Evil by Geezer

"How do we distinguish "evil" from "wrong", or "mistaken",

Simple,
Sig is usually "wrong"
Ruse is usually "mistaken"
Citz is usually "evil"

Hope this helps.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ok, you're given doors numbered one through nine and you choose number one because it fits your idea of what evil "means", dictionary be damned: Morally wrong or bad- WICKED.

Lets' explore that in detail. I assume that you mean when someone makes a choice against current morality. Does that take the goal into account? The old end/ means question: Is it OK to torture innocents and kill hundred of thousands -even millions- of people for a "wothwhile" goal? It seems to me that every infamous tyrant has some sort of rationalization for their actions that appeals to some praiseworthy ideal. "Creating a better society" usually covers the concept, whether it's "spreading democracy" or "creating a worker's paradise" or "keeping on the righteous path set by (insert your favorite god here)" or even "Sacrificing a few children to make the rains come so we can all eat".

It think fancy-sounding ideals are more or less inevitable, since no tyrant is ever going to gain control by saying outright "I'm going to kill, torture, and rob you for my own benefit."

So, do we set aside stated goals then, and just look at the means and whether it fits into the current moral code (whatever that code is)? Or do we judge actions by some strict standard? ie "The greatest good for the greatest number", and simply decide whether the action was "successful" in that it was accomplished with the least harm?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:03 AM

Evil is KNOWING that who you hurt, you do so in the name of the Lord.

Bottom line Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:40 AM

Well I'm a liberal, so something like evil is a truly difficult word to label anybody. I certainly wouldn't label another culture evil, or automatically label gangbangers evil, or apply the term "axis of evil" to any nations on the political landscape, at least not as a politician.

So in my posts in the other thread I set out to define conditions as 'evils.' that is things that are "causing injury, ruin, or pain: HARMFUL " I lumped in things that I thought we could commonly agree upon - faccism, murder, disease, poverty and hunger, a race to the destruction of the biosphere, etc.

To answe your question, The tree that falls on a person's head in the woods is not evil. The result is evil. The tree was not concious of its action.

Conciousness itself is another grey area. Choice has to be a factor. Real choice. A gang banger(lame term from suburb guy) in an inner city that can work at Mcdonalds or make some real cash getting in with a gang that distributes drugs, has a choice, and sure, given the same options I would choose mcdonalds - but his cultural lessons are different than mine, his life lessons are different...he believes police to be corrupt and racist, he believes the government to be corrupt and racist...he has reason to believe that he has been barred from opportunity in America, and every reason to believe that those opportunities are also crooked. He didn't get much of an academic education in school, but he got a street education, and he can use it to make something of himself.

I'm not sure at which point I start to call him evil for his choices. It's entirely possible that he never reaches a place where such a term should describe him. This is case by case though - it requires that the parameters for right and wrong are agreed upon by him and those judging him. He might cause evil, as most of the culture defines it, but if to him evil is something else, then that is the real problem, and that is where society failed to provide an environment in which he could develop our standardized sense of right and wrong.

And really, this same problem arises when I attempt to call anybody in the Bush administration evil, because it is quite possible they are socially underdeveloped in this area of understanding. It could be that they either have an entirely different idea of what evil is(their political enemies) than the majority of Americans, or they don't believe in evil or morality at all(complete sociopaths), except for as a powerful word in rhetoric.

But what they would tell us, or sell to us, is that they agree hunger is bad, faccism is bad, too much polution is bad, mass death is bad..etc. When their actions cause more of the things that they tell us are bad, I can only take their word for it that they understand the difference, and I must conclude that they are either aware that they are perpetrating evil on the world and don't care, or aren't interested at all in the results of their policy where they don't pertain to politics. It is their agreement on what is evil, coupled with their indiference or malice when making policy, that makes they them evil, as I define it.

I will even admit to the complications of a democratic nation. Clinton said that as president he hoped he did more good than harm. The reality is American Government is a balancing act. Things that do some good also cause harm to other things.

Bush has definitely done some good....for the top 1 percent of this country, at the expense of the rest of us. So lets use another common paradigm to see whether or not this is in line with standard American Values. "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" - Spock -

nope...I don't think he can claim he's done more good than harm, if he's done any "good" at all, based on our cultural standards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
"The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few"

Careful trainee, that sounds mighty socialist to this 1%-er!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:11 AM

CITIZEN

It is socialist, socialism is always evil, so selfish is good?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:12 AM

And in this post I will debate myself for one second.

I think that most people can agree that as I ended my last post "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," but I have a couple doubts about that.

Mostly because of one of the most powerful memes out there, that doing anything for the sake of your family is somehow noble. This can justify just about anything we do in this country. America's communities are not strong communities(I'm generalizing). The family structure is THE unit, and all actions taken by family members are supposed to prioritize in that way.

One of the recently indicted republicans said that he did what he did for his family.

Culturally speaking, doing something for your family in this country is a profound good, trumping so much. This tenet is a problem. Not because family should not be important, but because this great effort of responsibility, providing one's family with every damned thing you can, above and beyond their needs and to hell with everything else, is actually iresponsible in the bigger picture.

And if I could be Doctor Spock for a second, providing great material wealth is not providing your family with everything it should. Your children should learn a concience. They should learn empathy and they should learn sacrifice, and they should be able to see the rest of the world beyond their nose, and beyond their own family room. Showing them that wealth is the end-all-be-all, that family is the only important tie, is a dangerous paradigm that we've taken too far in this country.

As it is, I do not believe it is evil to think only of your family. It is after all a cultural norm. But again, taken to its extremes this perspective can result in great evils, and the question is whether our society should continue to look upon providing for one's own family as selflessnes.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:18 AM

to respond to you Crisisall, I don't think that the view of the 'needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few' has to be taken as socialist.

