Port Aurthur Massacre - 10 years later

It has been a decade since this massacre happened; for those who don't know, read about it here.

I totally understand that this was an horrific event. I can still remember when the news broke that I was due to give birth any day and wondered what kind of world I was bringing my baby into.

However horrible it was, I have a problem with the use of the word "evil" to describe the killings. The Prime Minister said about it today "The evil that happened here darkened our nation's spirit like few other events in my memory."

Even the news reporter mentioned the word "evil" in describing the events.
It goes without saying that what occured was a bad thing but to call it evil implies (to me anyway) a supernatural cause.

I don't think humans can be evil as I don't think it exists. In order to believe in evil mustn't you first believe in god? I believe people can be ignorant, selfish, mentally ill, psychotic, cruel, sadistic etc but not evil. Evil is for monsters and demons isn't it?

Does anyone else have a problem with the word "evil" being used to describe murderers or killings or the like? Or am I reading too much into things?

I could be convinced that certain powerful individuals -- Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein as recent examples -- deserve the epithet "evil" by virtue of the callous viciousness with which they treated huge numbers of people.

I'm not sure I'd use it to describe Martin Bryant though.

Well, I can see what you mean, but I would probably be more likely to call them greedy, obsessed, narcissistic, insane, power hungry, deluded etc but evil? I just don't know if that is right.

I mean there are plenty of men who will put a bullet through someone's head without blinking an eye (think the Darfur massacres) but I still don't believe they are evil. I believe they have been conditioned to be killers without remorse.

I can see what you're saying.

I don't know if you have to believe in God to be evil ... but I think evil is an abstract concept like God, something we invent to explain away things that are otherwise hard to think about.

It's hard to think about cold blooded remorseless killers, so the concept of "evil" helps us cope.

Is that what you are getting at?

I disagree that you need a god to have evil. Out of curiosity, why does evil imply a supernatural cause to you. Not trying to be argumentitive, just curious as to your definition of evil. To me, sociopaths = the very definition of evil

I had never heard of that, even though it was in a foreign country usually a tragedy like that would have played on the news over here. Crimes like that leave alot to be said for the death penalty, IMO.

Well, not much local australian stuff makes it onto foreign news if I recall, you guys probably wouldn't even have heard of the racial riots we had a month or two ago. Basically it was our Columbine, the only difference is we learnt from it and since we don't have anything like that pesky 2nd ammendment Australia now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world

Yah, heard about the riots.

ah, not many of my international friends had. Cool though, maybe we're slowly becoming important in the world stage

Yeah, I think that is the reason why people use the term "evil". I guess we don't want to identify with another human being that has committed such atrocities. I think doing that though is wrong; however horrendous the act, Bryant is in fact a human being. He is not a demon or a monster.

Well, most of what I know about how the Port Arthur massacre played out in foreign (i.e. US) news was that the response -- a gun ban and buyback -- played out in pro-gun (or, should that be, anti-gun-control) circles in the US.

I lost count of the times I saw the comments from the imaginary "Ed Chenel" (a police office in Australia, er, apparently) reproduced somewhere on the internet, including on these very boards a few times...

See here, with rebuttal.

I guess it is how I interpreted the word "evil". Perhaps it is purely meant by its simplest meaning, ie "very bad".

Dammit I had a thought then and now it's gone! Oh yeah, I have always taken evil to mean "inherent badness" as though the person has no choice in the matter. I don't believe in that. Just as I don't believe anyone is born with inherent goodness. How we behave is a learned thing, not a force that is greater than us.

Mental illness is another thing entirely. I do believe some people are so ill they cannot help the things they do (and should therefore not be allowed to be a risk to society) and I also believe some people don't ever develop a conscience for one reason or another, these people (I believe) are the sociopaths.

To me a sociopath is a very dangerous person, but I think of them as having a psychological condition, not as being evil.

Not sure if I am being clear enough. I wish I could explain it better.

Oh and I didn't think you were being argumentative at all, I love a good discussion and am genuinely interested in others' opinions. Hell, mine can change at any given moment!

[Edited on Apr 28, 2006 by kimberleyfantasy]

Please stop right there. I can already see the direction the thread is going from that comment and it ain't pretty.

Having been to Port Arthur 5 years ago and seeing the memorial with so many victims having the same surname, it's hard to think of what happened there as anything but evil. Not on the Hitler/Stalin grandiose scale, but there was the same sort of psychopathic, detached malevolence at work there. I feel it was just on a much smaller scale.

Well, in my view, a true sociopath (not just necessarily someone with anti-social personality disorder, but a true extreme on the scale) does have a conscience, what makes them evil however, is that conscience doesn't find anything particularly wrong with them murdering your family because they're bored on a friday night. If a human being thinks and acts in the most extreme of sociopathic ways, then I would not hesitate in calling them evil

i think it's semantics but I do think evil exists.

Do you think it is inherent or learned? Or something else entirely?

I agree.

I'm from Tasmania- from Rokeby, which isn't far from Port Arthur.
I never knew Martin, but relatives of mine did.
He was a sick man- he did some awful things, and there is nothing positive to come from the whole event, but he wasn't evil. Just ill.

Both. I think some people are just born bad and others are more or less made bad by circumstances (child soldiers and the like).

Okay, now that is something I have trouble understanding. How is somebody "born bad"? What do you think it is that makes that happen, genetics, something supernatural, a mental disorder? If someone who is born bad is brought up in a loving environment will they still inevitably commit "evil" acts?

I agree.
I think it is difficult to be binary about this.
A genetic predisposition towards aggressive behaviour plus an environment in early childhood that reinforces this as well as an early adulthood that involves a lot of emotional repression and moments of grief, an inability to cope with life and some bad luck could be all it takes.
It cannot be nature or nuture or simply the fact that it is a piece of both- I think it is the interplay between nature and nurture over a period of years. We all have the capacity to hurt- whether emotionally or physically- and too different degrees.

The definition of evil as "very very bad" suffers from not being very useful. As a label it can be thrown around without consequence. There is a theological definition, which I much prefer, that evil is the corruption of the idea of what is good. It tends to come up when people do dreadful things, not because they consider them necessary, but because they are "right" or "good".

The video of Bin Laden rejoicing in the 9/11 attacks is one example, for him the deaths of thousands was a good thing, that's evil. The Catholic church have some cases in their history, the line "Kill them all, God will know his own" for instance.

The mentally ill don't redefine what is good, it's all just in their own head, they are to be pitied.

Sorry but from Dictionary.com

EVIL
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


Going by the dictionary it would seem to be appropriate usage of the word. I think we are just used to hearing "evil" in religious connotations.

Yeah you're right...i worded my post wrong. I do think it's a little from column A and a little from column B. No one thing can make a person turn out bad, but for some i don't think it takes much.