Ideology: The Cause of Evil?

The biggest trick the Devil ever played was making people believe he did not exist. I've been thinking about the entire concept of ideology, and what it exactly is. I think that the problem with ideology is that it is a set of beliefs that defines a group of people. The problem with this is that it automatically starts to restrict individuality and promotes conformity. Why is that bad? Because with conformity change is hard to do. Human beings are very independent beings, and if start to depend on others for our sake, that's when evil appears in all forms. This goes for all types of ideologies whether it be religious or political.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Afterall, Hitler thought his ideals were righteous as well. The mere illogicality that people expect each other to adapt to one another's ideals and morals are quite preposterous, as well as unfortunate since universal acceptance and tolerance is thus an inevitable impossibility. The most that I can hope for in human society is to acknowledge all schools of thoughts; not to accept, but to take note, for I can easily acknowledge a white supremicists' ideals while disagreeing with them.

Brilliant post.

If you have ever seen a four-year-old trying to lord it over a two-year-old, then you know what the basic problem of human nature is. "For your own good" has always been a persuasive argument that eventually makes a man agree to his own destruction.

Being tolerant does not mean that you share another one's belief. It means that you acknowledge another one's right to believe, and obey, his own conscience. We should practice tolerance because no man is great enough or wise enough for any of us to surrender our destiny to.

The only way in which anyone can lead us is to restore our belief in our own guidance.

Indeed Tolerance does play a huge role in Ideology, especially Religion.

Religious tolerance is probably one of the main causes for many of wars that has happened throughout history. The reason for this violence is because just because we can tolerate other religions doesn't mean that we accept them, and because of that violence ensues among the churches. The most recent being the mohammed cartoon, because of this riots exploded in the streets, etc.

The main problem I have with religion is that it's a belief structure instead of an idea structure *like politics*. Ideas can be easily changed and contested while beliefs *with that lil touch of God* is nearly impossible to change w/o massacre.

Also on a completely different note from religion I have come to conclude that until man has conquered man, we will not be able to conquer time and space.

Thoughts?

I think the real trouble comes when people start to say, "Well, my beliefs are right and yours are undoubtedly wrong." Who the hell are any of us to say what is right or wrong when it comes to matters of the spirit. Truth is, we don't know. None of us. Oh, we all have our ideas, but we really don't know.

There'll be "evil" until we're no longer squabling over resources.Evil is a concept we invented to describe our inability to accept nature.

Throw ten ants into an ant farm and they may get along.Add another twenty,then another thirty.

They'll form colonies and bust eachother up for the rights to the latest bird carcus.We think we're above them,lol.

We have higher reasoning power,yet we won't use it.We allow our resources(ie our labour)to be used by a bunch of dimwits to line their own pockets and lob high explosives at eachother(ie us)

meh whatever,bang the rocks together guys

Just want to point out that my last comment wasn't directed to anyone in this thread,just a Hitch-hikers quote I felt applied to the situation.

Do we know what we mean when we use the word 'evil'?

What I consider 'evil' and what you consider 'evil' might be two different things.

I consider those who murdered 3,000 people in cold blood on 9/11 to be evil. I won't go on to say who I believe to be responsible for that evil.

To me, an individual who becomes aroused at the thought of a little three year old running in the park and who then plans how he will kidnap that child in order to rape and murder it -- is evil.

On more prosaic note, the mother in law who deliberately destroys her son's trust in and love for his wife via a variety of means --- is evil.

Those who nailed Russian Christians to barn doors and forced them to witness the rape of their wives and daughters and the disembowelment of their unborn children --- were evil, in my opinion.

Others, however, may consider those who rob, defame, wage wars, embezzle, physically abuse, etc. to be evil. These are abhorrent crimes, to be sure. But primarily, they are crimes of greed, of abuse of power, of cruelty to vulnerable parties. They are 'human' crimes. They are a reflection of the pecking-order mentality which we inherited from our animal ancestors, as in (as Billy Connelly quips) ' Can I eat it? Can I fight it? Can I beat it? Can I f*ck it? '

So we have cruelty, greed, ego, power-madness etc. But are they 'evil' in the same way as the mind-set responsible for torturing a victim PRIOR to raping, murdering and dismembering that victim?

