Adjective-
1 a: morally reprehensible
2 aarchaic : inferior b: causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive c: disagreeable
3 a: causing harm : pernicious b: marked by misfortune : unlucky

and as a noun

Noun-
1 a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b: a cosmic evil force
2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity

Now these terms are important because they remove “evil” from a religious context and put them into a “neutral” state that can be accepted by many, regardless of religious preference.

Armed with this clear cut definitions of “evil”, it should be plain to see that yet, Joseph Duncan’s acts brought harm, and would repulsive the majority of America, in doing so, he brought suffering to the lives of those he harmed. His actions were evil, and in doing them, he became evil.

The question is not whether or not he is evil, but why on earth someone would do such a thing.

It is too easy to claim them as “insane” simply because it comforts us as a society to believe that there must be something fundamentally wrong with this person, that he must be odd or deranged, that his actions are a fluke never to be repeated again.

Yet we know that there have been terrible murderers all through history, and assuming that all of these people don’t have some sort of severe brain damage, how could they possibly have come to the conclusion that hurting/torturing/killing other people was justified?

They are not ignorant of morals or social norm, indeed their ability to blend in is part of whats makes them so dangerous. So if they know how to act, how society expects them to act, what possesses them to break from the norm?

I doubt that it is any sense of “want” simply because desires can be suppressed with enough fear of public judgment, but more of a “need”.

As with people like Theodore John Kaczynski (the Unabomber), who felt that it was up to him to destroy technology’s hold over the population. This wasn’t just something he wanted to do, he needed to do it. It was his moral obligation to save us from technology, in any way possible.

If serial killers are analyzed in a similar fashion, I’m certain that all of their killings could be found to fulfill a “need”, though I can’t begin to imagine what those needs might be.

Does this make them evil? To society, yes; but to themselves, I highly doubt it.

And I’ll have to stop that stalking s___. It’s evil, I think.

your friend forrest

“The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.”

This is maybe the Mesa College Philosophy site near San Diego, but what do I know !!??

This guy Fritzi, as I stated above, has a good chance of being killed in prison. He certainly won’t win any popularity contests wherever he goes, if they find out his crime.

your friend forrest