Do evil thoughts make you evil? Like, really evil thoughts?

[Arnoxthe1]

All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become.
- Buddha

 

[seraphy]

If you don't act on your evil thoughts, no I don't think you are really evil.

Who can say that they never have dark thoughts for instance? I doubt many.

 

[Chefodeath]

Good question.

If he actively planned to commit rape or murder but just never got around to it, I'd say he was evil. Premeditation is an action afterall. If he was just extremely likely to commit rape or murder in the right situation, I'd say no. Afterall, if all of us were deemed evil just because its possible for us to do an evil ct in the right circumstances, there'd be a lot of evil motherfuckers.

 

[A3Bf72rVWE5hA]

I see what Richardplex meant about retyopy's threads being funny, everyone seems so torn on the subject with no real right answer, trying to show why their opinion is right, while anyone with a conflicting opinion tries to do the same. Whether intentional or accidental, I congratulate you.

On topic!
Evil thoughts don't make for an evil person. Judge one by their actions, because you can't really tell what one is thinking at anyone time unless they act upon their thoughts in some way shape or form.
Alternatively, if this horrible, horrible person doesn't do anything bad because he knows he'll get caught, moral or not he's rational, which has to count for something.
Alternatively, even if this person is evil, by not actually doing anything evil they're rather pathetic (which in this case, would probably be a good thing, but still).

 

[DarkRyter]

Evil is a status that comes from committing evil actions.

Or not. I don't know. I'm not your fucking mom.

 

[ConstantErasing]

Well, without going too deep into the subject of good and evil, I would say yes. To me evil is defined by intentions not actions. A person like James is evil, where as a person who commits evil deeds for the sake of good or by accident is not. They are still committing evil deeds and should be treated appropriately but they are not evil.

So Hitler, whose basic raison d'etre was to raise post WWI Germany out of its malaise, is a good guy, by the above definition?

Even if his methodology involved pogrom?

I didn't want to go too deep into this but alright. First off Hitler intended a lot more than just to get Germany its place under the sun. Although Lebrenslaum (I think that's how you say it, well its living space anyway) and power for Germany may have been his main objective there is a reason we remember him most for the holocaust. I would not call him completely evil just because he started WWII, though its certainly not a point in his favor. However his intentions definitely included genocide and that is what I would say made him evil. That being said however, if you go deeper it might be possible to say he wasn't. If he committed all the horrible deeds he did because he legitimately thought it was best for the common good then I would not say he was evil. Similarly if James wanted to commit all his horrible deeds for the improvement of the human race then even if he does commit them I wouldn't say he was evil. Ultimately I would say that selfish acts done knowingly at the expense of others (or at least the desire to do so) is what makes a person evil. That being said I highly doubt Hitler or James truly think their actions are for the benefit of mankind.