Is there any difference between stupidity and evil?

[Willum]

OK, obviously they are not the same...
So rounding down the context...

Obviously anyone can do something stupid and have ill effects and not mean it to be evil, and not be evil, despite effects.

But can anyone ever perform a deliberately evil act, and not actually be stupid?

[Divine Insight]

But can anyone ever perform a deliberately evil act, and not actually be stupid?

My answer to this question is, "No".

Caveat: This can depend on how "evil" is defined.

~~~~~~~

Elaboration:

To begin with if a person knows that an act is "evil", then they already have an understanding of why it is "wrong".

Thus to deliberately perform an evil act a person would need to knowingly do something that even they understand to be "wrong".

IMHO, this would by definition be a stupid thing to do.

However, as I stated in the caveat, this can depend on who's defining what is meant by "evil".

If a person doesn't agree that a certain behavior is "wrong", the (by definition) they are not deliberately committing an evil act, since in their mind it is not evil (i.e. wrong).

To deliberately commit and evil act a person needs to know, understand, and agree that the act in question is indeed wrong. Otherwise, they are just disagreeing that the act is "evil".

Therefore, from there perspective, they are not committing an evil act.

[JP Cusick]

But can anyone ever perform a deliberately evil act, and not actually be stupid?

Might also need to define the word "stupid" too.

The shooter in Las Vegas knew he was doing wrong and doing evil, and he was quite intelligent, as he made smart plans to murder many people.

I do not see any way to call that shooter as stupid - when we know he deliberately performed an evil act.

The shoe-bomber on an airplane did not know how to correctly light the explosive so his evil plan failed based on his stupidity, but his evil intention was not stupid.

[Divine Insight]

..., but his evil intention was not stupid.

So then apparently you are claiming that it's not stupid to have evil intentions.

You might want to rethink that one.

[JP Cusick]

..., but his evil intention was not stupid.

So then apparently you are claiming that it's not stupid to have evil intentions.

You might want to rethink that one.

I do not see that as complicated or confused.

The greatest evils have always been done by very intelligent people doing their evils in very smart ways.

Adolf Hitler was a smart man - and to think of Hitler as stupid would be a stupid thought.

True evil does not come from stupidity, and being stupid is a legitimate excuse (a justification) for doing wrong(s).

People are hateful, spiteful, jealous, lustful, bigoted, unfair, unjust, and people are just plain mean and cruel, and I do not find any of that to be based in stupidity.

If you have another view - then please do tell?

[Divine Insight]

People are hateful, spiteful, jealous, lustful, bigoted, unfair, unjust, and people are just plain mean and cruel, and I do not find any of that to be based in stupidity.

If you have another view - then please do tell?

We'll just have to agree to disagree apparently.

I consider are the characteristics and behaviors you've listed above to be stupid.

If you think those behaviors are smart, then you and I just disagree on the difference between being smart and stupid. That's all.

[JP Cusick]

We'll just have to agree to disagree apparently.

I consider are the characteristics and behaviors you've listed above to be stupid.

If you think those behaviors are smart, then you and I just disagree on the difference between being smart and stupid. That's all.

I hate myself to nit-pick but in this case I feel compelled.

First is that - to agree to disagree - takes at least two (2) people to agree that we disagree and I do not give my agreement.

A person can not agree to disagree all by their self without the other person giving agreement.

That is a one-sided agreement all by thy self.

I do not agree to disagree - I declare that you are wrong, and you can not explain your position because you accept calling people as "stupid" to be sufficient without any justification, which is thereby expressing your own superiority complex.

To call any person as "stupid" is rude and ignorant.

I would never agree with calling evil people as stupid, and mine is not a disagreement either because I declare yours as being dead wrong.

See both of my comments above (#3 and #5) because I do explain in detail and with specific examples and more as to why my position is sound and accurate and mine is true.

Just FYI.

[Divine Insight]

To call any person as "stupid" is rude and ignorant.

I disagree. If a person is stupid it isn't their fault anymore than it would be their fault for the color of their eyes. Therefore it is not rude to suggest that a person is stupid based on their behavior anymore than it would be rude to tell them what color their eyes are.

I would never agree with calling evil people as stupid, and mine is not a disagreement either because I declare yours as being dead wrong.

So what's the alternative then? Would you call them intentionally evil. Wouldn't that be a far worse accusation and therefore far more rude on your part?

I would much rather be called stupid than evil if I were guilty of any of the nasty characteristics or behaviors you had previously listed.

In fact, if there is a cosmic judge who will judge me on some judgement day, my defense would indeed be a plea of stupidity.

I most certainly wouldn't enter a plea of intentional evil behavior.

