|
|
|
Copyright 2000, 2001, 2002 by Cliff Pickover
If you liked this page, visit Cliff Pickover's main home page for more lists.
"The Scales of Good and Evil" is a trademarked term.
Below is a list of the "Top Ten" evil people of all time followed by a list of the "Top Ten" good people of all time -- sorted in order of evilness and goodness. Please add your votes. Who would you like to see added to the list? What alterations would you make to the list or the ordering? Do the scales of good and evil balance? If I may have permission to quote you in a manuscript, please give permission in your note to me.
Why is it easier to think of evil examples than good ones? Is it much easier to do something big and bad than it is to do something big and good?
Developing this list was not an easy task due to the complexity of human personalities and the fact that goodness and evilness depend on the perspective of the time. (For example, perhaps many Americans consider dropping the bomb on Hiroshima "good" whereas many Japanese consider it "evil.") On the evilness scale, I gave additional weight to those people who actually enjoyed and personally participated in the utter horror they produced. When compiling the good list, I also considered the number of people killed by the followers of the "good" person during the person's life time.
For both the good and evil list, I also asked myself the question, "With whom would I least like to be in a room, and with whom would I most like to be in a room?"
If you are not happy with this list, drop me a line, because the list changes in response to suggestions from my readers. If you had scales and put Stalin's massacres on the left side, what could you put on the right-hand side to balance it? Extreme kindness and attempts to alleviate suffering? Curing cancer? Ending world hunger? Charity? Elevating the thinking of humankind with respect to human rights? Perhaps the very best people don't seek publicity for their good deeds; these are the unknown heroes who work tirelessly with the poor and the sick. When considering religions leaders, do we need to consider possible negative results that evolved, such as fundamentalist groups that suppress women, or the concept of Jihad, or holy war? If the Inquisition arose out of Christianity, need we consider this in assessments we make?
|
1. Tomas de Torquemada (pictured here) - Born in Spain in 1420, his name is synonymous with the Christian Inquisition's horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism. He was a fan of various forms of torture including foot roasting, use of the garrucha, and suffocation. He was made Grand Inquisitor by Pope Sixtus IV. Popes and kings alike praised his tireless efforts. The number of burnings at the stake during Torquemada's tenure has been estimated at about 2,000. Torquemada's hatred of Jews influenced Ferdinand and Isabella to expel all Jews who had not embraced Christianity. |
Note: Every Romanian who contacted me said I should remove Vlad from the list. They said he was not evil and seemed to like him. In an effort to understand how our views of evil can be so different, I reproduce an exchange I had with Marius who was born in Romania. Perhaps this will help us understand more generally how the perception of evil can differ from person to person. Other strange discussions on this same web page focus on Bill Clinton and those people who truly believe Clinton was more evil than Adolf Hitler who exterminated millions.
|
8. Idi Amin - Idi Amin Dada Oumee (born in 1924 in Uganda) was the military officer and president (1971-79) of Uganda. Amin also took tribalism, a long- standing problem in Uganda, to its extreme by allegedly ordering the persecution of Acholi, Lango, and other tribes. Reports indicate torture and murder of 100,000 to 300,000 Ugandans during Amin's presidency. In 1972, he began to expel Asians from Uganda. God, he said, had directed him to do this. (Acutally, he had been angered by the refusal of one of the country's most prominent Asian families, the Madhvanis, to hand over their prettiest daughter as his fifth wife.) Over the years, Ugandans would disappear in the thousands, their mutilated bodies washing up on the shores of Lake Victoria. Amin would boast of being a "reluctant" cannibal - human flesh, he said, was too salty. He once ordered that the decapitation of political prisoners be broadcast on TV, specifying that the victims "must wear white to make it easy to see the blood". One of Amin's guards, Abraham Sule, said: "[Amin] put his bayonet in the pot containing human blood and licked the stuff as it ran down the bayonet. Amin told us: 'When you lick the blood of your victim, you will not see nightmares.' He then did it." |
|
9. Joseph Stalin - Born in 1879. During the quarter of a century preceding his death in 1953, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin probably exercised greater political power than any other figure in history. In the 1930s, by his orders, millions of peasants were either killed or permitted to starve to death. Stalin brought about the deaths of more than 20 million of his own people while holding the Soviet Union in an iron grip for 29 years. Stalin succeeded his hero Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1924. From then on, he induced widespread famines to enforce farm collectives, and eliminated perceived enemies through massive purges. |
|
10. Genghis Khan - The Mongol Temjin, known to history as Genghis Khan (born 1162) was a warrior and ruler who, starting from obscure and insignificant beginnings, brought all the nomadic tribes of Mongolia under the rule of himself and his family in a rigidly disciplined military state. Massacres of defeated populations, with the resultant terror, were weapons he regularly used. His Mongol hordes killed off countless people in Asia and Europe in the early 1200s. When attacking Volohoi, Khan convinced the city commander that Mongols would stop attacking if the city sent out 1,000 cats and several thousand swallows. When he got them, Genghis had bits of cloth tied to their tails and set the cloth on fire. The cats and birds fled back to the city and ended up setting hundreds of fires inside the city. Then Genghis attacked and won. At another time, Mongols rounded up 70,000 men, women, and children and shot them with arrows. Genghis told his comrades: "Man's greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, use his women as a nightshirt and support, gazing upon and kissing their rosy breasts, sucking their lips which are as sweet as the berries of their breasts." |
|
11. H. H. Holmes - built a hundred-room mansion complete with gas chambers, trap doors, acid vats, lime pits, fake walls and secret entrances. During the 1893 World's Fair he rented rooms to visitors. He then killed most of his lodgers and continued his insurance fraud scheme. He also lured women to his "torture castle" with the promise of marriage. Instead, he would force them to sign over their savings, then throw them down an elevator shaft and gas them to death. In the basement of the castle he dismembered and skinned his prey and experimented with their corpses. He killed over 200 people. |
Basil the Bulgar Slayer blinded 14,000 prisoners. Heinrich Himmler was the architect of the "Final Solution." Tallat Pasha decreed there must be no Armenians on the Earth. 1.5 Million Armenians were beaten, raped, robbed, and killed.
|
9. Mohandas Gandhi -- Indian nationalist leader, who established his country's freedom through a nonviolent revolution. |
|
Note that "zygotic personhood" (the idea that a fertilized egg is a person) is a recent concept. For example, before 1869, the Catholic church believed that the embryo was not a person until it was 40 days old. (Aristotle agreed with this 40-day threshold.) Thus, the church did not believe a human had a soul until day 40. Pope Innocent III in 1211 determined that the time of ensoulment was anywhere from 12 to 16 weeks. This means that the Catholic church, for centuries, did not equate abortion with murder. (Pictured at left is a two day old human embryo at four cell stage of development, magnified 260 times.) |
Responses from ReadersFor me, when it comes to the most important Good figures throughout history, one has to measure not just their Goodness but, IMO, the degree to which their Goodness inspired or changed others around them. Would this planet be distinctly different had they never impacted either those around them or those coming after them to the same significant degree?
By that yardstick, I'm not quite sure that Baha'u'llah, much as I admire him, would qualify among the top ten, what with the dozens of candidates who have demonstrably done Good for their fellow creatures throughout history. He is certainly among the top twenty, yes, but I don't feel that his influence, salutary as it has been and hardly insignificant, quite rises to the level -- yet -- of a Gandhi, a Moses, a Jesus, or a Buddha. Ultimately, of course, one is dealing with a snapshot of the planet at a given moment only. That picture could always change. But right now, the planet as a whole, while impacted to a degree by Baha'u'llah, does not display his impact to the same degree that it does that of certain others (would that it did!).
Similarly, when it comes to the degree to which certain benefactors may be contingent upon the cultural context in which they arose, I'm more prone to single out figures who more clearly, IMO, established a more or less unprecedented pattern of altruism in their benevolent concerns than in those who may have taken singular advantage of a role already afforded them. Thus, IMO, I might suggest that, for instance, the Dalai Lama could not have existed without Buddha himself, nor Mother Teresa without the example of Jesus himself, nor Abraham Lincoln without the challenge of those cultural pathbreakers in the 17th and 18th-century who first made the political soil rich enough for the American Experiment to spring up in the first place.
Given these parameters, while they might disqualify candidates like Baha'u'llah, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, or Abraham Lincoln, they distinctly reaffirm the centrality of Buddha, Jesus Christ, and Moses. Gandhi and King we'll put aside for a moment.
We have here three definite Titans (with seven slots still to fill):
Moses was one who significantly amplified the moral obligations intrinsic to law itself in a code that still resonates in many respects today, although generally assumed to have been established way back around 1200 B.C.E.! Many maintain that law itself as a concept would look altogether different today were it not for this man's example.
The first well-documented figure to live out an apparently blameless life and to do so in tandem with an espoused ethical doctrine that urged harm to no one -- thus a figure who acted and said precisely the same in all weathers within a context of caring always for the other -- was probably Siddhartha Gautama, known better as Buddha, 6th-5th centuries B.C.E.
And Jesus was unique in an outlook that encompassed the moral obligations of each individual human being toward each and every other human being without exception. Thus, on an individual level, he seems more willing to give every person, no matter her/his past, a second chance to an extent that is arguably greater than any other comparable figure. Jesus is at as selfless a level as anyone in this lineup. Only a tiny, tiny number in this group are within hailing distance, IMHO.
What of the remaining seven slots? Well, the first legislator who formulated the principle that those who cannot help themselves ought to be protected from -- at least -- _avoidable_ harm, if possible, through the protection of the law -- a law in which the weak would be given some protections against the strong -- was Urukagina, a Sumerian lawgiver from ca. 2300 B.C.E. I'd say Urukagina would be the earliest figure who ought to be viewed as being "unique" in his own way.
A figure as apparently as upright as Buddha who both walked and talked his doctrine faithfully within a context of public life, not just of the individual, was Confucius, a contemporary of Buddha's.
And, for many, the great pioneer in formulating a systematized approach to ethics itself would be the Athenian philosopher Socrates, of the late 5th century, B.C.E. He too appears to have "walked the talk" of an upright life and doctrine before his summary execution.
Around the middle of the first millennium A.D., Mohammed's life traces a remarkable transformation, from increasingly impatient warrior, to a life centered on violent raids and general aggression, to an unexpected return to Mecca, where he refuses to carry a weapon of any kind or to allow his followers one and ends up, at great danger to himself, changing the region where he lived from one convulsed by endless feuds to one where people could live in relative harmony.
Roughly a thousand years later, John Locke appears to have been the first in the second millennium C.E. to urge an empirical approach to experience. Implicitly rejecting an obligation to accept knee-jerk assumptions of any majority, Locke urged study and contemplation for oneself. He also urged the importance of certain freedoms we view as fundamental today. Democracy today could not exist as we know it without the contribution this man made to the human comedy. So I would view Locke as a more central figure than Lincoln ultimately.
In the nineteenth century, wars grew more and more apocalyptic as technology grew more and more fiendish in its pursuit. Deeply alarmed, a new way was urged by a Russian genius who was both an inspired author and an upright human being: Leo Tolstoy. A pioneer in the philosophy of non-violence, Tolstoy established a pattern of peaceful co-existence that flourished in the example of a few others in the twentieth century, including Gandhi and King.
We now have 9 figures in all. They are, in chronological order:
UrukaginaI confess I am almost stumped by whom to choose as the tenth figure. Benefactors who occur to me are the earliest figure whose law code survives practically in its entirety (and BTW, a law code partly based on the mostly lost Urukagina statutes apparently): Hammurabi, ca. 1800 B.C.E. Again, this accomplishment stands as something worthy and pattern-setting -- to a degree.