The very muscle behind capitalism is that it is more succesful at including the many and improving the many than is communism.

I happen to believe that unregulated capitalism is no longer capitalism, and I happen to believe that social programs actually foster capitalism. I believe in a free-market system, just not a corporafaccist one that kills competition rather than enables it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It is socialist, socialism is always evil, so selfish is good?

Being filthy rich, as I am, yeah, selfish is good.
Am I selfish to breath air?
Am I selfish when I buy the last Sunday paper?
Am I selfish when I lay off 27,000 workers because I can get slaves in Communist China to work for 98% less money?

Big-hearted Capitalist Pig Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

I happen to believe that unregulated capitalism is no longer capitalism, and I happen to believe that social programs actually foster capitalism. I believe in a free-market system, just not a corporafaccist one that kills competition rather than enables it.

I'm right there with ya, Righteous.

Just funnin'with right-wing nonsense Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:26 AM

I figured you were, but not a bad idea to make myself clear to anybody else reading the posts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

I figured you were, but not a bad idea to make myself clear to anybody else reading the posts.

Yep. Newbies abound

Chrisisall, not actually rich, just spiritually well-off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:36 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

to respond to you Crisisall, I don't think that the view of the 'needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few' has to be taken as socialist.

The very muscle behind capitalism is that it is more succesful at including the many and improving the many than is communism.

I happen to believe that unregulated capitalism is no longer capitalism, and I happen to believe that social programs actually foster capitalism. I believe in a free-market system, just not a corporafaccist one that kills competition rather than enables it.

Social programs are socialist, that they also happen in mostly Capitalist countries is an indication that those nations have intergrated some aspects of Socialism.

Capitalism is something that requires selfishness, "I'm more important than you". As you point out this isn't necessarilly 'bad' especially when all competitors are equal, but it's not necessarilly 'good' either, enter corporofacism. As I've said before (and bizarrly singles me out as an 'extremist lefty' in some eyes) I think a balance has to be reached between the "I'm most important" Individual rights of Capitalism and the "They're most important" collectivism of Socialism. Not erradication of one or the other.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As I've said before (and bizarrly singles me out as an 'extremist lefty' in some eyes) I think a balance has to be reached between the "I'm most important" Individual rights of Capitalism and the "They're most important" collectivism of Socialism.

And, I'm right there with you too, Citizen.

Chrisisall that's left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:51 AM

CYBERSNARK

I don't believe in Evil. I believe in Stupid, and I believe in Malice (which I define as the deliberate intent to cause harm as its own goal --some people just enjoy inflicting pain. Makes 'em feel better about themselves).

What we call "evil" is just that which runs counter to our own interests; it's inherently subjective. By the same notion, "good" is just another way of saying "what I/we want." I'm a firm believer in "enlightened self-interest" as a guide to policy, I just wish people would stop forgetting the "enlightened" part.

(You don't eliminate a threat by killing it. That just makes more threats as people start looking for vengeance. You eliminate a threat by removing its reason to be a threat. Violence comes about because someone wants something and is convinced that this is the best way to get it. Find some way for them to get what they want without having to kill/rape/abuse people, and suddenly there's no reason to fight. Without a social outlet for their violent tendencies, the truly malicious will find other pursuits, like video games or movie-making.)

Nobody has ever willfully set out to do anything "evil." They all set out looking to do good for somebody (even if its just themselves), and feeling that this good is more important than whatever they may do to get it. Sometimes people know they're doing horrible things, and they justify themselves. Other times, people go to their graves knowing that they're in the right, and history (written by the victorious moral majority) bears them out.

Only real difference between "good" and "evil" is the number of people agreeing with you. The rationalizations for "good" are so smooth and collectively ingrained that they seem perfectly natural.

Hitler? He was looking out for what he felt were Germany/the Aryan race's best interests. People outside of Germany (or non-Aryans) could go hang. His flaw was Stupidity, manifested in thinking that he knew what Germany's best interests were better than anyone else, and in thinking that a common enemy to unite the people was going to solve anything.

Stalin? Again, the best interests of his people, even if it meant saving them from themselves. More Stupidity, same general type as Adolph's.

The KKK? The best interests of their race. They acted in both Stupidity (thinking their skin colour makes them somehow superior) and Malice (If there were no non-whites around, they would've found others to hurt --they needed an inferior to abuse to justify themselves).

Bin Laden? Best interests of not only his own people, but of everyone else (he's trying to save souls by destroying what he sees as a corruptive influence). Again, Stupidity (thinking that it would be easier to change the system from without by force than from within by education and cooperation).

Jerry Falwell? Same as Bin Laden, actually, just with the inertia of a much larger country behind him (and other people around to run his favourite war for him). There's probably an alternate universe out there where the US is a predominantly Muslim nation and Falwell's commanding armies of Christian suicide-bombers to bring down the corrupt capitalist Muslims.

Bush? He's doing exactly what he claims he's doing; trying to make America safe and eliminate a threat. He's just going about it all wrong. Bush isn't the bad guy, he's just a well-meaning idiot caught up in a situation he can't find his way out of (maybe he hasn't been given the right psychological tools, maybe his hands are tied, maybe he's dealing with other psychological issues that we know nothing about).

Patriotism is the worst idea anyone ever had. It's too easy a rationalization for bigots who aren't allowed to play the "race" or "religion" card. Can't even call them bigots; they're "patriots," and most of them are too stupid to even realize what they're doing.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:03 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

What about the old guy here in California? 89 year old guy drove his car thru a barrier at the Santa Monica Farmer's Market. Killed 10 people, injured dozens. Says he got confused, stepped on the gas instead of the brake, then couldn't figure out how to stop. Jury just found him guitly of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter, and gross negligence. He seems , in his public statements, to be genuinely remorseful, and convinced that this was an accident.

