Villain is only a human definition, it is not a term that can be applied to any other living thing and retain its original meaning. It’s purely a human idea. And as a purely human idea, I will say…it sucks. A hero is just a villain who kills in the name of something, but that hero STILL kills. In fact, if you think about it, it’s the villain who has accepted himself for what he is, and the hero who denies his misdeeds. Killing is killing. To pretend it suddenly has some magical ‘justification’ is just denial. Embrace your inner monster, accept your own evil. We are all disgusting traitorous monsters, we just need to accept that fact and cease dressing up our endeavors as ‘humane’ or ‘right’.
I sat down the other day and tried to define ‘evil’, which I don’t even believe in. A dictionary definition said something like: deeply immoral and malevolent. Before I start throwing a tantrum over the word ‘immoral’ and how it doesn’t exist, I will say that malevolent is a terrible definition. Already, even if I did believe in such things, it is apparent that their are huge inconsistencies. Malevolent: wishing evil to others. So we’ll take that as wanting ‘bad’ things to happen to other people, perhaps we can stretch that to ‘wanting to hurt people’, more similar to the word malicious. Generally evil people want to hurt others, correct? So if evil is wishing for bad things to happen to others, or wanting to harm people, what does that make a hero? Heroes kill villains. They do murder, yes? They want bad things to happen to ‘evil’ people. So now is evil defined as ‘killing only those who are undeserving or innocent’? Is a hero innocent? If a villain kills a hero because the hero tries to kill him (simple action/reaction), does that not equal ‘justification’?
If a villain kills with no reason in mind, then what is he doing ‘wrong’? He is not all that ‘evil’ by definition if he is killing indiscriminately, is he? If we were to just define evil as ‘murder, or harm’ then the definition would be too broad…. Heroes kill with the intent of harming, with malevolence…. They are singling someone out and taking their life, which by those definitions IS evil, worse than killing with no purpose, if you think about it.
It’s almost comical how this can all be twisted around. It just shows how flimsy human ideas are to begin with, and how bias can turn anything into “right” and anything into “wrong”.
So let’s take this another way, as I can already see a few flaws in the current analysis.
Heroes kill with the intent of saving lives. Take one life, save many, if you will. So evil then, is someone who kills/harms others either with intent or with no intent (to include all of the villains, of course). If the intent is to save lives in future, then it is not evil. If the intent is to only take lives or cause pain, then it is evil. Long definition, but at least there aren’t half so many loopholes.
With that in mind, Heroes take lives to save lives, Villains take them, period. What a double standard.
This is a prime example of just how fucked up human ideas really are. It’s like trying to figure out why sharks eat like garbage disposals. I mean a license plate? You know they can’t be THAT dumb, and if they are, that sure doesn’t explain how they’ve survived the damn near longest out of just about everything.
So basically, anybody who thinks that they are killing someone who is going to take lives, is technically ‘good’, right? Which would make the villain a good guy if he decided to go and kill a hero who was going to take out some of his villain posse. Taking life to save a lives, right?
That’s just it, the damn truth, right there: You can’t define evil, and you can’t define good when they are biased ideas to begin with.
Anybody can say something is good or bad, heroic or villainous. Each person’s idea of what those things are, are different. Some people think it’s okay to steal if they’re poor, others think it’s downright evil.
The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that humanity is the ONLY species that believes in such things. If we’re the only one, that says quite a lot right there. Other animals plain just don’t give a shit (or don’t have the same capacity for stupidity as us evolved apes), which is precisely the way it should be. Once you start trying to decide who’s opinion is right, you know that there must be biases if there isn’t a common consensus that can be applied to everything.
Therefore, good and evil are but ideas. In nature, who loves balance, there is only giving and taking, no definition of which is better or worse, “right” or “wrong”. They simply exist. Animals do what they will (both “good” and “evil” by human standards), yet you never see the scales tipped any which way for long. If the natural world can exist when it is filled with creatures doing only what is good for themselves, what does that tell you? It is humanity that is filled with discord, it is humanity that has so many problems, while nature resides just as peacefully as ever while each animal fights to the death.
We try to make definitions and be selfless, yet WE are the ones who struggle to survive, not nature which is based off of selfishness. It’s a beautiful thing.