking is, are good and evil judged on intention or result?

 

[Contarini]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

It would depend on how his conscience had come to be so badly formed.

If, for instance, he were insane, that would diminish his culpability or even eliminate it.

But also insofar as his conscience was malformed by things beyond his control, he would not be culpable for that.

It’s hard to imagine someone coming to such evil conclusions (leaving insanity out of it) without a considerable degree of culpability.

But it’s quite possible that Hitler was only partly responsible for the horrific evil he committed. That’s why it is not our business to judge people’s subjective culpability, but only the objective nature of their actions. That’s also why we can hope for the salvation even of Hitler, and why it’s quite possible that in God’s sight some perfectly respectable and apparently moral person is more guilty than Hitler.

Edwin

 

[John_Martin]

People always desire what they consider to be good, and attempt to accomplish it.
There is always some aspect, in their reasoning or appetite, that what they are doing is good, desirable.

However, people do not always know (or want to know) the simple or absolute goodness of an act, but maintain an ignorance to enable continuation in the act (this is a big theme of Romans 1).

Yes, the person is evil (defective in his goodness, which goodness includes knowing what is truly good rather than holding on to ignorance)

A “good person” will search to know what is virtuous, and will listen to counsel and recognize what is virtuous because he loves justice.
There were many voices in the world telling Hitler it was wrong to kill the Jews, but he refused counsel and did not seek it from the wise.

 

[STT]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

It is bad to do against what you believe.

 

[nodito]

In general, I don’t think of people as evil. We are all made in God’s image and likeness, and for as long as we are on this earth, we have the opportunity to respond to God’s call to holiness, to repent, to make ammend for our sin. Even a person who commits mortal sin isn’t really evil, per se, though he may have committed an evil action.

I think in the US many people encourage the women and girls they love to have abortions in a misguided attention to show love and mercy. I would not call these people evil, though they deliberately encourage an evil act and their encouragement is in fact evil.

 

[MaryT777]

It would depend on how his conscience had come to be so badly formed.

If, for instance, he were insane, that would diminish his culpability or even eliminate it.

But also insofar as his conscience was malformed by things beyond his control, he would not be culpable for that.

It’s hard to imagine someone coming to such evil conclusions (leaving insanity out of it) without a considerable degree of culpability.

But it’s quite possible that Hitler was only partly responsible for the horrific evil he committed. That’s why it is not our business to judge people’s subjective culpability, but only the objective nature of their actions.**** That’s also why we can hope for the salvation even of Hitler, and why it’s quite possible that in God’s sight some perfectly respectable and apparently moral person is more guilty than Hitler.

Well said, Edwin.

Edwin

 

[MaryT777]

It would depend on how his conscience had come to be so badly formed.

If, for instance, he were insane, that would diminish his culpability or even eliminate it.

But also insofar as his conscience was malformed by things beyond his control, he would not be culpable for that.

It’s hard to imagine someone coming to such evil conclusions (leaving insanity out of it) without a considerable degree of culpability.

But it’s quite possible that Hitler was only partly responsible for the horrific evil he committed. **That’s why it is not our business to judge people’s subjective culpability, but only the objective nature of their actions. **That’s also why we can hope for the salvation even of Hitler, and why it’s quite possible that in God’s sight some perfectly respectable and apparently moral person is more guilty than Hitler.

Edwin

Well said, Edwin. I especially like the wording I bolded.

 

[mVitus]

If the action isn’t contrary to Natural Law (thing like murder is bad) then Invincible Ignorance could come into play.

A better example would be a mother giving her child lead-laced water because she honestly thought it was healthy. There’s no natural knowledge that lead is bad for health so it’s quite conceivable for someone to not know that. With that scenario, we know it would be a bad action and it is, but the mother is Invincibly Ignorant about what they’re really doing so it wouldn’t weigh on them.

So overall, the answer to your question is both yes and no.

 

[ericc]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

He viewed Jews as scapegoats. Antisemitism was not new. He thought of them as an inferior race, to be eliminated. Killing of another based upon dislike is evil. Killing another based upon revenge or self preservation would have a better excuse. I do not know of any personal incidents to caused him to be so hostile to Jews. Perhaps someone knows more history may enlighten.

For the title sake, I can show the example of the dentist. He caused pain thinking it is good for the patient. The patient voluntarily seek treatment. If Hitler can be shown believing eliminating Jews for the good of the Jews and the action is sanctioned by the Jews, then perhaps that title heading may be apt.

Forcibly depriving anyone of their lives or liberty can never be good, unless it is for self preservation, or the good of the state where the individual has committed crimes against it i.e. non-innocent and for the public good.

I think the rule of do unto others as others would do unto you to be a good general guide.

 

[John_Martin]

It is bad to do against what you believe.

Children are routinely forced to do things against what they believe is good. And why? Because their parents know the true good, while the children have not yet looked to see what is true about their desires.

It is good to obtain good counsel about what is good, so the decision to act is based on truth.

Hitler’s deed was evil first because he refused to listen to truth, and then in act because innocent people were exterminated. And he allowed no one to be his “mother and father” with wisdom about what is good or not good.

“I want what I want, and I want it now.” And he used persuasion and violence to get his nation to go along with him, some willingly and others in fear.
He did not do this genocide in a moment of passion, but as a many year plan to effect what he wanted. There was plenty of time to hear all the voices saying what was wrong (and those voices were speaking from all over the world).

