The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not universally agreed to define right and wrong. They're not even universally practiced, the name is extremely misleading. I'm not saying it is wrong to say someone is evil, but it's better to demonstrate their evilness either by showing their actions (99.99% of readers will agree that a character is evil if they gained satisfaction from burning someone alive, you wouldn't need to inform the reader that it was an evil act) or by using less vague terms. I doubt the word 'evil' is used in the UDHR.
The universality of these rights is not dependent on the degree of acceptance. Its universality derived from and and based on the human condition. The ability to suffer pain both psychologically and physically, being mortal, the ability to reason, the human need for social cooperation to enhance survival. All these human traits generate duties incumbent on other humans and their governments. They are the basis for mercy, compassion, freedoms of speech and liberty to decide. They are the basis for democracy as opposed to Despotic Monarchies, and dictatorships. They are the basis for a justice system that no longer employs torture or cruel unusual punishment. That's why they are applicable regardless of culture, because the human condition is the same everywhere and its rights are the same everywhere regardless of local or even national opinions. In order to argue effectively that they are not applicable to humans in other countries then one would have to show that the people in these other countries lack human attributes deserving the respect that such attributes demand. Even animals that share those attributes of ability to suffer have rights. That's why we have laws against cruelty to animals. So one would have to prove that the humans in question are less deserving of those rights than the animals who are recognized as having them. Here, let me illustrate via a Sci fi scenario. A machine finally attains self awareness and is provided with all the sensations and thinking abilities of a human being. Suddenly the machine demands that we respect its rights because now it is essentially human. If we trample on that machine's freedom of choice or right not to suffer needless pain, or right to seek happiness or to decide its own future, then we would be forced in a court of law to prove how this machine differs from us in essential ways that would make it non-human. If indeed it can prove to have our attributes, then it can lay claim to universal human rights by virtue of proving its essential humanity.
Okay, you mean proof by empathy? That doesn't prove definitive right and wrong, that only proves a way of judging right and wrong, two very different things. The latter allows you to evaluate the effects of things, the former is a pipe dream. Also, if such a machine came into being, I have a feeling we would dream up some argument to keep it enslaved. Humans are like that. Do children count under this? Do they have things like freedom of speech? You'll have to explain why they do not, under this argument of empathy. To add to things, this wouldn't apply to companies. That's fine by me, however not sure how you would feel about this. Corporations don't feel pain, aren't hungry, don't die of thirst, and most of all, can't die in the traditional sense. They can cut off pieces of themselves that go off and do other things. Over all, they aren't human, and don't have the empathy clause applying to them. I do agree with the empathy argument, but it's ludicrous to suggest that there be no definitive right and wrong is out of date based on that. If anything, that is far more the case now in modern morality.
Ultimately concepts of good and evil, right and wrong and the like are human concepts, though they may exist to some degree among animals (so far as it aids or does not hinder evolution). There is no natural law stating it is wrong for so and so to happen. You cannot therefore empirically prove what is good and what is evil, but you could achieve a universal, or at least majority, consensus on what is good and what is evil, which would legitimise the terms somewhat. My point is I don't think such a consensus exists among humankind, and even if it does it can and will change. Purely as a matter of opinion, I'd say tying someone to a chair and electrocuting him to death is definitely a 'cruel unusual punishment,' practiced by what is supposed to be the freest and most democratic country in the world. It certainly isn't merciful or compassionate, yet it is maintained by democracy. The same could be said for cruelty to animals; millions of animals are born, raised and killed in horrendous conditions just to satisfy a shallow market consisting of people who already eat three times as much as they need, while millions of others starve to death. The act of slaughter could easily be considered cruel to animals, especially when using the batch killing methods practiced in the Western world (as it happens I do consider it cruel, and completely unnecessary for oh-so-enlightened humanity).
I always believe people must Justify it to themselves. I think a line from The Picture Of Dorian Gray may sum up the way I'd want your character... "a Gentleman never denies a pleasure".