Is he evil?

He's facing some very large number of years in prison, which he may or may not serve.
I think evil lies in the intention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:09 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Evil is KNOWING that who you hurt, you do so in the name of the Lord.

Bottom line Chrisisall

So...you can only do evil in God's name then? Richard Dawkins would love you...

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:17 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Apparently too many people saw the gleeful grin on his face as he swerved to aim at pedestrians.

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
What about the old guy here in California? 89 year old guy drove his car thru a barrier at the Santa Monica Farmer's Market. Killed 10 people, injured dozens. Says he got confused, stepped on the gas instead of the brake, then couldn't figure out how to stop. Jury just found him guitly of 10 counts of vehicular manslaughter, and gross negligence. He seems , in his public statements, to be genuinely remorseful, and convinced that this was an accident.

Is he evil?

He's facing some very large number of years in prison, which he may or may not serve.
I think evil lies in the intention.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

So...you can only do evil in God's name then?

Naw, that was just on the top of my list...

Servin' the fluffy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cybersnark:

Bush isn't the bad guy, he's just a well-meaning idiot caught up in a situation he can't find his way out of (maybe he hasn't been given the right psychological tools, maybe his hands are tied, maybe he's dealing with other psychological issues that we know nothing about).

And as the war rages on, his friends profit....coincidence? Intent?

Who knows Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer said that "evil" was not a useful paradigm when applied by "either side" (pro- and anti-Bush) but had no problems unequivocally labeling Hitler and Stalin "evil". And then the conversation went like this

Quote:
So "evil" is a useful paradigm for talking about Stalin and Hitler, but not for talking about any USA Administration? Why not? You would prefer to talk about "different values" instead? Why?- Signy

Well, for one thing, there's a pretty broad consensus, maybe Rue's 99.9%, that Hitler and Stalin were bad guys, easily over the evil cutoff, whatever that is. There's a good bit less consensus on the the current US Administration, which managed to make the last two elections close run thihgs, regardless of whether you believe in election fraud or not. You can consider the Administration evil, and I can disagree, believing they don't rise to that mysterious "evil" cutoff. I suspect that everyone has their own understanding of what evil is. It's probably like the judge said about pornography, "I know it when I see it", and everyone has different criteria.-Geezer

So Geezer, this is where I ask you for the fourth or fifth time for YOUR definition- "threshold" if you will- of "evil". You went to the dictionary, you posted a bunch of definitions, agreed somewhat more with the first (in that it had to break some sort of moral code), asked a bunch of questions, and dropped the subject, evading personal decision-making while appearing to address the topic.

So, what is YOUR threshold for "evil"? I mean, you clearly think the term is a useful paradigm for SOME people. When do YOU apply the term? Why would you apply it to Hitler and Stalin? Because "everyone else" does? Or is it really an individual judgement, as you also claim? You're being noticeably evasive on this.
-------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 9:57 AM

I once spanked my son way harder than was necessary (if it was even necessary at all), and in that moment I saw the EVIL in me. I did my best to make it right later, but make no mistake, it exists, and in most of us, I suspect.

I'm shocked that our troops, at least, dying for the cause of some version of Middle Eastern control, is not seen as 'evil' by some who are genuinely aware of what's transpiring over there. Cavalier chess games played with real peeps is evil in my book.
Sure, Bush's major intentions are probably 'good' as far as he can know...
But he's the major stockholder of Road To Hell Paving And Construction, Inc.

Not hi-larious; not intended to be Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 10:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nobody has ever willfully set out to do anything "evil." They all set out looking to do good for somebody (even if its just themselves), and feeling that this good is more important than whatever they may do to get it. Sometimes people know they're doing horrible things, and they justify themselves. Other times, people go to their graves knowing that they're in the right, and history (written by the victorious moral majority) bears them out. Only real difference between "good" and "evil" is the number of people agreeing with you. The rationalizations for "good" are so smooth and collectively ingrained that they seem perfectly natural.

While I agree that the mechanisms to achieve "good" and "evil" are various, the basis of "good" and "evil" remains fairly consistent from society to society and only depends on two things. But let me explain my rationale first.

"Good" and "evil" are tools to control societal behavior. If a person could adequately control a group of people by sheer force, the concepts of "good" and "evil" wouldn't be necessary. Interestingly, I think the larger the group of people that needs to be controlled (the larger the society) the greater dependence on these peoples' behavior being self-regulating by following the notions of "good" and "evil".

The concepts must therefore be accepted, ingrained (as you say) in the majority of the people in order to be effective. (Contrast this to "sleepy" and "not sleepy" which are individually-driven.) They must therefore promise in some way to ultimately benefit the people to whom they apply. Sometimes the argument for the benefit is indirect... If you don't obey me as representative of the gods on earth, then all hell will break loose and everyone will suffer. The benefits may be real, or nonexistant, or the results may be downright harmful, but the FIRST BASIS of "good" and "evil" is "the greatest good for the greatest number of people".

The SECOND BASIS is what the society defines as "people". Slaves, foreigners, women, the poor.... are not necessarily "people".

So the real basis for "good" and "evil" is "the greatest good for the greatest number of people with power": a way of enforcing cooperation amiong those who could really do harm. If those excluded groups at some point discover their power to disrupt society, the definition of "good" and "evil" will stretch to accomodate them.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 10:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Geezer, this is where I ask you for the fourth or fifth time for YOUR definition- "threshold" if you will- of "evil.

