posted
Generally when I hear people say things like, "There are no evil men, only confused men," after a little scrutiny I discover they have very little if any experience with misery, suffering, agony, violence that some humans do to others.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he's saying that when a man chooses to do evil, thinking it's really being done for the sake of good, that makes it all well and good, then I don't really get where he's coming from.
If a man does something evil, knowing full well what he is doing, then it doesn't matter what his endgame scenario is, he's still doing evil, and willfully. You don't think the Japanese knew what they were doing in Nanking? (to use an extreme example). You don't think Osama bin Laden knew what he was doing? (to dial it back a bit).
Just because they might be misguided, or because they can find some justification for their actions, it doesn't make them less evil.
I guess to summarize:
quote:If you choose something, you don't really consider it evil.
That doesn't jive with me. It's an insane assumption to make across the broad spectrum of people in the world. You're working from the premise that everyone isn't evil, so therefore they must have good intentions, but are going about them the wrong way.
I just don't buy that. Ignorance is a poor excuse.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I would draw a distinction between people desiring the things they choose at the point of choice (utilitarianism) and "doing evil." Of course, this gets into the Objective Morality territory, but I have no problem believing that some people desire evil, and so choose it. It's evil, not in the sense that they don't like it or want it or desire it, but evil in the sense that it's contrary to the morals of society and/or God.
However, that said, I would not call him an evil man, but for reasons other than those you stated.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Generally when I hear people say things like, "There are no evil men, only confused men," after a little scrutiny I discover they have very little if any experience with misery, suffering, agony, violence that some humans do to others.
I think there is a tendency towards that. Those who experience a great deal of suffering, agony, misery, and violence caused by other human beings tend to have their judgment of other human beings tainted by those experiences. I think it is difficult to accurately see the value of someone when they are destroying your life or the lives of those around you. One very bad side effect of certain sorts of victimization is the way in which it can distort the judgement of the victim and make them see people as evil when they are not.
quote:If a man does something evil, knowing full well what he is doing, then it doesn't matter what his endgame scenario is, he's still doing evil, and willfully. You don't think the Japanese knew what they were doing in Nanking? (to use an extreme example). You don't think Osama bin Laden knew what he was doing? (to dial it back a bit).
Just because they might be misguided, or because they can find some justification for their actions, it doesn't make them less evil.
Do you think that any person who does evil is evil? For instance, if a toddler willfully decides to hit his little brother with a big stick, not understanding the pain it causes his little brother, does that make the toddler evil?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
There are no evil men; there are only confused men. And it is never a good thing when one has to die, although it can certainly sometimes have some good consequences.
And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why evil flourishes as well as it does today. The fact that so many good people refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are evil people in the world.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would not acknowleding that there are evil people prevent us from stopping people from doing evil things? Do we need to consider someone evil in order to stop him from doing what he is doing?
I suspect the real reason evil flourishes is because people continue to not be all-knowing and all-wise, and thus continue to sometimes think evil things are justifiable. Like people who get so wrapped into their religious doctrine that they believe it's okay to kill innocent people to promote it. If such people could get perfect judgement, evil wouldn't flourish. I have my doubts that that will ever happen though...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's going to depend on what your values are, but if you think it would be best if it had never existed, then that's an indicator that it may be of negative worth. But I'd add that the reason it would be best it had never existed needs to be it's own nature, rather than something external to it. For instance, you might argue that if Hitler's mother had never existed then the Holocaust could have been avoided - but that wouldn't mean Hitler's mother had a negative worth, because the bad that she caused was not caused by a flaw in her own nature, but rather in future things she couldn't see to avoid. I think it is a little bit tricky to describe the difference.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since in your judgement, evil depends individually on values, isn't it entirely possible that Zarqawi was in fact an evil man (judged by Bean Counter's values), although not an evil man judged by yours?
When you say "There are no evil men; there are only confused men" do you really mean, "Due to the value I ascertain from God's love for everyone, it is not possible for me to judge a person as having negative worth." And could BC similarly say, "Due to the value I place on the sanctity of human life relative to other things, it is possible for me to judge a person who has murdered people en masse as having negative worth."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How you judge evil depends individually on what you value, but your values may be mistaken. What actually IS evil depends on what actually IS valuable.
