Are you asking will we recognise behaviour traits without reference to the person's actions or behaviour?

Personally I don't subscribe to 'evil' as an actual category. For me it's a poetic term, a remnant of earlier models of reality. I have worked extensively with people who are considered 'sociopaths' in the old language or, more currently have 'antisocial personality disorders'. I have never met anyone who I would call evil. They have done 'evil' things, if you like, but are generally damaged by life experience (most commonly serious early childhood sexual or physical abuse). And yes, many of these folk I can recognise within a minute or so of meeting them. The extent of their capacity for destruction, is not apparent unless witnessed or read about in a file. But the ones that worry me most wear suits, speak softly and run corporations.... I don't meet many of those.

And yes, many of these folk I can recognise within a minute or so of meeting them. The extent of their capacity for destruction, is not apparent unless witnessed or read about in a file. But the ones that worry me most wear suits, speak softly and run corporations.... I don't meet many of those. — Tom Storm

We're the opposite. I meet them, the ones in suits or run companies. And yes, they're scary if you know what to look for. Their eyes, for one. And their movement when they're "in the zone".

saintly human — Benj96

It was never endorsed by any thinkers to be a saintly human. I don't think you're aware of the make-up of saintly humans.

It was never endorsed by any thinkers to be a saintly human. I don't think you're aware of the make-up of saintly humans. — L'éléphant

Exactly I don’t believe many of us at all are aware of what would really make a person “saintly” or whatever term or word you wish to use for the idea. The point of the post is whether it’s reasonable to believe that there is a worst person alive and a best person alive or would it be impossible to say because of everyone in between being various mixes of the two groups of traits and therefore having different criteria for the best and worst

Torture (for the heck of it) to Self-sacrifice (for...guess!)

These are the endpoints of the moral spectrum. The Bell Curve, if true for this continuum, would mean the majority would be ethically ambiguous, being neither fish nor fowl or, more accurately, a blend/mash-up of good & bad. Appreciate the complexity of human nature or pull out your hair in frustration for that very reason (people have done both).

Cluster bombs are, last I checked, banned. Does anyone know why?

Assuming that everyone in the world is on a spectrum from the most cruel diabolical and evil human being to the most divinely graceful and saintly human and everything in between (by the assumption that some people are better -more moral/ kind/ loving than others).... my questi — Benj96

People are never separable from the environments they inhabit. The ruthless wacko who bathes himself in blood might have been a fairly normal person in a different time and place.

We each have the potential for monstrousness or saintliness. I think the person who ends up being a Saint in the worst of circumstances has some special insight. For instance, consider what Othello would have needed to understand to avoid becoming a murderer.

Assuming that everyone in the world is on a spectrum from the most cruel diabolical and evil human being to the most divinely graceful and saintly human and everything in between (by the assumption that some people are better -more moral/ kind/ loving than others).... my question is would we ever recognise them for who they are?
If we are all by and large imperfect beings how do we then recognise the truly evil (as we also have aspects of malice in ourselves) and similarly how would we ever appreciate a truly perfect being or the closest to it, if indeed they existed because our own failings are the only template by which we judge others. — Benj96

I think the view of good-evil as a ‘spectrum’ synonymous with perfect-imperfect is damaging - particularly in relation to behaviour and judgement of beings.

When we judge a person based on the morality of a single interaction, we deny their capacity for variable behaviour, their agency. But when we judge a person based on the morality of a pattern or trajectory of interpersonal behaviour, we still deny the variability of their intentions (ie. saintly/evil).

The way I see it, an apparently ‘saintly’ human remains capable of even the worst atrocities in different circumstances, and the most demonstrably cruel diabolical and ‘evil’ human being remains capable of love, kindness and even divine grace, given time, effort and attention. I think when we recognise and accept this range of potentiality within all humans, including ourselves, then we can not only appreciate those who strive for ‘saintly’ even if they fail, but also recognise what might lead someone to cruel behaviour, and what could prevent it. I find this more useful than moral judgement.

For instance, consider what Othello would have needed to understand to avoid becoming a murderer. — frank

All he needed to know was that handkerchiefs are not really symbols of fidelity...:razz:

The point of the post is whether it’s reasonable to believe that there is a worst person alive and a best person alive or would it be impossible to say because of everyone in between being various mixes of the two groups of traits and therefore having different criteria for the best and worst — Benj96

The latter. I used to think boring people are at a disadvantage. Until I find that they're seldom bothered by what's happening around them, and seldom compare themselves to others. I'm sure you know the advantage of having this personality, no? The shitty things life throw at us won't damage them much, if at all.

All he needed to know was that handkerchiefs are not really symbols of fidelity...:razz: — Tom Storm

:grin:

The way I see it, an apparently ‘saintly’ human remains capable of even the worst atrocities in different circumstances, and the most demonstrably cruel diabolical and ‘evil’ human being remains capable of love, kindness and even divine grace, given time, effort and attention. I think when we recognise and accept this range of potentiality within all humans, including ourselves, then we can not only appreciate those who strive for ‘saintly’ even if they fail, but also recognise what might lead someone to cruel behaviour, and what could prevent it. I find this more useful than moral judgement. — Possibility

That’s very astute and I’m inclined to agree that everyone is capable of both extremes. It’s likely those that don’t believe they can possibly be that good or bad are the most dangerous to themselves and others. We’ve all had nasty or hateful thoughts and great shows of kindness in our lives and at the end of the day you have the choice at any point to change trajectory