So to be found guilty of stupidity would be far more desirable than to be found guilty of being intentionally evil.

In fact, I claim that if I am stupid then the only entity who can be held responsible for that would be the entity who designed and created my stupid brain.

Because like I say, if I have a stupid brain I can't be responsible for that anymore than I can be held responsible for the color of my eyes.

But to be smart and guilty of intentional evil? That would be a totally different scenario that I most certainly wouldn't want any parts of. Nor could I even see how that could work since being smart and being intentionally evil are contradictory attributes. For me there is no such thing as saying that being intentionally evil is "smart".

So to accuse me of that would indeed be quite rude. In fact, it would be doubly rude, because the moment you accuse me of being intentionally evil you have automatically required that I must also be stupid.

[JP Cusick]

So what's the alternative then? Would you call them intentionally evil.

Yes = many people are intentionally evil.

That is being accurate and true.

They are intelligent and smart and they deliberately do the evils which they choose to do, and they do it based on their own evil intentions.

In real life Courts-of-Law there is a concept of human conscience which proclaims that all people know right from wrong, and so claiming to be stupid is never an acceptable defense in a Court, and in this the Courts are correct. Link HERE.

I would much rather be called stupid than evil if I were guilty of any of the nasty characteristics or behaviors you had previously listed.

It is not a matter of preference, and no one is being called "stupid" out of any preferential choice.

The words need to be based on truth and accuracy - not on judgmental shaming of other people.

In fact, I claim that if I am stupid then the only entity who can be held responsible for that would be the entity who designed and created my stupid brain.

That is an unacceptable cop-out to use for your self.

And it is a pretense of your own projected superiority when said of other people.

You are not smarter than other people, and people doing wrong or being evil does not make any one as stupid - regardless of your superiority view.

[Divine Insight]

So what's the alternative then? Would you call them intentionally evil.

Yes = many people are intentionally evil.

That is being accurate and true.

They are intelligent and smart and they deliberately do the evils which they choose to do, and they do it based on their own evil intentions.

Then according to you it is intelligent and smart to deliberately do evil things.

There can be no escaping this conclusion based on your argument.

In real life Courts-of-Law there is a concept of human conscience which proclaims that all people know right from wrong, and so claiming to be stupid is never an acceptable defense in a Court, and in this the Courts are correct.

Real life Courts-of-law are man-made institutions governed by man-made rules. And men are not omniscient. It is merely your opinion that the "courts are correct". I disagree with many aspects of our court systems. Moreover, the fact that "courts are not always correct" is a well-proven fact by the number of innocent people who had been convicted only to later discover that they were innocent.

So the fact that "Courts are not Correct" is proven and therefore I am right and you are wrong.

I would much rather be called stupid than evil if I were guilty of any of the nasty characteristics or behaviors you had previously listed.

It is not a matter of preference, and no one is being called "stupid" out of any preferential choice.

The words need to be based on truth and accuracy - not on judgmental shaming of other people.

Exactly. So it's up to you to then demonstrate clearly that evil people are not stupid.

Good luck with that. Because now you need to show that choosing to do something evil is not a stupid choice.

In other words, for example, you need to show that choosing to randomly kill innocent people attending a music concert is a "smart and intelligent" thing to do, albeit being evil.

In fact, I claim that if I am stupid then the only entity who can be held responsible for that would be the entity who designed and created my stupid brain.

That is an unacceptable cop-out to use for your self.

But you have already used real life courts in defense of your position. In real life courts genuine stupidity is an acceptable excuse. If you can prove that your client was genuinely too stupid to understand that what they were doing was wrong, you win.

Of course, you client wouldn't be set free. They would be sent to a mental institution for observation and treatment to see if their stupidity could be cured.

And it is a pretense of your own projected superiority when said of other people.

Hardly. I'll be the first to enter a plea of stupidity for anything I've ever done that could be considered to be evil. So where do you get off that I am claiming to be superior to anyone?

You are not smarter than other people, and people doing wrong or being evil does not make any one as stupid - regardless of your superiority view.

Unless you want to claim that it is smart and intelligent to do evil things, then by definition choosing to do anything evil is necessarily an act of stupidity.

The only way you could prevent that ultimate fact from being true is to proclaim that doing evil things is a smart and intelligent thing to do.

Good luck with that.