Nah. You go first. You're the one who throws around "this is evil" and "that is evil" like beads at a Marti Gras parade. You apparently know what evil is, so you go ahead and let us all in on it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 10:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Now see, in the other thread (I support Bush because ... http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24336) you came up with TWO definitions of evil

1) evil is socially defined by consensus
2) evil is a unique individual value

If you had to pick between your two definitions, which would you pick?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 12:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Timedout my *ss!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 12:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This was in case the first 20 attempts didn't get thru. An fortunately not!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 1:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nah. You go first. You're the one who throws around "this is evil" and "that is evil" like beads at a Marti Gras parade.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Gasp! OMG Geezer, that's hysterical! I never called anything or anyone evil- YOU did! In a display of supreme irony, when you said (in the thread that started the whole topic) I believe I have more trouble with the incessant use of the word "evil" than anything else YOU used the word first and more often than anyone else! Three times more than Rue! Incessantly, in fact! And ... here you are- throwing the word around like beads at Mardi Gras!

Quote:
The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination. I just see a President who won't go down as great, but won't be the worst either. This disrespects your Bush-is-evil belief system, so like a good jihadist you spread your hatred of Bush to include me. I'm usually responding to a "Bush is Total Evil bent on World Domination!" Just because someone disagrees with you over policy does not make them evil. Misguided maybe, wrong, foolish, supporting different values. But "evil" implies.. Hitler evil?

I'm not going to pull up ALL of your quotes, but I think we all get the idea.

And as we all have noticed by now, you incessantly used the word "evil" to characterize anti-Bush sentiment when YOU are the one who brought it up. Which is a good way to link the word "evil" with the "anti-Bush" crowd... just like Rove.

Oh what a tool. Sigh.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:33 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Well I'm a liberal, so something like evil is a truly difficult word to label anybody.

What about being liberal causes this? I am a liberal and I see lots of evil in this world.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Well I'm a liberal, so something like evil is a truly difficult word to label anybody.

What about being liberal causes this? I am a liberal and I see lots of evil in this world.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

You can always toss the mirror

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 3:45 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:

You can always toss the mirror

WOW Kaneman. Right on cue.

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

Taoism doesn't hold with the concept of course, so I suppose everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt. Most specifically, according to Lao Tse, Evil is created by the definition of good. If you define modest dress as "good" than immodest dress

becomes "evil"

But I'll try.

Usually, I think there is no evil, just shades of grey. For a long time I held "bush isn't evil" and I would still hold "Ahmadinejad isn't evil." Mostly it's differing points of view. After I became unconvinced that OBL was behind WTC and Beslan, he became not evil, imho.

Most often, what we have are different, and often incompatible, points of view. WTC and Beslan are evil acts, we all feel that instinctively. We all feel the unibomber was wrong, even if we agree with his goal (stopping environmental destruction,) because we disagree

with his means (killing the people who manage environmentally destructive projects, or whoever gets mail at their address.)

So what is this "evil" ?

When I was young, I ponder over this at some length, and eventually came up with this definition:

Evil is ultimate selfishness and Good is ultimate self-sacrafice. For a while, that worked for me, but in time I began to see it's flaws. A doctor working for a company may be about to cure a deadly disease out of pure selfish greed, and a suicide bomber might kill

him as a bystander to his ultimate self-sacrafice. Ultimately, you couldn't have a subjective definition of good and evil or two sides of good from a different perspective would be endlessly locked in conflict. I needed an objective definition.

Then I read Albert Schwietzer's definition, which was so much better than my own: Good is whatever creates life. Evil is whatever destroys it.

Nice, simple, and to the point.

America, Iran, Islam, Christianity, not evil. All, at times, misguided, but not evil. A nuclear bomb, that's evil. It's not a semantics argument, so the tree isn't evil if it kills a human. The tree is life, trees create life, trees are good. Nukes destroy life. It's their only purpose

in existance. They can never do good. Sure, a nuke may end a war, stopping another evil, but if it does so, it's proponents can argue that it is the lesser evil, but they cannot make it "good" imho.

Little things can be picked out as indicators. Both sides in this latest conflict have been engaging in evil things. Torture, random killings of civilians and example killings to create an atmosphere of fear, these things are evil. So, the war, and how it is waged, is, in

part, evil. But the sides themselves are not evil. They both fight to make the lives of those in the arena better, regardless of what you think about what motivates their leaders, the people on the ground, on the america side fight for a stable secular democratic iraq,

the people on the other side in general fight for a more devout religious hierarchical iraq. But both equally believe that their vision is correct, and best for the people. The people of Iraq are most evenly split than any side is letting on. Listen to the iraqi media, or the

iranian media, and you get the picture. Some people like the democratic american version, and want to see it succeed, and others would like the americans to leave so the theocrats can set things right, and they do seem evenly split.

So, my answer is, on an absolutely level, any act or entity is evil if it's own balance is towards the destruction of life. Torture is evil. The indirect consequences, such as that the tortured prisoner might hypothetically cave, and reveal accurate information which

enables intelligence authorities to stop a terrorist attack, cannot, ever, in any way, make torture good, because it is not a part of torture, and can have no effect on torture. It can only make torture in the eyes of some a "necessary evil"

I don't believe in necessary evil, but I recognize that others have a different belief system than I

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:06 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HAHAHAHAHA!!! Gasp! OMG Geezer, that's hysterical! I never called anything or anyone evil.

Cool! So you concede that the Bush Administration isn't evil. Argument over. I win. Be sure to tell Rue.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Taoism doesn't hold with the concept of course, so I suppose everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt. Most specifically, according to Lao Tse, Evil is created by the definition of good. If you define modest dress as "good" than immodest dress

becomes "evil"

But I'll try.

Usually, I think there is no evil, just shades of grey. For a long time I held "bush isn't evil" and I would still hold "Ahmadinejad isn't evil." Mostly it's differing points of view. After I became unconvinced that OBL was behind WTC and Beslan, he became not evil, imho.