This post is not going to be giving advice or saying how he should be portrayed; I'm just giving you my opinion from the perspective of a reader, 'kay? I honestly wouldn't give a damn about the character. I don't believe it is possible to portray a character who is 100% evil as it's a concept that I don't acknowledge. Rather, I wouldn't be able take him seriously enough to form an opinion because a character like that does not come across as realistic in my head; I would instead form an opinion on the author portraying a character unrealistically. I cannot get into a story unless I can imagine it happening in the real world so this sort of character would not leave any positive impression on me. I find, instead, the villains who come across as the most realistic and evil are those who have a more complex history and/or personality - if there is contrast in their personality then it makes the dark side of them come across as so much colder. It doesn't mean I need to sympathise with the character but rather I need to understand them. If they're being evil just for the sheer hell of it then I automatically conclude that the author didn't put enough effort into creating the character.
Depending on the way you do it, when creating a cold blooded killer there has to be a reason for him to be what he is. What caused the character to become 100% evil. The original Michael Myers didn't really have a story behind why he became evil. Jason did, it even made you feel sorry for the character. I think a slasher is completely different from a piece of literature. It's going to sound silly, so give the villain a reason, go into his past and make us know why hes evil. Even give us moments where you think the villain might have a redeeming quality.
I like to write villains who have a reason to be evil. I think evil villain made was always turned evil and never born. Hitler turned evil, Bin Laden turned evil but in many other eyes, He was a hero. Lord Voldermort turned evil through personal beliefs. Anakin Skywalker turned evil through manipulation. That's how I see villains and they would end up digging themselves into darker places that crushes their hopes of seeing the light and redeeming themselves.
Just a quick note here...if you are referring to a christian idea of a demon, then you've got to remember that these were fallen angels and once 'good' creatures. As far as the "hell is just another dimension and these are just it's inhabitants" thing, I have nothing to say. Also, pleasure, on it's own, is good. The means by which we achieve it are what makes us "good" or "evil." In general, evil is a corruption of a good thing. The very qualities that allow a villain to be wonderfully evil are good qualities that have been used wrongfully. Example; intelligence, drive, strength, and a clever mind are all good things by themselves. Its when they are twisted that they turn into something evil.
The problem isn't that your character is completely evil. The problem is that he has no reason to be evil. It could be something as simple as he's insane (though it's slightly contrived if the most powerful being in existence just happens to be insane.). If I were you I wouldn't make his goal to completely destroy everything for the giggles. After all he has to live in the world to. Make it something like hunger for power or if he is destroying it's so he can remake it in his own image. Just examples and there are dozens more for you to choose from. You wouldn't even have to change the plot very much until the end but you'd still be giving much more depth and believability to your villain. It's my personal belief that no characters should be evil without reason, and only a select few should be unrepentantly evil.
Here's the thing about making a purely evil villain. 1. This character comes off as fake and making the character 100% evil makes a wall for the reader, since you've made the story unrealistic. 2. Even if it's your character's antagonist, there's no point to the story if you hate the bad guy completely. If he's horrible in every way, then he would have already been stopped. Therefore the main character is completely useless. Also, on that note, there has to be a certain degree of caring for the reader to really like the story. Having a completely horrible villain will make your main character's triumph or demise less emotional since the reader could easily say that it was obvious that he won/loss because of such reason and even so they wouldn't care because is so cartoonish. Make the readers torn with who to like so that either way they would feel bad for who won and who loss. Make it easier and give him at least one good characteristic, it doesn't have to be moral it could just be that he's a smart-mouth and he's clever. That's all.
^^^^Smart-mouth and clever are perfectly consistent with the idea of "100% evil." I think the issue with this thread is that the definition of '100% evil' is changing from post to post.
Wow, you guys really love to talk ^.^ I'm glad you've all got a good conversation going, and thank you all for all the insightful notes and comments. I think I've figured him out for now, so you can all continue your lil' chat as you wish. Any direction you want, really. Thank you all once again, I appreciate it.
If your antagonist is to be 100% Evil then there should be no room for even a shred of remorse in his/her actions. Should they make a threat of some sort, they should follow through. For example should the villain have a group of hostages and make the threat of killing every last one of them if his/her demands are not met. Even if demands are met unless your protagonist makes it in time the hostages should be killed anyways after all once you've gotten what you want what's the point of keeping them alive. Another one who be when the antagonist finds out the weakness of the protaganist he/she should use that critical info to the fullest extent. On the other hand you could go with the lighter side of villainy and have the villain be totally incompetent but that's not what you looking for so I suggest going with the antagonist who can talk the talk and won't hesitate to do what's needed to be done to obtain there desires. This of cousre is only my opinion but something I would consider if I were looking to create a 100% all Evil antagonist.