Moses
Buddha
Confucius
Socrates
Jesus
Mohammed
Locke
Tolstoy
For some, the most profound utterance on the human condition is the Hindu text, the Bhagavad-Gita. The date when this was written is in dispute (6th/5th century B.C.?), but some ascribe this to a certain (apparent) genius at synthesizing many different concepts and ideas, Vyasa.
Perhaps the first figure to articulate political freedom in a way and a context one can relate to today was Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, who also lived around the same time, I believe(?).
In the C.E. era, we have perhaps the first figure to maintain outright that all are equal, in so many words: the Roman jurist Ulpian. "So far as the Civil Law is concerned, slaves are not considered persons, but this is not the case according to natural law, because natural law regards all men as equal." This may be the first known formulation of the concept of natural law, which has come to function (sometimes) as a counterpoise to tyranny. He also enunciated the principle: "The precepts of the law are the following: to live honorably, to injure no one, to give to every one his due." For its time, it was something new to place these as paramount concerns rather than merely guiding ones.
And now for Gandhi and King: In the first half of the twentieth century, a simple man in India, Mahatma Gandhi, brought one of the great empires in world history to heel through non-violent means. His example, partly influenced by Hindu philosophy in texts like the Bhagavad-Gita and partly by the example of Leo Tolstoy, inspired a whole nation to throw off an imperialist yoke and live free.
Finally, a whole people who -- to the country's shame -- did not live free, though dwelling in an assumed democracy, were finally afforded greater rights than their forebears (although still not made entirely equal to their compatriots) through the tireless efforts and eventual martyrdom of an apparent follower of Gandhi, of Jesus, and of Locke: Martin Luther King, Jr.
To choose just one amongst these towering six altruists may be impossible. One could perhaps argue that, with Hammurabi being an arguably transitional figure between Urukagina and Moses, Hammurabi is probably to be relegated to the next ten along with Mother Teresa and so on.
However, Vyasa is certainly a strong candidate, being a profound synthesizer of one of the chief global religions and a philosophical forebear of Gandhi.
Solon is in many ways the Ur-democrat (small "d"), making him arguably as essential as Locke.
Democracy could not exist without the concept of equality, so Ulpian is pivotal here, too, although one could argue that Ulpian could not even have been possible without the prior example of Athenian democracy -- hence, Solon.
Gandhi is the first one who had to carry out the Tolstoy philosophy on a practical globally transformative level, so one could claim him as central to the human condition today, even though Tolstoy was partly conditionally foundational for Gandhi in turn.
King, arguably, has three distinct forebears already: Jesus, Tolstoy and Gandhi.
That leaves us, IMO, with at least two figures whom I find it impossible to ignore: Vyasa and Solon. This is why I am pretty much stumped in my choice of either one as the tenth. If I were choosing a dozen instead of ten, both Vyasa and Solon would be easy, but then the 12th would become a difficult choice between Ulpian and Gandhi -- possibly Gandhi, but.........
Sorry to be so inconclusive
As for choosing the Evil figures, they frankly bore me
Cheers (and feel free to put this up on your discussion page re the most significant Good and Evil figures, if you wish),
Geoffrey Riggs
Wow, Cliff, you've really ventured into a mine-field here, haven't you?
I think that it will be very difficult to devise such a list, mainly
because no one is entirely good or entirely evil. And, often, even
those with evil means are attempting to carry out good agendas
(although perhaps in the wrong manner).
For example, I think most people would say that Adolph Hitler was the
personification of evil. However, at least, in the beginning, his
intentions were good. He was attempting to rebuild Germany after the
collapse caused by the loss of the first World War, and by the war
reparations demanded by the victors which resulted in the financial
collapse of the German economy. While the means he used to accomplish
this were rather draconian, he did achieve his goal of the
reunification of Germany, restoration of civil order (as opposed to
the anarchy which was in effect), and an improved economy. It was
only later that he started his campaign of military assaults, and his
crusade against various ethnic groups (which, in my personal opinion,
is the ultimate evil). Additionally, in his younger years, he was an
aspiring artist, and some of his paintings were rather interesting.
Thus, even in the most evil person imaginable, it's possible to find
good characteristics.
Consider the case of Ivan the Terrible, and the situation in Russia in
the 16th century. Would the fear from such stories be useful in
controlling an unruly and partially barbaric population? Even Tomas
de Torquemada was inspired by religion.
Also, don't forget that we tend to judge people by our own standards.
Thus, good and evil are relative to our environment, our thought
process, our heritage. Consider how someone like Hitler might have
been thought of if Germany had won the war. Would we have thought
that Franklin Roosevelt was a war monger who needlessly sacrificed
soldiers, and caused needless suffering while wrongly attempting to
influence the proper world order? Would the United States have been
thought of as a barbaric country filled with soft-headed idiots? Could
Germany's persecution of the ethnic groups be compared to the slaughter
of the Native Americans by the early Americans?
Personally, I think my own beliefs tend to run close to your own.
But, I think that these issues need to be considered before attempting
to classify people into either the evil or the good category.
Ok, now for some of my own recommendations.
Where on the list would Idi Amin fit (Dictator of Uganda)? Didn't he
publicly profess to cannibalism? Does this automatically qualify
someone as evil? Or, isn't this really a cultural bias?
What about Abraham Lincoln? Here was a man who had an impossible job,
the reunification of a country at civil war, which eventually led to
the loss of his life.
What about the various winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor?
While these were typically not leaders, quite a few of them
voluntarily sacrificed their own life to save those of their friends
(and, what higher good can there ever be?).
What about Jesus? Isn't he the personification of goodness? Of
course, now we're factoring in various religious thoughts, so I'm sure
this could be considered very controversial. What about the prophet
Mohammed?
Going back to the second World War, what about Schindler (Have you
ever seen the movie "Schindler's List"?).
What about Timmothy McVey? He's almost certain to take a place on the
list of the top twenty evil for his part in the Oklahoma City bombing.
What about John Kennedy? While generally regarded as being
responsible for putting a man on the moon, which has partially led to
the technology explosion which exists today, he also came extremely
close to provoking worldwide nuclear war. Where on the list does he
belong?
I'm sure that there are literally millions of candidates for each list.
However, in nominating these candidates, we're all evaluating them
according to our own particular beliefs, so everyone's list will be
vastly different, and, some entries might even swap portions,
depending upon the person doing the evaluation. And, of course, the
scariest part of this whole process might be that people have to
publicly examine their own thoughts and their own morals, and, this
can be extremely frightening at times!
One of my favorite examples - how would JFK have been viewed if the same moral
standards we are applying to President Clinton were applied, and if the press
pried into his personal life as deeply as the press does now (I am grossed out
that this is an issue at all for the President). I believe he would have one
plot in a ranking based upon his lifetime, and quite another if the standards
of the time were applied.
Then, what do we apply "good" and "evil" to? The person's day job? Their
life as a whole? Their motivations? President Carter may not rank high as a
"good" president, yet I believe of all the recent presidents that he is truly
committed to helping others - is this "good", does it count?
Then there is Mother Teresa - I'm not saying she shouldn't be considered
"good" - but what about the other nuns that worked with her that aren't
recognized as individuals. Is the same work without world recognition even
more "good"?
Is saving people "good"? If you feed a starving person, are you good? If that
person lives to have children and the same basic problems of lack of resources
still exists, haven't you made things worse, merely deferred a current problem
and made it worse in the long term? Is that good or evil? Is the leadership
of China good or evil - clearly their Draconian state enables a rapid reduction
in their birth rate. Isn't that evil? Yet, if they didn't control their birth
rate, millions would die - isn't that evil?
Hi,
Your list looks really strange. I have another:
Cliff,
Some of your top ten worst of medieval Europe do not
compare to modern tyrants. Imperial Japan (Tojo)
murdered some 6 million. Chinese nationalist Chang Kai
Shek murdered 10 Million. Tito murdered 1 million. The
Turks murdered close to 2 million during WWI. Kim
(Korea) killed 1.6 million. See this chart
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.2.GIF
I would also consider T Roosevelt. The
Phillipine-American War was: 1. totally unnecessary, 2.
had a high civilian death count, 3. Roosevelt's
responsibility.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP13.HTM
I would also remove Lincoln from the top ten list.
Your contention that Lincoln "freed the slaves" is
factually incorrect. Slaves in Brazil were freed by
acts in 1871 and 1885. Then there is Jamaican slavery,
Antigua, Martinique... Lincoln freed the slaves in the
Southern States that had left the Union. Lincoln did
not free the slaves in the border states that were
directly under his control. Why should he have left
the slaves of Kentucky in bondage? Furthermore, South
and Central American nations feed their slaves without
fighting wars.
Lincoln knew of examples where slaves had been bought
out or granted freedom by legislation. Slaves of the
US South could have been freed without that war. A
great President WOULD HAVE freed slaves in the US
South without a war. In fact, the monetary cost of the
Civil War would have been enough to buy out all the
slaves of the American South. The 600,000 deaths in
the Civil War should count against Lincoln.
Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus, imprisoned war
protesters and political opponents, suppressed freedom
of the press... Lincoln is a highly questionable
candidate for your ten best list.
I can't think of him as more evil than, say, John Gacy or Jeffrey
Dahmer.
There are probably lots of exceedingly "good" people (measured from
the view of *not* being evil in any way) that have had no impact
on the world whatsoever, except perhaps as role models to those
who have known them. Those who have "*done* good", like some of the
examples Dave mentions, tend to be less perfect -- it's hard to be
effective without stepping on a few toes here and there.
How interesting that it's easier to come up with evil examples than
good ones.
Dave's comments are interesting, but I wonder whether there's not a
tendency to confuse the inherent nature of a person with the results
of acts. For instance, McVeigh may have killed a lot more people, but
There is a web site called the "Serial Killer Hit List" that might
be useful, at http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/serial1.html . Fairly
strong stuff, but if we're talkin' 'bout EEEEvil . . .
I think Dave had a point, this is something of a can o' worms,
because as we all know, there are no moral absolutes in the
cold, existential universe we live in...or something like that,
I dunno, it sure sounded good when I typed it. But seriously,
for example, one of my top contenders would be Mao Tse-tung,
leader of the Gang of Four, who killed off somewhere between 20
and 67 million (estimates vary) of his countrymen. But my parents
recently returned from a trip there, and his picture is still
hanging all over the place.
Similarly with Mohammed, the Prophet of the Islamic faith. An
amazing number of people alive today would put him at the top
of any list of "Good" people, but if "Name the top 10 Good People
of all time" were to be asked on _Family Feud_, he wouldn't even
be on the list.
Is Jack Kevorkian Good or Evil?
For personal selections, I'd probably add Mao (above), Stalin
(who killed off ~10 million misc farmers while "collectivizing"
their farms)(and there were at least a couple of other "purges"
in the USSR in the first half of this century that killed off
similar numbers of people), good ol' Pol Pot, Adolph Eichmann
and the rest of Hitler's buddies, Genghis Khan (his Mongol hordes
killed off an amazing number of people in Asia and Europe in the
early 1200's (like 35 million Chinese, I forget the figures for
Europe, I know he hit Poland hard).