Most often, what we have are different, and often incompatible, points of view. WTC and Beslan are evil acts, we all feel that instinctively. We all feel the unibomber was wrong, even if we agree with his goal (stopping environmental destruction,) because we disagree

with his means (killing the people who manage environmentally destructive projects, or whoever gets mail at their address.)

So what is this "evil" ?

When I was young, I ponder over this at some length, and eventually came up with this definition:

Evil is ultimate selfishness and Good is ultimate self-sacrafice. For a while, that worked for me, but in time I began to see it's flaws. A doctor working for a company may be about to cure a deadly disease out of pure selfish greed, and a suicide bomber might kill

him as a bystander to his ultimate self-sacrafice. Ultimately, you couldn't have a subjective definition of good and evil or two sides of good from a different perspective would be endlessly locked in conflict. I needed an objective definition.

Then I read Albert Schwietzer's definition, which was so much better than my own: Good is whatever creates life. Evil is whatever destroys it.

Nice, simple, and to the point.

America, Iran, Islam, Christianity, not evil. All, at times, misguided, but not evil. A nuclear bomb, that's evil. It's not a semantics argument, so the tree isn't evil if it kills a human. The tree is life, trees create life, trees are good. Nukes destroy life. It's their only purpose

in existance. They can never do good. Sure, a nuke may end a war, stopping another evil, but if it does so, it's proponents can argue that it is the lesser evil, but they cannot make it "good" imho.

Little things can be picked out as indicators. Both sides in this latest conflict have been engaging in evil things. Torture, random killings of civilians and example killings to create an atmosphere of fear, these things are evil. So, the war, and how it is waged, is, in

part, evil. But the sides themselves are not evil. They both fight to make the lives of those in the arena better, regardless of what you think about what motivates their leaders, the people on the ground, on the america side fight for a stable secular democratic iraq,

the people on the other side in general fight for a more devout religious hierarchical iraq. But both equally believe that their vision is correct, and best for the people. The people of Iraq are most evenly split than any side is letting on. Listen to the iraqi media, or the

iranian media, and you get the picture. Some people like the democratic american version, and want to see it succeed, and others would like the americans to leave so the theocrats can set things right, and they do seem evenly split.

So, my answer is, on an absolutely level, any act or entity is evil if it's own balance is towards the destruction of life. Torture is evil. The indirect consequences, such as that the tortured prisoner might hypothetically cave, and reveal accurate information which

enables intelligence authorities to stop a terrorist attack, cannot, ever, in any way, make torture good, because it is not a part of torture, and can have no effect on torture. It can only make torture in the eyes of some a "necessary evil"

I don't believe in necessary evil, but I recognize that others have a different belief system than I

*HUGE yawn*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"How do we distinguish "evil" from "wrong", or "mistaken",

Simple,
Sig is usually "wrong"
Ruse is usually "mistaken"
Citz is usually "evil"

Hope this helps.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Cool! So you concede that the Bush Administration isn't evil. Argument over. I win.

No, I said I didn't call anyone or anything evil... at least in these past few threads. That's not the same as saying Bush isn't evil. So, since you brought up the topic and used the word quite liberally, you surely must have some idea of what it means. So, what DOES the word "evil" mean?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:44 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

When I started this thread, it was because I was really curious as to how people define and identify evil. Unfortunately, it's devolved into the usual political round-e-round.

I find defining evil is a lot more difficult than defining, say, things that may have a bad outcome. That's why I questioned Webster's definition of evil as, to paraphrase, "something that causes harm".

Hurricane Katrina, for example, caused massive harm and injury. I can't recall anyone calling Hurricane Katrina evil, or morally wrong. In my opinion, evil and moral wrong apply only to humans, who have, or are supposed to have, a moral sense.

The fun starts when you try to define "morality". There are people out there who consider homosexuals immoral and therefore evil. There are people who consider folks who own guns immoral and evil. There are people who consider that people who have too much money, or too little, or have another faith, or another skin color... etc. etc. etc.

Is evil the same for everyone? Probably not. There are most likely some things that almost everyone would consider evil. Killing babies so you can eat their flesh for breakfast probably fits that bill. Is blowing up babies in a marketplace to destabilize the Iraqi government evil? It seems that way to me, but there's a lot of people who seem to think it's necessary.

There's a lot of people on this forum who act like they know all the answers to what's good and evil. I don't. I try to mostly hope that people's actions are based on good intentions, unless presented with strong evidence. Others may assume evil intent unless presented with proof otherwise. Their privilege.

What is evil? It's what others do that offends my moral sense to the point that I say "That's evil". It will probably depend on different circumstances and reasons every time. Providing a pre-programmed answer to an incomplete scenario puts me in the same boat as the "All (fill in the blank)s are immoral and therefore evil" crowd. I don't want to be there.

So, SignyM. That's the best answer you'll get. Evil for me is what I think it is. Evil for you is what you think it is. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't. That's life.

Good night.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 5:45 PM

DREAMTROVE

My nitpicky rant, the sort of stuff i'm learning not to say.

Quote:
It is socialist, socialism is always evil, so selfish is good?

Citizen

Capitalism is not based on selfishness, nor socialism on generosity. The first rule of business is not "the CEO is always right." Capitalism is a reward system for doing things for others. Sometimes it has flaws, sure, and should be tweaked. But "provide a service that the people want" and "the customer is always right" are the guiding principles which lead to successful business, hardly ones which are based on or even require, an essential selfishness. Also, selfish is not the opposite of socialism. Socialism is not "good" or "evil" nor is it "generous" or "sharing". Socialism is a way of doing things where the central autorities have control over the organizing of society. IMHO, it is misguided.

Geezer,

An excellent question. Truly, you're to be commended for starting such a thread. A ton of questions we should be asking ourselves.

Quote:
Nitpicky points.

