(no subject)

[peratic]

What makes someone a monster?

Specifically, what traits or acts would cause you to consider someone a monster? I'm not interested in speculative tragic background stories.

Comments

[extirpations]

That's a hard question to answer. Most people would say killing another is a monstrous act but in reality, depending on the context, a killer can be a hero or a monster.

In the end the judgement of a monster will vary depending on the individual making that judgement call. How much value can you really place in such an arbitrary concept?

[peratic]

I don't think that's true of every murder, but yeah, it's a matter of perception. Some perceptions are more common than others, though, and that consensus creates a social taboo.

Some people also define monstrousness as the absence of humanity — a demon is a monster, for example, because a demon does cruel things. But so do humans.

[extirpations]

But societies also differ with respect to such judgements - what one considers taboo another considers perfectly normal. So basing any such definition off of what is frowned upon by a given society doesn't guarantee any more validity than basing it off an individual's perception.

And as you said, humans are indeed capable of great cruelty. And I would suddest that beings that might be thought of as demons or otherwise lacking in humanity are capable of kindness. So we can't base our judgement on what is 'human' or 'inhuman' either.

If I might put forth a suggestion. I would say that, in the end, the only definition of what makes a monster that matters is your own.

[peratic]

I'm not a professional anthropologist, but I have never come across a society which does not view that which preys upon it as monstrous.

Let's say demons — at least in the Christian tradition, this is the case, although they've hardly patented the concept — are categorically incapable of kindness. Actual kindness, not out of a desire to manipulate a given victim. Can meta-ethical moral relativism apply to something which is supernaturally compelled to victimize another population?

I don't disagree with you, for the record, but I don't have a personal horse in this particular race. [ well. not in the sense that she's keen to create her own hard and fast definition of 'monster.' ]

[extirpations]

Yet there are many societies who would prey upon others and see it as justified. So it's still an arbitrary definition.

I would generally say that the answer to your question will depend on who you ask. If an individual has been victimised by a being so compelled they're unlikely to consider the fact it may be unable to not act in a given manner. Whereas someone who hasn't been in that position may be more sympathetic. But that doesn't really advance our discussion any. To really answer it we should ask if a creature is capable of overcoming the directives of its nature. If it is, then it surely can be held accountable for its actions. If it can't then it's as guiltless as any natural disaster.

You not asking because you're curious how many here might classify you or someone you know as a monster? [In general it seems most people only start asking such questions when they have a personal investment in the answer. But he's quick to wave the issue aside with a chuckle.] Forgive me, that was rude. I meant nothing by it and certainly enjoy the chance for such discussions myself.

[peratic]

All societies steal from one another, prey upon one another. It could be that everybody is a monster, which would mean no one is.

An entity without free will can't be blamed for its actions. A demon supposedly has that, but then I don't really know; I haven't been able to interview any just yet.

No, it's fine, really. It's a weird question for me to have asked. I think it's moderately interesting, but there are people in this world who say someone is a monster for not eating vegan food, you know? [ Gisela is a slight control freak who would never put something personal up for strangers to debate, pretty much. ]

What really spurred it was my thinking about how certain supernatural creatures are considered 'monsters', but humans also do most of the things they do. Murder, cannibalism, you name it. Mankind's way of shunting its more undesirable qualities of onto someone else instead of taking responsibility.

[extirpations]

Ah, those kinds of monsters. As you said, designed solely so we can blame others for actions we find detestable and thus distance ourselves from out own actions.

What then of those who might profess to being monsters themselves? Would you judge them to truly be such or simply more honest than the rest of the populace?

[peratic]

There could be a lot of motivations there. One can claim monstrousness out of immense guilt and self-hate, or as a way of separating oneself from humanity. You know: "I'm not like the herd, I'm a predator. A hunter."

I don't know how I'd judge them. I'd probably find it another abdication of responsibility again.

[extirpations]

Perhaps there lies an answer. The refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions. If not outright monstrous I would say it's certainly an abhorrent trait.