It's possible that Bean Counter would judge Zarqawi to be evil based on his values, but that wouldn't make Zarqawi evil. That would just make BC mistaken in his values if he thought that way, and thus mistaken in his judgement, in my view. (Just like Zarqawi has mistaken values if he doesn't value the lives of the innocent Americans he kills.)
However, I think Bean Counter values the sanctity of human life just as highly as I do, so I don't think the disagreement is so much over values. I think the disagreement is more over the nature of Zarqawi, and other people who do bad things.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there, in a nutshell, is the reason why evil flourishes as well as it does today. The fact that so many good people refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are evil people in the world.
I find Evil flourishing most where others are too quick to point to someone and brand them as Evil. Once so branded they become the victims of those who branded them.
The truly sick and sadistic are not numerous enough to do the big evils our world has witnessed. But label those they harm as Evil, and the multitudes will join in their villainy, believing they are just combating Evil.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just curious for your take on this Lyrhawn. My impression from your posts is that you think al-Zarqawi's killing isn't that great of news. Do you have pretty much the same view if they manage to kill bin Laden?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How you judge evil depends individually on what you value, but your values may be mistaken. What actually IS evil depends on what actually IS valuable.
So...hmm, to restate. Things (events, people, etc.) have objective values (presumably defined by God or nature or something), which we as humans are prone to misjudge. And for someone to be an evil person, by your definition, it would require 1) full knowledge of the true value of things and 2) a choice of something with negative true value (relative to the alternatives). And since you accept the basic axiom of rationality that people must choose to maximize value, (2) is impossible, therefore there are no evil people, only confused people (i.e. people without a full knowledge of the true value of things). I guess I can see that.
Zarqawi's confusion led to enough evil acts that I'm glad he's dead. Furthermore I hope he suffers torments sufficient to teach him the true value of the thousands of people he callously murdered.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it so strange that people can agree that there are good men and women in the world who brighten the existance of everyone around them and yet we balk at saying there are evil men and women out there who seek only personaly gain and have no qualms as to what they must do to obtain that.
What so Mao Tze Tung was simply confused? Or was Mao simply misguided in his total lack of empathy for ANYBODY? When he writes in his journals about the powerful needing to sacrifice the weak he simply needed somebody to be sat down by somebody and reasoned with?
Tresopax, I respect your empathy for human beings, I myself try IMO very much to understand and find the good in everyone. Though there are VERY few people IMO that fall under my definition of complete evil, just as very few people meet my criteria for purely good, Anytime you do something you know you ought not to do, you are striving to accomplish the purposes of evil. While we do not have an autobiography of Zarqawi or any life story for that matter, on the surface it seems that Zarqawi was certainly not a good man seeking for the happiness of all around him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, when a bunch of ruthless killers get killed by another buncho of ruthless killers, there's just no tears to be shed. For anybody.
It's getting beyond the 'ruthless killers' mentality that needs to happen.
Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
But I don't have an army. Bush has the army.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
I wonder how the Wehrmacht would have responded to that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the insurgents get really angry and throw themselves at the US forces with all their might then it will be great because that is when we kill the most of them with the least collateral damage. If this drives them completely mad we will put them down like mad dogs.
They will not however, they will flail about and lash at each other. That is good too, but not as satisfying.
As for there being no evil only "insert word here" ,all that argument amounts to is simply redefining words, which is nothing more then exercising Political Correctness, an effort to be part of a new "with it" crowd that separates itself with a new language variation. Stupidity and not clarifying. Confusion for the sake of confusion.
Evil is seeking to impose ones will on another, too the degree that that is needful it is necessary evil, but it is always evil.
quote:Evil is seeking to impose ones will on another, too the degree that that is needful it is necessary evil, but it is always evil.
I find it hard to designate my mother as Evil, but she imposed her will on me as a child, not letting me play in dangerous situations, cut myself, or stick my fingers in boiling water.
I agree that definitions are the secret here. Defining Evil is important. If you claim its just being bossy, then sure there are lots of evil people out there.
If you claim its being a follower of Satan, who eats babies, bathes in the blood of innocents, plans the destruction of the human race and mutilates pretty flowers, then I am not so sure.
