Evil

[mistermack]

I don't think there is a thing called evil. It's such a foggy concept, it's best left as it is. A general term, used to state an opinion. It might be that most people agree on it for some action, or just a small percentage think something is evil. It's always a matter of opinion.

Take burning witches. At the time, the people who burn't a witch thought that they were fighting evil. Nowadays, it's more likely that we regard THEM as evil, and the ''witch'' as a victim.

Nowadays, we think that witches are just a bit loony, or just people who like dressing up and ritual, and the odd orgy. Not worth burning.

Even people who have no redeeming features, who kill and torture for pleasure, have the excuse that they are not ''all there'' and can't help it. Lots of people would say that it's not their fault, if they were born with a screw loose.

[Brian Peacock]

The question is : Does evil exist, and what is its nature?

It can only have a nature if it exists as a discrete thing. Can you show me that thing which is evil (rather than showing an evil thing)?

You are saying it can be an adjective, but not a noun...

(mind you, this is coming from a maths teacher, whose understanding of the delicate nuances of english grammar is widely scorned by english teachers...)

Basically, but there's an epistemic point to be taken to. We can talk about, and know something about, the nature of a thing like a potato. So the question 'Does potato exist, and what is its nature?" has some substance - the thing has discrete characteristics we can catalogue under 'its nature' (ovoid, edible, starchy, etc) before going on talk about our observations of them (potatoes are fun: I don't like mashed potatoes because it always seems to catch in my throat, etc). But the question, "Does joy exist, and what is its nature?" can't be got at in the same way as we have no observables to catalogue even if we have a definition of typical characteristics and some idea of what typifies something joyful. Joy has no independent existence outside of our nature, and so is not discrete entity, a thing. What we know about joy is left to what we think about it, and what passes for its existence is a shadow formed by a typifying definition on which we mostly, but not always, agree.

Evil doesn't have a nature, but the nature of some people, deeds, and situations can be typified as evil. Hither, therefore, and to wit...

Seems to me that the people listed above and their like break through a barrier - a moral one perhaps - that most of us would not be capable of. In the first instance they seem to take a 'ends justified the means' approach but as the collateral damage mounts and mounts they perhaps become insensitive to the mass casualties they are inflicting in the name of their goal or destination. Perhaps in the end the goal stops mattering at all and they are themselves trapped into their 'evil' behaviour. It is hard to imagine the likes of Hitler or Stalin suddenly deciding their aims were not worth the cost.

Because Rum is old he is wise. Perhaps the great evil of Hitler and Stalin was not that they were bad when they were bad, but that they coulda been gooder, and shoulda.

[laklak]

Potatoes are NOT evil. I have this on good authority.

[Hermit]

Are so!

[laklak]

A mighty potato is our Lord.

[Rum]

Seems to me that the people listed above and their like break through a barrier - a moral one perhaps - that most of us would not be capable of.

Shiot. Every one of us is entirely capable of being part of some Fallujan or Somali mob desecrating a hated enemy's carcass, or burning a witch. It's merely an accident of birth you haven't had occasion, yet, to pluck some poor bastard's veins out of your teeth or howl with righteous delight as he burned alive. We all made our way from the worm.

In the first instance they seem to take a 'ends justified the means' approach but as the collateral damage mounts and mounts they perhaps become insensitive to the mass casualties they are inflicting in the name of their goal or destination. Perhaps in the end the goal stops mattering at all and they are themselves trapped into their 'evil' behaviour. It is hard to imagine the likes of Hitler or Stalin suddenly deciding their aims were not worth the cost.

Try to reason some Baptists out of their ideas, and you realize there has to be a more efficient way to get this particular bunch of Koranic manburners to lay off their religious interpretations...

Rather than being unpleasantly rude as you were ill just say I disagree. We are not talking about mob behaviour here (or weren't anyway) but the 'evil' perpetrated by the likes of a Stalin, Ghegis Khan and the like. I suspect individuals willing to perform truly awful deeds as part of the process of achieving a game changing position are rare.