All of which leads me to wonder, what's worse? Mass, impersonal
murder of millions, or attention to detail? There was some nut-
case in California who got caught some years back, his deal was
driving around, picking up hitchhiking young men, then he'd knock
'em out, wire them up to a 4x8 sheet of plywood and torture them
to death. Similarly, I've heard stories of some of the so-called
"scientific research" conducted in the WWII concentration camps.
Are the doctors involved more or less evil than Eichmann?
I'll write more on "Good" when I get a chance...sad fact is, as
Jim observes, it's easier to come up with ideas for the "evil"
list than the "good" list...but I wonder if this is a survival
trait, as it's more important to be aware of evil (which can kill
you or hurt you) than it is to be aware of good (which can help
you, but in general you're doing okay on your own if you can
avoid evil).
BTW, a couple of excellent sources for this kind of discussion
would be a copy of the _Guinness Book of World Records_ and one
or more of them there _Book of Lists_...I seem to recall that at
least one of them had a list of "evil" people.
There is another aspect, and that is while we tend to single
out an "individual" as being good or evil, not infrequently
as in everything else it is the collective environment
that results in the fame or infamy of a particular person.
In post WWI Germany, if Hitler did not rise to power, someone
else would have. Perhaps the someone else would have beaten
the U.S. to the atom bomb... or managed to throw off the shackles
of the punitive Versailles "treaty" and institute a democracy (not likely
in that era, but possible). Europe was not known for peace
and tranquillity back then, it is a recent phenomena for that area.
While comment is made of Stalin, does anyone realize that the British and
French applied considerable pressure in the Dumas (but mostly with
Czar Nicholas) to continue Russian participation in WWI? The
continuing debacle led to the rise of the Bolsheviks and thence Stalin--
heir to millions of deaths. Is Stalin the sole holder of opprobrium
here or does some get spread around to the others that caused the environment
that lead to his ascendency? In other circumstances Stalin would
be just the guy next door... or you or I could be a Stalin...
how do we know?
Okay, I've been trying to come up with a nice, big, juicy
list of Good People, and I'm finding it's harder than I thought
it would be. And I think I found a simple reason why: it's a
lot easier to do something big and bad than it is to do
something big and good.
Like, if you had scales and put Stalin's massacres on the left
side, what could you put on the right-hand side to balance it?
Curing cancer? Ending world hunger? I don't know. I guess you
could put people like Jonas Salk (and others who have saved
countless lives by developing vaccines) in the Good category.
But with the occasional exception (Dr. Martin Luther King),
there really aren't many individuals who you can really say
have done good things that have affected millions of people.
And someone mentioned Jimmy Carter, a man who I agree is probably
the only "good" man to hold the office in the past few decades.
But how much good did he really do while he was president? One
could argue that he's done the country more good working with
Habitat For Humanity than he did while he was in office (not
to slag the man, but it seems that Nice Guys Make Lousy Presidents).
I guess charity is one way that people (rich people, at least)
can do Big Works Of Good. Perhaps Carnagie belongs on the list,
for all of those libraries he funded? (I know that the library
in my hometown of Edwardsville was a Carnegie library). But to
do so means that Ted Turner is Really, Really Good for giving
all that money away.
And also, there is something like the Heisenberg principle at
work here: the very best people don't seek publicity for their
good deeds. The unknown heroes who work tirelessly with the
poor and the sick, firemen who risk and lose their lives saving
people...these are some of the best of the race, but few people
know who they are. Even rich people fall into this category:
in the last three months I've seen at least a couple of news-
paper accounts of wealthy people who've been very quietly
donating tens of millions of dollars anonymously for years.
That said, still the question remains: what Good Deed balances
the slaughter of millions?
These are all pretty obvious... Have you ever read Dostoyevski's
(sp) ``Notes from Underground''? Fiction, but describes a kind of
violence we all participate in to some extent. Some of those you
listed are simply mass murderers. How about a mass of murderers --
like the 3 million + KKKers who were active in the 1910's - 1930's?
Or those who for the sake of political advancement, promote the death
penalty even when it is applied to mentally retarded people who were
juveniles at the time they committed their crimes? (Bill Clinton,
then governor of Arkansas, went back to his home state to sign a death
warrant for a mentally retarded kid while campaigning for the
presidency.) Or the rest of the Americans who voted for this kind of
thing? Or how about when nobody's life is at stake, but rather what
about individual belief? Consider the Scope's trial... On one side
are people who believe people's immortal souls will be lost if they do
not hear and accept a picture of Christianity that is built on ancient
Babylonian mythology and cosmogeny... and the others who feel that
they will do their children a grave disservice in dealing with a
modern world if they do not learn the principles of science and
critical analysis. Or more, that people feel they have no need to
offer charity, that it is not a part of their moral conscience? That
it is better to lock somebody up and permanently disfranchise them,
than to try to promote their participation in legitimate society?
My own sense is that evil people have done far less than evil ideas.
"When choosing between two evils I always like to take the one I've never
tried before."
-- Mae West
I would definitely add Saddam Hussein to the Bad list. Not only did he
invade Kuwait for no good reason, and torch the oil wells on his way out,
etc., and also force his people to fight for his foolish cause, but he has
gassed and tortured his own people, killed hundreds and thousands, drained
the lands of the Reed people in southern
Iraq, causing genocide there, and destroying thicker culture. He is an ego
maniac, etc., his photos all over the place. etc.
I am not so big on history so as to know history's worst characters. I am
wonder if Torqemada should be so high, since, in theory, he thought he was
pursuing the good of the church, etc. Shouldn't, really, the Pope that
appointed him as Grand Inquisitor be on this list then.
I don't know a thing about Vlad Tepes. But shouldn't he be much lower on
the list?
I would rate Hitler higher, perhaps at the top. And, I wonder, does Eichman
belong, given that he is really in Hitler's shadow. He would not have
existed but for Hitler. Stalin, also, should be much higher. He killed some
20 million peasants, recall, and was ruthless etc. in every other way.
Anyway, in today's NEW YORK TIMES, on page B8, is a superb book review on a
book about Hitler. The book is "The Hitler of History" by John Lukacs, and
it addresses many of the issues you are concerned with. Check it out and
you'll see.
Interesting that so many are in the 20th century. Weapons of mass
destruction, mass propaganda, etc., have given evil minded sorts even
greater power, when they get to power. You might want to comment on that.
H.H. Holmes certainly sounds interesting. Never heard of him, either, so
his inclusion would definitely make the book interesting.
I think you need to do a bit of discussion about what makes evil, what is
evil and good. I don't think you can define it solely in terms of a body
count. But rather it must have something to do with purity of motive, of
ego, etc. Someone who is not merely crazy, but knows what good is and
turns away, out of selfish interest. Doesn't that define it. Evils is
really putting your own selfish interests above everyone one else's, in a
manner that uses coercion and violence to achieve it. In this respect,
Hitler might actually drop on the list, inasmuch as, from what we know, he
sincerely believe in his Cause. Whereas someone who knows better,
supposedly, would rate higher. But, still, coming from a supposedly
"Christian Culture" Hitler should have known better.
And shouldn't we hold people to a higher standard in the 20th century,
when ideas about good and human rights and all are in wider circulation?
For example, this is why I think Saddam Hussain is so bad. He knows what
the world thinks of him, he has lived through the genocide of Nazism, and
should know better.
Now, about good people. I like that you have Baha'u'llah -- and
would put him at the top of the list in some respect. On the other hand,
theologically speaking, it would be unfair to
put Baha'u'llah -- or Buddha or Christ or Moses or Muhammad, etc., on the
list at all, since I believe they are not really ordinary men, but rather
all are incarnations of pure God, of the pure God-head, or as, we say,
manifestations of God. So there can be no evil in them at all.
If I were to draw up such a list, I would make a point about this, talking
about these figures in this way, and then excluding them from the list.
But, I know, from your point of view, this does not make sense. So, looking
at it from your perspective, I would have to include these people, since
they are so manifestly good.
If we look at goodness in terms of deeds, rather than teachings, and if we
define good as the opposite of my definition of evil, that is to say, people
who have sacrificed their self interests in favor of serving others and
helping others, then, still, Baha'u'llah would come out very high, in that
he walked away from a very comfortable life as a Prince to go endure a life
of torture and exile to promote his concept of Good.
But if we exclude the Manifestations of God, I would suggest the following
possible additions:
Gandhi -- a similar life of self sacrifice and working for other people's go
od.
Martin Luther King -- likewise, courage in the face of fire, promoting a
good cause.
Going back in history, you might want to consider some of the Saints.
Assisi perhaps? Augustine? I don't know much about them, but there must be
something to what they have all done.
And what about great scientists who have shown courage in the face of
repression. Gallelio was imprisoned for his views. Or the contributions of
Louis Pasteur.
Then there would be the deeds of statements. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps. Ben
Franklin. You listed Abraham Lincoln. Are there others?
And what about people who have risen above and beyond the call of duty.
Done things at risk to themselves when they didn't have to. Isn't that a
high form of Good? I am thinking of people like Schindler, etc. Although I
suppose what counts is doing this consistently, over a long period of time,
over a life time. So, in that regard, Mother Teresa is probably a good
candidate for the list (although, frankly, I think she has received rather
too much publicity.)
And what about someone like a Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, in some ways, was
responsible for ridding the world of Hitler. And who sacrificed his health
and life in some ways in the battle? He was a politician, it is true, and
so many does not qualify. But he must be counted as one of this century's
greatest and most influential men. He was also involved in founding the UN.
His speech, the Four Freedoms. etc.
And who else has won the Nobel Peace Prize?
And while we're at it, where
are people like Albert Schweitzer? Or Mohandas Gandhi? Or Florence
Nightingale? Or that guy whose name I've forgotten who hid and saved so many
Jews in his factory during the Naxi occupation in WW2? Or various winners of
the Nobel Peace Prize? And don't be saying that Lincoln "freed the slaves": I
think historians will argue that point with you, although it *is* convenient
shorthand. And did the Number 2 spot go to Baha'ullah because you know a lot
about the Baha'i faith, or really because people nominated him for that spot?
I certainly agree with your placement of these people into their
respective "good" and "evil" categories. I would, of course like to see
Jesus at the top of the good list, as would those of other faiths like
to see, for example, Mohammed, at the top of the list. difficult,
since we have no good historical record to go by, and Millions have
needlessly died in their names due to our animal behavior. Man's
inhumanity towards his fellow Man knows no bounds...nevertheless, the
basic message is to treat others decently,which is what we are always
trying to "get around"....you would think the ten commandments say it
all...ok, I can't "rip-off" my neighbor, nor his ass, etc.; but how much
can I steal from him before it is considered "ripping-off"?...always
pushing the limits...like a child. which is why from ancient times we
have had multitudes of laws and regulations, and lawyer-types...
Today I perused your list of good and evil people, which I guess
is a matter for conjecture. My own list would include Churchill
(more people died through the bombing of Dresden than in Hiroshima
and Nagasakiya combined) and that when the war was virtually over.
The west stood by when Ida Amin killed his countryman, they went
to Bocassas wedding as well. The UN condemned the Israelis for
rescuing the hostages in Antebe.
So if there is a spare spot on the evil list please include "Those
who let it happen".
First of all, Vlad, more formally Vladislav, impaled 10,000 men and
women when the world population was just peaking over three million. He
deserves the spot for number one most Evil man. Secondly, Octavian of
Rome is entirely missing from the list. He burned down the Great
Library at Alexandria. Had this event not taken place the Dark Ages
would have never come about, nor would slavery have existed in the New
World. Humanity would have been far more prepared for diversity. The
Spanish Inquisition would probably never have happened either. I have
successfully argued that Octavian was the most Evil man in all history,
on the grounds that had he not done what he did, most evil acts after
would never have come about. Besides, Rome needs a representative on
that list.