1. A close friend who is a mayan expert informs me that mayan culture didn't have human sacrafice, but sometimes mayans who ascribed to another culture, such as aztec, did. Still, using that to say 'mayans sacraficed people' is like saying 'americans are terrorists'

because a few american citizens have conspired with al zarqawi (even if you believe there were non in 9-11, we all know that there are a fair number of zacharias moussaoui's out there.)
2. Neo-nazis largely don't believe this. They think that the holocaust was a hoax. They tend to accept that it would be evil if it had happened, but they think that it was a creation of the jewish media. Sure, there is a smaller group who thinks genocide is good, but

they're like the satanists and people who think charles manson is cool., a true fringe loony minority. Most fringe groups are based on a lie of some sort, whether it's that there are aliens sneaking about the earth or that everything is run by the masons, etc., and the

neonazis are no exception.

Quote:
Clinton said that as president he hoped he did more good than harm.

He failed.

Quote:
the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

I can't support this position. There is no judgment of quality, only quantity, which assumes an equality. If a million parasitic worms live by rendering half a million people brain-dead, are they therefore good? If you can save 2 million serial rapists and murderers by kill

half a million scientists and doctors plus one million children, than have you done good? Since any such qualitative judgment would always be subjective, and never universal, than we can never say that we could agree on it, but that doesn't mean that any of us

would never have an qualitative judgments that we would hold to.

In parts of africa bands of raiders who carry HIV, kill, pillage and rape because they believe raping a virgin child will cure them of the disease. Probably a large number of africans are willing to kill a dozen raiders to save the lives of the half dozen in their family. Are

they all therefore evil? I hope everyone said "of course not." Nor do I think we can justify the killing of the raiders by proclaiming them evil, since any such acceptable evil-slaying warrant would send us into an eye for an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,

the whole concept I suspect geezer was trying to get us not to fall into.

Ultimately, if there is a qualitative judgement, the total benefit to the earth of the people of iraq exceeds that of the bush administration, from almost every angle. So, if a group of iraqi terrorists targeted the bush administration, I could not say that it was good, but I

could see where they could argue that it was the lesser evil.

Casual

Quote:
So...you can only do evil in God's name then? Richard Dawkins would love you...

Dawkins has his charm, but he sure is my perfect example of no fact should have to owe its existance to the arguments of one of its supporters.
But really, you don't want to get into a numbers game on this one. I suspect an awful lot of evil has been done in the name of God. More than communism, given the amount of time involved.

Chrisisall

I would ask if you would accept a substitute of "in the name of the greater good" since that is what people who do so in the name of religion claim, as those who do so in the name of communism.

Quote:
Am I selfish when I lay off 27,000 workers because I can get slaves in Communist China to work for 98% less money?

This is the sort of misinformation that borders on propaganda. Whether or not one decries communist-capitalist mutant like Ipod City (I don't. I see it as different, even alien, the way I would view a beehive or an anthill) it's neither going to match any of your criteria, and ipod city is really the worst of it.

1. Not slaves. People are free to come an go as they please.
2. not 98% less. Ipod city workers make 4-7 y/hr, which is about the same in buying power as walmart is paying here.
3. Not selfish. Only in the most corrupt corporation does a drop in worker salary instantly translate to a raise in the CEOs salary. Most outsourcing is done because labor is available with a superios skill base which the comapny can afford, and it does what it can afford. Sure, I don't think that ipod city fits fully into this paradigm, and sure, needs reform. But even in ipod city, equating workers to slaves is doing everyone involved a great injustice. A job at ipod city does more to create social mobility than does a job at walmart in america. Sure, it doesn't do a phenomenal amount, but it could support someone's family, or someone's educational aspirations.

Quote:
I'm shocked that our troops, at least, dying for the cause of some version of Middle Eastern control, is not seen as 'evil' by some who are genuinely aware of what's transpiring over there.

Even more surprisingly, in Iraq. Apparantly they have become only the second most feared group, and sometimes the third. The most feared group is the new Iraqi govt. the second is either us or the insurgent militias, depending on who you talk to. An awful lot of iraqis don't seem to think we're evil. The troops aren't playing evil chess, they're being neutral pawns in evil chess.

Quote:
I happen to believe that social programs actually foster capitalism.

I don't. Nothing we have here anyways. But I believe that it is possible to create such programs. Microloans are a good start. I think the dole is probably the best social program ever. But I think an american dole would have to be carefully designed so that the drug dealers didn't get it, as the black market drugs in america are obscene.

Snark

Quote:
Bush isn't the bad guy

Yes he is. used to think that he wasn't, but you just have to know someone who knows him, or read some of the off the cuff stuff. he's likeable, but not a nice guy. He jokes about torture and killing people, and he actually thinks it's fun. He's a real detriment to the species, assuming, of course, that he's a member.

Is George W. Bush evil?

I have no problem with this one. Absolutely and unequivocally. So is Clinton. The reason Bush can win election is twofold : 1. I suspect he cheats, and 2. his opposition is just as evil if not more so. We all watched the Iraq war unfold as a disaster. Kerry was asked to make a specific criticism of Bush's Iraq war strategy, what would he have done differently, and he said he would've attacked Fallujah. The assault on Fallujah was arguably more evil than anything else in the war, and Bush did it because Kerry had made him look weak, rhetorrically, by applying he was afraid of the fallujah conflict, and so Bush had to be a man and show everyone, which he did, right after the election. Imagine the Fallujah disaster, non-stop, for four years in cities across Iraq, Syria and Iran. This is what those of us on the right saw in John Kerry. So, both sides can be evil. Bush is evil. Clinton is evil. So, are Bush and Clinton as evil as Hitler and Stalin? Sure. They probably create as much death, and if they don't, they easily have the will to so. But Bush supporters and Clinton supporters aren't evil. They are just either misguided, or pragmatic. Logically, you could have looked at the 2004 election and thought "I oppose the draft" and then voted for Bush, and you would have been right. When the question was put to Bush "will you re-instate the draft" he solemnly swore not to, and he hasn't. When the same question was put to Kerry, he refused to rule it out. Since Kerry had already promised to deploy more troops than he would have had to deploy, he would have needed some sort of way to increase enrollment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 6:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
When I started this thread, it was because I was really curious as to how people define and identify evil. Unfortunately, it's devolved into the usual political round-e-round.