Every person I have met, read about, seen, or heard of that others considered evil, thought of themselves as good, and had followers or friends that agreed with them.
I don't claim there are no evil people to be pc. I claim it because branding someone "Evil" is lazy and destructive. You can not solve the problems that created the "Evil" person if you just put it off as "Evil". You can only destroy them.
I believe destruction, the oppositte of God's Creation, is Evil.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can not solve the problems that created the "Evil" person if you just put it off as "Evil".
That doesn't sound right.
Let's say you know that a certain society tends to produce a lot of evil people. You could change the society and "treat the cause," so to speak, even while doing so because the society creates a lot of evil.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very loosely speaking, we can 'narrow down' evil to:
1. Murder (including assault of any kind) 2. Theft (including all manner of cons) 3. Lies (any misrepresentation affecting others)
These, in my oppion, are the 3 basic categories of negative behaviour that have a clear 'victim'. They are 3 of the 10 commandments as well.
The 7 cardinal sins seem a good moral guide as well. They represent 7 forms of negative behavoiur patters that harm others.
Of course, human behaviour is so complex that even the above 3 crimes can be, at times, justified.. After all, if someone breaks into your home to murder your family, murdering that person seems perfectly 'justified'.
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
I wonder how the Wehrmacht would have responded to that.
They would have probably been very happy. That would have ment no war in Europe.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
I wonder how the Wehrmacht would have responded to that.
They would have probably been very happy. That would have ment no war in Europe.
Yep. Just Nazi domination of the continent. There were no bad side effects to that, were there?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Had I an army, I would never give it weapons. I would give it brooms, and tools to clean up and build and do good things. And then, I would have my army come in, help peole build schools, hopsitals, educate.. And this way I would conquer nations with love, not bullets.
And then, when your less stupid neighbors are done laughing and wondering if it's some sort of bizarre trick, they conquer you, take the money and resources you used to build your brooms and train your army, and spend it for themselves, leaving you a pittance.
Oh, and in doing so the best you can hope for is that your army will be as deeply stupid and timid as you are, and not fight when your neighbors invade, thus avoiding thousands of deaths for your people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for there being no evil only "insert word here" ,all that argument amounts to is simply redefining words, which is nothing more then exercising Political Correctness, an effort to be part of a new "with it" crowd that separates itself with a new language variation. Stupidity and not clarifying. Confusion for the sake of confusion.
Is this a response to anything I've actually written, or just directed at some hypothetical politically correct stereotype you are thinking up? Because I think that if I just trying to sound like I am part of a PC "with it" crowd, I'm doing a very poor job of it.
quote:Rhetoric can be fun, but good arguments are more convincing.
That depends on who you are trying to convince. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All people and indeed all life has a 'will to power' that exerts a negative pressure on other living things, be they trees seeking to get more sun at the expense of neighbors and underbrush or rapist seeking to impregnate otherwise unobtainable women.
This 'will to power' shapes the whole of the habitat. A mothers inhibiting of the activities of the child are certainly evil and strongly resented from the child's point of view. However from the point of view of the rest of Wal Mart, it is appreciated in that it limits the child's unchecked 'will to power' treading over their activities. So it becomes a trade, the least evil choice to the rest of mankind.
This is what I described as a necessary evil, however it is identical in principle to rape, slavery and demonic possession. It is a question of degree and of cost benefit pairing.
Evil is evil, taking another's life, using terror to enforce submission, using targeted violence to try to trigger a general breakdown in order in the hopes of coming out in a position of power, not to mention being known for child abuse is pretty damning.
Sorry I had to digress from the point to explain the universal definition of evil and its utility in such situations. It was clear that I was being misunderstood.
And then, when your less stupid neighbors are done laughing and wondering if it's some sort of bizarre trick, they conquer you, take the money and resources you used to build your brooms and train your army, and spend it for themselves, leaving you a pittance.
Hardly, because the first order of business for my mercenary army would be recruitment of the armed forces of my enemy. This way, my bloodless army would be able to hold all the guns. Based on common sense and good taste. My allies are always armed, but I don't have to be.