Perhaps Lincoln does not belong on any such list. He freed the slaves
yes, but Socrates once said: Always examine the motives of those in
power. What were Lincoln's motives? He, at various points in his life,
owned slaves. Was his motive to free the slaves, or to hold power of
the nation united. I would venture toward the latter. He was no saint,
nor should he be seen as one. After all, all he did was unite the
nation, the slaves were not truly freed until well after the 1960's.
Political and Social freedom are very different things, neither of which
African-Americans had for a very long time after Lincoln was dead. The
south did experience a short lived political/social backlash, in which
African-Americans had extended rights, but that was, as I said, shortly
lived. Newton is a far more fitting candidate for the Good list, he
created much of the modern world. Sometimes Good is complimented by
evil. Had Lincoln truly been a man of goodness he would have rescued
the slaves, burned the southern crops, and expelled every state south of
the Ohio river from the Union. Instead place Newton on this list, he
contributed much more to humanity, and was one of the most influential
persons in history. Early founders of Taoism and Hinduism may also make
fitting additions to this list.
The Dalai Lama is the same immortal being reincarnated time and time
again, each time, at the moment of death, revealing his next identity.
When we Westerners make a reference to any one of his physical forms we
tend to forget that they are all the same guy, according to His
theology. The other night I heard a news report on the new Lama, in
this report it was stated that he would have to strive to meet the
standards of the previous Lama. The report neglected to mention that
they were the same man. If we chose to look at any one religion as
basically accurate in theology, must we not look at all religions in the
same fashion? Although I do like the way in which your page gives no
factual credit to the theology behind any of the religions, perhaps that
is the better way to go--to be agnostic rather than generally
faithful.
First of all, I'd like to say that I love your site...it's one of the
best things I've ever seen on the great, vacuous monster we call the
Internet. You asked for comments about the list of good and evil people,
so here goes.
I do not believe in concepts such as good and evil - the world is
infinitely complex, and thus reducing the immense scale of gray to
simple black and white is a dangerous thing. This said, I feel compelled
to argue with a few of your choices, just because I can.
Mother Teresa, although she accomplished many "good" things, would be
nowhere on my list of good people. She vehemently preached against
homosexuality and abortion. She was known to baptize children against
their will - given the choice of saving a sick child's life or baptizing
it, she would choose the latter. Not being a Catholic myself, I cannot
accept this.
Back on the religious theme, Jesus wasn't so wonderful either. At one
point, a rich woman was criticized for anointing him with expensive
perfume, rather than using her money for something more important - say,
feeding the poor. Jesus replied (and I'm paraphrasing, of course) "Do
not criticize her, for the poor will always be with you, and I am here
for a short time only." Also, what about all the atrocities that have
been committed in his name - not that he would approve, but I think that
should be considered.
How about Vlad Tepez's contribution to literature? If he hadn't been
such a monster, Dracula might never have been written. Just a thought.
Keep up the good work!
Like others I was surprised at the omission of a few people in your list
of the 'Good'.
1. Mahatma Gandhi : I am an Indian and owe a lot to him. But so do a
whole lot of other people and countries. Showed us the strength in
truth. righteousness and nonviolence.
2. Martin Luther King.
3. Nelson Mandela.
Both of them more than once acknowledged their own debt to the Mahatma.
Incidentally Mahatma means 'Great Soul'. What better name for a man like
him ?
Your lists have certainly generated the controversy and stimulated
thinking as I'm sure you desired. Reading your reasons for putting
people on the list was as interesting as who was on it. By the way,
I'm responding through e-mail because there was no other indicated way
to post a response. I would have to say the motivations are the mark
of good and evil, and even those are suspect when put in terms of
religion and politics. Were the Iriquois who tortured their
captives evil because they believed they would gain spiritual strength
if their victim screamed out his essence, or were they simply
practicing a common belief among the five nation confederacy? Was
Genghis Kahn evil when he used total destruction of those who opposed
him to spare the lives of his own soldiers by preventing future
battles. Don't forget that once he conquered a territory he wanted it
productive. When he killed it was purposeful, and the threat he posed
led to numerous peaceful surrenders. Under the Kahn's rule, Genghis'
and Kublai's at least, a "pax mongol" existed in their empire which
encouraged trade and bettered the lives of more people than were killed
in the conquests. If you use the threat of mass destruction as a
qualifier for evil in those terms then every president of the United
States,and most of the rest of the government and American people are
just as evil. Didn't we bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prevent more
killing of our own warriors? And didn't we, successfully, hold the
threat of the same destruction over our main rival to prevent further
mass warfare? How different is that from Genghis making an example of
some cities which resisted him to get peaceful acquisition of others?
(One could argue he had no right to want the other cities in the first
place, but that opens up another can of worms in the virtues vs.
problems of imperialism and colonialism.) Besides before condemning
the Kahns and Torquemada, look at what other divinely inspired
slaughters have occurred. Read Joshua 6:21, where under God's order
the Israelite tribe "utterly destroyed the city, both men and women,
young and old, oxen, sheep and asses, with the edge of the sword".
The only people spared were two harlots and their families. Because
they'd sheltered the Israelite spies. This is in the same bible where
just a few books earlier God had condemned harlots and other
adulterers to death by stoning! Apparently even God has a hard time
figuring out relative good and evil.
Then we could get into the Machiavalian aspect. He is often
regarded as evil, his writings in "The Prince" are usually summed up
with the phrase "the ends justify the means". We tend to regard that
as an unsavory way of thinking, but to Machiavelli, it made more
sense to have an opponent assassinated than to go to war against him.
We have laws in the United States against assassinating our ideological
foes, but what makes more sense? Risk a few agents to assassinate
Hussein, or send 100,000 and more Coalition troops into full scale
battle against an Iraqi army that had no idea what a modern air attack
could do to it? I don't feel like looking up the casualty figures
from the U. S. invasion of Panama, but on the good/evil scale, were
any casualties more than one on either side worth more than the
"dishonorable" act of taking out Noriega the individual?
Good and evil are sticky subjects. The followers of Moses who
killed their wives and children then committed suicide at Massdada are
revered, yet the followers of Jim Jones and David Koresh are
considered weird cultists because they did exactly the same thing
under an outside threat to their beliefs.
I'm quitting this commentary now. It's going to take me a while
to put together lists of good and evil people with a minimum of
cultural bias
Hi Cliff,
Thanks for the interesting site. I spent quite a bit of time on it.
I was looking at the good and evil people and I noticed that one remarkable
humanitarian is missing: Raoul Wallenberg. He is credited with saving the
lives of 100,000 people. How many individuals in history can you say that
about? In fact there was a direct encounter between him and Eichmann on the
platform of the Budapest train station as he intervened even in the eleventh
hour to get Jews headed for Auschwitz off the train.
Thanks again and I would like to be on the mailing list for the new books
that come out,
Dear Cliff,
Your lists, and many of your visitors' comments, tend to assess
degrees of evil on the basis of numbers affected -- but those who
commit mass murder in the name of some perverted ideal are driven by
ideas which surely qualify them as insane. While insanity is not an
excuse, it does serve to explain the otherwise unfathomable...and, I
think, it may dilute the Evil quotient.
But what about the thug who guns down a convenience store clerk
for a six-pack? Imagine the thought process (if such people think at
all): "I want a beer. Let's kill that guy."
Do those thugs have the same mental defect that (I believe)
Torquemada had? I don't think so -- there are just too many of them.
They can't ALL be born that way.
No, I think most of them KNOW what they're doing is wrong -- they
just don't care. Yes, they are often the products of an impoverished
and violent upbringing; yes, American television offers far more evil
role models than good ones; yes, drugs and liquor drive otherwise good
people to acts of desperation. But I contend that if you have the
slightest shred of human decency in you, there is NOTHING, nothing in
the WORLD, that could induce you to kill so lightly.
So when I turn on the local news and watch the endless parade of
sullen, cold-eyed young men on trial for acts of appalling cruelty, I
see in each one of them a darkness at least as profound as that in the
heart of Hitler.
On good and evil. Don't write a book on it. Books written on
good and evil are usually either trite or pedantic. Either way the
issue is so fraught with pitfalls you will be open to critics from
one point of view or another. Consider the "Golden Rule" of the
western tradition "do unto others what you would have done unto you.
Would you want your local masochist obeying this? Or the "Silver
Rule" associated with eastern religions "Do not do unto others what
you would not do unto yourself" Why shouldn't someone be standing on
the bank of the river as you go swirling by and think "Soon he's
going to die and be with God. I wish I was drowning".
The problem with good and evil is you can't get past the
dichotomies. Even Yaweh, giving the law to the Hebrews in Sinai
says "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex.20.13) then spends the next several
chapters laying out the law and denoting which ones the
perperpertators should be executed for. Not to mention the numerous
massacres (e.g. Jericho, Josh.6.21.) divinely ordered.
My advice is stick to the beauty and, so far as we know, objective
truth of math and physics. Morality is even more imprecise than
chemistry, as I'm sure Dr. Asimov would say.
Dear Dr. Pickover:
Marvellous Home Page! Shall be returning to it again and again and
again...
A couple of strong disagreements:
Apropos of your list of good people there is one person whose leaving out
of the list you should justify: M.K. Gandhi
Apropos of your list of favourite books: please do read 'Story of San
Michele' by Axel Munthe - and tell me if you do not find it to be
unquestionably one of the greatest books of this (or any other) century.
More later, when I revisit your utterly fascinating page.
It was not the people that were chosen that I found most
interesting I believe it was the illustration that defining humanity
in such linear terms of good and evil has a tendency to be inadequate
and frustrating.
I also believe that there is a recurring theme between your
attempts to define good and evil and your mathematical questions. As
a programmer, attempting model real world objects the greatest
challenge in defining them is the definition falls into what we call a
"gray" area. How do we define concepts that have no bounds of
expression? How do make binary computers truly understand "close" or
"kind of" or "like". It is as fruitless, or challenging, as defining
beauty on a linear scale.
I believe with the advent of chaos theory we have the beginnings
of tools necessary to approach definition of these abstract concepts.
Who knows maybe we will have a "Satan Set" that persons of evil, or in
the neighbourhood of evil, will be bounded by.
Q: (Forgive the generalization) Aren't you a bit of a "wild duck"
for IBM?
Hw the heaven can you rank Jesus Christ 3rd? He is the most spiritual
person that ever did.
Hi Cliff,
I have a comment to make about your Top Ten good people list, and one
which someone with your web page and your book preferences is sure to
understand:
One measure of goodness depends on what extent a person does something
for self-glorification. In particular, I think action for which
public recognition is the aim significantly diminishes the value of an
action. This belief arises out of my personal biases for judging
goodness, which are (1) that goodness depends entirely on the
intention of the actor, proverbs about paved roads to hell
notwithstanding, (2) that acting for reasons of gaining recognition
are ultimately wholly ego-gratifying, and (3) that ego-gratification
is at the root of all human evil. [Incidentally, (1) makes sense
because judging a person by the consequences he or she had on the
world is always ultimately a futile exercise, since no one will ever
know.] This reasoning immediately makes suspect many famous people
who are widely held to be good. Frankly, I doubt, for example, that
Mother Theresa did it for the fame -- she had been doing what she did
long before the world took notice. But, for example, Gandhi, whom
some of your respondents listed as a perfect candidate is suspect.