Oh, you mean like this?

Quote:
Cool! So you concede that the Bush Administration isn't evil. Argument over. I win.

So...

Quote:
What is evil? It's what others do that offends my moral sense to the point that I say "That's evil".

Evil is what you think it is... wow, that's deep. But what IS your "moral sense"?

Well, since you're so coy about your "moral sense" (you might want to develop your thoughts on the topic a little more) I'll go first.

As far as I'm concerned, "good" is "The greatest good for the greatest number". Since that's a self-referencing definition, "good" (to me) probably means meeting Maslow's hierarchy of needs for most people. "Evil" means a few people depriving many others of their needs, not for betterment for everybody but for special privileges for a few. As far as who "people" are: it's everybody, and not just today's people but tomorrow's people as well: our children, their children, and hopefully their children.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 23, 2006 10:31 PM

HARDWARE

I find this thread disheartening because people asked to define a bedrock concept like evil use it as an excuse to take political jabs at the other side. Be that as it may...

Let's define a few basic concepts. First, what is not evil. Inanimate objects are not evil. They have no will of their own. They do nothing unless acted on by an outside agency. That agency can be a human, an animal or just universal entropy. Someone said a nuke is evil because it destroys. I suppose by that definition lightning is evil. Neither of them is evil, they just ARE. They are real, have physical properties that can hurt you but nobody manipulated the thunderstorm so that the lightning strikes you. The nuke doesn't go off in your neighborhood because it is pissed off at you. If it is detonated it does so because a person acted upon it to make the event happen. I suppose a nuke could have positive uses not related to killing.

Second, let's define motivation. People like to say love is good and hate is bad. They also like to say love and hate are opposites. I disagree. Love and hate are two sides of the same coin. They are the inverse of one another because they both require emotional investment. Love usually builds things up, but love can also be a motivator in an act of destruction. Love can become twisted and depraved. John Hinckley used his love for Jodie Foster as a motivator to try to assassinate the president. Is this a good act because it was motivated by love? (save the political commentary) People are quoted all the time saying that they hate something and then go on campaign to create legislation or raise awareness. Their hate motivates an act of creation. Is this bad because it is motivated by hate?

Since love and hate can be reasonably demonstrated to be both good and bad then what litmus test defines evil? Since love and hate both require emotional investment I propose that the essence of evil is indifference. My theory is that indifference has never motivated a good act. But it has allowed despicable acts to continue. The SS officer who stood idly by and watched the jews (and the gypsies, gays, mentally ill, retarded, poles, ukrainians, the list goes on and on...) be herded wailing into the concentration camps was, if not committing, then aiding an act of evil. The neighbors of Kitty Genovese who did nothing while she screamed for help while being sexually assaulted and murdered were doing evil by doing nothing.

Edmund Burke said; "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing." Close to the mark, but I think it is more concise to say that evil can only exist where good people choose to allow it.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As far as I'm concerned, "good" is "The greatest good for the greatest number". Since that's a self-referencing definition, "good" (to me) probably means meeting Maslow's hierarchy of needs for most people. "Evil" means a few people depriving many others of their needs, not for betterment for everybody but for special privileges for a few. As far as who "people" are: it's everybody, and not just today's people but tomorrow's people as well: our children, their children, and hopefully their children.

OK. You've defined the ends of the spectrum in a way many people would agree with. Good is helping the greatest possible number of others live better lives. Evil is depriving the great part of the people of better lives, or lives at all, to benefit a few. Defining the extremes is not where I have a problem.

Somewhere between the two ends of this spectrum is a point at which one says "Everything worse than this is evil". Is this the same point for every person? How can it be, when every person has different values, different opinions, different access to information on which to base a decision? Some may stop there, deciding there is only good or evil. Some may say "Everything before this point may be good, or it may be wrong, or based on misunderstanding, or a bit selfish, but it doesn't cross the line into evil".

Most everybody would agree that Hitler and Stalin were evil. Most everybody would agree that Ghandi and Martin Luther King were good. They're the extremes of the spectrum. Where does Ho Chi Minh fall? Harry Truman? Bill Gates? Muqtada al-Sadr? Gunther Grass? A con man who contributes part of his take to a homeless shelter? A cop who roughs up a kidnapper to find the hostage buried alive? The list could go on and on, and very few people would put every person or situation in the same order.

So if individuals can't agree on a tipping point which determines what is evil and what is merely not good, how does society do so? Consensus? Who yells loudest? Who has the most money or guns? Something else?

I got plenty of questions about this, and few answers.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:48 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Capitalism is not based on selfishness, nor socialism on generosity.

Of course it is. A CEO makes the decisions that are best for him and his company, and hopes the competition loses market share. Social programs that, if you like (and I'm sure you do) 'enforce' 'charity' are Socialist, giving to help others, not oneself.

Individual rights are by their nature selfish, ensuring your rights and not caring about other peoples, because of course it's their job to look out for themselves. Capitalism is selfish, it's looking out for you and your best interests, and hang anyone else. That's not necessarily bad, especially when everyone's doing it and everyone's equal, but the perfect Capitalist world will not and can not exist, the same as the perfect socialist world, where everyone thinks of the collective, I.e. each other, over themselves.

Since this is an imperfect world and you can't have everything your own way a balance has to be struck between Individualism and Collectivism.