[meanwhileback]

Genocide? As an example. I think to earn the "monster" label you have to actually do something that totally negates your humanity outright.

[peratic]

What I'm struggling with is the idea that genocide, per your example, is an inhuman thing to do. It's very human, I think; humans are arguably the most sophisticated at carrying it out, of all sentient species. Most of the worst atrocities are things humans have perfected.

I am not one of those people who thinks humanity is inherently evil or even animalistic, for the record. The only working definition of monstrousness I can tentatively create is a version in which these acts are a necessity, or a constant. A monster might have no variation in behavior, like even most purportedly evil humans do.

[truthsearch]

A literal or figurative monster?

[peratic]

Either. I'm trying for topical variety.

[truthsearch]

Something that makes you not want to believe in them anymore. They'd have to act horribly enough that you couldn't trust them.

[peratic]

So a monster has a Machiavellian quality? That ability to manipulate someone emotionally while perpetuating acts that are abhorrent.

[didntlikeit]

Defining characteristics change depending on who answers, doesn't it? What's monstrous to some is heroic to others. History is written by the monsters who convince us they weren't the monsters in the end.

[peratic]

That seems to be a prevailing theory. And I think it's true, probably, but there are certain qualities that are more commonly considered monstrous.

Do you think monster is synonymous with evil?

[didntlikeit]

It is usually used that way, yes, but the definition of evil depends on which side you're on. Monstrous is a way we separate the human from the not - but our monsters are always human in the end, aren't they? If your definition of monster is centered at 'not human,' then I don't think that's enough to qualify it for being evil.

whoops i missed this one earlier

[peratic]

I don't think so, either. Figuratively or literally, I'm considering that 'monster' is how we separate the unwanted from the rest of the class, and terming it evil is not infrequently just another way of making that distinction more emotionally comfortable.

[echopraxia]

( very matter of fact, and prompt - as if she's had occasion to give this a lot of thought, and doesn't need to consider her answer. because that is the case, actually. )

Remorselessness.

[peratic]

Why? [ directness for directness. ]

[echopraxia]

We are all capable of ugliness; enacting it doesn't mean we're incapable of grace, but we make choices and we live with them, yes?

When those choices carry as much weight as what is for breakfast, what colour ribbon will I wear today, do I want to take the stairs or the elevator--

That is monstrous.

[peratic]

So there is a blitheness to a monster, in your opinion — monsters can move among us without caring what they've done, but non-monsters who have committed similar acts but regret them are a different story?

[echopraxia]

I think it's easy and tempting to think of monsters at all, when monstrosity is perpetrated, still, by people.

[peratic]

[ that seems, to gisela, like a slight derail from what was initially said (which has her still curious), but she accepts it. ]

Do you think it's used as an excuse for their behavior? Not just by those who would call an individual a monster, but by the so-called monster themselves?

[fireincarnate]

Nothing.

Everyone can be monstrous. That doesn't make us less human.

[peratic]

I tend to agree, although I know of non-monsters who are not necessarily human.

too many jeans

[fireincarnate]

Oh, me too. [Her own humanity is debatable.] People works better, I guess.

unpossible

[peratic]

It's a little bit of a linguistic tangle, isn't it? I often find myself wanting to talk about what's humanistic in a given situation, but I don't want to be exclusionary.

<3

[fireincarnate]

Exactly!

What kind of non-humans have you met?

[peratic]

You name it, really. Werewolves in Białowieża Forest, near Poland. Also fae, there, who come in all manner of shapes. Actually, that forest is probably one of the more diverse places remaining.

[fireincarnate]

[Her eyes widen, and her smile follows suit.] I've never met either. As far as I know, anyway.

Is there something special about the forest?

[peratic]

They are tricky that way. And not...supernaturally, I don't think, but it is a remnant of the primeval forest, and one could argue anything that ancient has a trace of the otherworldly to it.

[ it also has bison. those aren't magical, they're just neat. ]