Did he really do it for India? Or did he do it to secure his place in
history? He is said to have slept with beautiful naked women to prove
his ability to resist such worldly temptations -- but who would need
to demonstrate such an ability except one who wishes to be known by
them? I, personally, would change places with Gandhi (even in his
grave) if it meant I would have similar world-wide recognition for
having done good, and that suggests that what he did overall would be
"easy" for me.
What would be difficult (and hence, good?) would be to be the nameless
worker in the soup kitchen or the anonymous Oscar Schindler-type who
performs good consistently for the sake of good, with little or no
recognition for it. Would I trade my life for that? Right now,
probably not. Yet I would recognize those people as people with good
intentions were I to meet them. That suggests that those people are
doing the most difficult kind of good -- that without the incidental
reward of recognition. So, I don't know if it was intentional, but
I think it's good that your top ten list is short of ten -- the rest
should be saved for the anonymous figures who did good but never took
the credit.
Finally, one last comment -- surely a graphics person can do better
than that composite of you and Piers. ;-)
I hope we have a chance to meet some time -- where do you spend most of
your time? Yorktown Heights? Wisconsin?
Regards,
Kentaro Toyama
Microsoft Research
I was just looking at your WEB site once again, and I've been
thinking about one question for a while, namely the one about Good People
or what Good Deed balances the slaughter of millions. The road to hell may
be paved with good intentions, but the road to heaven must be paved with
results, and I would suggest these individuals as Good:
Alexander Flemming for his discovery of penicillin
Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev, for their work
in ending the Cold War.
Louis Pasteur, in his effort to make French beer better than German
beer, developed his pasteurization process for milk that saved uncounted
millions of children from from death or serious illness.
Jonas Salk, for the polio vaccine.
Newton and Tesla to whom we owe much of our material comfort.
John Harrison for invention of the marine chronometer, motivated in
part by the loss of some 2,000 men in a storm off the coast of the Scilly
Isles.
The guy who devised the 401(k) plan for common people; I can't
remember his name, but he was featured in an article in Fortune Magazine
last year. He didn't make a lot of money himself, but he was developing
401(k)'s for rich people, and his religious convictions led him to do
something for ordinary people. Must have been some interesting mathematics
here. I'd like to see this guy considered for a Nobel prize in economics.
Some names I thought were missing from the list:
Evil - Caligula
Good - Gandhi, St. Francis of Asissi (sp?), Benjamin Franklin, Mozart,
Tesla
Also - I often do book reviews for various publications on a freelance
basis and would be interested in receiving review copies.
Hi Cliff,
The Top Ten Good: You ask for suggestions or alternate ranking. I have
no interest in debating relative evils, so I'll stick to the good.
Unfortunately, history is not one of my strengths so I can't make more
than a few simple statements: my main suggestion is to put Muhammad
before Baha'u'llah. All the rest seems okay, although there may be some
good lost somewhere in the cracks!
1.Buddha - Buddhism, far more than Christianity or Islam, has a very
strong pacifist element. The
orientation toward nonviolence has played a significant role in the
political history of Buddhist countries.
I would put either Buddha or the Prophet Muhammad as #1.
Given the reasons you state for Baha'u'llah of the Baha'is, I would
suggest putting Muhammad before Baha'u'llah, since he taught the same
thing, 1300 years earlier, to far more people. Without Islam, the
Baha'i faith would have never developed. The teachings of Muhammad had
a profound and immediate beneficial effect on society and the advent of
mathematics, astronomy, and science in general, whereas Baha'u'llah has
not had such an effect on our society. At the height of Islam,
religious tolerance was present in abundance and societal ills were
low. Islam is also meant to be a universal faith. Muslims also believe
in the oneness of humanity, and also devote themselves to the abolition
of racial prejudice, class prejudice, and other injustices of all
kinds. Islam, in its true form, has no priesthood: the muslim can
communicate directly with God at any time and in any way. No priestly
intercession is ever necessary. Muslim men and women are equal in the
sight of God and Islamic society - although you might realize this by
looking at the culturally distorted representations of Islam in our
world today. The presence of a muslim clergy is mainly for
advice-giving capability due to the massive amount of Islamic literature
that can be studied. Muslim clergy are also recognized for their
familiarity with Islamic jurisprudence, or the Shariah. Although ritual
forms of prayer are observed, Islam also aims to guide society
spiritually, socially, politically, and economically. Unfortunately, in
today's world, muslims are often not true to the spirit of Islam. But
that does not reflect upon the message taught by the Prophet Muhammad,
nor his inherent goodness. Islam also maintains that all the great
world religions point to the one god, Allah, but that the messages were
often muddled, confused, or lost over time - hence the apparent
differences in faiths. Furthermore, jihad does not actually mean holy
war, but instead means 'struggle in the path of Allah.' War is not
encouraged by Islam - in fact, the word Islam is derived from the Arabic
root SLM, pronounced Salm, which literally means peace, submission, and
obedience.
2.Baha'u'llah - Baha'is believe that all the founders of the world's
great religions have been manifestations of God and agents of a
progressive divine plan for the education of the human race. Despite
their apparent differences, the world's great religions, according to
the Baha'is, teach an identical truth. Baha'is believe that Baha'ullah
(d. 1892) was a manifestation of God, who in His essence is unknowable.
Baha'ullah's special function was to overcome the disunity of religions
and establish a universal faith. Baha'is believe in the oneness of
humanity and devote themselves to the abolition of racial, class, and
religious prejudices. The great bulk of Baha'i teachings is concerned
with social ethics; the faith has no priesthood and does not observe
ritual forms in its worship.
Putting the Dalai Lama after Muhammad and Baha'u'llah is also fine with
me!
3.Dalai Lama - head of the dominant Dge-lugs-pa order of Tibetan
Buddhists and, until 1959, both spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet.
In 1989 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in recognition of his
nonviolent campaign to end Chinese domination of Tibet.
Also fine:
4.Jesus Christ - for the preaching of love.
5.Moses - just the idea of "resting on the seventh day" improved the
life of countless people.
I'm not so sure Mother Theresa had such a profound good effect on
humanity in general as did the other people mentioned in this list. I
would put some beneficial scientist in her place. Perhaps Louis
Pasteur?
6.Mother Theresa - Once Mother Theresa was asked how she could continue
day after day after day, visiting the terminally ill: feeding them,
wiping their brows, giving them comfort as they lay dying. And she
said, "It's not hard because in each one, I see the face of Christ in
one of His more distressing disguises."
7.Abraham Lincoln - for freeing the slaves.
Okay, but what about Martin Luther King? Or Gandhi?
Hallo Clifford
While looking at some fractal resources over the weekend, I changed upon
your pages. After exhausting the fractal and chaos section, I had a look
at the more "esoteric" pieces on display. It was with great interest
that I read the piece: The Scales of Good and Evil.
While busy with this, in the background the death on Diana was again
force-fed through the commercial grinder. Some people would argue that
Diana should be on your list of good people. Taken from a historical
perspective, the question immediately arises wether or not any mention
would be made about Mother Theresa, who died in the same period. Those
same people would, if presented with a list and without any outside
influences, most probably select both of them as very good people.
If the above sounds like illogical rambling(1), let me try and
completely rephrase:
How much hype surrounding people are just propaganda with hidden
motives?
In the case of Diana, commercial interest keeps the machine oiled.
How many people would buy a coffee-cup with and image of Mother Theresa
on the side? Of Diana?
Who was better?
Or were they equal?
The same can be said for most of the other people on the your list, both
good and bad.
A piece that kind of sums it all up:
And in the end
In all that we say
And all that we do
All that we leave behind
Is a trail of memories
Will you remember
Those that are enclosed
Within the border of your mind?
Rephrase the third last line:
And in the end
In all that we say
And all that we do
All that we leave behind
Is a trail of memories
How will you remember
Those that are enclosed
Within the border of your mind?
You are welcome to use the above if you want to as long as
acknowledgment is given. I do retain the copyright.
Greeting from Afrika
Marius
Hello Cliff,
Loved the discussion of good and evil characters - great choices for the
evil ones. A couple of quick thoughts - I'd also question Abe Lincoln's
inclusion on the 'good' list, for the reasons of political expediency
behind freeing the slaves that some others have mentioned. I'd also like
to nominate L. Ron Hubbard for a spot on the 'evil' list, for enslaving
many minds and making a lot of money doing it.
Dave Anderson
Your lists displayed an obvious pro-religious politically pro-western bias.
Abraham Lincoln?!?? "For freeing the slaves?!!?" Moses because resting
every seventh day is desirable?? As if working six days a week is
acceptable? Thanks for nothing!! And never mind Moses' 300 or whatever
other mostly bloodthirsty patriarchal and authoritarian commandments! For
the evil list, how about Columbus, Cortez, or JP Morgan?? Plenty of people
did more harm than some guy who gassed people at his bed and breakfast, but
you refuse to see it because of your biases. Andrew Jackson killed more
people coldbloodedly when he sent them on the Trail of Tears, even if they
weren't rich white old ladies. And lots of people "preached love", but few
screwed the world up as badly as the followers of jesus did.
Perhaps you should rename it the most Charismatic or Powerful
Leaders. Most of the people you named did not accomplish these deeds
alone, their ability to lead, and feed of off general trends and
hysteria of the masses, is what made all of these atrocities/good
deeds happen. No one personally murdered millions, or fed millions,
it was their ability to inspire others that created the effects
described. Any World leader/Dictator or Religious Icon does nothing
more than fan the flames of general emotion. Having the ability to
discern general trends in the population and utilise them does not in
essence make someone evil, Hitler is no more evil than the thousands
of people who carried out his orders, he was one man.. In fact we are
all one person, so unless you work alone (as in serial
murderes/pedeophiles/abusers etc) I do not believe you can be held
accountable for the "whole" . That then leaves all who participated in
any way, or who did not participate but stayed silent accountable. Of
course this is just my opinion. We all have the capacity for
good/evil if you get us at the right time, especially if we get caught
up in mob hysteria. Thus accordingly I would imagine that you would
have to take all Leaders of off your list and concentrate on
individuals. Just my thoughts. Peace
I've enjoyed your personal pick of the 12 vilest and the
10 best......as someone mentioned- yin/yang. But most
of those mentioned had a definite lean towards one side!
Vlad Tepes surprised me. I had thought he killed a few
people (well that is bad enough), but THAT many?
HH Holmes is a big surprise as I have never heard of him.
I heard that Timur-i-Leng (or Tamurlane) left a pyramid
of 70,000 skulls after the conquest of Isfahan, Persia. I be-
leive he was the last of the Mongol leaders.
Josip Stalin goes to the top of my list. It is becoming more
likely that he is responsible for 30 million deaths of his country-
men. Fortunately my grandparents left that country seven
years before he came to power- as "native Germans" or
Volgadeutsch they would likely have had such a fate.
Well, it was a big topic, but you seem to be off to a good start.
I would like to suggest one more person for your good list - Ghandi.
Read a biography - absolutely amazing. The things he was able to
accomplish through non-violence is an incredibly inspiring story - he
managed to free his country from the grip of the British. Without war.
Of course, the list of things he did not manage to accomplish is sad as
well. He opposed the creation of Pakistan as a separate Moslem country.
Even his harshest critics admit that he had a good point there. If they
did, the fact that these two countries are the newest members of the
"Nuclear Club" should persuade them.
Not bad, seeing as how was an actual person. Not like another one of
your choices.