Also to be frank Socialism is no more misguided than the view that Capitalism is perfect and if we just stopped regulating business it would somehow all of a sudden play the rules that don't exist anymore.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nitpicky points.

1. A close friend who is a mayan expert informs me that mayan culture didn't have human sacrafice, but sometimes mayans who ascribed to another culture, such as aztec, did. Still, using that to say 'mayans sacraficed people' is like saying 'americans are terrorists'

Sorry. I meant Aztecs. My bad. Apologies to any Maya I may have unintentionally offended.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Most everybody would agree that Hitler and Stalin were evil. Most everybody would agree that Ghandi and Martin Luther King were good. They're the extremes of the spectrum. Where does Ho Chi Minh fall? Harry Truman? Bill Gates? Muqtada al-Sadr? Gunther Grass? A con man who contributes part of his take to a homeless shelter? A cop who roughs up a kidnapper to find the hostage buried alive?

"Evil" is usually reserved for extreme examples, "bad" for the grey areas. I guess "evil" and "good" are not exact opposites because "evil" implies (to me at least) a more extreme case. So where does someone cross the line from "bad" to "evil"? That's what this discussion is all about. You talk about "most everybody would agree"... but what about YOU? I'm not going to have a one-sided discussion, and since you tossed the word into the coversation quite frequently, you surely must have some sort of gut reaction. I know I do. So perhaps by MUTUAL discussion we can figure out each other's boundaries.

I'll go first (again) - Lyndon Johnson, altho rightly credited with aiding the civil rights movement (good, in my book, because it extended "personhood" to more people) was evil when he faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. He lied, and his lies cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, with little resulting benefit. While his intentions MAY have been good- or at worst confused- in my book "good" and "evil" is very results-oriented. Whatever his objectives... and right now it's hard to say what those objectives were... they could likely have been accomplished with far less bloodshed.

Just about everything Henry Kissinger did was evil. He actively supported repressive regimes which killed their people with USA munitions and complicity by the hundreds of thousands. In most of the cases that I know about (eg East Timor) Kissinger's "solution" for the "problem of "communism" was worse than the nascent movements that he crushed. It was all about maintaining the power of the few over the many.

EDITED TO ADD: Recent archeological evidence points to MAYAN human sacrifice as well. I think that was in National Geographic. If I have the time (doubtful) I'll look it up.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:41 AM

Futuremrsfillion, Fair enough...liberal really has nothing to do with it I guess.

It's more in reference to the nuance that liberals supposedly prefer over conservatives.

There's a joke in The Daily Show's 'America, a guide to democracy inaction' that shows a liberal's brain and a conservatives brain. One of that gag's was that liberals had grey matter and conservatives had black-and-white matter.

Evil is a pretty black-and-white noun, is all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:42 AM

doublepost

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:06 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"Evil" is usually reserved for extreme examples, "bad" for the grey areas. I guess "evil" and "good" are not exact opposites because "evil" implies (to me at least) a more extreme case. So where does someone cross the line from "bad" to "evil"? That's what this discussion is all about.

I'll go first (again) - Lyndon Johnson, altho rightly credited with aiding the civil rights movement (good, in my book, because it extended "personhood" to more people) was evil when he faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident. He lied, and his lies cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, with little resulting benefit. While his intentions MAY have been good- or at worst confused- in my book "good" and "evil" is very results-oriented. Whatever his objectives... and right now it's hard to say what those objectives were... they could likely have been accomplished with far less bloodshed.

A few posts ago you defined evil as "...a few people depriving many others of their needs, not for betterment for everybody but for special privileges for a few." Now it's results-oriented, and doesn't depend on the objectives of one's actions, just the effects. In other words, evil for you is what you think it is relating to a certain set of circumstances, informed by your values, biases, and knowledge.

For example, you believe that Johnson knowingly faked and lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The first attack, from a quick google, does not seem to be in much dispute. The second has been attributed variously to false alarm, intelligence errors, and lies to support the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. You have chosen which version you accept, based on your values, biases, and knowledge.

You then state, "...and his lies cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, with little resulting benefit." seeming to imply that Johnson's lies (lies in your opinion), were the sole cause of the Vietnam war. Pretty sweeping generalization. Again informed by your V, B, and K.

I guess I'm either not as sure of the correctness of my opinions as you are, or I'm a bit more forgiving of people trying to cope in realtime, without the benefit of knowing what happened in the intervening 40 years.

- Did Johnson lie? I don't know. I've seen firsthand how the fog of war can be confusing, and can well imagine that immediately after an attack, with everyone keyed up, mistakes can be made. I have enough doubt to not be sure.
- Was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution(or even the US) the sole cause of the Vietnam war? I doubt it. Too many players for the onus to fall on just one.
- Was there "little resulting benefit"? Many people think that if the Allies had stood up to Hitler's first agressive move, WWII could have been avoided, or reduced in scope. Would not resisting Communist expansion in Vietnam led to a full-scale WWIII? We'll never know, because it didn't happen that way.
- Was Johnson bothered by the war? Most accounts say yes. He was affected enough to refuse to stand for re-election. Motive does play a part in my decision.

- Was Johnson evil? I don't think so.

Kissinger, on the other hand, was(IMHO).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:13 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So, what is "Evil"?

I think this is wholly dependent on whom is asked. When you get down to it, we're all a little morally relativistic.

Edited for link:

http://www.moral-relativism.com/

Re-Edited: Yeah, so that link says I'm wrong. I'll leave it anyway.

My point is that even people who think they subscribe to "moral absolutism" often really don't. Is murder evil? A morally absolute view would dictate that it is. But, would it have been evil to murder Hitler or Mao or Stalin or Pol Pot?

This link seems a touch more balanced:

http://www.moralrelativism.info/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:35 AM