No, he was dedicated to not listening to sound wisdom.
By the way, there is a difference between “belief” and “desire”. And a difference between opining and believing. (opinion and belief).

 

[fhansen]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

We don’t really consider people to be evil or not; we consider their actions to be evil, their wills to be oriented towards evil. But in any case, yes, all evil is done in the name of good, in trying to obtain some perceived and desired good. From a broader perspective Augustine actually said that, “The only possible source of evil is good”, since everything in creation was created good to begin with.

In Catholic teaching three ingredients are necessary in order for a sin to be mortal:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

The more serious the sin, and the more knowledge we have of its sinfulness, and the more deliberately we commit it nonetheless, the more culpable we are.

Anyway, when a person commits murder in the pursuit of obtaining another person’s possessions, they are seeking to obtain some real good for themselves. But in so doing they commit a great evil, they’ve allowed their passion for one, lesser, good to override their will to refrain from committing great harm to their neighbor, a refraining which would’ve constituted the greater good in this situation…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

The question of clean conscience motivating evil actions is fairly simple to resolve.

Evil actions are never motivated by a clean conscience.

In the case of Hitler, who may have said he was following his conscience, it is obvious that Hitler was an inveterate liar, so completely dedicated to lies that he believed his own lies.

The inveterate liar is not a moral person, and he can never justifiably appeal to his clean conscience to justify evil deeds.

 

[fisherman_carl]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

The fact is that everyone who does evil does it because they think it is good for them. The person who views pornography thinks that it is good for him. Evil is really taking something that is good, like the human body, and twisting it to some disordered desire, to use it for selfish gain at another’s expense. Adam and Eve ate the fruit because they thought it was good for them. Hitler sought some twisted view of perfection that disincluded everyone who did not measure up because he thought it was good.

But, thinking something is good even though it is evil, does not make it any less evil. A person who chooses to do evil makes himself evil. Just as a person who chooses to do good is a righteous person. But, how do we know what is good and evil? What do we measure from to determine? We know from God who is perfect righteousness. Everyone who loves God and follows his will is becoming more and more like Him. And, everyone who rejects God is on the side of darkness and is blind to the truth. This is ultimately what divides good from evil and light from dark.

“The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” (John 1)

 

[Rhubarb]

Context and specifics of example are important for these sorts of questions.

For example, I think we all would (generally) agree that someone who ACTS evil but who INTENDS good isn’t doing good.

But is someone who ACTS good while INTENDING evil not doing evil?

I know that sounds kind of inside-out, but I think the former shows that intention isn’t all there is to whether something is good or evil. But the latter shows that intention makes all the difference. So the specifics help round out the example so we can judge.

 

[STT]

Children are routinely forced to do things against what they believe is good. And why? Because their parents know the true good, while the children have not yet looked to see what is true about their desires.

It is good to obtain good counsel about what is good, so the decision to act is based on truth.

Hitler’s deed was evil first because he refused to listen to truth, and then in act because innocent people were exterminated. And he allowed no one to be his “mother and father” with wisdom about what is good or not good.

“I want what I want, and I want it now.” And he used persuasion and violence to get his nation to go along with him, some willingly and others in fear.
He did not do this genocide in a moment of passion, but as a many year plan to effect what he wanted. There was plenty of time to hear all the voices saying what was wrong (and those voices were speaking from all over the world).

No, he was dedicated to not listening to sound wisdom.
By the way, there is a difference between “belief” and “desire”. And a difference between opining and believing. (opinion and belief).

We are not inside the heart and mind of people and we cannot properly judge so lets the judgement to God.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

For example, Hitler in his own twisted mind, may have thought he was doing Europe a service for killing Jews… so would this make him not evil?

Thought provoking questions.

These questions are always difficult to clearly answer because Catholics theology has very precise philosophic understandings of the concepts of “evil”, “human acts” and “bodily actions” and “personhood” that doesn’t easily fit our colloquial use of these words.

First up it may be useful to note your title - which asks interestingly asks “is the person evil” rather than “is it an evil act”. These are two different things.
Lets assume you really meant “is it an evil act”.

But what do we really mean by “an act”? Do we refer to the observed external behaviour…or when we talk of evil (or goodness) do we always involve personal intention and understanding as well?

Did Oedipus do evil?
Well, objectively speaking his exterior action was incest with his mother whether he realised it or not. The act destroyed his future regardless. It was certainly evil and disordered in a temporal, “physical” sense.

But did this behaviour go to his heart (ie his personal intention). No it did not, he did not know, he thought he was consummating a valid marriage. Re incest it wasn’t a “human act”. Fully “human acts” can only be done with full knowledge and consent. And personal “moral evil” can never be posited of activities that are not “human acts”.
The outward behaviour was still of course disordered and “grave matter” and evil in a “physical” sense.

So in moral theology we might say Oedipus engaged in objective mortal sin (ie grave matter, grave physical evil) but was not culpable due to ignorance. There will be serious evil temporal consequences, but not eternal ones.

So there can be no “moral evil” (or “moral good”) where consent or understanding is seriously impaired even in gravely disordered objective behaviours. They are not “human acts”.

This is the classic distinction between “human acts” (moral or immoral) and “the acts of a man” (objective behaviour, the “matter” of a human act).

Thats my applied understanding of Catholic Moral Theology 101 to your question anways.