To me, 'evil' is off the scale, even compared with the horror humans have been inflicting on each other since before recorded history. 'Evil' is what makes experienced homicide detectives and coroners feel ill. 'Evil' is *SO* 'bad that it's beyond our comprehension. We are at a loss to understand or explain it. So we call it 'insanity'.

But those who perpetrate these truly 'evil' crimes are not so insane that they walk out in public with blood and other evidence on their person. No. They claim 'insanity' once they're standing before the jury, but PRIOR to that, PRIOR to being caught by the police, these criminals conceal their crimes. They conceal the evidence. They arrange an alibi. So they're both capable of committing unimaginable crimes and THEN they're also capable of concealing their guilt.

Where is the divide? How can someone pass for 'normal' and even 'respectable' --- yet at the same time commit monstrous crimes against another human being? Then they return to 'normal' and 'respectable' again.

This is something none of us understands. And our instincts tell us that psychiatrists are far from possessing the whole picture.

Many of the monsters described as 'evil' claim afterwards that 'voices' told them to commit the crime. These claims have become commonplace, based on the success of those who first made these claims. So commonplace that we tend to dismiss them as 'excuses' and 'lies'.

Undoubtedly some of those who claim to have been influenced by 'voices' ARE lying and making excuses. But there may be many who are telling the truth -- or at least part of the truth.

There's a line. We can't see it, but we recognise it. There are 'ordinary' abhorrent crimes against the person and there are crimes for which no adequate description exists.

When a crime moves beyond that invisible line, we sense that we are looking at 'evil'. 'Evil' is the x-factor. It exceeds 'ordinary' human vileness and takes us into unchartered territory.

We don't know if it comes from within us, as humans. Or if it is imposed upon us from elsewhere.

The war in Iraq could be described (and please understand that I loathe that war and in no way am I attempting to minimise it) as 'ordinary human vileness'. Because humans have always (as far as we know) waged cruel wars against each other.

But we leave 'ordinary human vileness' far behind when we look at the group of individuals who calmly sat together and planned the cold-blooded murder of 3,000 people on 9/11.

9/11 took more than ten minutes to organise. It took more than one meeting, one discussion. Think about that for a moment, because it's something that's usually overlooked. Individuals got together and planned how they would burn alive, blow up and end the lives of 3,000 people.

It's impossible to claim that the murderers had just cause to kill those 3,000 people. They couldn't have hated each and every one of those 3,000 to the extent they wished them dead.

No. Those 3,000 were just a 'side effect' of the murderers REAL agenda: just 'collateral damage'.

The murderes KNEW beforehand that each and every one of those 3,000 victims would die painfully and horribly and would be scared out of their wits before they died -- would cry about the effect their death would have upon their loved ones, would try to contact their loved ones, would call out to God to save them, would be crazy with disbelief that this could be happening to them, would desperately try to save themselves and others.

Yet the murderers stuck to their plans. They did not deviate. They felt NO compassion for their future victims.

The murderers may well have enjoyed drinks and food and jokes together as they planned to end the lives of their unknown victims. They would have phoned each other many times, to work out the final details. They would have been excited as the moment drew nearer. They didn't warn their victims, nor did they change their plans. And they killed those 3,000 people and undoubtedly they craned their necks for a better view of the carnage as it unfolded before a shocked world. That is evil. It is beyond comprehension that anyone could commit such a crime. It is BIGGER than the 'ordinary' evils we commit.

Where does such 'evil' come from? If we actually DO carry it within us, hidden deep, hiding from our self-analysis, concealed from even ourselves -- then we really do need exterminating.

Personally, I believe that the majority of us are incapable of true evil. I believe that in most of us, there's a safety-catch that prevents us from indulging in real evil. Most of us have a conscience, we're capable of compassion. Or at the very least, we're capable of remorse.

So what are we to conclude --- do genuinely 'evil' acts result from a 'fault' in some? Or does the over-the-line version of evil originate elsewhere?

I don't think anyone *really* knows.