[piscator]

Seems to me that the people listed above and their like break through a barrier - a moral one perhaps - that most of us would not be capable of.

Shiot. Every one of us is entirely capable of being part of some Fallujan or Somali mob desecrating a hated enemy's carcass, or burning a witch. It's merely an accident of birth you haven't had occasion, yet, to pluck some poor bastard's veins out of your teeth or howl with righteous delight as he burned alive. We all made our way from the worm.

In the first instance they seem to take a 'ends justified the means' approach but as the collateral damage mounts and mounts they perhaps become insensitive to the mass casualties they are inflicting in the name of their goal or destination. Perhaps in the end the goal stops mattering at all and they are themselves trapped into their 'evil' behaviour. It is hard to imagine the likes of Hitler or Stalin suddenly deciding their aims were not worth the cost.

Try to reason some Baptists out of their ideas, and you realize there has to be a more efficient way to get this particular bunch of Koranic manburners to lay off their religious interpretations...

Rather than being unpleasantly rude as you were ill just say I disagree. We are not talking about mob behaviour here (or weren't anyway) but the 'evil' perpetrated by the likes of a Stalin, Ghegis Khan and the like. I suspect individuals willing to perform truly awful deeds as part of the process of achieving a game changing position are rare.

Stanley Milgram would disagree, and kill a motherfucker stone dead if he harmed his daughter.
A bunch of foreign invaders come into your town and harm your loved ones... you wouldn't treat it as an abstract exercise in managing your online projection, you'd tear them limb from limb and set them on fire the first chance you got.

[Rum]

I don't know what the fuck you are on, but we were talking about the nature of evil not how you would respond to a rampaging horde.

[Blind groper]

I do not believe that just anyone is capable of the evil we see with ISIS or with Stalin etc. The thing is that we are all different. There are people who are "condemned" from birth to be religious nutters. Others have an inborn sense of skepticism and will escape that trap.

[piscator]

I don't know what the fuck you are on, but we were talking about the nature of evil not how you would respond to a rampaging horde.

Don't know where the fuck you got that idea, but before you took it upon yourself to correct my manners, I was proposing that the only difference between you and a member of a vengeful mob is that you were lucky enough to be born in the First World.
You're trying to tell me you're nicely civilized and wouldn't burn some fighter pilot who just blew up your family. I think that's bullshit.

[laklak]

Somebody shoots my kid burning is just one possibility.

I like the idea of dumping them into the Gulf 40 miles offshore then keeping the boat just 10 feet ahead of them. Swim, mofo, swim! Maybe dump a bit of chum, just to liven things up.

[MrJonno]

Evil = anti-social behaviour, ie any action that the social consensus considers to be damaging to that society.

At the moment most people think beheading heretics/aid workers/people of the wrong religion does not lead to a successful society so its evil , but if society suddenly decides it does result in a better society (which it did in the past ) then that suddenly becomes a very good thing

[Blind groper]

To Mr Jonno

You would then consider that stoning a woman to death in a Muslim society for going on a date is not evil?

[Rum]

I don't know what the fuck you are on, but we were talking about the nature of evil not how you would respond to a rampaging horde.

Don't know where the fuck you got that idea, but before you took it upon yourself to correct my manners, I was proposing that the only difference between you and a member of a vengeful mob is that you were lucky enough to be born in the First World.
You're trying to tell me you're nicely civilized and wouldn't burn some fighter pilot who just blew up your family. I think that's bullshit.

I think you must have problems with concentration.

[JimC]

Evil = anti-social behaviour, ie any action that the social consensus considers to be damaging to that society.

At the moment most people think beheading heretics/aid workers/people of the wrong religion does not lead to a successful society so its evil , but if society suddenly decides it does result in a better society (which it did in the past ) then that suddenly becomes a very good thing

An extremely dangerous position to take, which almost gives me some sympathy for Seth's anti-state rants.

This way leads to the passive acceptance of the gas ovens in the camp next door...