Oh, and in doing so the best you can hope for is that your army will be as deeply stupid and timid as you are, and not fight when your neighbors invade, thus avoiding thousands of deaths for your people.
Exactly. You see a real invasion by a real army would be easily won. Sufficient people with common sense to open jails to political prisoners would be more than enough to destory almost any Nation. Should that destruction be called for.
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: All people and indeed all life has a 'will to power' that exerts a negative pressure on other living things, be they trees seeking to get more sun at the expense of neighbors and underbrush or rapist seeking to impregnate otherwise unobtainable women.
This 'will to power' shapes the whole of the habitat. A mothers inhibiting of the activities of the child are certainly evil and strongly resented from the child's point of view. However from the point of view of the rest of Wal Mart, it is appreciated in that it limits the child's unchecked 'will to power' treading over their activities. So it becomes a trade, the least evil choice to the rest of mankind.
This is what I described as a necessary evil, however it is identical in principle to rape, slavery and demonic possession. It is a question of degree and of cost benefit pairing.
Evil is evil, taking another's life, using terror to enforce submission, using targeted violence to try to trigger a general breakdown in order in the hopes of coming out in a position of power, not to mention being known for child abuse is pretty damning.
Sorry I had to digress from the point to explain the universal definition of evil and its utility in such situations. It was clear that I was being misunderstood.
BC
Were you thinking of anybody in particular?
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your allies are armed, you are armed. For all intents and purposes. So your high-handed morality is basically hypocrisy on that score, no surprise there. Furthermore, how would your 'army' go about recruiting? Pay them? They've got the guns. They'll take all the money, without your recruitment.
I don't understand your second response...but since this conversation is a collosal waste of time (even when I get my Net time by the month), I'm hardly concerned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evil is seeking to impose ones will on another, too the degree that that is needful it is necessary evil, but it is always evil.
quote:All people and indeed all life has a 'will to power' that exerts a negative pressure on other living things
So, from these two statements it follows that all people and all life is evil, according to you.
Does this mean you deny my assertion that "Evil things have a negative value"? Or do you believe that all life is worse than worthless, and that we'd be better off if none of us had ever existed?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that not a fundamental teaching of all great faiths? That all men are evil, and only through a process we can be redeemed?
Shared action to the good of all is Man rising above his evil nature. Evil is the primordial soup state of biology, and its tendencies emerge at all levels of behavior in various ways, goodness is in part knowing that we carry this baggage inside us and keeping it in check and further, acting for the benefit of others in a deliberate manner.
This is why we are the good guys in Iraq, we are trying to act for the benefit of everybody there and for our own, the locals are very selfish in action and motivation, barely reaching the level of action for the benefit of family for the most part.
But this is a place to cheer the death of a leader of evil, one that the latest news says nobody really wants to replace, not the place to clarify things for people who should already know these things...
posted
Of course evil is only meaningful to us. After all what is it to those below us but the natural order, and from God's POV it is the impulse that causes adaptation and evolution through Natural Selection, clearly a good thing.
Evil men can also be catalysts to greatness and goodness in the unity and focus that is required to beat them.
Evil is a human concern, both personal and public, fighting it is half of all goodness, the other half is building ever stronger connections with each other so that we can eventually move beyond selfishness and evil.
But you also think that the U.S. military is evil, right? And all the leaders of America and American forces? And you, right? After all, you've said that EVERYONE is evil.
Frankly, I'm not sure if the sort of "evil" you are talking about is a very useful term in this case. If everyone is evil, being evil certainly isn't enough of a reason to cheer for that person's death. If it were, then by your logic we should cheer for the death of everyone. We would be cheering for all the deaths of 9/11 because, by your logic, each of those people were evil.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting thread. I thought I would agree with BC, not sure about his definition of evil. Evil is an extreme word. Exerting one's will over another is bad, but methods and goals matter. Persuasion by this definition is evil. When you say "everything is evil, some is just moreso than others" I think you have a definition as useless as "no one is evil, some are just less good than others." Paraphrasing, obviously.
And I know the army with brooms and daisies (paraphrasing again) line has been responded to, but I think you're making the following mix-up:
The opposite of war is peace, but the alternative never is. The alternative to war is one-sided aggression, conquest, enslavement and oppression.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