I refer, of course, to Jesus. If mythological figures are to be
included, The Tick, a mighty force opposing evil (at least on Saturday
morning cartoons), should be considered.
As far as your contention that Jesus preached love; he may have indeed
done so, but don't forget some other memorable verses attributed to the
"Lamb of God:"
Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple." This from your preacher of love, a
commandment to hate.
Also, Matthew 13:41-42 "The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and
they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them
which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there
shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." I don't feel that preaching an
everlasting hell is appopriate for someone on your list of all-time good
guys.
But my favorite one, in Jesus' own words: Matthew 10:34 "Think not that
I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a
sword." And that promise has surely been kept. Think also of the great
wrongs inflicted by followers of Jesus - the Inquisition, the Crusades,
the Salem Witch Trials, the sufferings inflicted upon the natives by the
(largely) Christian settlers form Europe, the support of slavery by the
Southern Baptists before, during, and after the American Civil War.
Ghandi did not do, or inspire, any of these things. Of course, he hasn't
had as long to inspire them either...
As far as Mother Theresa goes, I suggest reading "The Missionary
Position." She was an outspoken critic of birth control, even though she
lived in the midst of an overcrowded land. She considered suffering to
be a blessing, because her lord Jesus had suffered on the cross. She
certainly did more in the face of poverty and suffering than I could
ever hope to, but she could have done more by advocating birth control.
Dear Mr. Pickover,
I read the list you have on your website of the most evil and most
benevolent people that have ever lived, and there are two things that
I would change. If I made such a list, I would rank Adolf Eichmann
first. Eichmann was not simply sitting silently by in Hitler's
"shadow," as one of your respondents said. Eichmann was the sole
orchestrator of the Nazi extermination of the Jews. He was truly
Hitler's right hand man. And at the end of the war, he did not even
have the bit of conscience to turn himself in to the war crimes
tribunal. He escaped Germany through a secret Nazi organization
called Odessa, which gave him a fake identity. He was finally tracked
down in Argentina over a decade later. After hearing his death
sentence at his trial, he said, and I quote, " I don't mind going into
the grave, because I have placed six million Jews in the grave before
me." One thing that you also have to remember about men like
Eichmann, "Hitler's Henchmen", as they are called, is that they were
truly messed up in the head. Heinrich Himmler, who was second only to
Eichmann in the Nazi's death squad, and head of the Nazi Gestapo, had
an actual mental disease that caused him to laugh and giggle
uncontrollably at the sight of anything in pain or suffering. I
forget the name of the condition, but Nazi officers said that Himmler
would sit at his desk, trying to kill a chicken by twisting its head
off, giggling wildly as it screamed and squalled in pain.
Another thing I would do would be to take Abraham Lincoln off the
list altogether. Yes, Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclomation
freeing the slaves, and yes he tried to keep the United States
together, but there is something that you are forgetting. Although
Lincoln obviously had other things on his mind, during his Presidency
the drive to push Native Americans off their land continued unabated.
No President, whose was in command during the Indian Wars for the
continent, Lincoln included, ever came out in condemnation of the
attacks by the U.S. Army against sometimes innocent tribes of Native
Americans, or made a move to negotiate lasting peace with them.
Consider this: In 1863, Kit Carson, a commander in the U.S. Army,
marched 400 men to the Canyon de Chelly to surround a Navajo
stronghold. His troops killed their livestock and destroyed their
crops, in an effort to keep skirmishes between the Navajo and settlers
under control, even though there had never been a specific offensive
move by the Navajo against the army. A year later, his troops once
again entered the canyon and captured the remaining Navajo, who were
taken to Fort Sumner and imprisoned there until 1868. And also in
1864, there was an event that came to be known as the Sand Creek
Massacre, in which a large army force in Colorado ambushed a village
of peaceful Arapaho and Cheyenne, killing men, women and children.
All who were Commanders In Chief during the Indian Wars and made no
attempt to stop it are just as responsible as the army leaders who
were in the field, there by making Lincoln responsible to. It is a
sad feature of the people of this country, who, ignorant of their
history, are apt to forget and ignore the fact that they reside on
land that was literally swept out from under the feet of those who
originally inhabited it, the instruments of this take over being
disease, broken treaties and half-hearted attempts at peace.
Hello Cliff,
I looked through your good & evil lists, and figured you had set
yourself up for some controversy, but I thought it would be based on
minor quibbling over who might have been added or deleted from the
lists. I was astounded by the ignorance about Abraham Lincoln expressed
by some of the writers. I suppose it is because of the well-noted
failure of students to learn history in school, but this is pretty
fundamental. Here are the facts:
Lincoln did not own slaves. The writer is probably thinking of Thomas
Jefferson. The emancipation was not something done to meet some
unexpected political event. He did not do it to deal with the war. The
war was the result of the emancipation order. He was the most outspoken
opponent of slavery of his time. The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates
were primarily about slavery. Douglas had created a bill which repealed
the ban on slavery in the territories. Lincoln said "No man is good
enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this
is the leading principle--the sheet anchor of American republicanism."
He was the first republican president. The party was founded as a
single issue party, and the issue was slavery. Freeing the slaves was
pretty much the whole platform. Long before becoming a presidential
candidate, Lincoln said "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a
master - This expresses my idea of democracy - Whatever differs from
this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy - "
It is true that the plight of blacks in the south did not improve much
after the war, but that was largely because Lincoln was assassinated at
that critical time. His successor was a democrat who tried to complete
Lincoln's program, but was unable to because he lacked the mandate that
Lincoln had. The war was fought over whether the individual states
could opt out of the nation to avoid federal orders. The absurd idea
of burning their crops and expelling those states would have put Lincoln
on your evil list, rather than qualifying for the good list.
PS: Since we are talking about a U.S. president, how about George
Washington? He was one of the most noble men who ever lived. After
defeating a much larger & better British army, there were many who
expected him to become "King." That was the tradition of the time, and
those who suggested it to him were probably quite surprised by his
response. He basically told them that they were insane, and how could
you have gone through this long fight for freedom and then talk of
giving it up to a new king? He told them to never speak of it again
unless they would like to be charged with treason. Think how different
our country would have been if he had not been such a champion of
freedom.
I disagree with having Lincoln on the "good" list. His actions were
politically motivated. You also don't take into account his policy
concerning the Natives. His methods didn't involve negotiation or
peacemaking attempts. But merely forceful conquest.
One respondee said it was a minefield. He is a master of
understatement.
Let me open by pointing out that good and evil are religious
concepts so first you have to determine the religious orientation of the
respondant. Try to find a Jew putting anyone but folks like Hitler and
Torquemada at the top of the evil list.
But in the land of ritual sacrifice he who refuses to offer his
child is evil. And those who would try moral superiority to decide, explain
first why it is our moral obligation to kill Serbs to save Albanians who
have been openly engaged revolution and who pattern of terrorizing Serbs
over the last 20 years caused the invention of the term ethnic cleansing.
And that leads up to separating the person from the person's
reputation. Modern research of the Spanish Inquisition, right from the
official records reveals there are barely 100 executed in both the old and
new worlds in its first century of existance. It seems the Lutherans had
the printing press and vilitifed him as part of Catholicism. And to look to
those same Lutherans, the racked up a score of a million or three witches
for their first two centuries.
But the destruction of witches was a religious good, correct? The
Devil was real. Just look how he attacked church steeples with lightning.
And then you get into politics. There are so many people who
supported, defended and so many who still do, that his 20-25 million
murders before Hitler took power fall into the Orwellian memory hole. Down
that same hole went the murders of those who surrendered to the Nazis and
of everyone who supported the Nazis and of everyone accused of supporting
the Nazis.
And then shall we judge absolute or percentage? Way back when there
was a significantly lower population, we can't downgrade people for lack of
effort, just lack of targets. Pol Pot only had a small country to work with
but got 1/3 of them or so. And it depends how you group the targets. The US
got 100% of more than half of the Indian tribes.
And then times change. Folks like Washington or Jefferson can be
condemned for owning slaves but never Julius Ceasar. Ceasar not only owned
slavs but destroyed Roman democracy and set himself up as dictator --
Hitleresque to say the least -- and ask the Gauls about him.
Speaking of which, after the Napoleanic Wars, saying anything good
about "that satanic Corsican" was risking a jail sentence.
And then there are problems even currently as to what people
actually said and did. Nearly all the damning things Nazis are quoted as
saying can only be found in Allied propaganda without factual basis or so
greatly distorted as to reverse the meaning. Eichmann's "5 million on my
conscience" is similarly propaganda.
Good is not nearly as interesting to talk about but citing Bhudda
for his pacifist influence on bhuddist countries such as China and Japan
shows, shall we say, an interesting avoidance of certain aspects of their
hisories. While the US Civil War was going on, China had their own with
maybe 60 million dead. I prefer war-mongering to pacifist, thank you.
As to others, you appear to be awarding credit based upon theory
rather than positive results. That is the only thing that appears to save
Marx and his ism save that his views on Jews and Slavs as he published made
Hitler look like Mother Theresa in comparison.
Lincoln ATTEMPT AT freeing the slaves was purely political. He did
not and could not as he had no power to do so. His attempt was limited to
the states in rebellion so was clearly a war or political move at best.
And Moses for resting one day in seven. If there ever was a Moses
(or Jesus or Bhudda for that matter) prior to and long after his "time"
folks had more that 14% of the year as some form of holiday or other. The
most he can be creditted with is regularizing it and that sort of sucked
for farmers. Instead of getting their holidays in when the farm work was
minimal this screwed up the work year.
And all those native Hawaiians we have sort of a soft spot for. Dig
up their original temples and find the bones of slaves under the foundation
posts. Which of course was a good thing in their society.
Vlad Tepes is attributed with a lot but he did most all of it to
the pagan muslim invaders in defense of his country. His political problem
was that he appears to have continued it to maintain local political power
and eventually lost.
I just discovered your website (certainly above average interesting compared to
the rest of the www).
I read the article "The Scales of Good and Evil", and naturally, have an
opinion of my own.
I don't know if the discussion is still open, or if you ever have the time to
read my comments
(hey, you must get bucks of mail each day) but here go some random thoughts:
Nitpicking: The guy who ordered the killing of the citizens of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki via nuclear bomb
should definitely be on the list. Not as high as, say, Josef Stalin, but on it.
Reasons: The bombs were
dropped after Japan had offered to surrender (though not unconditional
surrender, which the US insisted on.
Well, according to my limited knowledge of history at least). While that may
not be much different in an
absolute sense than Genghis Khan slaughtering the inhabitants of an enemy city
for strategic reasons,
being a 20th century person, he should have known better. 20th century people,
americans especially,
generally think of themselves as having higher moral standards than other
people.
Sounds offensive? Well, it just shows how pointless (apart from making you
think about the topic) arguing
about the details of such a list actually is.
The people who have contributed to your list come from a relatively narrow
part of cultural space/time.
They have a certain set of ethics, by which they judge what is good and what is
evil. Other people had/will
have other ethics, which may differ drastically. A prominent feature of evil
persons on the list seems to be
the number of people killed. But could there be a viable set of ethics, meaning
a set which functions as the
foundation of a thriving society, which doesn't put such a harsh penalty on
killing people, if done for the
"right reasons" whatever that may mean to "them"? Stuff to think about.
