Not always.
War, hatred, femine, violence, jealousy
no not really. Though there may be some violence it's kinda corny so no not at all evil.
Violence is not a good thing, in The Hunger Games or elsewhere, but sometimes it is unavoidable, as a lesser evil.
necessary evil
Rated R for sequences of strong violence and language.
Principles of non violence are passive response to enemies, resisting evil and exercising spiritual aggression.
Jasmone is indeed NOT evil. She just likes violence and thinks other people's pain is hilarious. Which is the reason she causes other's pain. Which kind of makes her evil. Maybe she is just misunderstood. Who knows?
This quote by Gandhi conveys his belief that resorting to violence may seem to bring about short-term benefits, but its negative consequences are lasting. He argues that even if violence seems to achieve an immediate good, it ultimately perpetuates a cycle of harm and suffering that is more enduring. Gandhi believed in nonviolent resistance as a more sustainable and morally just approach to creating lasting change.
Children are exposed to evil effects of advertising. They may believe only certain traits are beautiful or be exposed to violence or adult themes as a result.
Video games could be evil, depending on the violence and other things that are not for us. so really, it matters on the maker. (the rating helps you see if it is bad or not.
violence, ruin, atrocity, mischief, inhumanity, offense, evil, indignity, abuse, harm
Violence is generally evil. However, there are acceptable things that are considered violence. If you must kill to eat or to protect your family, it may be violent, but it is not evil. It would be more evil to not feed nor protect your family. Then there is war. In an ideal world, war is not a good thing. However, when you have terrorists coming in and foreign invaders doing bad things to women and children, war may be more moral than letting such evil go on unpunished and letting your people live in constant fear. Or take police action. Lets say a man has a bomb detonator and can take out 50 or more people. Then let's suppose the police could kill that one person and spare the 50. If violence is going to happen regardless, wouldn't the least amount be the best in a situation where you can never have best?