Some more thoughts: The first place of the evil list should be left blank, to
be filled by that someone (or the
chain-of-command or similiar) that destroys the human race. Something of a
scope not easily imagined (!)
but certainly possible with creative use of todays technology. I presume that
deed, should it ever happen,
would shadow everything else put together. Or how about someone who destroys
our universe? We might
not care whether just we or the whole big everything bites the dust, but should
there be some alien
intelligence, it might very well see things differently.
As to why listing evil persons is so much more easy than good persons: We are
much more aware towards
killing than towards almost any other thing people can do. Since killing
people, whether directly or indirectly
(and the reason for it) is the single criterion for getting on the evil list,
this makes listing evil people naturally
easier than listing good people, whose actions are more diverse. IMHO good
stuff often has to do with people
who think long term, while evil stuff often results from people who just think
about the immediate future. But
long term effects are not easily attributed to single individuals.
Otherwise, good and evil are just memes with not much worth for me. They tend
to give the illusion of an
easy partitioning of the world, but the world is really much more complicated
for that to hold much value.
My subjective opinion.
Reponse from David G.:
From: Ron Kuby (famous attorney and WABC talk show host, pictured at right)
Cliff, thanks for your note. I was slightly familiar with your work as I am a
sci-fi buff. Terry Bisson is a friend of mine.
As to good and evil, I do
not know where to begin. In the absence of some definitional framework
(intent vs. result, for example), it is tough to know where to begin. Surely
Harry S. Truman deserves a place above Vlad the Impaler; Hiroshima/Nagasaki
resulted in the murders of over 100,000 innocents. And if you want to argue
that the murder of 100,000 saved 1,000,000, then why is Chairman Mao in the
negative column? And so on. Anyway, glad you like the show. Best, Ron
[More about his show at:
http://www.wabcradio.com/
]
From Greg K.:
From Arni D.:
From Doug M., Ph.D.:
From Jim M.:
From Craig B.:
From Mike H.:
From Craig B.:
From Daniel P.:
From Dina R.:
I object to Lincoln's being on the good list for freeing the slaves
because it was a necessary political move and not from the goodness of
his heart. if not freeing the slaves gave him more support during the
war, he may have very well not done that.
Aand i think that stalin and hitler were more evil than genghis khan, but
that's probably just cultural conditioning, I don't know the inner
motives of any of them too well.
Hey, do you know that story about when genghis khan wanted to take this
city that was behind a wall and he couldn't get into, so he surrounded
it and told the people that he'd leave if they gave him 10000 swallows
and 1000 cats? Wwhen they did, he set them on fire and let them go and
they went back into the city and set it on fire and burned it down so he
could take over it. That just has style.
From Clarke N.:
Abdu'l-Baha -- Baha'u'llah's son was an ordinary man. Yet his
life was one long sacrifice and tenure of service. He had, for example,
only two coats. And he was always giving one of them away to the poor.
Giving the shirt off his back, so to speak. Lots of more stories of
self-sacrifice, etc.
From Diane R.:
From Phil J.:
From Lars N.:
From Ben B.:
From Rachel R.:
From Anoop:
From Ross M.:
From: Dan K.
From: Carol K.:
From Sherry M.:
From: G. Chandy:
From: Drew H.:
From Dugan B.:
From Kntaro T.:
From Dennis G.:
From
Catt F.:
From: Mona Marie K.:
From: Marius L.:
From David A.:
From Terry F.:
From Anonymous:
From Jeff T.:
From Rich B.:
From Ned H.:
From Michael P.:
From Dennis M.:
From Matt G.:
From Arne G.:
From: Ross S.
I will probably offend a lot of people for saying this, but I
think the "Prophet" Mohammed deserves to be on the evil list. Islam
is the only major world religion that started wars of conquest during
the lifetime of its founder. Mohammed personally led armies to
conquer those who disagreed with him. Out of curiosity, I read the
Koran. I found it to be an intensely violent and paranoid book with
dire warnings and curses on nearly every page against anyone who
doubts or disbelieves its contents. It teaches the slaughter of
pagans and the enslavement(placing them under tribute) of Christians
and Jews as a matter of principle. It differs from the more violent
parts of the Hebrew bible in that the various prophecies of Israels
triumph over its enemies were in revenge for or correction of a
historical injustice. Even the divinely directed genocide in the
Books of Joshua and Judges were cast in light of divine retribution
for specific wickedness including ritual prostitution and infanticide
practiced by the Canaanites. The Koran offers no such justification.
If you are pagan, no matter your moral conduct, you are to be killed.
If you are Christian or Jew, you are to be enslaved. Fortunately,
most modern Muslims interpret away the literal meaning of the Koran,
but the Muslims in the days of Mohammed practiced Jihad in the
literal, violent way, not in any spiritualized "struggle". Medieval
Muslims transcended the violent origins of their religion and turned
out to be some of histories most magnanimous conquerors. Jews and
Christians were treated far better under Muslim rule than medieval
christians ever treated Jews or Muslims or each other for that matter.
But as I would not lay the conduct of the Spanish Inquisition to Jesus
charge, I will not give credit to Mohammed for medieval Muslims
charge. One of your readers, in suggesting that Mohammed be placed
on the good list, pointed out the tremendous flowering of Arab culture
following the introduction of Islam. Many great and beautiful things
were created by the rich and powerful by exploiting the underclass.
The pyramids and cathedrals, while beautiful if viewed in isolation
from their origins, were created by the death, slavery and misery of
the masses who lived and died to build them. I cannot help but see a
blood covered gravestone when I look at a Cathedral. The flowering of
Arab culture in the middle ages was purchased with the blood of
peoples conquered in the previous centuries.
From: Arlin A.
I'd delete the last one or two (de Rais was accused, on rumor,
of killing 140 children. I don't know if there is or ever was
any real evidence. Even if he did it, it pales by orders of
magnitude with the others.)
Try Fidel Castro, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, (or even
Pinochet or Juan Peron?) just in our own hemisphere and century.
How about Kim Il Sung, Khomeni, Gadafy?
I would argue
www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/2187/philosop.htm
that anything that reduces or restricts intelligence is evil.
The Moslems and then the Christians that burned the
library of Alexandria rank right up with your worst.
It could be argued that someone who kills a baby has
done less damage to civilization than someone who kills
a young adult-the investment is much less and it may
even be possible for the parents to "replace" the loss
by having another kid-if their child dies as an adult,
the parents are (usually) too old to have another.
[Don't misunderstand; the loss of a baby is still a loss!]
From: Shanky
You left off many time honored favorites..What about Nero..or
Diocletian...or is your site designed to be anti-christian..if so you
might not want to include them because, they were martyred by this man.
Then there is always Sadam even though he is a modern topic...look at
what he does to the curds and shi'ite minority. Chemical
weapons...lighting up the oil wells..I mean even though I am a patriotic
american...you can see through my bias and agree this guy is one of the
biggest dicks in history. Hmmm and what about dodge dondalo of
venice....In the 13th century he lead a crusade against..constantinople
a christian city!! Why? greed and jealousy...mostly jealousy of the
magnificence of the byzantine state...anyway the inhabitants were
slaughterd..the churches defiled..BY FELLOW CHRISTIANS..And the eastern
empire was weakened indeffinitely for the conquest by the Turks...which
subjected the christian populace of the balkans to turkish slavery for
4 hundred plus years..
From: Colton
I would like to add Courtney Love to the evil list.
That stupid b*tch had her husband, who was a frightening wellspring of
talent, murdered and didn't care one bit about the copycat suicides. She
continues to make mediocre safe music but defeats the whole punk cause by
portraying herself as one. Before you say I'm crazy and that Kurt Cobain
killed himself do some research on the case.
From: Carol C.
Shift Mao from the list of evil to the list of good. You have your facts
(even front-page trivia) wrong.
Shift Dalai whatever to the list of the dull. He belongs on a trivia
list,
having been created by the CIA
Add to Evil List: Tibetan Theocracy pre-1955
Add to evil list (would-be or actual perpetrators of genocide):
Harry Truman,
Lyndon Johnson,
Richard Nixon,
Jimmy Carter (approved of carnage in East Timor and provided
weapons, etc for same)
Ronald Reagan,
George Bush
William Clinton
ADD TO GOOD
Karl Marx,
Rosa Luxemburg,
N. Lenin,
Eleanor Marx,
Malcolm X
Wallace (I forget his first name; he was co-discoverer of theory
of natural selection. He goofed up for a noble reason,
he
was one of the few white men in the 19th century who was
not a racist)
Merlin Kennedy, President of Bloomington-Normal NAACP off and on
for over 40 years. He stands for all the unknown local
activists
who made the civil rights movement
Citizen X, NFL cadre assassinated by CIA
and so forth
From: Kathryn C.
Princess Diana
She was known as the peoples princess for a reason. she crossed
the barriers put up by royalty in society. she helped raise two good
sons, one of which is going to be the king of england (hes really cute
too), and they're both compasionate, caring, and totally unlike the
former view of royalty is/was. they help normal people, they help
homeless, they help. and they learned how to help from their mother,
Diana, princess of Wales
From: Emmar F.
Fred West was an incredible evil man. He was a mass murderer in the
West of England in very recent years. He is known to have killed 15
women, probably more. The attrocities he inflicted upon the women
before their death has never been revealed to the public, but it is
known that he tortured, raped, sodomised etc his victims. His wife,
Rose, was a willing accomplice to his deeds, and she languishes in
Durham prison with another EVIL woman, Myra Hindley. Myra Hindley is
pure evil, she and her lover Ian Brady killed 6-8 young children, after
torturing them. There is an excellent book about her called Inside the
Mind of a Murderer, I forget the name of the author bu can find it for
you, read that book and you will be left in doubt as to how evil that
woman is. Fred West commited suicide in prison before he could be tried
for his crimes.
I am happy to help you find more info on these people if you wish to add
themto your list.
From: Bob D.
Hi,
So you want suggestions for your list of good and evil, hmm?
Read on, but be prepared to be shocked and/or offended. And
don't post these names until you do a little research on them
yourself; always verify everything you read, I could be a liar
with an agenda. O_- Of course, it's always easier to make a
list of evil than good, that's why I've got 5 good and 10 evil
(well, nine, since one's a joke).
1. Martin Luther (1483-1546)
No, not Martin Luther King Jr. or his father, but Martin Luther,
who caused the Reformation. In simply publishing a list of
subjects he felt the dictatorial Catholic Church should discuss
with Christians, he started a firestorm of arguments. In doing
so, he split Christianity into Catholicism and Protestantism.
Both were as dictatorial and capable of atrocities such as the
Inquisition, but because there were two sides, individual
people could run from one to the other for protection, for
freedom to think and act. The spread of ideas and the freedom
and safety to think and practice them can be directly attributed
to Martin Luther. Not only that, but he was the first to
translate the bible into languages other than Latin, to make
Christianity a _people's_ religion, not a church's.
2. C. Everett Koop
In a time when AIDS spread across the world, when teen pregnancy
was skyrocketing, anti-smoking forces needed a champion, here
came a *Christian Fundamentalist* who was willing to put aside
his own beliefs (he was anti-abortion, yet stayed in favour of
a woman's right to choose) to do what was in the best interests
of all people. Ronald Reagan appointed Koop thinking he had a
puppet to support right wing ideology and instead appointed a
hero.
3. Tito (1892-1980)
A cold-war communist dictator as one of the most good? Yes.
During World War II under Nazi occupation, he was a key figure
in the Yugoslavian resistance. As leader of Yugoslavia under
his regime, he prevented and defused ethnic problems which have
plagued Balkan nations for the past ten years (the genocides
happenning in Slovenia and such places never happened under Tito).
Tito railed against Soviet communism, refusing to buckle under to
the USSR, and he openly support third world nations (communist
and non-communist) at a time when the west didn't care about them.
4. Kublai Khan
A Mongol emporer, though an imperialist, was also a patron of
cultural and social aims. His rule allowed China to thrive and
spread its knowledge to the world while able to do so safely
under his protection.
5. Turkey (as a nation until this century)
When the Palestinian state was created 2000 years ago, the Jews
were left homeless and spread to many parts of Europe and the
world, the Christian and Arab Turkey provided them a safe haven,
setting no extreme religious conditions on them, allowing Jews
to live openly in a tolerant society. Sadly, how the Turks have
treated the Kurds (a genocide of thousands of them in the past
20 years) puts Turkey on the most evil list, too.
As for the most evil, you're *not* going to like some of them.
The first three are organizations, but still, their heinous crimes
done for political or religious policy is amongst the most evil
ever committed.
1. The CIA
Murderers and assassins for hire, corruptors of the democratic
process, liars who spoke of protecting the world while only
protecting a small minority of the American government and
wealthy. Did you know the communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua
were *democratically* elected in an uncorrupted election? That
many democratic forces in fascist Latin American, European,
Asian and African countries were thwarted and attacked solely
to allow puppet dictators who toed the US government's line?
It was only when Manuel Noriega went against the US was any
attempty made to remove him. From its start as the OSS during
World War II (helping Nazi scientists escape) to its renaming
in 1947 to its crimes of today, the CIA is arguable the most
corrupt government agency ever. (Read Philip Agee's "CIA Diary"
or "On The Run" if you can find them; "Diary" is banned in the
US, and it's doubtful bookstores will carry the other. You'd
probably have to order them from a Canadian company.)
2. The Stasi
The East German secret police many times made the KGB look like
do gooders. Their control over individuals lives, spying and
bugging, their assassination attempts, all went further than
most communist bloc government agencies. Imprisonment without
trial and torture-induced insanity (putting dissidents in
asylums was a favored communist tactic) was rampant.
3. The Mossad
Israel's secret service, this organization is amongst the most
corrupt and openly violent. Don't be fooled thinking Jews as
only victims, this group is heavily involved in crimes across
the Middle East. Just as Nettenyahu did not represent Jewish
people who wanted peace with Palestine, so do the Mossad not
represent Jewish feelings towards Arabs. The Mossad are thugs
who pretend to be heroes. (Read ex-Mossad member Victor
Ostrovsky's book "By Way Of Deception" detailing the crimes
of the Mossad. Fact from the book: annually, the Mossad places
a list of people it wants to assassinate in front of the Israeli
Prime Minister, and anyone he signs his name to, they have his
permission to kill. And they kill all of them.)
4. Ronald Reagan
A man who almost started World War III ("We have outlawed Russia
and begin bombing in five minutes" he once said jokingly before
a Presidential radio address into a live microphone, the USSR
almost launching in response), this puppet of the far right was
as responsible for the destruction of the middle class with his
economic policies, for causing strife and conflict in other
countries, and for promoting racism (not overtly, but subtly
with policies that made it acceptable). This coward was a stool
pigeon for Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's: while pretending to be
a loyal member of the Screen Actors Guild and other union causes,
he secretly provided accurate and false information to McCarthy
which destroyed lives and careers.
5. Hirohito, Japanese emporer (1901-1989)
This "walking god" of Japanese society knew full well all the
atrocities and crimes of his country and military: the forced
sexual slavery of Asian women ("comfort women"), the torture
of POWs, the imperialism and rape of nations, the murderous
massacres in China (including the Nanking massacre: more than
300,000 people, the ENTIRE city murdered within a week). He
knew full well all the acts committed in his name and as a head
of state never faced trial as a war criminal.
6. Pope John Paul II
This hypocrite, while spewing words of Chrisitianity is amongst
the most intolerant dictators of the 20th century. Unwillingness
to face the reality of the modern world, his hatred of women, his
inaction in the face of crimes by his church (child molestation,
money laundering and economic collusion with the Mafia, church
assets which include an Italian pharmaceutical factory that makes
the pill and condoms), his arrogance toward the world population
problem (his own hand-picked Vatican Science Council says the
world cannot support more than 2.5 billion people living a western
lifestyle; the pope ignores it, saying the earth can handle 13
billion), all these acts collectively are as abominable as any
other dictator.
7. Mother Theresa
Yes, you have her on your "good list", but anyone who says women
should die rather than have abortions when their health is
threathened, or that peope in poor nations who are starving
should not practice birth control, is irresponsible. That act
alone is enough to call her evil.
8. Nero, roman emporer (37-68 AD)
Although there were actually no fiddles to play when Rome burned
(they didn't exist then), all the other things you hear about
him are true. He ordered hundreds (if not thousands) on his
opponents and dissidents killed, he himself murdered three of
his own family (including his mother), and ran the greatest
empire in human history into the ground. He stole from the
people, lived in opulence while the poor starved, treated slaves
horribly (worse than anything you'll see in "Spartacus"). The
only thing he ever did to benefit anyone else was commit suicide.
9. The Argentinian military junta of the 1970s
While not one particular person, this dictatorship was one of
the most ruthless and brutal in South America, possibly the world.
The "disappeared" (people kidnapped and murdered by the army;
"disappeared" is how the government classified them, though they
often gave the orders to kill) were in the thousands, repression
of opposition was violent to an extreme (think of the Mexican or
Columbian governments' treatment of opponents; the Argeninian
government was twice as bad). One of the favored means of
killing political opponents? Throwing people (concious or not)
from aeroplane and helicopters into jungle or the ocean from
thousands of feet in the air.
10. The creator of Barney the Dinosaur. 'Nuff said. ^_^
Well. With all that cheery discussion, I'll leave you to it.
Say what you think, and let me know. If you want places to start
doing research for yourself, I'll give you some reference points
to start from.
From: David & Kristin H.
I would have to disagree with you on many of your selections for
"evil". I just can't see where the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Eichman,
Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao belong. Yes, each of these men were
responsible for great attrocities, but none of them carried out the
attrocities. Who's worse? The man who orders a death from afar or
the man who looks into the victim's eyes and pulls the trigger (albeit
on orders)?
In my opinion, anyone who has little or no blood on his hands just
doesn't cut the proverbial mustard. Certainly the likes of Ghengis
Khan and Vlad the Impaler had plenty of blood on their hands
directly - they rose to power through warfare in an age where hand to
hand combat ruled. They could never have risen in the (reasonably)
bloodless manner Hitler did.
I would make one exception to this idea (of requiring direct blood),
however. I would add Dr. Edward Teller to the list of the most evil.
Granted, while he's no blood on his own hands directly he seems to
have taken absolute glee in the creation of the US's hydrogen bomb.
Never have I seen any indication that he sees the bomb as anything
more than the grandest of toys. Any man who can build such a device
and show a complete lack of humility or remorse for what he has done
most assuredly has a heart as cold and black as coal. Compare that to
Sokharov(sp!), his Soviet counterpart who was perhaps the Soviet
Union's biggest anti-nuclear weapons advocate despite being
responsible for the success of the Soviet program to build the
"super". Clearly Sokharov understood what he had done - even if
belatedly.
From: Steve V.
Hi just some thoughts on your page. It seems to me (I'm not a Christian
btw) that your objectivity is being compromised by some sort of personal
bias torwards the christian religion. For instance why is evil person
number one a man who killed and tortured 2000, while number two a man
who killed and tortured over 20,000 (going by the numbers you mention)?
Additionally one would look at the life and teachings of Jesus Christ
and even if one doesn't believe the son of god stuff he would still
place much higher up on this list than he is.
Secondly I strongly disagree with putting Budhha at number one on your
good list. Although buddhism is a commendable religion in many ways
there's a much lesser commitment to help others than in some other
religions. I've heard it said that the concept of Karma means many
buddhists believe those in poverty or other misfortune 'deserve' their
station in life and are far less charitable, on average, than other
religions. Whether this is Buddha's fault or not I couldn't say, but it
does seem a self-centred religion.
Thirdly a suggestion for the good list, I think Gandhi is missing and
should be there.
And finally some notes on what you give priority to. Firstly no I don't
think religious leaders should have negative results such as
fundamentalist groups counted against them, none of them (AFAIK)
preached violence or intolerance and none have control over what evils
are done in their name, especially after death. As for evilness why is
personally participating in evil considered? Is the serial killer who
sadistically kills 10 victims for his own pleasure more evil than the
politician who orders a genocide of an entire race from the safety of
his office?
From: Seth E.
Without Lenin's perversion of Marxian economic fantasies, there might
not have been so much Western acceptance of Hitler's perversion of
Nietsche's ideas....
From: Marty A.
Cliff,
Excellent topic for a homepage. I've shared it with all my friends.
I agree with Dina and many others -- strike Lincoln from the "good"
list. No only did he NOT free the northern slaves until after the
war, he began in earnest the rise of federal paternalism that led us
down the path of EVIL.
Which brings us to FDR, arguably the most EVIL man in history. He
did more than any other individual to destroy the strong American
Spirit of rugged individualism and self-reliance and replace it with
a weak, simpering malaise that rewards sub-human behavior such as
licking the hand that feeds them.
From: John G.
Another person that should be added for evil is the late
Deng Xiao Peng of China for the murder of the non-violent
student protesters at Tiannamen Square in Beijing China.
That was evil at its' purest.
From Aaron:
Hello,
I found your Scalse of Good and Evil. I think I have to disagree and
dispute your placement of Mother Terasa on the good list. While it is
conventional wisdom and makes us feel warm inside, there is plenty of
evidence contrary to the belief that Mother Teresa was in fact an
entirely altruistic giving saint.
These are the only links I could come up with quickly, but if you look into
it you doubtless find much more:
http:///www.workersnews.flex.com.au/wn/wn190997/7teresa.html
http://www.internet-gp.com/teresa/
http://members.tripod.co.uk/bajuu/
Also, although respectible for his ideals and determination, there is
evidence that Abraham Lincoln used slavery more as a means of division
between the North and the South, than an actual end being fought over.
The Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history. However, this
is not to say that it was entirely unavoidable, or that slavery needn't
have been terminated.
http://nj5.injersey.com/~mbwick/present/barnes.html
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/seminar/unit5/intro.html
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/seminar/unit5/hmtable5.html
And while on the topic, while Jesus himself may have espoused and
embraced love, it could very well be arguable (first of all whether he
existed) whether the net outcome of Christianity over history has been
good or evil.
You can't take everything at superficial face value. There is usually a
more complex explanation beneath everything.
It seems that the Good list is filled mostly by religious, or
pseudo-religious historical figures. Surely there must be historical people
from fields other than politics and religion who were truly good. Just
because I've watched Braveheart way too many times, I can say William
Wallace and Robert (I think) the Bruce fought against British oppression
for the liberation of Scotland. That has to be worth something.
Unfortunately I can't think of many others besides those in recent
history (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Martin Luther King, etc.).
From: Ender
I admire your effort with the list, and further admire how you publicly post
criticism of your list.
However, I have some criticism of my own. Abraham Lincoln is listed as being
"good" for freeing the slaves. He did not however, defend the rights of the
slaves. This was more an image decision. Before the emancipation
proclamaiton, he owned slaves. There is now DNA evidence to support that
Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln both fathered mulatto children with
slaves. Whether this was consentual, or rape is unknown. Moses is li